Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

Well, there are FAA facilities that do not follow the same rules as they
are published and interpreted by Washington. SoCal is another. There has
been a push to standardize these kinds of things.


Are you saying a rule was violated in this scenario? If so, what rule was
violated?



There was an old (1977) legal opinion indicating that pilots could get
authorization from ATC to eliminate PT's when they were sort of lined up
with the FAC and at an appropriate altitude. This supposedly was
eliminated by the 1994 opinion; however, that 1994 opinion (which I quoted
before) referred specifically to non-radar environments and was mute on
radar environments.


The 1994 opinion you posted does not differentiate between nonradar and
radar environments.



There is no question in my mind that it would be safe to fly straight in
from the position you set up. Perhaps the simplest way of getting that
ATC facilities practice in line with the regulations would be to designate
SENNA as an IAF. The route from OSH, which includes the route from SENNA
to DEPRE, is a NoPT route, and ATC has placed me on that route crossing
SENNA.


That ATC facility's practice is already in line with the regulations.