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
  #21  
Old September 30th 05, 03:37 PM
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 9/30/2005 01:33, Peter wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:

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


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'?

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.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA
Ads
  #22  
Old September 30th 05, 03:57 PM
rps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #23  
Old September 30th 05, 04:16 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


I believe you just answered your question.


  #24  
Old September 30th 05, 04:36 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


I believe you just answered your question.


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.

--Gary


  #25  
Old September 30th 05, 04:45 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

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?


Not.



On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.


If it's required the requirement will be found in the FARs, and you will
find no FAR that requires it. The AIM is not regulatory.


  #26  
Old September 30th 05, 04:54 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"rps" wrote in message
roups.com...

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.


I believe you just answered your question.


The problem is not when you're on a published route which happens to
be properly aligned with the FAC and have a low enough altitude that
descent gradient is not a problem. Those are all already taken care
of by having NoPT on the plate.

The problem comes in when you're on a random route such as direct to
the IAF/FAF. You can be between two airways converging on the IAF,
both of which are marked NoPT (and at the same altitude marked for
those routes), and yet you're not on a NoPT segment yourself. I think
most people would agree that it's reasonable to assume that not doing
a PT in this case is perfectly safe. The question which leads to
endless debate is whether it's legal or not.


  #27  
Old September 30th 05, 04:55 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

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?


Not.

On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.


If it's required the requirement will be found in the FARs, and you will
find no FAR that requires it.


You'll find no FAR that explicitly requires performing a charted PT
*regardless* of whether or not the PT meets the TERPS criteria. That doesn't
make all the PTs optional, does it?

The AIM is not regulatory.


No, but in some cases it offers the only readily available definitive FAA
interpretation of key regulations. That's what it's trying to do in this
case, but the chosen wording is unfortunately ambiguous.

--Gary


  #28  
Old September 30th 05, 05:21 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:55:25 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

You'll find no FAR that explicitly requires performing a charted PT
*regardless* of whether or not the PT meets the TERPS criteria. That doesn't
make all the PTs optional, does it?


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)




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #29  
Old September 30th 05, 05:31 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #30  
Old September 30th 05, 06:44 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"rps" wrote in message
groups.com...

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.


I believe you just answered your question.



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.

--Gary


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."



 




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 01:20 PM.


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