What the hell, I'll jump in. Just doing a quick search on "full approach",
I didnt find anything relating to the FARS, the AIM, or the 7110.65. If
someone else wants to look through the hundreds of hits, go at it. But
I did find one interesting reference to it in an old AOPA article
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/aopa_article01.html
in part it says...."A pilot training for an instrument rating learns to fly
a full approach* cross the initial approach fix, fly outbound for a minute
or two, execute a procedure turn to get headed the opposite direction, and
fly inbound on the final approach course while descending to decision
altitude or the missed approach point. A full approach is a staple of
instrument flying, yet some pilots rarely, if ever, have to fly one other
than during initial or recurrency/proficiency training. That's because a
full approach usually is required only when radar service is not available,
and radar is available at most larger and busier instrument airports. Pilots
come to expect radar vectors to final approach courses and that ATC will
keep an electronic eye on them all the way to a successful conclusion of
every approach...."

Full approach, which isnt exactly what the pilot said, he said "would like
to shoot the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood". This may be splitting hairs,
but he didnt say it (which I'm not convinced there is any such phraseology),
but even if he did, that was a REQUEST, which is not always which is
given by the controller.

I dont think it's so simple that the pilot is expected to do a PT.
On procedure turns, the AIM, as earlier stated does indeed say....
5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
procedure turn is a required maneuver.

First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.
Secondly,
if you read that verbatim, it says "when it is necessary". Giving someone
a vector, or this clearance where it's within 30 degrees or so, basically a
straight-in to the IAF, I do not consider the PT "necessary". You can't
tell
me that a course reversal on damn near a straight-in could ever be mistaken
in court as "necessary" for the establishment of this intermediate part of
the approach, UNLESS the airplane is way too high, which in this case is
not applicable as the altitude was good and in accordance with the IAP.

Also in 5-4-9a5 "A procedure turn is not required when an approach can be
made directly from a specified intermediate fix to the final approach fix. "
Is MINES an intermediate fix? It's not the FAF, it is an IAF, can it also
be an intermediate fix in the context of this clearance which includes a
non-published route prior to it? Tough to say.

Lastly on 5-4-9b1 "In the case of a radar initial approach to a final
approach fix or position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where
the procedure specifies NoPT, no pilot may make a procedure turn unless,
when final approach clearance is received, the pilot so advises ATC and a
clearance is received to execute a procedure turn."

This is the one the FAA, if it so chose, could go after the pilot. They
would
argue that the non-published route (direct MINES) was in essense a
RADAR VECTOR. This particular clearance can only be done with
radar service provided. This is not an arc, a victor airway, or a published
transition. That's why it was correctly included in the clearance that the
pilot should cross MINES at 5,000', which is above the MIA (Minimum
IFR Altitude) and keeps him in radar contact. The clearance also included
(which is also phraseology I'm not sure exists) "cross MINES at 5000
INBOUND". That "inbound" I'm not so sure of, and could cause confusion
with the pilot. It could mean hit MINES and continue inbound, no PT, or
it could mean once he's inbound, cross MINES at 5,000'.

There was confusion on both sides here, the way I see it. The pilot made
his REQUEST, figures he got what he asked for. The controller heard
the request, used questionable phraseology to get what he wanted to get
across, and the end result was the pilot doing something other than the
controller expected. "Report PT inbound" wouldve probably made it
real clear, and if the pilot didnt intend on doing a PT, that would have
raised a warning flag to him. I guess you can ask if he's going to do
the course reversal, and if I hear "full approach", I'd at the very least
protect the airspace either way, or just ask the pilot.

You ask any controller, or Airspace & Procedures specialist this
situation, you'll get lots of different interpretations. They'll all
probably agree that the communication was hazy (you didnt
"break the chain" as they love to shove down our throats), and
the pilot may have been a little guilty of hearing what he wanted
to hear - although we dont have the exact tapes. A REQUEST
means nothing without a CLEARANCE. I'd be interested in
hearing the pilots readback, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't
exactly standard phraseology either.

Chris

PS:email me sometime Chip, your assumption of my email
address was correct.

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com