A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 29th 05, 09:03 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 29 Sep 2005 09:20:51 -0700, "Doug" wrote:

I see a change here. The procedure turn is NOW required IF a course
reversal is necessary. If you are straight in, or nearly so, but NOT on
radar vectors there is no longer any regulatory requirement to do a
procedure turn.


What regulation was changed?

It seems to me that only the AIM was changed; I'm not aware of any
regulatory changes.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Ads
  #12  
Old September 29th 05, 09:35 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"150flivver" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.


What makes the procedure turn required?



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


What difference would that make? It's either required or it isn't, the
controller can't override the FARs.


  #13  
Old September 29th 05, 09:39 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

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?


  #14  
Old September 29th 05, 10:01 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

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



What FAR states when a procedure turn is required?


Point taken, Mr. Socrates.




You could ask for a vector.



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


A vector to the FAC. The poster to whom I responded didn't say whether he was
aligned on the FAC. He just suggested that one could ask the controller's
permission to skip the PT. I suggested that one could instead ask for a VTF, so
that the condition for skipping the PT would be met.
  #15  
Old September 29th 05, 11:09 PM
S Narayan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Kris Kortokrax" wrote in message
...
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.


The new text strikes me as entirely ambiguous. It could mean:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless one of the following
conditions obtains, in which case a course reversal is unnecessary: 1) the
symbol 'NoPT' is shown; 2) radar vectoring to the final approach course is
provided; 3) you are conducting a timed approach; or 4) the procedure turn
is not authorized."

Or it could mean:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless: 1) the symbol 'NoPT'
is shown; 2) radar vectoring to the final approach course is provided; 3)
you are conducting a timed approach; or 4) the procedure turn is not
authorized; or 5) there is (for any reason) no necessity to perform a
course reversal."

The two interpretations differ if conditions 1-4 don't obtain, but the
pilot (and/or controller) thinks there's no need for a course reversal.
The first interpretation says the procedure turn is still required in that
case; the second one says the opposite.


As a previous poster noted, they need to define how many degrees of turn
constitutes a "course reversal". Then it would clear and unambiguous.
Otherwise it is still is open to interpretation depending on the
aircraft/speed etc.


  #16  
Old September 29th 05, 11:50 PM
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 9/29/2005 15:09, S Narayan wrote:

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Kris Kortokrax" wrote in message
...
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.


The new text strikes me as entirely ambiguous. It could mean:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless one of the following
conditions obtains, in which case a course reversal is unnecessary: 1) the
symbol 'NoPT' is shown; 2) radar vectoring to the final approach course is
provided; 3) you are conducting a timed approach; or 4) the procedure turn
is not authorized."

Or it could mean:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless: 1) the symbol 'NoPT'
is shown; 2) radar vectoring to the final approach course is provided; 3)
you are conducting a timed approach; or 4) the procedure turn is not
authorized; or 5) there is (for any reason) no necessity to perform a
course reversal."

The two interpretations differ if conditions 1-4 don't obtain, but the
pilot (and/or controller) thinks there's no need for a course reversal.
The first interpretation says the procedure turn is still required in that
case; the second one says the opposite.


As a previous poster noted, they need to define how many degrees of turn
constitutes a "course reversal".


This is defined; in the TERPS. More than 30 degrees or more than 300'
and a procedure turn is needed (IIRC).

However, this just gives the procedure designer what they need to design
the procedures. The pilot needs to use the published procedure.


Then it would clear and unambiguous.
Otherwise it is still is open to interpretation depending on the
aircraft/speed etc.




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA
  #17  
Old September 30th 05, 12:41 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

A vector to the FAC. The poster to whom I responded didn't say whether he
was aligned on the FAC. He just suggested that one could ask the
controller's permission to skip the PT. I suggested that one could instead
ask for a VTF, so that the condition for skipping the PT would be met.


The previous poster wrote, "the procedure turn remains required even if your
course happenes to be aligned with the inbound course..." That sounds to me
like he's already on the FAC. If he wasn't already on it, and if a vector
to it was an option, it'd probably be issued without his asking for it.


  #18  
Old September 30th 05, 09:08 AM
Brad Salai
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #19  
Old September 30th 05, 12:51 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"S Narayan" wrote in message
news:[email protected] eranews...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Kris Kortokrax" wrote in message
...
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.


The new text strikes me as entirely ambiguous. It could mean:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless one of the following
conditions obtains, in which case a course reversal is unnecessary: 1)
the symbol 'NoPT' is shown; 2) radar vectoring to the final approach
course is provided; 3) you are conducting a timed approach; or 4) the
procedure turn is not authorized."

Or it could mean:

"The procedure turn is a required maneuver, unless: 1) the symbol 'NoPT'
is shown; 2) radar vectoring to the final approach course is provided; 3)
you are conducting a timed approach; or 4) the procedure turn is not
authorized; or 5) there is (for any reason) no necessity to perform a
course reversal."

The two interpretations differ if conditions 1-4 don't obtain, but the
pilot (and/or controller) thinks there's no need for a course reversal.
The first interpretation says the procedure turn is still required in
that case; the second one says the opposite.


As a previous poster noted, they need to define how many degrees of turn
constitutes a "course reversal". Then it would clear and unambiguous.
Otherwise it is still is open to interpretation depending on the
aircraft/speed etc.


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).

A secondary point (mentioned earlier in the thread) is that the TERPS
standards can require a PT on the basis of altitude, even if you're already
aligned with the final approach course. Moreover, it would make little sense
for the AIM to recapitulate the TERPS criteria for PTs in order to specify
the required action by pilots. Instead, the procedure chart itself should be
designed according to the TERPS criteria, and should specify a PT
requirement (by omitting the 'NoPT' designation) whenever those criteria are
met. The first interpretation above would be consistent with that intent.

--Gary


  #20  
Old September 30th 05, 01:25 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
Required hold? Nicholas Kliewer Instrument Flight Rules 22 November 14th 04 02:38 AM
more radial fans like fw190? jt Military Aviation 51 August 28th 04 04:22 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
IFR in the 1930's Rich S. Home Built 43 September 21st 03 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.