Procedure turn required?

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

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.

"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

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.

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.

"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

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make
a procedure turn.

Legal Counsel has issued an opinion, see below.

Kris


Nov. 28, 1994
Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23,
1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of
the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175). You address
the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you
pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.
Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary,
each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for
the airport in Part 97.
First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a
published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF
as defined in Part 97. Descent gradients, communication, and obstruction
clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure is
not flown.
You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial
approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of
the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF along
a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the
published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of the
approach.
Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one
of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section
91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar vector to a final approach
course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which
the procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver
prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the
aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not
prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria
contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and
ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the
procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not
present.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia
R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.

Sincerely,

/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

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