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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Procedure turn required? | Yossarian | Piloting | 85 | July 6th 05 08:12 PM |
Sports class tasking | [email protected] | Soaring | 12 | April 25th 05 01:32 PM |
Agent86's List of Misconceptions of FAA Procedures Zero for 15 Putz!!! | copertopkiller | Military Aviation | 11 | April 20th 04 02:17 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |