Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

If the approach plates constitute an appropriate display of the contents
of
FAA forms 8260, and if they indicate that the PT is mandatory, then that
*IS* an FAR (incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97)



Can you provide an example of an approach plate with the statement "PT
MANDATORY", or something similar?


There is no provision for such wording because terminal routes that do
not have "NoPT" affixed to them on the 14 CFR 97 Form 8260-3/5 are, by
implication "PT Required" except when timed approaches are used or ATC
provides vectors in accordance with 7110.65, Para 5-9-1.

As you know the word "MANDATORY" on Part 97 procedures is used when
altitudes are not "at or above."

And, where a 8260-3/5 does not have a course reversal authorized on the
procedure, then all terminal routes, by implication, are "NoPT." In
that case, NACO charts "PT Not Authorized;" Jeppesen does not because
they feel it is obvious on such a procedure.

wrote in message
nk.net...
Gary Drescher wrote:
Even if the intention is to mark all such courses NoPT, there's always
the possibility that a NoPT gets omitted due to a charting error or a
TERPS design error. And the question arises in that case: is the PT
required or not? On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new
wording, it's still required; on the other reasonable interpretation,
it's not.

The new AIM verbage is in error. The coordination was messed up, so
someone with a less than global view of it did some incorrect editing.
Following is part of an email sent yesterday by the person in the FAA who
understands this stuff and whose office should have issued any change (no
change was necessary, actually):

"We need to get AIM paragraph 5-4-9a fixed and clarify this in the IPG!
This is how the flying public is interpreting this and as you know, this
isn't the first time this has come up. The way it is written: 'The
procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver
when it is necessary to perform a course reversal' is way to open-ended
and leaves it up to the pilot to make this decision and the controller to
guess (or be surprised) what the pilot is doing."

Thanks for posting that! It's good to know that someone at the FAA
understands the problem and intends to fix it. (I emailed the FAA yesterday
about the AIM ambiguity, but I haven't gotten any reply yet.)

--Gary

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:31:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

If the approach plates constitute an appropriate display of the contents
of
FAA forms 8260, and if they indicate that the PT is mandatory, then that
*IS* an FAR (incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97)


Can you provide an example of an approach plate with the statement "PT
MANDATORY", or something similar?


That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO
charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on
their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts).

According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if
one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is
required.


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

On 9/30/2005 14:26, Peter wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote

I must be going thick, but how do I do a procedure turn to turn
through just 30 degrees? Surely it is just a rate one turn?

What's a 'rate one turn'?

In the UK, it is the standard turn as indicated on the TC.

What I've read was that when the turn to the final approach course is
more than 30 degrees, the procedure designers want you to turn outbound
first, to give you a chance to get established on the final approach
course before the FAF.

OK, thanks, I see that for the FAF.

It also illuminates something else: if tracking towards an NDB or a
VOR, which is part of an instrument approach, at which there is a
significant track change, I've been told to do a procedure turn. The
instructor could not quantify it. In this case the turn is necessary
because one assumes there is no DME at the waypoint, so one has to
track *over* the beacon.


More importantly, I was told that it is assumed you are on course
and ready for the approach when you cross the FAF. Even if you could
anticipate the turn using DME, you still would not be 'on course
and ready for the approach when crossing the FAF' ... it would happen
some time later (after you got your airplane established on the
final approach course).

Now ... I'm not saying that such a turn couldn't be made and the
approach safely flown - only that I was told this is the reason for
having the PT in the procedure for these cases.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO
charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on
their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts).

According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if
one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is
required.


The FAA does it the other way round.

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)

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...


No, the ambiguity I'm pointing out isn't just a matter of the vagueness of
"course reversal". The new AIM phrasing is ambiguous as to whether the
enumerated conditions are meant only as an *elaboration* of what it means
for a course reversal to be unnecessary (in which case a charted PT is
required unless the enumerated conditions are met), or whether a lack of
need for a course-reversal is meant as an *addition* to the enumerated
conditions (in which case the PT might not be required even if none of
the
enumerated conditions are met).

I think its the second case. Here is the language again:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
maneuver 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.

The first sentence doesn't make any sense unless there are situations where
"it is necessary to perform a course reversal." If that's true, then the
second sentence must be exceptions to the first, that is, situations where
it would appear "necessary to perform a course reversal" but a PT is not
required.

