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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is
necessary is to be made by the pilot?


Where does it state when a course reversal is necessary at all?



By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is
necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14
CFR 97.


I don't think anybody disputes that, but you're saying we are also required
by regulation to fly a SIAP as published when it is NOT necessary. Yet you
can't cite any regulation that says that.



If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one
is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory
by virtue of the above.


Alright, here's a real world example for you. You're flying AWI123 from
KORD to KGRB, Chicago departure puts you in the east departure track on a
360 heading and hands you off to Chicago Center. Around the Kenosha, WI,
area Chicago Center tells you to proceed direct to GRB VORTAC. Down the
road a piece you're handed off to Green Bay approach. At GRB the ILS RWY 36
approach is in use, and the approach controller notices you're present track
will intercept the localizer about fifteen miles from DEPRE, the LOM/IAF.
On initial contact you're told "descend and maintain 3,000 join the runway
36 localizer". About three minutes later you hear the same instruction
issued to EGF456. When you're about five miles from DEPRE the approach
controller says "AWI123 cleared ILS runway three six contact tower one one
eight point seven." When you reach DEPRE will you continue towards the
runway or will you start a procedure turn?

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00873I36.PDF

I don't think that's a very good example because (one could argue)
you're being radar vectored to the approach, which is specifically cited
in the AIM as one of the situations where a PT is not needed.

rg