"Brad Salai" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
Here is the "elaboration" paraphrase again:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless one of the following
conditions obtains, in which case a course reversal is unnecessary: 1)
the
symbol 'NoPT' is shown; 2) radar vectoring to the final approach course
is
provided; 3) you are conducting a timed approach; or 4) the procedure
turn
is not authorized."

I've either persuaded myself, or been persuaded that the "elaboration"
construction is the safest, and the email suggests that it is what was
intended, but it really doesn't follow from the original language.

Not unambiguously, no. I claim only that it's one of two reasonable
interpretations.

Your
paraphrase leaves out "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal"
from the first sentence where it actually appears, and puts in in the
second, where it actually says that a PT is not necessary so that it reads
"where a course reversal is not necessary" which it didn't say.

Right, and I think that's comaptible with the original phrasing. To put it
another way, I think the original sentences "The PT... is a required
maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal. The PT is not
required when..." could be taken to mean "When we judge that it is necessary
for you to perform a course reversal, we require you to execute a PT. (We
convey this requirement by charting a PT on the approach plate.) However, a
charted PT is not required when..."

No matter what it says, as I said before, I'm going to fly by the
elaboration construction,

As will about half of all pilots, it seems. Now we just have to persuade
the other half.

--Gary