Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:58:13 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

Are you saying that if the form (approach plate?) says no PT, then no PT
is
required, which I understand and agree with, or are you saying that if
the
form is silent, then a PT is required in all cases, which I'm less sure
of?


I should only speak with regard to Jepp charting conventions as those are
the approach plates I use.

If a route or segment states NoPT, then no procedure turn is required OR
authorized. If you want to do a procedure turn, you must obtain ATC
permission.

If a procedure turn is charted, then it is required unless one of the
previously discussed exceptions apply (e.g. NoPT; vectors to final; timed
approaches).

If a procedure turn is NOT charted, then it is NOT authorized.



I looked at random at a bunch of NOCA forms, and there are lots of
instances
of approaches from IAF's that clearly say no PT. These seem all to be
situations where I would say (based on pilot judgment) that a course
reversal is not required. There are also lots of examples, most, or all
on
courses outbound on the final approach heading, that show a PT barb,
which I
take as indicating that a PT is mandatory. on the new GPS approaches
where
the heading into the fix is 90 degrees, there are indications that no PT
is
required, other than that, I couldn't find any indication in ambiguous
situations (90 degrees or more), of whether a PT is required or not. It
looks to me as if, other than the pretty clear case where you are
outbound
on the final approach heading, that they never indicate when a PT is
required, only when it is not. That means, I think, that you are going to
have to determine whether "a course reversal is required," to know
whether
you need to make a PT.

I believe the determination of "course reversal required" is to be made by
the procedure designer, and not the pilot.



Is there a definition somewhere of what a course reversal is, or even
better, when a course reversal is required?

TERPS (I think it's 8260.3 and 8260.19 or something like that)


If you happen to have it, or can get it, look at the VOR RWY 13 approach
to
ACY (Atlantic City). A holding pattern is depicted at the IAF, but there
is
no guidance as to when it should be used. Doesn't that mean that the
pilot
needs to determine based on his heading into the IAF whether a course
reversal is required, and if it is, then he has to do a PT, either a
conventional PT, or a course reversal by way of the depicted hold? Or are
you saying that you need to enter the hold from all directions, go around
at
least once, and then continue in, in which case, isn't the "when a course
reversal is required" language redundant?

Since the racetrack pattern is charted, the procedure turn must be flown
as
charted (e.g. the type of turn and where to start it, in this instance, is
NOT pilot choice). Again, according to Jepp charting conventions, this PT
would have to be flown unless you were on radar vectors to the final
approach course (or if there were timed approaches going on). I'm not
familiar with that area, or how ATC works there, but I would expect that
radar coverage would be pretty good there and, unless there's some traffic
related reason off to the NW and not on the approach chart, that you would
be getting radar vectors to final if you were approaching from the NW (or
maybe even from other directions).

And there may be TERP's related reasons for that required course reversal,
also. The only charted course to the IAF is from ACY VOR with an MEA of
1900'; the MSA for that sector is 2100'. If you were to cross BURDK at
either of those altitudes, in order to execute a straight-in approach, you
would exceed the maximum TERPS allowed descent gradient of 400 ft/nm for a
straight-in approach. (1900-75)/4.5 = 405.6 ft/nm. So, the procedure
designer determined that a course reversal was required in order to
publish
straight-in minimums.

I wouldn't have guessed it from the language, but what you say makes a lot
of sense, and especially with the approach gradient issue, seems like the
safest way, so I at least will do it that way.

Just to be certain what you mean, coming in from the NW, straignt in, cross
BURDK, enter the hold and decend from 1900 to 1600 when established on the
inbound leg before reaching BURDK the second time? All this assumes no radar
vectors.

Thanks.

Brad