Procedure turn required?

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
"point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot.

No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.

There is no MINIMUM length of an outbound leg.

And no specific direction of the turn.

There is only a maximum length.

Depending on where you start the turn, correct.

You can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

And the type of turn is entirely at the pilot's discretion. So rather than
flying a 270 degree right turn, the pilot can choose a 90 degree left turn.

But if you do not see that, then further discussion here is pointless.

Ahh, yes...the old "terminate the thread with an ad hominem" tactic.

There is certainly nothing wrong with returning to the outbound course
after Seal Beach, flying outbound for some length that you determine you
want to; and then executing a 45° turn on the charted side, so long as you
remain within the mileage limit. But it is not the only valid, legal
method of executing the procedure.

I never said it was.

Pete

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..
I have to take issue with your statement:

"Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a PT,
unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment, you are
required to fly it."

But take another look at what the AIM actually says:

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal..."

As I read this, it is saying:

If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.

If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.

.It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED
if
a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
circumstances...

You're right to want to look at the requirement in the context of the
preceding sentence (Pete made that point too earlier in the thread). But
let's look at the succeeding sentence as well. Here are all three:

AIM 5-4-9a: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on
an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu
of procedure turn is a required maneuver. 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."

When the third sentence lists conditions under which the PT is "not
required", it obviously means that you are not required to perform the
course reversal at all; it does *not* mean that you may perform the course
reversal, but need not use the PT method. And the requirement spoken of in
the third sentence is clearly the same one as the requirement spoken of in
the second sentence; that is, the second sentence asserts the requirement,
and the third sentence gives exceptions to the requirement. Therefore, the
second sentence, like the third sentence, is referring to a requirement to
perform a course reversal (and to do so via a PT), rather than just
referring to a requirement to execute a PT *if* you reverse course. (And
therefore the first sentence is just explaining a rationale for prescribing
a procedure turn, without yet addressing the mandatory nature of the
prescription, which is not asserted until the second sentence.)

--Gary

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make
a procedure turn.

Legal Counsel has issued an opinion, see below.

Kris


Nov. 28, 1994
Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23,
1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of
the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175). You address
the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you
pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.
Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary,
each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for
the airport in Part 97.
First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a
published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF
as defined in Part 97. Descent gradients, communication, and obstruction
clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure is
not flown.
You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial
approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of
the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF along
a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the
published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of the
approach.
Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one
of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section
91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar vector to a final approach
course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which
the procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver
prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the
aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not
prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria
contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and
ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the
procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not
present.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia
R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.

Sincerely,

/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
"point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot.


No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.



The difference between the 90 degree left turn and all of the
variations of the procedure turn (even with a zero-length outbound leg)
is that all those variations have you *established* on the final
approach course *prior* to reaching the FAF. In this sense the 90
degree left turn is not equal to the 270 right turn.

To me this seems the conceptual basis for the fact that the regs
require the procedure turn when it often doesn't "seem" that it should
be necessary.

Now if you happen to be coming from a direction where you *are* already
aligned on the final approach course and at the proper altitude prior
to reaching the FAF, I would agree that it doesn't make sense to do the
PT (though it may still be technically required by the regs). The
basis *I* use for skipping the turn in this case is: 1) I am flying a
hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn, plus 2) I am established in the hold by
virtue of being established (+/- 10 degrees) on the inbound course
prior to reaching the holding point (the FAF). Ok, its a stretch, but
that's how I look at it!


Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:53:15 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
wrote:

I have to take issue with your statement:

Fair enough, I'm willing to learn - education is always ongoing.

But take another look at what the AIM actually says:

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal..."

As I read this, it is saying:

If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.

If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.

.It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED if
a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
circumstances...

But they specifically enumerate the conditions when procedure turns
are not required, the list being vectors to final, NoPT segment, timed
approaches, or when not authorized.

So, "pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF".
If the entire procedure, which therefore only starts when crossing the
IAF, requires a procedure turn because you're not covered under the
exceptions, it seems that by not executing a procedure turn (in the
case of a straight-in crossing a racetrack to the barb side would
suffice), you're not in fact flying the entire procedure as required,
you're flying it as if you got vectors to final just because you were
generally lined up on the inbound course while crossing the collocated
IAF/FAF and have elected not to fly the intermediate segment of the
approach, going right to just flying the FAF-MAP segment, right?

