wrote in message
nk.net...
Gary Drescher wrote:
Even if the intention is to mark all such courses NoPT, there's always
the possibility that a NoPT gets omitted due to a charting error or a
TERPS design error. And the question arises in that case: is the PT
required or not? On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new
wording, it's still required; on the other reasonable interpretation,
it's not.

The new AIM verbage is in error. The coordination was messed up, so
someone with a less than global view of it did some incorrect editing.
Following is part of an email sent yesterday by the person in the FAA who
understands this stuff and whose office should have issued any change (no
change was necessary, actually):

"We need to get AIM paragraph 5-4-9a fixed and clarify this in the IPG!
This is how the flying public is interpreting this and as you know, this
isn't the first time this has come up. The way it is written: 'The
procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver
when it is necessary to perform a course reversal' is way to open-ended
and leaves it up to the pilot to make this decision and the controller to
guess (or be surprised) what the pilot is doing."

Thanks for posting that! It's good to know that someone at the FAA
understands the problem and intends to fix it. (I emailed the FAA yesterday
about the AIM ambiguity, but I haven't gotten any reply yet.)

--Gary