"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Yossarian" wrote in message
7.142...
AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required maneuver.
I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver".
You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn
is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
reversal..."
[...]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
reversal".
That's certainly a clever interpretation.

But I think the two sentences
are more plausibly paraphrased "When we think it is necessary for you to
perform a course reversal..., we prescribe a procedure turn; when we
prescribe it, it's a required maneuver". If they'd intended it the other
way, they'd more appropriately have said "When it is necessary to perform a
course reversal.., a prescribed procedure turn is a required maneuver".
IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically telling
you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing course;
They don't actually say that's the *sole* purpose; they say "when", not
"when and only when".
why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't need to
reverse course?
They may have decided, for reasons unobvious to us (or perhaps for reasons
that are simply mistaken), that the turn is needed. In the vast majority of
cases where there is no evident need for a procedure turn, none is
prescribed.
The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure
turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation
somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference,
so we don't know what regulation they have in mind.
Presumably 97.10, which incorporates the SIAPs into the FARs. The AIM, in
turn, frequently elaborates aspects of the interpretation of the charts (or
their interaction with ATC clearances) that are otherwise unspecified.
--Gary