Procedure turn required?

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!

"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.