Procedure turn required?

"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. But I think the two sentences
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

In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost
never a procedure turn. If the controller wants you to make a course
reversal, he vectors me around. So procedure turns are only for flying
the full approach without vectors. If I am not aligned within 30
degrees of the final approach course outside of the FAF, then I need to
do SOMETHING to get straightened out. If a procedure turn is allowed, I
do that, otherwise a hold. If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is
no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes
sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do.

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost
never a procedure turn.

Yup, AIM 5-4-9a explicitly exempts vectoring situations from the PT
requirement.

If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is
no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes
sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do.

That does sound sensible (if you're at the prescribed altitude, as well as
being aligned with the course); but I'm not sure if it's technically legal
to skip the PT if the chart has a PT, unless you're being vectored or
there's a NoPT designation for your IAF or feeder route.

--Gary

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course. Just why are pilots supposed to go around in a hold or
execute a procedure turn under these circumstances? Flying good
approaches in IMC means MINIMIZING manuevering and MINIMIZING the time
spent in the clouds. Also it could disorient the pilot and make the
passengers sick. I don't believe any controller, who has turned an
airplane loose doing the full approach with no radar, would COUNT on an
aircraft doing or not doing a once around hold or procedure turn,
timing wise regarding seperation. Usually these non-radar approaches
are one in at a time, and no one gets to go in next until the previous
cancels.

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so. Even then, I would
argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
if the safety of the flight demands it.

I don't want to be cynical, but somehow I tend to think this whole
thing has been cooked up by some instructors with too much time on
their hands. Instructors seem to think that a good approach means the
MAXIMUM manuevering allowed by the approach. Fine for practice, but not
for real IMC. Straight as possible is the way to go.

I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug"
wrote:

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-7(e)?

"e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."

AIM 5-4-9(a)?

"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."

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.

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...




"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug"
wrote:

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-7(e)?

"e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."

AIM 5-4-9(a)?

"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."

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.

"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

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:53:15 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
wrote:

I have to take issue with your statement:

Fair enough, I'm willing to learn - education is always ongoing.

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...

But they specifically enumerate the conditions when procedure turns
are not required, the list being vectors to final, NoPT segment, timed
approaches, or when not authorized.

So, "pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF".
If the entire procedure, which therefore only starts when crossing the
IAF, requires a procedure turn because you're not covered under the
exceptions, it seems that by not executing a procedure turn (in the
case of a straight-in crossing a racetrack to the barb side would
suffice), you're not in fact flying the entire procedure as required,
you're flying it as if you got vectors to final just because you were
generally lined up on the inbound course while crossing the collocated
IAF/FAF and have elected not to fly the intermediate segment of the
approach, going right to just flying the FAF-MAP segment, right?

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course.

As I said earlier, I agree that skipping the PT is the sensible thing to do
in that case. I just question whether it's technically legal. Such a PT may
well have been prescribed in error, but an erroneous requirement is still a
requirement.

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-9a: "The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required maneuver." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Section 5-4-9
enumerates some exceptions to the requirement, but already being aligned is
not one of them.

Even then, I would
argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
if the safety of the flight demands it.

No, a pilot only has authority (under FAR 91.3b) to deviate from the
regulations when an *in-flight emergency* demands such a deviation. A
gratuitous PT is not (under ordinary circumstances) so unsafe as to
constitute an emergency. If ATC explicitly told you to hold there, you
wouldn't respond by declaring an emergency, would you?

I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

Uh, ok.

--Gary

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course.

I agree, assuming that one is also at the appropriate initial altitude.
However, if one is =not= aligned ith the FAC (which is the case under
discussion - there is a 50 degree difference) then this doesn't apply.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.