If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... If the approach plates constitute an appropriate display of the contents of FAA forms 8260, and if they indicate that the PT is mandatory, then that *IS* an FAR (incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97) Can you provide an example of an approach plate with the statement "PT MANDATORY", or something similar? There is no provision for such wording because terminal routes that do not have "NoPT" affixed to them on the 14 CFR 97 Form 8260-3/5 are, by implication "PT Required" except when timed approaches are used or ATC provides vectors in accordance with 7110.65, Para 5-9-1. As you know the word "MANDATORY" on Part 97 procedures is used when altitudes are not "at or above." And, where a 8260-3/5 does not have a course reversal authorized on the procedure, then all terminal routes, by implication, are "NoPT." In that case, NACO charts "PT Not Authorized;" Jeppesen does not because they feel it is obvious on such a procedure. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:31:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . If the approach plates constitute an appropriate display of the contents of FAA forms 8260, and if they indicate that the PT is mandatory, then that *IS* an FAR (incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97) Can you provide an example of an approach plate with the statement "PT MANDATORY", or something similar? That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts). According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is required. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On 9/30/2005 14:26, Peter wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote I must be going thick, but how do I do a procedure turn to turn through just 30 degrees? Surely it is just a rate one turn? What's a 'rate one turn'? In the UK, it is the standard turn as indicated on the TC. What I've read was that when the turn to the final approach course is more than 30 degrees, the procedure designers want you to turn outbound first, to give you a chance to get established on the final approach course before the FAF. OK, thanks, I see that for the FAF. It also illuminates something else: if tracking towards an NDB or a VOR, which is part of an instrument approach, at which there is a significant track change, I've been told to do a procedure turn. The instructor could not quantify it. In this case the turn is necessary because one assumes there is no DME at the waypoint, so one has to track *over* the beacon. More importantly, I was told that it is assumed you are on course and ready for the approach when you cross the FAF. Even if you could anticipate the turn using DME, you still would not be 'on course and ready for the approach when crossing the FAF' ... it would happen some time later (after you got your airplane established on the final approach course). Now ... I'm not saying that such a turn couldn't be made and the approach safely flown - only that I was told this is the reason for having the PT in the procedure for these cases. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Sacramento, CA |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts). According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is required. The FAA does it the other way round. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... No, the ambiguity I'm pointing out isn't just a matter of the vagueness of "course reversal". The new AIM phrasing is ambiguous as to whether the enumerated conditions are meant only as an *elaboration* of what it means for a course reversal to be unnecessary (in which case a charted PT is required unless the enumerated conditions are met), or whether a lack of need for a course-reversal is meant as an *addition* to the enumerated conditions (in which case the PT might not be required even if none of the enumerated conditions are met). I think its the second case. Here is the language again: The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal. The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The first sentence doesn't make any sense unless there are situations where "it is necessary to perform a course reversal." If that's true, then the second sentence must be exceptions to the first, that is, situations where it would appear "necessary to perform a course reversal" but a PT is not required. If the intent were that a PT is required unless one of the four exceptions applied, they would (or at least should) have said: The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver unless the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. which would have been clear and unambiguous. General rules of construction suggest that you should interpret the language so that the first sentence is not redundant or meaningless, which leads to the second interpretation, what G. Drescher calls *addition*. Maybe the rules of construction should be in the POH? Just my opinion, I could be wrong. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 03:59:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts). According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is required. The FAA does it the other way round. Could you expand on that statement? I'm not able to apply it to my description of the Jepp charting conventions. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:21:52 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote: If the intent were that a PT is required unless one of the four exceptions applied, they would (or at least should) have said: The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver unless the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. which would have been clear and unambiguous. General rules of construction suggest that you should interpret the language so that the first sentence is not redundant or meaningless, which leads to the second interpretation, what G. Drescher calls *addition*. Maybe the rules of construction should be in the POH? Just my opinion, I could be wrong. That's basically how Jepp defines it for their approach charts. "It (the procedure turn) is a required maneuver, except under the following conditions: 1. The symbol “NoPT” is shown. 2. Radar vectoring is provided. 3. A one-minute holding pattern is published in lieu of a procedure turn. 4. A teardrop course reversal is depicted. 5. The procedure turn is not authorized. " The one-minute holding pattern and teardrop course reversal are also mandatory in the same sense; Jepp means that you can't do a PT turn of the type and starting point you wish if one of those is charted. Also, Jepp's convention for the procedure turn not being authorized is that they don't chart it. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
Required hold? | Nicholas Kliewer | Instrument Flight Rules | 22 | November 14th 04 01:38 AM |
more radial fans like fw190? | jt | Military Aviation | 51 | August 28th 04 04:22 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
IFR in the 1930's | Rich S. | Home Built | 43 | September 21st 03 01:03 AM |