Procedure turn required?

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?).

Several of us have cited the regs (or AIM directives) that do require a PT
even when on course, and have defended our interpretation. You reiterate
your disagreement, but you make no effort to say which part of our analysis
is supposedly flawed. Instead, you just keep repeating what we already agree
on (namely, that a PT makes no sense in the situation in question). And you
defend your position in part by a dangerous misinterpretation of FAR 91.3b
(you said you think it exempts you from the rules whenever you believe your
alternative to the rules is safer; in reality, it exempts you from the rules
only during an *in-flight emergency*).

If
YOUR instructor told you it was necessary, don't just blindly pass that
misinformation along to the next generation of pilots.

No one here cited their instructor's authority in defense of their
interpretation of the regs; you're just making that up. We cited the FAA's
actual regs and directives, and gave detailed analyses of them. You're
choosing to ignore what we actually said, pretending instead that we said
something that would be easier for you to rebut.

--Gary

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:40:11 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"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?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't see it as
degeneration to be following the clearly stated rule that it is pilots
choice for the type of turn and where to start it.


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.

Again, I don't see any similarity (assuming we are talking about the same
approach as started this thread) between a 90° left turn at Seal Beach and
a 270° right turn. So I would disagree with your conclusion that they are
the same.


There is no MINIMUM length of an outbound leg.

And no specific direction of the turn.

That's right; after turning outbound, you can go clockwise or counter
clockwise.



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.

Sorry, I did not mean a personal attack. My statement stems from a
realization that nothing I write here is going to convince you that there
is no requirement to return to and fly over the depicted outbound track of
a procedure turn (unless it's one of those fly as charted types); and
nothing you write will convince me that there is such a requirement.




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.

Well, you seem to be insisting that it is required to fly along the charted
outbound course for some length of time.



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

Followed the instructions in TERPS 234 and plotted it out.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message ...


Bob Gardner wrote:

Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles
wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?


Where did you get that number?

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course.

I agree, assuming that one is also at the appropriate initial altitude.
However, if one is =not= aligned ith the FAC (which is the case under
discussion - there is a 50 degree difference) then this doesn't apply.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

A procedure turn requires a course change of over 130 degrees (including
getting back onto the outbound course). And then of 180 degrees. You can
fly the transition at the same altitude allowed for the procedure turn.

How is the procedure turn better?

All the maneuvering is done prior to the FAF, and prior to descent.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."

This refers to things like charted teardrop reversals, where one goes
(for example) outbound on the 155 radial for five miles, turns right and
comes inbound on the 183 radial, all charted on the plate.

I would not infer from this that the outbound course of an ordinary PT
is not specified. What is in fact up to the pilot in a normal PT is the
method of reversing course once one is tracking the (given) outbound course.

One is required to fly the PT (exceptions discussed upthread). =Since=
this is true, one must turn to the outbound course in order to do so,
and cannot simply turn inbound. Since one is therefore flying outbound,
a course reversal is necessary at some point. Therefore, the type of
course reversal to be performed must be a procedure turn (of some sort).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
How is the procedure turn better?

All the maneuvering is done prior to the FAF, and prior to descent.

Offset by the significant increase in the amount and difficulty of
maneuvering required. I agree you've shown it to be different. I don't see
how it's better.

Pete

How is the procedure turn better?
All the maneuvering is done prior to the FAF, and prior to descent.
Offset by the significant increase in the amount and difficulty of
maneuvering required. I agree you've shown it to be different. I don't see
how it's better.

It's better because it's safer. There is no real increased difficulty -
one standard rate turn is like another, and making a longer turn is no
harder (unless you fall asleep during the turn, then the landing is much
harder!).

When you make the turns used for the full procedure, you end up right
where you are supposed to be. But if you make a turn to final that
takes fifty degrees, you will =not= be on the FAC. You'll have lagged,
and have to squirrel yourself back to be on course. You're also
approaching the MAP and descending.

This is harder.

Or you can anticipate the turn. How much? Well, (fudge fudge fudge)...
This is harder.

Maybe not harder enough to be =unsafe=, but harder enough that, combined
with proximity (to the ground and the airport) it is less safe.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
It's better because it's safer.

You have not demonstrated that. To demonstrate an improvement in safety,
you need to compare a statistically significant number of samples using both
methods, and then look at the resulting accident rates for each method.

You certainly can't claim that it's "obviously safer". That is, it's not
true that "one standard rate turn is like another". Any maneuvering runs
the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent maneuvering, the
greater the exposure to that risk (this is no different from saying "any
flight runs the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent flying,
the greater the exposure to that risk").

As far as the difference in difficulty, one can debate that as well.
Inasmuch as a pilot ought to be maintaining a mental picture of his position
while flying by instruments, an extended turn away from one's destination
certainly could be more difficult than a prompt turn toward one's
destination. Furthermore, the right-310 turn is just one option of many,
and several of the other options involve multiple turns in multiple
directions. Increased complexity implies increased difficulty IMHO.

Whether this increase in complexity offsets the potential increase in
complexity of turning directly 50 degrees onto the final approach course,
has not been established. I suggest it does, you suggest it doesn't, and
neither of us has any justification for making such statements, other than
our own intuition.

[...]
When you make the turns used for the full procedure, you end up right
where you are supposed to be.

You might be, if you do it right. There's no guarantee though. Even if
done properly, you are still "allowed" a significant margin of error.

But if you make a turn to final that takes fifty degrees, you will =not=
be on the FAC.

If you simply intercept the approach course, how would you not wind up on
the approach course?

You'll have lagged, and have to squirrel yourself back to be on course.
You're also approaching the MAP and descending.

This is harder.

It is different. I see it as being FAR from a foregone conclusion that it
is harder.

Or you can anticipate the turn. How much? Well, (fudge fudge fudge)...
This is harder.

Maybe not harder enough to be =unsafe=, but harder enough that, combined
with proximity (to the ground and the airport) it is less safe.

Well, we're back to that. You haven't demonstrated "less safe". You simply
asserted it. There's a difference.

Pete

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:57:11 GMT, Jose wrote:

What is in fact up to the pilot in a normal PT is the
method of reversing course once one is tracking the (given) outbound course.

Although I agree there is a requirement to turn outbound, I see no
requirement that one must, at any time, "track" the outbound course.

(By that I mean flying over the earth on the line indicated by the outbound
course).

For example, at the procedure which started this thread, one could overhead
the facility and execute a racetrack turn. In that case, one would never
be tracking the outbound course.


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