Peter wrote:
I am sure it would fail you on the IR test though
I’m not sure – that’s exactly how I was thought to ensure leaving VOR at certain QDR depending on QDM when it’s not possible to do it with overflying VOR and yet it’s possible in this way without some kind of procedure turn. Maybe it was just a “how to do it in real life” lesson but I still have drawings showing the method.
Last time this came up, someone posted this very helpful Code 7700 page
My first approach in Europe was one of these base turns, which don’t exist in the US. I probably entered it wrong (turn > 30 degrees at the IAF), but the controller was more concerned about my use of “point” instead of “decimal” in frequencies. I guess that’s why the FAA → EASA conversion draft has that 10-hour familiarization requirement in it. 
Edit: I guess they do exist in some places in the US, but there is no restriction on the entry angle (unless stated on the chart).
jmuelmen wrote:
Last time this came up, someone posted this very helpful Code 7700 page
Tuzla B&H 
exactly where I was practicing these turns during my IR training.
IMHO the safe way to do it even during an IR test is to do the parallel entry into the hold and follow up immediately with the missed approach after coming back to the VOR. Plus it might actually be fun to fly (if you like homing on nav aids).
Peter wrote:
Fortunately the MSA (see circle in top right) is not an issue in this case, but in the general case you can’t just make up a DIY track to the east so as to make the turn onto the outbound leg easy.
Obviously you need to stay above the MSA….approaching from a more Easterly direction is perfectly legitimate….simply set the OBS to say 225 and turn left to intercept…. This approach is very similar to Dundee where I do that all the time….(although the IAF at Dundee is an NDB not a VOR….but same principle)
the DIY to simply intercept the r-278 outbound is one easay way. Not what I would fly for the test, but I would work. But I might also overfly the VOR and do a direct left turn back to the VOR and onto r-278 …
No obstacle protection in either case…
I don’t have time to draw a nice shape but basically the yellow is where you don’t have protection, by procedure design.
Nice diagram…but not relevant to crossing the VOR at 3500’ and not descending until heading outbound on the procedure….
I mean even a parallel entry puts you in the yellow section…
If this were an approach in the US, from the north, one would pass the VOR and turn right to intercept the 278 outbound. We have approaches that use a tear drop course reversal similar to this approach, but the approach would apply to all categories and there would not be a possibility of A/B and C/D variations. Also, the teardrop would have to be flown as charted.
