Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"rps" wrote in message
ups.com...

Good point - I forgot about the other craft. I'd hope that my
communication with ATC about my plan to enter the hold and descend
would alert ATC that there may be a conflict.


Yeah, they'll probably break you out and put you behind him.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

If I understand your scenario properly, I have intercepted the FAC about
15
miles South of DEPRE and then turned inbound (to the N, towards DEPRE).
I
am at 3000'. At 5 miles from DEPRE I am cleared for the approach. I
should
be below the GP at that point so I would just continue along until
intercepting the GP, and then descend into the airport.

The presence of an aircraft behind me is irrelevant.

What is your point?


Why did you not execute the procedure turn? You've not been vectored to a
final approach course or fix, you're not an a segment marked NoPT, and
you've not been cleared for a timed approach from a holding fix. Is it not
your position that if the procedure has a PT charted it must be flown unless
one of those applies?

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Yes, but I would think that the instruction to join the localizer
constitutes a radar vector, notwithstanding the fact that the controller
may or may not have actually voiced the word "vector".


The instruction to join the localizer does not constitute a radar vector.
If you're being vectored the controller will either assign a magnetic
heading to be flown or tell you to turn some number of degrees left or
right.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:46:46 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

If I understand your scenario properly, I have intercepted the FAC about
15
miles South of DEPRE and then turned inbound (to the N, towards DEPRE).
I
am at 3000'. At 5 miles from DEPRE I am cleared for the approach. I
should
be below the GP at that point so I would just continue along until
intercepting the GP, and then descend into the airport.

The presence of an aircraft behind me is irrelevant.

What is your point?


Why did you not execute the procedure turn? You've not been vectored to a
final approach course or fix, you're not an a segment marked NoPT, and
you've not been cleared for a timed approach from a holding fix. Is it not
your position that if the procedure has a PT charted it must be flown unless
one of those applies?


I would have assumed this was a "radar vectors to final" situation and
queried ATC to verify, since they didn't use the magic words that I
understand to be necessary for me to assume radar vectors. But ATC has had
me lined up with the FAC for quite some distance; I've been in radar
contact; I've been assigned an appropriate altitude to intercept the GP
from below; I've not crossed any IAF prior to DEPRE.

If that confirmation is not forthcoming, then I would inform ATC that I am
obliged to execute a procedure turn at DEPRE. I would maintain my last
assigned altitude of 3000' until crossing DEPRE.


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

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:18:46 -0600, Tim Auckland wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:12:16 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:

If I understand your scenario properly, I have intercepted the FAC about 15
miles South of DEPRE and then turned inbound (to the N, towards DEPRE). I
am at 3000'. At 5 miles from DEPRE I am cleared for the approach. I should
be below the GP at that point so I would just continue along until
intercepting the GP, and then descend into the airport.

The presence of an aircraft behind me is irrelevant.

What is your point?

Ron,

You've lsot me a bit here. I thought your earlier posts and
references to 97.20 were arguing that a procedure turn is mandatory by
regulation in all cases when it's charted and the standard exceptions
(NoPT, vectors to final, etc.) don't apply.

The standard exceptions don't apply in this scenario proposed by
Steven.

If I misunderstood your earlier posts about 97.20, then perhaps we've
had a similar point of view all along.

I'm intrigued.

Tim.

As I just wrote to Steve, I would have assumed that ATC was setting this up
as a "radar vectors to final situation" and queried them to ensure there
was no misunderstanding since they did not use the standard verbiage. But
the way I was set up was identical to that used for radar vectors to final.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

I would have assumed this was a "radar vectors to final" situation and
queried ATC to verify, since they didn't use the magic words that I
understand to be necessary for me to assume radar vectors.


Why would you have assumed it was a "radar vectors to final" situation if
they didn't use the magic words that you understand to be necessary to
assume radar vectors? You're not being vectored in this situation, that
should be clear.



But ATC has had
me lined up with the FAC for quite some distance; I've been in radar
contact; I've been assigned an appropriate altitude to intercept the GP
from below; I've not crossed any IAF prior to DEPRE.