If the intent were that a PT is required unless one of the four exceptions
applied, they would (or at least should) have said:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
maneuver 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.

which would have been clear and unambiguous. General rules of construction
suggest that you should interpret the language so that the first sentence is
not redundant or meaningless, which leads to the second interpretation, what
G. Drescher calls *addition*. Maybe the rules of construction should be in
the POH?

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 03:59:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

That phrase, to the best of my knowledge, appears on neither Jepp nor NACO
charts. However, that is not how Jepp indicates that a PT is mandatory on
their charts. (I'm not as familiar with NACO charts).

According to the Jepp charting conventions, if the PT is charted, and if
one of the previously discussed exceptions don't apply, then it is
required.


The FAA does it the other way round.


Could you expand on that statement? I'm not able to apply it to my
description of the Jepp charting conventions.


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

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:58:13 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

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 should only speak with regard to Jepp charting conventions as those are
the approach plates I use.

If a route or segment states NoPT, then no procedure turn is required OR
authorized. If you want to do a procedure turn, you must obtain ATC
permission.

If a procedure turn is charted, then it is required unless one of the
previously discussed exceptions apply (e.g. NoPT; vectors to final; timed
approaches).

If a procedure turn is NOT charted, then it is NOT authorized.



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.

I believe the determination of "course reversal required" is to be made by
the procedure designer, and not the pilot.



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

TERPS (I think it's 8260.3 and 8260.19 or something like that)


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?

Since the racetrack pattern is charted, the procedure turn must be flown as
charted (e.g. the type of turn and where to start it, in this instance, is
NOT pilot choice). Again, according to Jepp charting conventions, this PT
would have to be flown unless you were on radar vectors to the final
approach course (or if there were timed approaches going on). I'm not
familiar with that area, or how ATC works there, but I would expect that
radar coverage would be pretty good there and, unless there's some traffic
related reason off to the NW and not on the approach chart, that you would
be getting radar vectors to final if you were approaching from the NW (or
maybe even from other directions).

And there may be TERP's related reasons for that required course reversal,
also. The only charted course to the IAF is from ACY VOR with an MEA of
1900'; the MSA for that sector is 2100'. If you were to cross BURDK at
either of those altitudes, in order to execute a straight-in approach, you
would exceed the maximum TERPS allowed descent gradient of 400 ft/nm for a
straight-in approach. (1900-75)/4.5 = 405.6 ft/nm. So, the procedure
designer determined that a course reversal was required in order to publish
straight-in minimums.

I don't know what the MEA would be for a course from the NW because there's
nothing charted in that area. It would be no higher than 2100' (the MSA),
which doesn't help in this regard, though.

There used to be an approach into KLEB from the NW (I think the feeder was
from MPV). Even though the approach track appeared to be almost straight
in, a PT was charted, and required at the IAF (which was also the FAF for
the LOC). On the Jepp charts, it was apparent only because the feeder from
MPV was NOT marked NoPT. There were any number of pilots who decided to go
straight-in. But the reasons, which were not apparent to a cursory look at
the chart, had to do with exceeding allowable descent rates. This approach
was changed (I think they changed the feeder route course slightly and
lowered the MEA) and no longer has the required PT (the feeder route is now
marked NoPT).

In other instances, the lack of a NoPT notation where it seems as if it
should be there, on a particular course, may be an error, either on the
original FAA documentation, or on the NACO or Jepp chart. A call to the
chart maker usually resolves the problem fairly quickly, in those cases.

--Ron



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)


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

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:21:52 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:



If the intent were that a PT is required unless one of the four exceptions
applied, they would (or at least should) have said:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
maneuver 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.

which would have been clear and unambiguous. General rules of construction
suggest that you should interpret the language so that the first sentence is
not redundant or meaningless, which leads to the second interpretation, what
G. Drescher calls *addition*. Maybe the rules of construction should be in
the POH?

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.



That's basically how Jepp defines it for their approach charts.

"It (the procedure turn) is a required maneuver, except under the following
conditions:
1. The symbol “NoPT” is shown.
2. Radar vectoring is provided.
3. A one-minute holding pattern is published in lieu of a procedure turn.
4. A teardrop course reversal is depicted.
5. The procedure turn is not authorized. "

The one-minute holding pattern and teardrop course reversal are also
mandatory in the same sense; Jepp means that you can't do a PT turn of the
type and starting point you wish if one of those is charted.

Also, Jepp's convention for the procedure turn not being authorized is that
they don't chart it.


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