Well, I'm still learning in terms of real world flying but I noticed that there are some charts like this one: Well, according to the bottom reference thing, it says to go to Gatto Int first, then track the outbound loc (272*), then pretty much turn around and continue down the ILS approach. I know this is sometimes done in full VOR approaches but is it required to do in an approach chart like this one? If it's not required, then what would you call this? A full ILS approach or something? Are approaches like this ever done in large airliners?Thanks alot, Anthony.

Simple answer is yes - and that 'turn around is called aprocedure turn and it is a specific maneuver not just a u turn.*IF* ATC is controlling you, and they would in the San Diego area, they may vector you to the ILS and clear you straight in - in that case you follow their instructions and ignore the PT. However, they might also vector you to Gatto and clear you for the ILS27 approach, n which case you would be expected to follow the complete approach including the PT.That is a very simplistic explanation but hopefully you get the general idea.And yes, airliners fly this type of approach all the time.Vic

Alright, thanks alot for the help Vic. I was able to find more detailed information on it now that I know what it's even called. =P

That would be the full approach, which isn't necessarily what you'll fly. ATC contact will usually give a better set of vectoring to get you straight in. They wouldn't want you dilly-dallying around in a busy approach, now would they? But imagine a radio out scenario: you cannot communicate, and you're in the clouds. How do you get down? Thus the full approach is printed in such a way that you can come in from any direction, follow the plan, and get onto the ground. ATC will know that something is up, because you tuned your transponder to the proper freq, and they will expect you to follow your IFR clearance, and then to do something very expected, like follow an IFR approach plate. They'll be clearing out other traffic for you. I like to fly the full approach. I do it for fun and practice.

If you study these things; they start to make sense. The theory behind a published approach, is that with no vectoring beyond, "cleared for the approach", you'll be able to make a safe landing with no surprises for yourself, or other traffic. There are many instrument approaches that will have you falling below radar coverage... so a full approach keeps you out of trouble, and out of other traffic's way.Let's assume you're coming in from the west. See the 'MSA' circle ? Those are the minimum altitudes depending on the heading you fly on your way to the approach. From the west (heading 130-340) you can't go below 2100. And sans vectors, you won't know when you're within 10nm of GATO (where you can descend to 2000msl st SARGS and skip the the PT altogether) .. (see where it says, '2000 NoPT').Similar deal for the other MSAs ... Sans vectors, you gotta stay above those altitudes until within 10nm of GATO. Locating yourself to a known point allows you to descend to 2000 safely and predictably, as you fly the whole approach.In theory, coming in from the west, you could get yourself to SARGS at 2000msl (see where it's one of two IAFs?), and fly straight in.. but how would you do that without vectors ? (remember this is not a GPS approach, nor does it reference DME).In summary.. it appears the the limiting factors on this approach (what you should avoid) would be; coming in several miles out over an ocean at 2000msl.. or coming in low, over terrain and/or through an airport's airspace..A vectored approach (regardless of inbound course), wiould likely have you on an ILS intercept course, at SARGS, at 2000msl.