Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

Then you'd be in agreement with the thousands that have actually flown this
example.

Ok, now let's change the example a bit.

This time, on initial contact you're told "maintain 5,000 join the
runway 36 localizer" Then, five miles from DEPRE the approach
controller says "AWI123 cleared ILS runway three six contact tower one
one eight point seven."

You acknowledge, then lose coms. Dive? PT? Racetrack?

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

My closing thoughts:

If I do ever find myself in the scenario described, I think I'd let
ATC know what I'm planning to do and fly straight on in.

In the apparently highly unikely case that I did get challenged by a
FAA inspector, I'd base my defense on 97.3(p), arguing that a
procedure turn is by definition only relevant "when it is necessary to
reverse direction to establish the aircarft on an intermediate or
final approach course."

It seems to me that the 1994 opinion doesn't gel with 97.3(p). I
think it promotes unnecessary maneuvering in IMC, and I think it would
be a good thing if it were revisited.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't fully understand all the legal
ramifications of the 1994 opinion, but wouldn't it be great if common
sense were allowed to prevail every now and then.

(Just my $0.02 worth.)

Tim.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:40:07 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:

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)

I agree, though telling ATC may not even be required but may keep you
safe. Moreover, I think the FAA meant as much based on their
explanation of changes that added the additional language to the AIM
that confused us:

"This [change to the AIM] is for those folks that think a procedure
turn is required unless it meets one of the exceptions which does not
include 'if the aircraft is aligned within 90 degrees of the inbound
course.'"

See http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Exofchg/exchg3.html, and scroll down
to entry w.

So, the FAA added this language to satisfy people who thought a
procedure turn is required even when no course reversal is required
(e.g., when intercepting the FAC at 89 degrees) at the correct altitude.

On 7 Oct 2005 11:22:03 -0700, "rps" wrote:

I agree, though telling ATC may not even be required but may keep you
safe. Moreover, I think the FAA meant as much based on their
explanation of changes that added the additional language to the AIM
that confused us:

"This [change to the AIM] is for those folks that think a procedure
turn is required unless it meets one of the exceptions which does not
include 'if the aircraft is aligned within 90 degrees of the inbound
course.'"

See http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Exofchg/exchg3.html, and scroll down
to entry w.

So, the FAA added this language to satisfy people who thought a
procedure turn is required even when no course reversal is required
(e.g., when intercepting the FAC at 89 degrees) at the correct altitude.


Thank you for posting that link.

That explanation of intent seems to be a lot more clear than previous
discussions of the change on this and other groups would lead one to
believe. It makes sense and it lends some authority to not executing a PT
in the type of instance Steve posed (even though the AIM is not
regulatory).
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Victor 21 is not a feeder route for the approach. If it was, it would
be charted as such. So you may be able to argue your point with the
procedure designers...


Feeder routes are depicted on SIAPs to designate routes for aircraft to
proceed from the en route structure to the IAF. Charting V21 as a feeder
route would be superfluous as the airway already performs that function.

Note that they did superfluously chart a feeder route from WILMA, that route
is also known as V8. Go figure.



What is the MEA on the victor airway (I don't have it here...) Something
like 4000'? They aren't going to change the MEA of the airway just to
satisfy an approach (or at least they didn't in this case). So, you'll
be approaching the VOR at 4000' ... much to high to begin the approach.


The MEA on V21 southwest of SLI is 4000. One has to wonder why it's that
high near the VOR. It's certainly not required by terrain or obstruction
and the A/FD shows no navaid restrictions that would affect it. V21 crosses
V25 about nine miles southwest of SLI, it seems there could easily be a
named intersection at that point with an MEA change. A MOCA would seem to
be appropriate as well.



Note that WILMA requires a PT because it is not aligned within 30
degrees of the FAC...


There are many examples of routes marked NoPT that are offset by more than
thirty degrees.

On 7 Oct 2005 11:22:03 -0700, "rps" wrote:


See http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Exofchg/exchg3.html, and scroll down
to entry w.


Thanks also from me. I hadn't found that resource.

Tim.

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

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Victor 21 is not a feeder route for the approach. If it was, it would
be charted as such. So you may be able to argue your point with the
procedure designers...


Feeder routes are depicted on SIAPs to designate routes for aircraft to
proceed from the en route structure to the IAF. Charting V21 as a feeder
route would be superfluous as the airway already performs that function.

Note that they did superfluously chart a feeder route from WILMA, that route
is also known as V8. Go figure.



What is the MEA on the victor airway (I don't have it here...) Something
like 4000'? They aren't going to change the MEA of the airway just to
satisfy an approach (or at least they didn't in this case). So, you'll
be approaching the VOR at 4000' ... much to high to begin the approach.


The MEA on V21 southwest of SLI is 4000. One has to wonder why it's that
high near the VOR. It's certainly not required by terrain or obstruction
and the A/FD shows no navaid restrictions that would affect it. V21 crosses
V25 about nine miles southwest of SLI, it seems there could easily be a
named intersection at that point with an MEA change. A MOCA would seem to
be appropriate as well.



Note that WILMA requires a PT because it is not aligned within 30
degrees of the FAC...


There are many examples of routes marked NoPT that are offset by more than
thirty degrees.

So what would you do in the situation I described? You're at 4000 feet
on V21 going to FUL. You have not been cleared for the approach or told
to descend when you lose comm. If you go straight in you'll get to FUL
right at your filed ETA.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
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.


I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd make
the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a feeder
route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

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.


Are you saying a rule was violated in this scenario? If so, what rule was
violated?



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.


The 1994 opinion you posted does not differentiate between nonradar and
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.


That ATC facility's practice is already in line with the regulations.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Ok, now let's change the example a bit.

This time, on initial contact you're told "maintain 5,000 join the runway
36 localizer" Then, five miles from DEPRE the approach controller says
"AWI123 cleared ILS runway three six contact tower one one eight point
seven."

You acknowledge, then lose coms. Dive? PT? Racetrack?


I don't get in that position. When I'm about nine miles from DEPRE, as I'm
about to intercept the GS at 5,000', I ask the controller if I'm cleared for
the approach. He responds, "AWI123 cleared ILS runway 36 approach", and I
start down on the GS. When my comm radios mysteriously fail four miles down
the road while all my other avionics continue operating flawlessly I just
continue on a normal ILS approach and land.