"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...


No, the ambiguity I'm pointing out isn't just a matter of the vagueness of
"course reversal". The new AIM phrasing is ambiguous as to whether the
enumerated conditions are meant only as an *elaboration* of what it means
for a course reversal to be unnecessary (in which case a charted PT is
required unless the enumerated conditions are met), or whether a lack of
need for a course-reversal is meant as an *addition* to the enumerated
conditions (in which case the PT might not be required even if none of
the
enumerated conditions are met).

I think its the second case. Here is the language again:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal.
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.

The first sentence doesn't make any sense unless there are situations where
"it is necessary to perform a course reversal." If that's true, then the
second sentence must be exceptions to the first, that is, situations where
it would appear "necessary to perform a course reversal" but a PT is not
required.

If the intent were that a PT is required unless one of the four exceptions
applied, they would (or at least should) have said:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
maneuver unless 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.

which would have been clear and unambiguous. General rules of construction
suggest that you should interpret the language so that the first sentence is
not redundant or meaningless, which leads to the second interpretation, what
G. Drescher calls *addition*. Maybe the rules of construction should be in
the POH?

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.