Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Ah, so you have.

You said you'd go straight in.

So my followup question (if you'll indulge me) is: do you acknowledge
that this would be a technical violation of the FARS? (You'd have to
start descending below the MEA on V21 before passing an IAF for the
approach.)


I wouldn't have to stay on V21, I could move over two degrees to the 200
radial used for the approach. As for a possible technical violation of the
FARs, I've had a complete communications failure for unknown reasons, and
while my navigational radios are functioning, I'm not sure how long they
will continue to do so. To avoid a possible loss of navigational capability
in IMC I'm using the emergency authority granted me by
FAR 91.3 to deviate from any rule of Part 91.

As for a possible technical violation of the
FARs, I've had a complete communications failure for unknown reasons, and
while my navigational radios are functioning, I'm not sure how long they
will continue to do so. To avoid a possible loss of navigational capability
in IMC I'm using the emergency authority granted me by
FAR 91.3 to deviate from any rule of Part 91.

Good enough. But suppose your radios are all working fine, but you just
can't get a word in edgewise. I won't speculate as to how that might be
possible at this particular (middle of nowhere) facility, I'll just note
that it happens where I fly.

You go straight in, as you said you would.

Would =that= be a technical violation of the FARs, since you don't have
91.3 to rely upon?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
As for a possible technical violation of the FARs, I've had a complete
communications failure for unknown reasons, and while my navigational
radios are functioning, I'm not sure how long they will continue to do
so. To avoid a possible loss of navigational capability in IMC I'm
using the emergency authority granted me by
FAR 91.3 to deviate from any rule of Part 91.


Good enough. But suppose your radios are all working fine, but you just
can't get a word in edgewise. I won't speculate as to how that might be
possible at this particular (middle of nowhere) facility, I'll just note
that it happens where I fly.

You go straight in, as you said you would.

Would =that= be a technical violation of the FARs, since you don't have
91.3 to rely upon?

Sure, if you can't communicate, either for reasons of congestion or
hardware failure, the end result is the same and use can use 91.3 as needed.

Matt

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Good enough. But suppose your radios are all working fine, but you just
can't get a word in edgewise. I won't speculate as to how that might be
possible at this particular (middle of nowhere) facility, I'll just note
that it happens where I fly.

You go straight in, as you said you would.

Would =that= be a technical violation of the FARs, since you don't have
91.3 to rely upon?


In that case I don't make a straight-in approach, I don't make an approach
at all. I continue to my clearance limit and enter a standard hold at
whatever altitude I was last cleared to maintain.