Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

While posting changes in my Jepp book last night, I came across the
following change to the AIM.

Kris

Old text

5-4-9. Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
turn is not authorized.

New text

5-4-9. Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal
to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach
course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
maneuver

(the following text is underlined in the AIM)
when it is necessary to perform a course reversal.

The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when
RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a
timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized.

Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

rps wrote:
Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

That's not what they are saying at all. You could be inbound yet not
have arrived via a vector to final, a timed approach, or a NoPT route.

Usually, that would mean that you're too high to go straight-in, at
least by the standards used in TERPS for descent gradients.

I'm a brand new instrument pilot, but I read this kind of thing for a
living, so my opinion may not be realistic, just legalistic, but here goes:

A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course

means that if you need to perform a course reversal, you need to do a PT.
Otherwise, you don't. The following language:

The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown,
when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when
conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not
authorized.

lists some exceptions, but doesn't change the first requirement which means
that even if you need to do a course reversal, you don't have to do a PT if
one of these exceptions applies.It doesn't mean that you need to do a PT
unless one of the exceptions applies, the original definition still applies,
no course reversal, no PT. I didn't look up the definition of course
reversal.

This makes sense to me at least in the following case, if you are inbound
from the opposite direction, and receiving radar vectors, you would normally
need to do a course reversal, so a PT would be required, but ATC will vector
you around to the final approach course usually sort of rectangularly. Since
this is a listed exception, you don't need to do a PT. If you weren't
getting vectors, or one of the other exceptions didn't apply, then a PT
would be required.

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

Brad




wrote in message
nk.net...
rps wrote:
Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

That's not what they are saying at all. You could be inbound yet not
have arrived via a vector to final, a timed approach, or a NoPT route.

Usually, that would mean that you're too high to go straight-in, at
least by the standards used in TERPS for descent gradients.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:08:45 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

I think what you are missing is that the determination as to whether or not
a course reversal is required has to do with the verbiage on the FAA forms
that define the SIAP (standard instrument approach procedure) and not on
what you as the pilot might determine at the time you are executing the
approach.

The FAA forms (8260 series) are (mostly) based on TERPs and those
approaches are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97.20(b), making the
procedures regulatory (refer back to 14 CFR 91.175(a)).


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

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.

Are you saying that if the form (approach plate?) says no PT, then no PT is
required, which I understand and agree with, or are you saying that if the
form is silent, then a PT is required in all cases, which I'm less sure of?

I looked at random at a bunch of NOCA forms, and there are lots of instances
of approaches from IAF's that clearly say no PT. These seem all to be
situations where I would say (based on pilot judgment) that a course
reversal is not required. There are also lots of examples, most, or all on
courses outbound on the final approach heading, that show a PT barb, which I
take as indicating that a PT is mandatory. on the new GPS approaches where
the heading into the fix is 90 degrees, there are indications that no PT is
required, other than that, I couldn't find any indication in ambiguous
situations (90 degrees or more), of whether a PT is required or not. It
looks to me as if, other than the pretty clear case where you are outbound
on the final approach heading, that they never indicate when a PT is
required, only when it is not. That means, I think, that you are going to
have to determine whether "a course reversal is required," to know whether
you need to make a PT.

Is there a definition somewhere of what a course reversal is, or even
better, when a course reversal is required?

If you happen to have it, or can get it, look at the VOR RWY 13 approach to
ACY (Atlantic City). A holding pattern is depicted at the IAF, but there is
no guidance as to when it should be used. Doesn't that mean that the pilot
needs to determine based on his heading into the IAF whether a course
reversal is required, and if it is, then he has to do a PT, either a
conventional PT, or a course reversal by way of the depicted hold? Or are
you saying that you need to enter the hold from all directions, go around at
least once, and then continue in, in which case, isn't the "when a course
reversal is required" language redundant?

Brad
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:08:45 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no
PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

I think what you are missing is that the determination as to whether or
not
a course reversal is required has to do with the verbiage on the FAA forms
that define the SIAP (standard instrument approach procedure) and not on
what you as the pilot might determine at the time you are executing the
approach.

The FAA forms (8260 series) are (mostly) based on TERPs and those
approaches are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97.20(b), making the
procedures regulatory (refer back to 14 CFR 91.175(a)).


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

This was discussed on the AOPA's board. The FAA did not intend to
change the meaning--it was supposed to be a clarification. The
procedure turn remains required even if your course happenes to be
aligned with the inbound course unless the symbol "No PT" is shown,
when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when
conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not
authorized.

I'd ask the controller for permission to proceed inbound sans procedure
turn if that's what I wanted to do.

I'd ask the controller for permission to proceed inbound sans procedure
turn if that's what I wanted to do.

The controller's permission doesn't absolve you of the requirement to follow the
FARs. You could ask for a vector.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1128008552.97305@sj-nntpcache-3...

The controller's permission doesn't absolve you of the requirement to
follow the FARs.


What FAR states when a procedure turn is required?



You could ask for a vector.


A vector to where? The FAC? Aren't you already on it?