An interesting situation was brought to my attention a few
days ago by a reader (and former instrument student). He (for reasons known
only to him) decided to fly the RMN ILS OR LOC RWY 33, in the simulator, using
only one VOR and an ADF. Yes, your guess as to why is as good as mine. However,
he (correctly) identified that the turn radius depicted by the initial segment
starting at HIGAP and arcing to (AFUWY) is way larger than needed in the
airplane he was flying (a typical four-place single).
Let’s talk about this type of procedure turn a bit, since
you don’t see them very often. Actually, many pilots studying for the
instrument written for the last 10 or 20 years have probably seen one at least
once, as the Duncan, OK (DUC) LOC RWY 35 used to be an example procedure on the
test, and used to have this type of procedure turn. However, it has since been
modified and has a (regular) procedure turn. And may not be on the test any
longer, though I’ll have to defer to those of you studying for it to let me
know about that.
Regardless, it had the same geographic setup as RMN – a VOR
a few miles away on final, but offset to one side a couple of miles. How to use
it to get turned around and lined up on final? This is a situation where the
teardrop procedure turn can be used by the procedure developer. Essentially,
from the BRV VORTAC you fly the 122 radial outbound until 10 DME (or
intersection with the 279 bearing to EZF), then begin a right turn around to
intercept the final approach course on the localizer.
Of course, that turn radius depicted has to cover all speeds
of airplanes, right? Accordingly, it is WAY larger than you would need for a
light single-engine airplane. If you measure the distance between HIGAP and
(AFUWY), it’s about 5.7 nm, meaning a turn radius of half that. But what is the
turn radius of, say, a Cessna 172 at 90kts in a standard rate turn?
(Note – way geeky content ahead. CLICK HERE to just skip
ahead to the answer and keep reading from there.)
You can easily figure this out if you pull out your copy of
“Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators”. What, you say you don’t have one? Of course
you do, this is 2015 after all:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/
This book really has a lot of good stuff in it, which is why
it’s still used as a reference, unchanged, since 1965. A quick (?) browse will
take you to page 178, which has formulas for turn radius and turn rate. As we
are in a standard rate turn, we know our Rate Of Turn (ROT) is 3 degrees per
second. What we need to determine is our bank angle from the second equation,
then use that in the turn radius formula.
In the second question, solving for phi:
Using V = 90 KTAS and ROT = 3 degrees per second, phi (angle
of bank) = 13.9 degrees.
Inserting phi = 13.9 into the first equation gives us a turn
radius of……….
2907 ft.
Alternately, you can use Figure 2.29 on the next page if you
prefer a chart format. Notice there are two sets of “bank angle” curves,
you use one to solve for radius and the other for rate. Since we know rate, we
can work backwards from there. Personally, I prefer the formula method, but
that’s me.
Okay, so if you skipped right to here, the radius of a standard rate turn at 90 KTAS is about 2900 feet, or about 1 nm in diameter.
So back to the RMN ILS teardrop – if we entered a standard
rate turn at HIGAP, we would be well right of the final approach course after
completing the turn. So how to combat that – fly a half-standard-rate turn?
Quarter standard rate? No, no need to try to stay on the line – it’s not a DME
arc. Instead, begin your turn at HIGAP but then roll out to establish a normal
intercept angle to the final approach course. Don’t worry, that whole area
between the outbound and inbound legs has been evaluated for obstacles, and as
long as you stay at or above 3000 feet until on final, you’ll be safe.
Remember the effect that wind might have on your ground
track – a north or northeast wind will tend to push you toward final quicker
than normal, and a wind from the west will have the opposite effect, “holding
you back” from intercepting the final approach course. The segment between
HIGAP and intercepting final is essentially a dead-reckoning course.
Alternately, another solution could be to fly a 10 DME arc from the VORTAC - but obviously this would only work if the facility had DME and the value was published.
Alternately, another solution could be to fly a 10 DME arc from the VORTAC - but obviously this would only work if the facility had DME and the value was published.
I know what you’re wondering, because I was too. What true
airspeed would allow an aircraft to maintain that arc in a standard-rate turn
(no wind)? I calculate about 536 KTAS (the method how is left as an exercise
for the reader). Not too likely in a Skyhawk, and even more, a “standard-rate”,
3 degrees per second turn at 536 knots requires a bank angle of about 56
degrees. That’s “slightly” past the limit for passenger comfort in commercial
air travel, and 536 ktas is “slightly” above the speed limit of 250 KIAS below
10,000 feet anyway (yes, I know, the speed limit is “indicated airspeed” not
“true”, but c’mon now).
So what’s the deal with this huge turn radius on the
approach?
Above about 180 KTAS, a standard rate turn requires greater
than 25 degrees of bank. As a result, faster aircraft use 25 degrees of bank as
a maximum, regardless of the “degrees-per-second” that result. (Note I am not a
jet pilot, but this comes from AIM 5-3-8j6, which admittedly only references
holding patterns. Please correct me if I am wrong.)
At 25 degrees of bank, the speed necessary for that 4.7 nm
diameter circle is “only” 273 KTAS. Still pretty quick, but not out of the
realm of possibility at the maximum 250 KIAS, depending on atmospheric
conditions!
This type of teardrop used to be seen quite often on the
military “HI” approach charts, where the idea was to cross the field at a high
altitude then have an outbound and inbound leg long enough for the descent – a
“high-altitude penetration turn”. But even then, many U.S. military bases do
not have them anymore. I’ll have to defer to any military aviators who read
this to let me know why.
I have no idea how many of these teardrop procedure turns
are around. It doesn’t seem to be very many, and the number is likely getting
smaller as the teardrop is replaced with other options. But if you see one, now
you know what it’s all about!