Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

So this just occurred to me in the debate on procedure turns.

The AIM famously says "The procedure turn is a required maneuver..."
But the AIM is not regulatory. Is there anything in the FARs that
requires a PT? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in Part 91.
Someone in another thread said that there was something in Part 97, but
I can't find it.

If nothing in the FARs requires a PT then a reasonable interpretation of
the AIM is: "WHEN it is necessary to reverse course (which is determined
at the pilot's discretion I suppose) you must do so by executing a PT
(or a hold in lieu of)..." as opposed to, say, doing an Immelman or half
a lazy eight.

rg

I finally got around to opening my 2004 FAR/AIM (the only one I have
here in the office), and found:

97.3 "Symbols and terms used in procedures."
97.3 (p) "Procedure term means the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an
intermediate or final approach course. ..."

To me, this means that any discussion of procedure turns is irrlevant
unless "it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft
on an intermediate or final approach course.".

So, we have to define two more items:

a) "to reverse direction".
I would argue strongly that any turn less than 90 degrees is NOT
reversing direction. I can't think of any field (except perhaps
politics :-) where say a 30 degree change of direction is considered
reversing direction.

b) "to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach
course."
This is where I consider pilot's discretion comes in. However, if
you're already aligned with the required course (or close to it), then
there's no way I consider it necessary to reverse direction to
establish myself on the course.

As 97.3 (p) is regulatory, I think there's a strong case for saying
procedure turns are not mandatory.

--------

The second part of 97.3 (p) addresses your issue about how you do the
turn:

"The outbound course, direction, distance within which the turn must
be completed, and minimum altititude are specified in the procedure.
However, the point at which the turn may be commenced, and the type
and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the pilot".

So, yes, you can do an Immelman if you can keep it within the
parameters mentioned above.

Tim.



On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:33:31 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

So this just occurred to me in the debate on procedure turns.

The AIM famously says "The procedure turn is a required maneuver..."
But the AIM is not regulatory. Is there anything in the FARs that
requires a PT? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in Part 91.
Someone in another thread said that there was something in Part 97, but
I can't find it.

If nothing in the FARs requires a PT then a reasonable interpretation of
the AIM is: "WHEN it is necessary to reverse course (which is determined
at the pilot's discretion I suppose) you must do so by executing a PT
(or a hold in lieu of)..." as opposed to, say, doing an Immelman or half
a lazy eight.

rg

In article ,
Tim Auckland wrote:

So, yes, you can do an Immelman if you can keep it within the
parameters mentioned above.

Cool! I've always wanted to try one of those in IMC! ;-)

rg

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:49:34 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Auckland wrote:

So, yes, you can do an Immelman if you can keep it within the
parameters mentioned above.

Cool! I've always wanted to try one of those in IMC! ;-)

rg

Don't do it with passengers unless you've got parachutes.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:33:31 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

So this just occurred to me in the debate on procedure turns.

The AIM famously says "The procedure turn is a required maneuver..."
But the AIM is not regulatory. Is there anything in the FARs that
requires a PT? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in Part 91.
Someone in another thread said that there was something in Part 97, but
I can't find it.

If nothing in the FARs requires a PT then a reasonable interpretation of
the AIM is: "WHEN it is necessary to reverse course (which is determined
at the pilot's discretion I suppose) you must do so by executing a PT
(or a hold in lieu of)..." as opposed to, say, doing an Immelman or half
a lazy eight.

rg

Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is
necessary is to be made by the pilot?

The procedure turn is described in the textual description of a SIAP as
published by the FAA and interpreted graphically by the chart makers (Jepp
and NACO, for the most part).

By regulation and legal intepretation, we are required to start a SIAP at
an IAF, unless receiving radar vectors to the FAC.

By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is
necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14 CFR
97.

If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one
is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory
by virtue of the above.

Having said that, it does happen from time to time that the chart makers
get it wrong, or the FAA forgets to add NoPT to certain routings. If you
find a route that you think should be marked NoPT and it is not, call and
they will correct it pretty quickly.


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

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:33:31 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

So this just occurred to me in the debate on procedure turns.

