Procedure turn required?

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