In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

But following a SIAP doesn't necessarily mean having to do the
procedure turn. There's a lot of interpretation there. For instance
you can have multiple IAFs and therefore you won't fly all the initial
segments published, only the one pertinent to the direction from which
you are arriving. How does the 91.175(a) paragraph above imply a
different rule for the procedure turn?

What about FAR 97.3(p):
Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final
approach course.

Doesn't that say that its not always necesary?


I don't know why this issue is continually raised here. I fail to see it as
a real world problem. The issue is whether or not a PT is required when
approaching the destination and you're already aligned or nearly aligned
with the FAC. But how did you come to be in that position? If you're on a
direct route you should be in radar contact as radar monitoring is required
to operate off airways beyond usable navaid limits. If you're in radar
contact then radar vectors to the approach should be available and a PT
wouldn't be required.

Unless you lose comm. That's the only circumstance where this issue
really rears its ugly head.

Case in point: suppose I'm flying from Catalina to Fullerton.
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/05136VA.PDF) The clearance is V21 SLI
direct. In practice they always vector you straight in. But if you
lose comm, technically you're required to fly to SLI, turn 178 degrees
(or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go back to
SLI (where you just came from) and then fly the approach.

I once flew this route and asked a controller what I should actually do
in this situation. His response was that it had never happened, they
had never thought about it, and that they'd probably expect me to just
fly the approach straight in.

Welcome to the real world.

rg