The approach controller did nothing to line you up with the FAC. He simply
told you to intercept the FAC as your previous clearance of direct GRB
VORTAC crossed it some fifteen miles from the LOM at a shallow angle.



If that confirmation is not forthcoming, then I would inform ATC that I am
obliged to execute a procedure turn at DEPRE. I would maintain my last
assigned altitude of 3000' until crossing DEPRE.


And when they informed you that you weren't being vectored you'd proceed to
fly the PT turn, which upon completion you'd be in the exact same position.

Of course, that wouldn't happen. Upon informing ATC you felt obligated to
fly the PT they'd vector you out of the way of the following traffic. Then
they'd either vector you back to the FAC, which would prohibit flying the
PT, or send you direct to the IAF so you could happily fly your PT without
endangering anyone else.

... On initial contact you're told "descend and maintain 3,000 join the runway
36 localizer"...


As I understand things, the PT is what you do when a course reversal is
required. So, is a course reversal required here? I think not.
Therefore I would not do a PT - I'd just fly the localizer when cleared
for the approach.

When doing a PT, the manner of turn is up to the pilot (90-270,
45-180-45, racetrack, immelman). So what is special about a PT? It's
just a U-turn (within the protected area), and not even a special kind
of U-turn.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

As I understand things, the PT is what you do when a course reversal is
required. So, is a course reversal required here? I think not. Therefore
I would not do a PT - I'd just fly the localizer when cleared for the
approach.


Then you'd be in agreement with the thousands that have actually flown this
example. I've never heard of anyone that decided to fly the PT, and never
heard of anyone violated for not flying the PT.

In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote:

Now, if they created a fix somewhere out on V21, and wrote a feeder
route from that fix, then you could. Effectively, you've be flying
V21 to the fix, then initiating the SIAP from there. However, they
didn't, so you can't ;-)

OK, I'll buy that.

I wonder if Steven P. McNicoll buys it too.

And I wonder what Socal Approach would have to say about it. (I think
I'll go find out. What a great excuse to fly to Catalina!)

rg

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:40:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

I would have assumed this was a "radar vectors to final" situation and
queried ATC to verify, since they didn't use the magic words that I
understand to be necessary for me to assume radar vectors.


Why would you have assumed it was a "radar vectors to final" situation if
they didn't use the magic words that you understand to be necessary to
assume radar vectors? You're not being vectored in this situation, that
should be clear.



But ATC has had
me lined up with the FAC for quite some distance; I've been in radar
contact; I've been assigned an appropriate altitude to intercept the GP
from below; I've not crossed any IAF prior to DEPRE.


The approach controller did nothing to line you up with the FAC. He simply
told you to intercept the FAC as your previous clearance of direct GRB
VORTAC crossed it some fifteen miles from the LOM at a shallow angle.



If that confirmation is not forthcoming, then I would inform ATC that I am
obliged to execute a procedure turn at DEPRE. I would maintain my last
assigned altitude of 3000' until crossing DEPRE.


And when they informed you that you weren't being vectored you'd proceed to
fly the PT turn, which upon completion you'd be in the exact same position.

Of course, that wouldn't happen. Upon informing ATC you felt obligated to
fly the PT they'd vector you out of the way of the following traffic. Then
they'd either vector you back to the FAC, which would prohibit flying the
PT, or send you direct to the IAF so you could happily fly your PT without
endangering anyone else.

Well, there are FAA facilities that do not follow the same rules as they
are published and interpreted by Washington. SoCal is another. There has
been a push to standardize these kinds of things.

There was an old (1977) legal opinion indicating that pilots could get
authorization from ATC to eliminate PT's when they were sort of lined up
with the FAC and at an appropriate altitude. This supposedly was
eliminated by the 1994 opinion; however, that 1994 opinion (which I quoted
before) referred specifically to non-radar environments and was mute on
radar environments.

There is no question in my mind that it would be safe to fly straight in
from the position you set up. Perhaps the simplest way of getting that ATC
facilities practice in line with the regulations would be to designate
SENNA as an IAF. The route from OSH, which includes the route from SENNA
to DEPRE, is a NoPT route, and ATC has placed me on that route crossing
SENNA.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)