![]() |
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. .. I have to take issue with your statement: "Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a PT, unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment, you are required to fly it." But take another look at what the AIM actually says: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal..." As I read this, it is saying: If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn. If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required. .It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED if a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all circumstances... You're right to want to look at the requirement in the context of the preceding sentence (Pete made that point too earlier in the thread). But let's look at the succeeding sentence as well. Here are all three: AIM 5-4-9a: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary 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 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." When the third sentence lists conditions under which the PT is "not required", it obviously means that you are not required to perform the course reversal at all; it does *not* mean that you may perform the course reversal, but need not use the PT method. And the requirement spoken of in the third sentence is clearly the same one as the requirement spoken of in the second sentence; that is, the second sentence asserts the requirement, and the third sentence gives exceptions to the requirement. Therefore, the second sentence, like the third sentence, is referring to a requirement to perform a course reversal (and to do so via a PT), rather than just referring to a requirement to execute a PT *if* you reverse course. (And therefore the first sentence is just explaining a rationale for prescribing a procedure turn, without yet addressing the mandatory nature of the prescription, which is not asserted until the second sentence.) --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 |