Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

According to both Jepp, and the FAA (regulatory division counsel), a PT is
mandatory if the pilot is cleared for a SIAP that includes one, and one of
the 91.175 exceptions does not apply.


But not according to the FARs.

Another example from the same plate:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0510/00375I28R.PDF

You've not been given "vectors to final".
You're established on the approach from the IAF FAITH.
You're at 4100 feet.
You fly over DUMBA.
The leg from FAITH to DUMBA is NOT marked NoPT.

I'm in the camp which thinks (hopes?) that a turn in the hold at DUMBA
is not logical nor required.

Three questions:

a) does anyone think a turn in the hold at DUMBA is required? If so,
why?

b) should the leg from FAITH to DUMBA be marked "NoPT"?

Tim.

PS. I think Chip Jones posted a very similar example a while back when
he got a surprise when the pilot did do a turn. I'll see if I can
find the reference.


On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:16:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Turning left at CEPIN certainly makes intuitive sense, but if that's the
right thing to do then why is MENLO-CEPIN not marked NoPT?
There are three (and only three) possibilities:

1. You are required to turn right at CEPIN and hold at DUMBA.
2. The absence of a NoPT designation is meaningless.
3. MENLO-CEPIN should be marked NoPT; the fact that it isn't is a
mistake.

Given that the ILS 28L approach has an almost identical segment
(MENLO-HEMAN) that IS marked NoPT my money is on #3.


I don't see why MENLO..HEMAN should be marked NoPT. If you're beginning the
ILS RWY 28R at MENLO you're not going to cross the holding fix DUMBA.

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

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Turning left at CEPIN certainly makes intuitive sense, but if that's the
right thing to do then why is MENLO-CEPIN not marked NoPT?
There are three (and only three) possibilities:

1. You are required to turn right at CEPIN and hold at DUMBA.
2. The absence of a NoPT designation is meaningless.
3. MENLO-CEPIN should be marked NoPT; the fact that it isn't is a
mistake.

Given that the ILS 28L approach has an almost identical segment
(MENLO-HEMAN) that IS marked NoPT my money is on #3.


I don't see why MENLO..HEMAN should be marked NoPT.

It's marked NoPT to make it clear that you should turn left at HEMAN
instead of right. (Isn't that obvious?)

If you're beginning the
ILS RWY 28R at MENLO you're not going to cross the holding fix DUMBA.

You will if you turn right at HEMAN.

rg

Another example from the same plate:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0510/00375I28R.PDF

You've not been given "vectors to final".
You're established on the approach from the IAF FAITH.
You're at 4100 feet.
You fly over DUMBA.
The leg from FAITH to DUMBA is NOT marked NoPT.

I'm in the camp which thinks (hopes?) that a turn in the hold at DUMBA
is not logical nor required.

Three questions:

a) does anyone think a turn in the hold at DUMBA is required? If so,
why?

b) should the leg from FAITH to DUMBA be marked "NoPT"?

Tim.

PS. I think Chip Jones posted a very similar example a while back when
he got a surprise when the pilot did do a turn. I'll see if I can
find the reference.

=========================================
FYI:

The Chip Jones reference is:
"VOR/DME Approach Question"
posted on 8/22/2004 6:15pm.

The approach referred to is RKW: VOR/DME or GPS RWY 22

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0510/05408VDG22.PDF

with a /G airplane

approaching MINES on about a 270 heading.

Is a turn round the holding pattern mandatory for this plane?
My impression is most responders thought it was.

Google groups reference is:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.ifr/browse_thread/thread/64ed91b8309cb921/c285893e7e0a84c2?q=chip+jones+group:rec.aviation.i fr&hl=en&


On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:16:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Turning left at CEPIN certainly makes intuitive sense, but if that's the
right thing to do then why is MENLO-CEPIN not marked NoPT?
There are three (and only three) possibilities:

1. You are required to turn right at CEPIN and hold at DUMBA.
2. The absence of a NoPT designation is meaningless.
3. MENLO-CEPIN should be marked NoPT; the fact that it isn't is a
mistake.

Given that the ILS 28L approach has an almost identical segment
(MENLO-HEMAN) that IS marked NoPT my money is on #3.


I don't see why MENLO..HEMAN should be marked NoPT. If you're beginning the
ILS RWY 28R at MENLO you're not going to cross the holding fix DUMBA.

So this just occurred to me in the debate on procedure turns.

The AIM famously says "The procedure turn is a required maneuver..."
But the AIM is not regulatory. Is there anything in the FARs that
requires a PT? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in Part 91.
Someone in another thread said that there was something in Part 97, but
I can't find it.

If nothing in the FARs requires a PT then a reasonable interpretation of
the AIM is: "WHEN it is necessary to reverse course (which is determined
at the pilot's discretion I suppose) you must do so by executing a PT
(or a hold in lieu of)..." as opposed to, say, doing an Immelman or half
a lazy eight.

rg

I finally got around to opening my 2004 FAR/AIM (the only one I have
here in the office), and found:

97.3 "Symbols and terms used in procedures."
97.3 (p) "Procedure term means the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an
intermediate or final approach course. ..."

To me, this means that any discussion of procedure turns is irrlevant
unless "it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft
on an intermediate or final approach course.".

So, we have to define two more items:

a) "to reverse direction".
I would argue strongly that any turn less than 90 degrees is NOT
reversing direction. I can't think of any field (except perhaps
politics :-) where say a 30 degree change of direction is considered
reversing direction.

b) "to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach
course."
This is where I consider pilot's discretion comes in. However, if
you're already aligned with the required course (or close to it), then
there's no way I consider it necessary to reverse direction to
establish myself on the course.

As 97.3 (p) is regulatory, I think there's a strong case for saying
procedure turns are not mandatory.

--------

The second part of 97.3 (p) addresses your issue about how you do the
turn:

"The outbound course, direction, distance within which the turn must
be completed, and minimum altititude are specified in the procedure.
However, the point at which the turn may be commenced, and the type
and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the pilot".

So, yes, you can do an Immelman if you can keep it within the
parameters mentioned above.

Tim.



On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:33:31 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

So this just occurred to me in the debate on procedure turns.

The AIM famously says "The procedure turn is a required maneuver..."
But the AIM is not regulatory. Is there anything in the FARs that
requires a PT? I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in Part 91.
Someone in another thread said that there was something in Part 97, but
I can't find it.

If nothing in the FARs requires a PT then a reasonable interpretation of
the AIM is: "WHEN it is necessary to reverse course (which is determined
at the pilot's discretion I suppose) you must do so by executing a PT
(or a hold in lieu of)..." as opposed to, say, doing an Immelman or half
a lazy eight.

rg

In article ,
Tim Auckland wrote:

So, yes, you can do an Immelman if you can keep it within the
parameters mentioned above.

Cool! I've always wanted to try one of those in IMC! ;-)

rg

"Tim Auckland" wrote in message
...

Another example from the same plate:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0510/00375I28R.PDF

You've not been given "vectors to final".
You're established on the approach from the IAF FAITH.
You're at 4100 feet.
You fly over DUMBA.
The leg from FAITH to DUMBA is NOT marked NoPT.

I'm in the camp which thinks (hopes?) that a turn in the hold at DUMBA
is not logical nor required.

Three questions:

a) does anyone think a turn in the hold at DUMBA is required? If so,
why?

b) should the leg from FAITH to DUMBA be marked "NoPT"?


Yes. Interesting that the segments from MENLO and FAITH are marked NoPT on
the ILS RWY 28L but neither is so marked on the ILS RWY 28R.

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


I don't see why MENLO..HEMAN should be marked NoPT.


It's marked NoPT to make it clear that you should turn left at HEMAN
instead of right. (Isn't that obvious?)


If you're beginning the
ILS RWY 28R at MENLO you're not going to cross the holding fix DUMBA.


You will if you turn right at HEMAN.


I can't tell if you're joking or not. Only an idiot would turn right at
HEMAN.

"Tim Auckland" wrote in message
...

=========================================
FYI:

The Chip Jones reference is:
"VOR/DME Approach Question"
posted on 8/22/2004 6:15pm.

The approach referred to is RKW: VOR/DME or GPS RWY 22

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0510/05408VDG22.PDF

with a /G airplane

approaching MINES on about a 270 heading.

Is a turn round the holding pattern mandatory for this plane?
My impression is most responders thought it was.

Google groups reference is:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.ifr/browse_thread/thread/64ed91b8309cb921/c285893e7e0a84c2?q=chip+jones+group:rec.aviation.i fr&hl=en&


The request was, "Center, Army 569 would like to shoot the full VOR/DME 22
into Rockwood, followed by a missed approach and a ten minute hold at MINES
and then on to Campbell." They requested the FULL approach. I wouldn't
have cleared them direct MINES, I'd have cleared them direct HCH.