Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

I agree, though telling ATC may not even be required but may keep you
safe. Moreover, I think the FAA meant as much based on their
explanation of changes that added the additional language to the AIM
that confused us:

"This [change to the AIM] is for those folks that think a procedure
turn is required unless it meets one of the exceptions which does not
include 'if the aircraft is aligned within 90 degrees of the inbound
course.'"

See http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Exofchg/exchg3.html, and scroll down
to entry w.

So, the FAA added this language to satisfy people who thought a
procedure turn is required even when no course reversal is required
(e.g., when intercepting the FAC at 89 degrees) at the correct altitude.

On 7 Oct 2005 11:22:03 -0700, "rps" wrote:

I agree, though telling ATC may not even be required but may keep you
safe. Moreover, I think the FAA meant as much based on their
explanation of changes that added the additional language to the AIM
that confused us:

"This [change to the AIM] is for those folks that think a procedure
turn is required unless it meets one of the exceptions which does not
include 'if the aircraft is aligned within 90 degrees of the inbound
course.'"

See http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Exofchg/exchg3.html, and scroll down
to entry w.

So, the FAA added this language to satisfy people who thought a
procedure turn is required even when no course reversal is required
(e.g., when intercepting the FAC at 89 degrees) at the correct altitude.


Thank you for posting that link.

That explanation of intent seems to be a lot more clear than previous
discussions of the change on this and other groups would lead one to
believe. It makes sense and it lends some authority to not executing a PT
in the type of instance Steve posed (even though the AIM is not
regulatory).
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It's clear that whoever drafted the language in the explanation needs
to brush up on his or her written English skills.

On 7 Oct 2005 17:05:28 -0700, "rps" wrote:

It's clear that whoever drafted the language in the explanation needs
to brush up on his or her written English skills.


It is also unclear whether the drafter even checked with the TERP's people
who design the procedures, to see if such language meets with their
approval. Or if he checked with the regulatory office to resolve the
conflict with their 1994 opinion.

Gee, if PT execution is now pilot choice, and "course reversal" is not
further defined, that opens up a whole bunch of ways to get into trouble!


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

It is also unclear whether the drafter even checked with the TERP's people
who design the procedures, to see if such language meets with their
approval.


Why is their approval required?



Or if he checked with the regulatory office to resolve the
conflict with their 1994 opinion.


What's the conflict there?

On 7 Oct 2005 11:22:03 -0700, "rps" wrote:


See http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Exofchg/exchg3.html, and scroll down
to entry w.


Thanks also from me. I hadn't found that resource.

Tim.