![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
... "Yossarian" wrote in message 7.142... AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver". You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal..." [...] I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course reversal". That's certainly a clever interpretation. ![]() are more plausibly paraphrased "When we think it is necessary for you to perform a course reversal..., we prescribe a procedure turn; when we prescribe it, it's a required maneuver". If they'd intended it the other way, they'd more appropriately have said "When it is necessary to perform a course reversal.., a prescribed procedure turn is a required maneuver". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing course; They don't actually say that's the *sole* purpose; they say "when", not "when and only when". why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't need to reverse course? They may have decided, for reasons unobvious to us (or perhaps for reasons that are simply mistaken), that the turn is needed. In the vast majority of cases where there is no evident need for a procedure turn, none is prescribed. The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference, so we don't know what regulation they have in mind. Presumably 97.10, which incorporates the SIAPs into the FARs. The AIM, in turn, frequently elaborates aspects of the interpretation of the charts (or their interaction with ATC clearances) that are otherwise unspecified. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Procedure turn required? | Yossarian | Piloting | 85 | July 6th 05 08:12 PM |
Sports class tasking | [email protected] | Soaring | 12 | April 25th 05 01:32 PM |
Agent86's List of Misconceptions of FAA Procedures Zero for 15 Putz!!! | copertopkiller | Military Aviation | 11 | April 20th 04 02:17 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |