Procedure turn required?

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)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
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.

No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.

There is no MINIMUM length of an outbound leg.

And no specific direction of the turn.

There is only a maximum length.

Depending on where you start the turn, correct.

You can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

And the type of turn is entirely at the pilot's discretion. So rather than
flying a 270 degree right turn, the pilot can choose a 90 degree left turn.

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

Ahh, yes...the old "terminate the thread with an ad hominem" tactic.

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.

I never said it was.

Pete

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.


No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.



The difference between the 90 degree left turn and all of the
variations of the procedure turn (even with a zero-length outbound leg)
is that all those variations have you *established* on the final
approach course *prior* to reaching the FAF. In this sense the 90
degree left turn is not equal to the 270 right turn.

To me this seems the conceptual basis for the fact that the regs
require the procedure turn when it often doesn't "seem" that it should
be necessary.

Now if you happen to be coming from a direction where you *are* already
aligned on the final approach course and at the proper altitude prior
to reaching the FAF, I would agree that it doesn't make sense to do the
PT (though it may still be technically required by the regs). The
basis *I* use for skipping the turn in this case is: 1) I am flying a
hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn, plus 2) I am established in the hold by
virtue of being established (+/- 10 degrees) on the inbound course
prior to reaching the holding point (the FAF). Ok, its a stretch, but
that's how I look at it!


Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:40:11 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
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.

No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't see it as
degeneration to be following the clearly stated rule that it is pilots
choice for the type of turn and where to start it.


After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.

Again, I don't see any similarity (assuming we are talking about the same
approach as started this thread) between a 90° left turn at Seal Beach and
a 270° right turn. So I would disagree with your conclusion that they are
the same.


There is no MINIMUM length of an outbound leg.

And no specific direction of the turn.

That's right; after turning outbound, you can go clockwise or counter
clockwise.



There is only a maximum length.

Depending on where you start the turn, correct.

You can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

And the type of turn is entirely at the pilot's discretion. So rather than
flying a 270 degree right turn, the pilot can choose a 90 degree left turn.

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

Ahh, yes...the old "terminate the thread with an ad hominem" tactic.

Sorry, I did not mean a personal attack. My statement stems from a
realization that nothing I write here is going to convince you that there
is no requirement to return to and fly over the depicted outbound track of
a procedure turn (unless it's one of those fly as charted types); and
nothing you write will convince me that there is such a requirement.




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.

I never said it was.

Well, you seem to be insisting that it is required to fly along the charted
outbound course for some length of time.



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