"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..
I have to take issue with your statement:

"Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a PT,
unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment, you are
required to fly it."

But take another look at what the AIM actually says:

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal..."

As I read this, it is saying:

If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.

If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.

.It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED
if
a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
circumstances...

You're right to want to look at the requirement in the context of the
preceding sentence (Pete made that point too earlier in the thread). But
let's look at the succeeding sentence as well. Here are all three:

AIM 5-4-9a: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on
an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu
of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
when the symbol 'No PT' is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
turn is not authorized."

When the third sentence lists conditions under which the PT is "not
required", it obviously means that you are not required to perform the
course reversal at all; it does *not* mean that you may perform the course
reversal, but need not use the PT method. And the requirement spoken of in
the third sentence is clearly the same one as the requirement spoken of in
the second sentence; that is, the second sentence asserts the requirement,
and the third sentence gives exceptions to the requirement. Therefore, the
second sentence, like the third sentence, is referring to a requirement to
perform a course reversal (and to do so via a PT), rather than just
referring to a requirement to execute a PT *if* you reverse course. (And
therefore the first sentence is just explaining a rationale for prescribing
a procedure turn, without yet addressing the mandatory nature of the
prescription, which is not asserted until the second sentence.)

--Gary