On 2 Nov 2005 15:31:35 -0800, "rps" wrote:

I agree, but the problem is this: suppose you are flying from an IAF on
a course that does not indicate NoPT but the chart depicts a PT, and
your course is mostly aligned with the FAC. Are you going to fly the
PT? You could confirm with ATC, but what if ATC is too busy to talk or
you have comm failure?

My guess is that ATC is not expecting you to fly the PT in this
circumstance even when a PT is depicted on the chart because it is not
"necessary to reverse direction."

It really depends on the specifics. I am assuming that in your
hypothetical example, not only is there not a NoPT notation, but you are
also NOT receiving radar vectors to the final approach course. Under
current guidance and regulations (and written legal opinion) as I
understand them, there is no authorization available for the pilot to
choose to "skip" a charted procedure turn absent one of the prohibited
circumstances in the regulations and in the AIM.

It may well be that there is an error in the charting, or errors in ATC
procedures. I've seen and heard of both. I think those issues should be
corrected on the ground. There have also been examples which "seem" like
there should be a NoPT notation, but closer examination reveals some TERPs
violation that would ensue, sometimes having to do with descent gradients;
sometimes having to do with hypotheticals that don't exist in the real
world.

Under the new AIM guidance posted by Tim, it seems that ATC may specify
"CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH" and this would tell you that they are
providing radar vectors and really, really don't want you to do a procedure
turn. The only thing new is this new verbiage, and also the implication
that ATC will be able to provide radar vectors to an intermediate fix. I
don't know if the ATC requirements for ATC to be able to do that have been
published yet.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)