Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

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?


Not.



On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.


If it's required the requirement will be found in the FARs, and you will
find no FAR that requires it. The AIM is not regulatory.

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

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?


Not.

On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.


If it's required the requirement will be found in the FARs, and you will
find no FAR that requires it.

You'll find no FAR that explicitly requires performing a charted PT
*regardless* of whether or not the PT meets the TERPS criteria. That doesn't
make all the PTs optional, does it?

The AIM is not regulatory.

No, but in some cases it offers the only readily available definitive FAA
interpretation of key regulations. That's what it's trying to do in this
case, but the chosen wording is unfortunately ambiguous.

--Gary

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:55:25 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

You'll find no FAR that explicitly requires performing a charted PT
*regardless* of whether or not the PT meets the TERPS criteria. That doesn't
make all the PTs optional, does it?

If the approach plates constitute an appropriate display of the contents of
FAA forms 8260, and if they indicate that the PT is mandatory, then that
*IS* an FAR (incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97)




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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

If the approach plates constitute an appropriate display of the contents
of
FAA forms 8260, and if they indicate that the PT is mandatory, then that
*IS* an FAR (incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97)


Can you provide an example of an approach plate with the statement "PT
MANDATORY", or something similar?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

You'll find no FAR that explicitly requires performing a charted PT
*regardless* of whether or not the PT meets the TERPS criteria. That
doesn't make all the PTs optional, does it?


Of course not.



No, but in some cases it offers the only readily available definitive FAA
interpretation of key regulations. That's what it's trying to do in this
case, but the chosen wording is unfortunately ambiguous.


The regulation seems pretty clear to me in this case.

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

You'll find no FAR that explicitly requires performing a charted PT
*regardless* of whether or not the PT meets the TERPS criteria. That
doesn't make all the PTs optional, does it?

Of course not.

So then when is a PT mandatory, and by virtue of which regulation?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"rps" wrote in message
groups.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


The new AIM verbage is in error. The coordination was messed up, so
someone with a less than global view of it did some incorrect editing.
Following is part of an email sent yesterday by the person in the FAA
who understands this stuff and whose office should have issued any
change (no change was necessary, actually):

"We need to get AIM paragraph 5-4-9a fixed and clarify this in the IPG!
This is how the flying public is interpreting this and as you know, this
isn't the first time this has come up. The way it is written: 'The
procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver
when it is necessary to perform a course reversal' is way to open-ended
and leaves it up to the pilot to make this decision and the controller
to guess (or be surprised) what the pilot is doing."