Procedure turn required?

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:50:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

To me, this means you are
required to fly exactly that course

Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

Where does it say that?

On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."

As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

Pete

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

Where does it say that?

Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course

I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
and controllers, nothing more.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course

I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
and controllers, nothing more.

Pete

Then again, an IAP is issued under a subset of 97.20 on a form 8260-3 or -5,
and on that form (which is regulatory as to courses, altitudes, and distances,
as it says at the top of the form) specifies the outbound course for the
procedure turn. Line 1 of the form. If, instead, the course reversal is a
holding pattern, then Line 2 specifies the inbound course of the holding
pattern.

Would you deem the inbound course for the holding pattern to be regulatory? I
would.

So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that it
would be regulatory.

Because the procedure turn is treated with sufficient detail under 97.2X (the
8260 form) there is no need for a definition under 97.3

wrote in message ...
[...]
So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that
it
would be regulatory.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be reinforcing
my point.

Peter Duniho wrote:

wrote in message ...
[...]
So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that
it
would be regulatory.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be reinforcing
my point.

My point was that there is a specific regulatory description of the outbound
track of a standard procedure turn. I took it that you felt there was none,
since it was not set forth in 97.3.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
discretion of the pilot". Some of the types of turns that would not
require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop, racetrack
and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the "depicted
outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
according to both 97.3 and the AIM.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

Asked and answered.

You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
discretion of the pilot".

Unless by "turn" they are referring to the final course reversal, that
sentence IMHO basically makes this entire thread moot. That is, it answers
the question, and leaves the entire procedure up to the discretion of the
pilot.

Now, that's a fine interpretation by me. But I take it as granted that
those arguing that the entire procedure is required to be flown (absent the
explicitly stated exceptions, of course) feel that the sentence you quote is
referring only to the final course reversal, not the entire procedure turn.

Some of the types of turns that would not
require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop,
racetrack
and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the
"depicted
outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

All of your examples are ways to complete the course reversal *after flying
the outbound leg*. That is, if those are all valid methods for executing
the entire procedure turn itself, then surely so too is simply turning onto
the final approach course. So, either you are simply supporting my point,
or your examples are in no way a counter-example to what I've written.

At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
according to both 97.3 and the AIM.

If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
outbound at all?

Pete

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:54:12 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
outbound at all?


You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
"point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot. There is no
MINIMUM length of an outbound leg. There is only a maximum length. You
can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

But if you do not see that, then further discussion here is pointless.

There is certainly nothing wrong with returning to the outbound course
after Seal Beach, flying outbound for some length that you determine you
want to; and then executing a 45° turn on the charted side, so long as you
remain within the mileage limit. But it is not the only valid, legal
method of executing the procedure.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)