The AIM famously says "The procedure turn is a required maneuver..."
But the AIM is not regulatory. Is there anything in the FARs that
requires a PT? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in Part 91.
Someone in another thread said that there was something in Part 97, but
I can't find it.

If nothing in the FARs requires a PT then a reasonable interpretation of
the AIM is: "WHEN it is necessary to reverse course (which is determined
at the pilot's discretion I suppose) you must do so by executing a PT
(or a hold in lieu of)..." as opposed to, say, doing an Immelman or half
a lazy eight.

rg

Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is
necessary is to be made by the pilot?

91.3(a)?

The procedure turn is described in the textual description of a SIAP as
published by the FAA and interpreted graphically by the chart makers (Jepp
and NACO, for the most part).

I didn't know there were textual descriptions. Where can I find those?

By regulation and legal intepretation, we are required to start a SIAP at
an IAF, unless receiving radar vectors to the FAC.

By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is
necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14 CFR
97.

If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one
is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory
by virtue of the above.

Having said that, it does happen from time to time that the chart makers
get it wrong, or the FAA forgets to add NoPT to certain routings. If you
find a route that you think should be marked NoPT and it is not, call and
they will correct it pretty quickly.

OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?

rg

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:12:01 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:33:31 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:



Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is
necessary is to be made by the pilot?

91.3(a)?


But you need to be in an emergency situation to deviate from the other
rules of Part 91. I try to not allow my SIAP's deteriorate to that point
:-))


The procedure turn is described in the textual description of a SIAP as
published by the FAA and interpreted graphically by the chart makers (Jepp
and NACO, for the most part).

I didn't know there were textual descriptions. Where can I find those?


I don't know of any web source for these. So far as I know, they are
available for inspection at FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; the FAA Regional Office of the region in
which the affected airport is located; or the Flight Inspection Area Office
which originated the SIAP.

They are also available for purchase at the FAA Public Inquiry Center
(APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; or the FAA Regional Office of the region in which the
affected airport is located.


OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?


Being more familiar with Jepp charts, and having to rely on NACO charts for
that approach, perhaps I am missing some subtlety.

But assuming a non-emergency situation, not getting into the discussion of
what to do at SLI if you're ahead of your ETA, and also assuming IMC, I
would maintain the V21 MEA of 4000' until reaching SLI. At SLI I would
execute a racetrack type procedure turn on the SE side of the final
approach course, descending to 2600'. Passing SLI inbound I would cross
BWALT at or above 1500' and then continue my descent to the MDA and land if
I met the requirements of 91.175 and the runway were clear.

As to why? I would do that because that's how that SIAP is charted, and I
am obliged to follow the rules absent an emergency situation.

There is no provision I see for descending to the MEA prior to SLI absent
an emergency. (And the descent gradient from SLI--KFUL far exceeds the
acceptable TERPs standards).

If it were an *emergency* situation, and I had to get on the ground ASAP,
it would be both appropriate and safe to use the MSA altitude of 2800' when
within 25 NM of SLI. At one mile or so from SLI, I would descend so as to
cross SLI at 2600' and then continue straight in.


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

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?


Being more familiar with Jepp charts, and having to rely on NACO charts for
that approach, perhaps I am missing some subtlety.

But assuming a non-emergency situation, not getting into the discussion of
what to do at SLI if you're ahead of your ETA, and also assuming IMC, I
would maintain the V21 MEA of 4000' until reaching SLI. At SLI I would
execute a racetrack type procedure turn on the SE side of the final
approach course, descending to 2600'. Passing SLI inbound I would cross
BWALT at or above 1500' and then continue my descent to the MDA and land if
I met the requirements of 91.175 and the runway were clear.

As to why? I would do that because that's how that SIAP is charted

No, it isn't. There is no "racetrack type procedure turn" on the chart.
There is a hold that is part of the missed approach. And if you fly
that hold so as to end up at SLI inbound then you've flown it in the
wrong direction.

There is no provision I see for descending to the MEA prior to SLI absent
an emergency.

Huh? The MEA is 4000. I think you meant that you see no provision for
descending to 2600 on V21 prior to SLI. And you're right. There isn't
any.

So, once again, what do you do and why?

rg

On 10/6/2005 08:23, Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?


