On 7 Oct 2005 11:22:03 -0700, "rps" wrote:

I agree, though telling ATC may not even be required but may keep you
safe. Moreover, I think the FAA meant as much based on their
explanation of changes that added the additional language to the AIM
that confused us:

"This [change to the AIM] is for those folks that think a procedure
turn is required unless it meets one of the exceptions which does not
include 'if the aircraft is aligned within 90 degrees of the inbound
course.'"

See http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Exofchg/exchg3.html, and scroll down
to entry w.

So, the FAA added this language to satisfy people who thought a
procedure turn is required even when no course reversal is required
(e.g., when intercepting the FAC at 89 degrees) at the correct altitude.


Thank you for posting that link.

That explanation of intent seems to be a lot more clear than previous
discussions of the change on this and other groups would lead one to
believe. It makes sense and it lends some authority to not executing a PT
in the type of instance Steve posed (even though the AIM is not
regulatory).
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)