Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

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)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
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 wouldn't have guessed it from the language, but what you say makes a lot
of sense, and especially with the approach gradient issue, seems like the
safest way, so I at least will do it that way.

Just to be certain what you mean, coming in from the NW, straignt in, cross
BURDK, enter the hold and decend from 1900 to 1600 when established on the
inbound leg before reaching BURDK the second time? All this assumes no radar
vectors.

Thanks.

Brad

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:33:03 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

I wouldn't have guessed it from the language, but what you say makes a lot
of sense, and especially with the approach gradient issue, seems like the
safest way, so I at least will do it that way.

Just to be certain what you mean, coming in from the NW, straignt in, cross
BURDK, enter the hold and decend from 1900 to 1600 when established on the
inbound leg before reaching BURDK the second time? All this assumes no radar
vectors.


Well, coming from the NW there's no charted route until you get to BURDK of
which I am aware. So, unless ATC can clear you to a lower altitude, your
minimum IFR altitude would be controlled by 91.177 (ii) "In any other case,
an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal
distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown." 1900 would
probably be safe once you got to the area of the procedure turn, but that's
not precisely charted. If I were doing this from the NW, non-radar, I
would probably maintain at or above the MSA, which is a charted altitude,
until BURDK; then descend to 1900 outbound and 1600 inbound. (1900 might
be both safe and legal in the area to the NW that is not on the approach
plate, but I'd have to study sectionals to be sure).

Having said that, your clearance from ATC should give you the information.
Coming from the NW, it should go something like "Maintain at or above xxxx
ft until (some_fix); cleared for the VOR Rwy 13 approach". If you are
doing this non-radar, your clearance will likely be to ACY and not to
BURDK.



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

"Brad Salai" wrote in message
...

Just to be certain what you mean, coming in from the NW, straignt in,
cross BURDK, enter the hold and decend from 1900 to 1600 when established
on
the inbound leg before reaching BURDK the second time? All this assumes no
radar vectors.


What ATC clearance are you following when you're coming in to BURDK from the
northwest?

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

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).


Where in the FARs did you find that requirement?



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


Why?

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:41:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

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).


Where in the FARs did you find that requirement?



14 CFR Part 97
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

14 CFR Part 97


What section?

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:41:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

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).


Where in the FARs did you find that requirement?

To elaborate, it is in the Jepp interpretation of the FAA published
approach procedure. These procedures are regulatory by virtue of 14 CFR 97
and must be followed by virtue of 14 CFR 91




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


Why?


Because the requirement is noted in TERPS which is used to design the
approach.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

To elaborate, it is in the Jepp interpretation of the FAA published
approach procedure. These procedures are regulatory by virtue of 14 CFR
97
and must be followed by virtue of 14 CFR 91


Then it appears that Jepp misinterpreted.



Because the requirement is noted in TERPS which is used to design the
approach.


The TERPs requirements apply only to the design of the procedure.