Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:49:34 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Auckland wrote:

So, yes, you can do an Immelman if you can keep it within the
parameters mentioned above.

Cool! I've always wanted to try one of those in IMC! ;-)

rg

Don't do it with passengers unless you've got parachutes.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


I don't see why MENLO..HEMAN should be marked NoPT.


It's marked NoPT to make it clear that you should turn left at HEMAN
instead of right. (Isn't that obvious?)


If you're beginning the
ILS RWY 28R at MENLO you're not going to cross the holding fix DUMBA.


You will if you turn right at HEMAN.


I can't tell if you're joking or not.

I'm not.

Only an idiot would turn right at HEMAN.

Someone might turn right at HEMAN if they thought that 1) the absence of
a "NoPT" designation on the MENLO-HEMAN leg was both correct and
meaningful, and 2) that the AIM's description of the PT as a "required
maneuver" except under specific circumstances was meaningful.

Now, I think that the fact of the matter is that the absence of the NoPT
designation is a mistake, and that that the AIM's use of the phrase
"required maneuver" is meaningless (and no, I'm not joking about that
either). But I don't think that failing to come to those conclusions
makes someone an idiot.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Only an idiot would turn right at HEMAN.

Someone might turn right at HEMAN if they thought that 1) the absence of
a "NoPT" designation on the MENLO-HEMAN leg was both correct and
meaningful, and 2) that the AIM's description of the PT as a "required
maneuver" except under specific circumstances was meaningful.


Someone that thinks that is an idiot.

I wouldn't
have cleared them direct MINES, I'd have cleared them direct HCH.

Why?

"John Clonts" wrote in message
oups.com...

Why?


Because they asked for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach. Pilots request a
"full" approach when they want to do it on their own navigation, almost
always for training purposes. You can't navigate direct to MINES using VOR,
you've got to go to HCH and fly the feeder route.

Because they asked for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach. Pilots request a
"full" approach when they want to do it on their own navigation, almost
always for training purposes. You can't navigate direct to MINES using
VOR,
you've got to go to HCH and fly the feeder route.

But the aircraft in question was /G, so he could fly direct MINES. And
MINES is an IAF, so an approach beginning there would be a "full
approach" ???

Thanks,
John

Steve,

You might have got an intersting response from the army. Chip's
original post implied they were approaching MINES from the east. HCH
is 27 miles southwet of MINES.

Tim.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:59:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"John Clonts" wrote in message
roups.com...

Why?


Because they asked for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach. Pilots request a
"full" approach when they want to do it on their own navigation, almost
always for training purposes. You can't navigate direct to MINES using VOR,
you've got to go to HCH and fly the feeder route.

"John Clonts" wrote in message
oups.com...
Because they asked for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach. Pilots request a
"full" approach when they want to do it on their own navigation, almost
always for training purposes. You can't navigate direct to MINES using
VOR,
you've got to go to HCH and fly the feeder route.

But the aircraft in question was /G, so he could fly direct MINES. And
MINES is an IAF, so an approach beginning there would be a "full
approach" ???


Yes, he could use GPS to fly direct to MINES. But if he wanted to use GPS
why did he ask for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach? Check the plate, there's
a GPS overlay, he could have used GPS exclusively to fly the approach.
Requesting the "full VOR/DME 22" approach suggests the objective of their
navigational exercise was VOR/DME approaches, not GPS approaches.

"Tim Auckland" wrote in message
...

You might have got an intersting response from the army. Chip's
original post implied they were approaching MINES from the east. HCH
is 27 miles southwet of MINES.


I know that. They also requested to hold at MINES for ten minutes. That
tells me they're not in a hurry. It was clearly a training flight and the
training was to be on VOR approach procedures. They requested the full
VOR/DME approach so I'd give them every bit of it.

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Only an idiot would turn right at HEMAN.

Someone might turn right at HEMAN if they thought that 1) the absence of
a "NoPT" designation on the MENLO-HEMAN leg was both correct and
meaningful, and 2) that the AIM's description of the PT as a "required
maneuver" except under specific circumstances was meaningful.


Someone that thinks that is an idiot.

OK, if you say so.

rg