Being more familiar with Jepp charts, and having to rely on NACO charts for
that approach, perhaps I am missing some subtlety.

But assuming a non-emergency situation, not getting into the discussion of
what to do at SLI if you're ahead of your ETA, and also assuming IMC, I
would maintain the V21 MEA of 4000' until reaching SLI. At SLI I would
execute a racetrack type procedure turn on the SE side of the final
approach course, descending to 2600'. Passing SLI inbound I would cross
BWALT at or above 1500' and then continue my descent to the MDA and land if
I met the requirements of 91.175 and the runway were clear.

As to why? I would do that because that's how that SIAP is charted

No, it isn't. There is no "racetrack type procedure turn" on the chart.
There is a hold that is part of the missed approach. And if you fly
that hold so as to end up at SLI inbound then you've flown it in the
wrong direction.

I think Ron said he wasn't as familiar with the government charts.
However, if you look at the chart, the procedure turn is indicated
with the Barb, pointing 155 degrees. You can see, also, that if you
use AIBAS IAF, no procedure turn is necessary.


There is no provision I see for descending to the MEA prior to SLI absent
an emergency.

Huh? The MEA is 4000. I think you meant that you see no provision for
descending to 2600 on V21 prior to SLI. And you're right. There isn't
any.

So, once again, what do you do and why?

When you hit the VOR, you turn outbound for the procedure turn, 200
degrees. During the outbound leg (and the procedure turn) you can
begin your descent to 2600'. You should time it such that you are
at 2600' before you get back to the VOR.

Note that you need to remain within 10NM of the VOR during the turn,
so you can go outbound quite a log way (to aid in the descent) before
actually beginning the physical turn.


rg


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote:

On 10/6/2005 08:23, Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?


Being more familiar with Jepp charts, and having to rely on NACO charts for
that approach, perhaps I am missing some subtlety.

But assuming a non-emergency situation, not getting into the discussion of
what to do at SLI if you're ahead of your ETA, and also assuming IMC, I
would maintain the V21 MEA of 4000' until reaching SLI. At SLI I would
execute a racetrack type procedure turn on the SE side of the final
approach course, descending to 2600'. Passing SLI inbound I would cross
BWALT at or above 1500' and then continue my descent to the MDA and land if
I met the requirements of 91.175 and the runway were clear.

As to why? I would do that because that's how that SIAP is charted

No, it isn't. There is no "racetrack type procedure turn" on the chart.
There is a hold that is part of the missed approach. And if you fly
that hold so as to end up at SLI inbound then you've flown it in the
wrong direction.

I think Ron said he wasn't as familiar with the government charts.

There are two Rons in play here :-) Ron G. (that's me) is looking at a
government chart.

However, if you look at the chart, the procedure turn is indicated
with the Barb, pointing 155 degrees. You can see, also, that if you
use AIBAS IAF, no procedure turn is necessary.

True, but you're not coming from ALBAS. You're coming in on V21. (As
an aside, doesn't it make intuitive sense that, from a TERPS point of
view, if no procedure turn is required from ALBAS that none should be
required coming from V21?)

When you hit the VOR, you turn outbound for the procedure turn, 200
degrees. During the outbound leg (and the procedure turn) you can
begin your descent to 2600'. You should time it such that you are
at 2600' before you get back to the VOR.

Note that you need to remain within 10NM of the VOR during the turn,
so you can go outbound quite a log way (to aid in the descent) before
actually beginning the physical turn.

I presume you mean turn to a 200 heading, not turn 200 degrees. V21 is
on a 202 heading. You would be turning 178 degrees or 182 degrees
depending on which way you made the turn. Now...

Do you really turn to a 200 heading, or do you turn to intercept the SLI
200 radial? Those are not the same maneuver.

Do you turn left or right and why?

At what point are you "established on the outbound leg", when you reach
a 200 heading, or when you are established on the SLI 200 radial?

Finally, suppose you flew this Byzantine procedure... by the time you
got to the actual procedure turn (which, I note in passing, would be
your SECOND course reversal) you would be in almost exactly the same
spot as you were just minutes ago when you were on V21. Why is it safe
to descend now but not then?

rg