Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"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?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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?


There is no provision for such wording because terminal routes that do
not have "NoPT" affixed to them on the 14 CFR 97 Form 8260-3/5 are, by
implication "PT Required" except when timed approaches are used or ATC
provides vectors in accordance with 7110.65, Para 5-9-1.

As you know the word "MANDATORY" on Part 97 procedures is used when
altitudes are not "at or above."

And, where a 8260-3/5 does not have a course reversal authorized on the
procedure, then all terminal routes, by implication, are "NoPT." In
that case, NACO charts "PT Not Authorized;" Jeppesen does not because
they feel it is obvious on such a procedure.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:31:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"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?


That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO
charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on
their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts).

According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if
one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is
required.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO
charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on
their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts).

According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if
one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is
required.


The FAA does it the other way round.

"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