On 9/29/2005 15:09, S Narayan wrote:

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Kris Kortokrax" wrote in message
...
New text

5-4-9. Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed 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

(the following text is underlined in the AIM)
when it is necessary to perform a course reversal.

The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when
RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting
a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized.

The new text strikes me as entirely ambiguous. It could mean:

"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."

Or it could mean:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless: 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; or 5) there is (for any reason) no necessity to perform a
course reversal."

The two interpretations differ if conditions 1-4 don't obtain, but the
pilot (and/or controller) thinks there's no need for a course reversal.
The first interpretation says the procedure turn is still required in that
case; the second one says the opposite.

As a previous poster noted, they need to define how many degrees of turn
constitutes a "course reversal".

This is defined; in the TERPS. More than 30 degrees or more than 300'
and a procedure turn is needed (IIRC).

However, this just gives the procedure designer what they need to design
the procedures. The pilot needs to use the published procedure.


Then it would clear and unambiguous.
Otherwise it is still is open to interpretation depending on the
aircraft/speed etc.




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA