Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

rps wrote:
Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

That's not what they are saying at all. You could be inbound yet not
have arrived via a vector to final, a timed approach, or a NoPT route.

Usually, that would mean that you're too high to go straight-in, at
least by the standards used in TERPS for descent gradients.

I'm a brand new instrument pilot, but I read this kind of thing for a
living, so my opinion may not be realistic, just legalistic, but here goes:

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

means that if you need to perform a course reversal, you need to do a PT.
Otherwise, you don't. The following language:

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.

lists some exceptions, but doesn't change the first requirement which means
that even if you need to do a course reversal, you don't have to do a PT if
one of these exceptions applies.It doesn't mean that you need to do a PT
unless one of the exceptions applies, the original definition still applies,
no course reversal, no PT. I didn't look up the definition of course
reversal.

This makes sense to me at least in the following case, if you are inbound
from the opposite direction, and receiving radar vectors, you would normally
need to do a course reversal, so a PT would be required, but ATC will vector
you around to the final approach course usually sort of rectangularly. Since
this is a listed exception, you don't need to do a PT. If you weren't
getting vectors, or one of the other exceptions didn't apply, then a PT
would be required.

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

Brad




wrote in message
nk.net...
rps wrote:
Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

That's not what they are saying at all. You could be inbound yet not
have arrived via a vector to final, a timed approach, or a NoPT route.

Usually, that would mean that you're too high to go straight-in, at
least by the standards used in TERPS for descent gradients.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:08:45 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

I think what you are missing is that the determination as to whether or not
a course reversal is required has to do with the verbiage on the FAA forms
that define the SIAP (standard instrument approach procedure) and not on
what you as the pilot might determine at the time you are executing the
approach.

The FAA forms (8260 series) are (mostly) based on TERPs and those
approaches are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97.20(b), making the
procedures regulatory (refer back to 14 CFR 91.175(a)).


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

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.


I believe you just answered your question.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.


I believe you just answered your question.

Even if the intention is to mark all such courses NoPT, there's always the
possibility that a NoPT gets omitted due to a charting error or a TERPS
design error. And the question arises in that case: is the PT required or
not? On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.

--Gary

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"rps" wrote in message
roups.com...

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.


I believe you just answered your question.

The problem is not when you're on a published route which happens to
be properly aligned with the FAC and have a low enough altitude that
descent gradient is not a problem. Those are all already taken care
of by having NoPT on the plate.

The problem comes in when you're on a random route such as direct to
the IAF/FAF. You can be between two airways converging on the IAF,
both of which are marked NoPT (and at the same altitude marked for
those routes), and yet you're not on a NoPT segment yourself. I think
most people would agree that it's reasonable to assume that not doing
a PT in this case is perfectly safe. The question which leads to
endless debate is whether it's legal or not.

Are you saying that if the form (approach plate?) says no PT, then no PT is
required, which I understand and agree with, or are you saying that if the
form is silent, then a PT is required in all cases, which I'm less sure of?

I looked at random at a bunch of NOCA forms, and there are lots of instances
of approaches from IAF's that clearly say no PT. These seem all to be
situations where I would say (based on pilot judgment) that a course
reversal is not required. There are also lots of examples, most, or all on
courses outbound on the final approach heading, that show a PT barb, which I
take as indicating that a PT is mandatory. on the new GPS approaches where
the heading into the fix is 90 degrees, there are indications that no PT is
required, other than that, I couldn't find any indication in ambiguous
situations (90 degrees or more), of whether a PT is required or not. It
looks to me as if, other than the pretty clear case where you are outbound
on the final approach heading, that they never indicate when a PT is
required, only when it is not. That means, I think, that you are going to
have to determine whether "a course reversal is required," to know whether
you need to make a PT.

Is there a definition somewhere of what a course reversal is, or even
better, when a course reversal is required?

If you happen to have it, or can get it, look at the VOR RWY 13 approach to
ACY (Atlantic City). A holding pattern is depicted at the IAF, but there is
no guidance as to when it should be used. Doesn't that mean that the pilot
needs to determine based on his heading into the IAF whether a course
reversal is required, and if it is, then he has to do a PT, either a
conventional PT, or a course reversal by way of the depicted hold? Or are
you saying that you need to enter the hold from all directions, go around at
least once, and then continue in, in which case, isn't the "when a course
reversal is required" language redundant?

Brad
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:08:45 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no
PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

I think what you are missing is that the determination as to whether or
not
a course reversal is required has to do with the verbiage on the FAA forms
that define the SIAP (standard instrument approach procedure) and not on
what you as the pilot might determine at the time you are executing the
approach.

The FAA forms (8260 series) are (mostly) based on TERPs and those
approaches are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97.20(b), making the
procedures regulatory (refer back to 14 CFR 91.175(a)).


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

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:58:13 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

Are you saying that if the form (approach plate?) says no PT, then no PT is
required, which I understand and agree with, or are you saying that if the
form is silent, then a PT is required in all cases, which I'm less sure of?


I should only speak with regard to Jepp charting conventions as those are
the approach plates I use.

If a route or segment states NoPT, then no procedure turn is required OR
authorized. If you want to do a procedure turn, you must obtain ATC
permission.

If a procedure turn is charted, then it is required unless one of the
previously discussed exceptions apply (e.g. NoPT; vectors to final; timed
approaches).

If a procedure turn is NOT charted, then it is NOT authorized.



I looked at random at a bunch of NOCA forms, and there are lots of instances
of approaches from IAF's that clearly say no PT. These seem all to be
situations where I would say (based on pilot judgment) that a course
reversal is not required. There are also lots of examples, most, or all on
courses outbound on the final approach heading, that show a PT barb, which I
take as indicating that a PT is mandatory. on the new GPS approaches where
the heading into the fix is 90 degrees, there are indications that no PT is
required, other than that, I couldn't find any indication in ambiguous
situations (90 degrees or more), of whether a PT is required or not. It
looks to me as if, other than the pretty clear case where you are outbound
on the final approach heading, that they never indicate when a PT is
required, only when it is not. That means, I think, that you are going to
have to determine whether "a course reversal is required," to know whether
you need to make a PT.

I believe the determination of "course reversal required" is to be made by
the procedure designer, and not the pilot.



Is there a definition somewhere of what a course reversal is, or even
better, when a course reversal is required?

TERPS (I think it's 8260.3 and 8260.19 or something like that)


If you happen to have it, or can get it, look at the VOR RWY 13 approach to
ACY (Atlantic City). A holding pattern is depicted at the IAF, but there is
no guidance as to when it should be used. Doesn't that mean that the pilot
needs to determine based on his heading into the IAF whether a course
reversal is required, and if it is, then he has to do a PT, either a
conventional PT, or a course reversal by way of the depicted hold? Or are
you saying that you need to enter the hold from all directions, go around at
least once, and then continue in, in which case, isn't the "when a course
reversal is required" language redundant?

Since the racetrack pattern is charted, the procedure turn must be flown as
charted (e.g. the type of turn and where to start it, in this instance, is
NOT pilot choice). Again, according to Jepp charting conventions, this PT
would have to be flown unless you were on radar vectors to the final
approach course (or if there were timed approaches going on). I'm not
familiar with that area, or how ATC works there, but I would expect that
radar coverage would be pretty good there and, unless there's some traffic
related reason off to the NW and not on the approach chart, that you would
be getting radar vectors to final if you were approaching from the NW (or
maybe even from other directions).

And there may be TERP's related reasons for that required course reversal,
also. The only charted course to the IAF is from ACY VOR with an MEA of
1900'; the MSA for that sector is 2100'. If you were to cross BURDK at
either of those altitudes, in order to execute a straight-in approach, you
would exceed the maximum TERPS allowed descent gradient of 400 ft/nm for a
straight-in approach. (1900-75)/4.5 = 405.6 ft/nm. So, the procedure
designer determined that a course reversal was required in order to publish
straight-in minimums.

I don't know what the MEA would be for a course from the NW because there's
nothing charted in that area. It would be no higher than 2100' (the MSA),
which doesn't help in this regard, though.

There used to be an approach into KLEB from the NW (I think the feeder was
from MPV). Even though the approach track appeared to be almost straight
in, a PT was charted, and required at the IAF (which was also the FAF for
the LOC). On the Jepp charts, it was apparent only because the feeder from
MPV was NOT marked NoPT. There were any number of pilots who decided to go
straight-in. But the reasons, which were not apparent to a cursory look at
the chart, had to do with exceeding allowable descent rates. This approach
was changed (I think they changed the feeder route course slightly and
lowered the MEA) and no longer has the required PT (the feeder route is now
marked NoPT).

In other instances, the lack of a NoPT notation where it seems as if it
should be there, on a particular course, may be an error, either on the
original FAA documentation, or on the NACO or Jepp chart. A call to the
chart maker usually resolves the problem fairly quickly, in those cases.

--Ron



Brad
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:08:45 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no
PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

I think what you are missing is that the determination as to whether or
not
a course reversal is required has to do with the verbiage on the FAA forms
that define the SIAP (standard instrument approach procedure) and not on
what you as the pilot might determine at the time you are executing the
approach.

The FAA forms (8260 series) are (mostly) based on TERPs and those
approaches are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97.20(b), making the
procedures regulatory (refer back to 14 CFR 91.175(a)).


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


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