And now I have to take issue with myself...

This has nothing to do with nothing, but just for grins, I cranked up the
Garmin trainer and flew the KPWK (Chicago/Palwaukee) ILS 16 approach from
several different directions.

Coming from the south, the Garmin, as expected, flew the teardrop procedure
turn.

Coming from the north, flying the 160 radial toward the OBK VOR (the IAF),
when the Garmin reached the VOR, it reversed course and flew 340 outbound,
flew the teardrop procedure turn, and flew back toward OBK.

So, it would appear that, at least as far as Garmin is concerned, that the
procedure turn must be flown no matter what.

Live and learn...


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:53:15 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
wrote:

I have to take issue with your statement:

Fair enough, I'm willing to learn - education is always ongoing.

But take another look at what the AIM actually says:

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal..."

As I read this, it is saying:

If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.

If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.

.It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED
if
a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
circumstances...

But they specifically enumerate the conditions when procedure turns
are not required, the list being vectors to final, NoPT segment, timed
approaches, or when not authorized.

So, "pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF".
If the entire procedure, which therefore only starts when crossing the
IAF, requires a procedure turn because you're not covered under the
exceptions, it seems that by not executing a procedure turn (in the
case of a straight-in crossing a racetrack to the barb side would
suffice), you're not in fact flying the entire procedure as required,
you're flying it as if you got vectors to final just because you were
generally lined up on the inbound course while crossing the collocated
IAF/FAF and have elected not to fly the intermediate segment of the
approach, going right to just flying the FAF-MAP segment, right?

Lakeview Bill wrote:

And now I have to take issue with myself...

This has nothing to do with nothing, but just for grins, I cranked up the
Garmin trainer and flew the KPWK (Chicago/Palwaukee) ILS 16 approach from
several different directions.

Coming from the south, the Garmin, as expected, flew the teardrop procedure
turn.

Coming from the north, flying the 160 radial toward the OBK VOR (the IAF),
when the Garmin reached the VOR, it reversed course and flew 340 outbound,
flew the teardrop procedure turn, and flew back toward OBK.

So, it would appear that, at least as far as Garmin is concerned, that the
procedure turn must be flown no matter what.

Live and learn...

As someone who was involved in a previous life with the FAA's groping with
course reversal issues, and now a user of Garmin's fine panel mount products, my
hat is off to Garmin's implementations with a lot of this RNAV stuff...far
beyond when a course reversal is required.

I'd like to know what some of the freight dogs do. They fly into
smaller airports without radar coverage, so they are flying full
approaches. Dollars to doughnuts they aren't going to be wasting any
time going around in useless circles.

The rules have to make sense. Pattern entries, intercepting tracks,
entering holds all call for the smoothest, least amount of manuevering
that works. There HAS to be a rhyme and reason in the regs, and, in
spite of all the moaning and groaning, there usually is. When there
isn't you get a rule that isn't being followed. Sometime later that
rule is changed to adopt the sensible procedures. I don't even think
the regs require useless procedure turns and holds when you are already
on course. But some of you seem to be fixated on it for some inane
reason (instructor superiority/student confusion complex?).

It is a required manuever for a COURSE REVERSAL. It's not a required
manuever if you are already on course.

Ditch the rhetoric and useless redundancy. Fly the plane like it's
supposed to be flown, safely and efficiently. Don't make up your own
procedures, follow the charted approach. But use some common sense. If
YOUR instructor told you it was necessary, don't just blindly pass that
misinformation along to the next generation of pilots. Get rid of the
obsolete and useless, latch onto the efficient and reasonable. Fly the
airplane, not the regs.

I agree completely with the sense of your post. In your own flying,
for this purpose how do you define "on course"? +/- 10 degrees? 30?
45? 90?
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" wrote in message
ps.com...
I agree completely with the sense of your post. In your own flying,
for this purpose how do you define "on course"? +/- 10 degrees? 30?
45? 90?

Don't forget altitude too!