In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:33:31 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

So this just occurred to me in the debate on procedure turns.

The AIM famously says "The procedure turn is a required maneuver..."
But the AIM is not regulatory. Is there anything in the FARs that
requires a PT? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in Part 91.
Someone in another thread said that there was something in Part 97, but
I can't find it.

If nothing in the FARs requires a PT then a reasonable interpretation of
the AIM is: "WHEN it is necessary to reverse course (which is determined
at the pilot's discretion I suppose) you must do so by executing a PT
(or a hold in lieu of)..." as opposed to, say, doing an Immelman or half
a lazy eight.

rg

Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is
necessary is to be made by the pilot?

91.3(a)?

The procedure turn is described in the textual description of a SIAP as
published by the FAA and interpreted graphically by the chart makers (Jepp
and NACO, for the most part).

I didn't know there were textual descriptions. Where can I find those?

By regulation and legal intepretation, we are required to start a SIAP at
an IAF, unless receiving radar vectors to the FAC.

By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is
necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14 CFR
97.

If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one
is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory
by virtue of the above.

Having said that, it does happen from time to time that the chart makers
get it wrong, or the FAA forgets to add NoPT to certain routings. If you
find a route that you think should be marked NoPT and it is not, call and
they will correct it pretty quickly.

OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?

rg