Procedure turn required?

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

I'd like to know what some of the freight dogs do. They fly into
smaller airports without radar coverage, so they are flying full
approaches. Dollars to doughnuts they aren't going to be wasting any
time going around in useless circles.

The rules have to make sense. Pattern entries, intercepting tracks,
entering holds all call for the smoothest, least amount of manuevering
that works. There HAS to be a rhyme and reason in the regs, and, in
spite of all the moaning and groaning, there usually is. When there
isn't you get a rule that isn't being followed. Sometime later that
rule is changed to adopt the sensible procedures. I don't even think
the regs require useless procedure turns and holds when you are already
on course. But some of you seem to be fixated on it for some inane
reason (instructor superiority/student confusion complex?).

It is a required manuever for a COURSE REVERSAL. It's not a required
manuever if you are already on course.

Ditch the rhetoric and useless redundancy. Fly the plane like it's
supposed to be flown, safely and efficiently. Don't make up your own
procedures, follow the charted approach. But use some common sense. If
YOUR instructor told you it was necessary, don't just blindly pass that
misinformation along to the next generation of pilots. Get rid of the
obsolete and useless, latch onto the efficient and reasonable. Fly the
airplane, not the regs.

I agree completely with the sense of your post. In your own flying,
for this purpose how do you define "on course"? +/- 10 degrees? 30?
45? 90?
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" wrote in message
ps.com...
I agree completely with the sense of your post. In your own flying,
for this purpose how do you define "on course"? +/- 10 degrees? 30?
45? 90?

Don't forget altitude too!

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't even think
the regs require useless procedure turns and holds when you are already
on course. But some of you seem to be fixated on it for some inane
reason (instructor superiority/student confusion complex?).

Several of us have cited the regs (or AIM directives) that do require a PT
even when on course, and have defended our interpretation. You reiterate
your disagreement, but you make no effort to say which part of our analysis
is supposedly flawed. Instead, you just keep repeating what we already agree
on (namely, that a PT makes no sense in the situation in question). And you
defend your position in part by a dangerous misinterpretation of FAR 91.3b
(you said you think it exempts you from the rules whenever you believe your
alternative to the rules is safer; in reality, it exempts you from the rules
only during an *in-flight emergency*).

If
YOUR instructor told you it was necessary, don't just blindly pass that
misinformation along to the next generation of pilots.

No one here cited their instructor's authority in defense of their
interpretation of the regs; you're just making that up. We cited the FAA's
actual regs and directives, and gave detailed analyses of them. You're
choosing to ignore what we actually said, pretending instead that we said
something that would be easier for you to rebut.

--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?

And now I have to take issue with myself...

This has nothing to do with nothing, but just for grins, I cranked up the
Garmin trainer and flew the KPWK (Chicago/Palwaukee) ILS 16 approach from
several different directions.

Coming from the south, the Garmin, as expected, flew the teardrop procedure
turn.

Coming from the north, flying the 160 radial toward the OBK VOR (the IAF),
when the Garmin reached the VOR, it reversed course and flew 340 outbound,
flew the teardrop procedure turn, and flew back toward OBK.

So, it would appear that, at least as far as Garmin is concerned, that the
procedure turn must be flown no matter what.

Live and learn...


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
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?