Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

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


It's never mandatory by virtue of regulation.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

It's never mandatory by virtue of regulation.

Then when is a PT mandatory, and by virtue of what if not regulation?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Then when is a PT mandatory, and by virtue of what if not regulation?


It's mandatory when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the
aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course, by virtue of the need
to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final
approach course. This really isn't that hard.

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:15:13 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

It's never mandatory by virtue of regulation.

Then when is a PT mandatory, and by virtue of what if not regulation?

--Gary


According to both Jepp, and the FAA (regulatory division counsel), a PT is
mandatory if the pilot is cleared for a SIAP that includes one, and one of
the 91.175 exceptions does not apply.

SIAP's are regulatory, incorporated (by reference) into 14 CFR 97


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

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."

wrote in message
nk.net...
Gary Drescher wrote:
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.

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."

Thanks for posting that! It's good to know that someone at the FAA
understands the problem and intends to fix it. (I emailed the FAA yesterday
about the AIM ambiguity, but I haven't gotten any reply yet.)

--Gary