Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"Brad Salai" wrote in message
news

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?


I don't think you're going to be cleared to ACY via "direct BURDK direct".
You're virtually certain to be vectored to the FAC, which would then
prohibit the course reversal. If you're on your own navigation for this
approach you're probably going to be cleared via the ACY VORTAC, which
requires a course reversal of 180 degrees.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

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


The FARs prohibit the PT under specific conditions, they say nothing about
when a PT is required.

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

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?

Of course not.

So then when is a PT mandatory, and by virtue of which regulation?

--Gary

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

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).


Where in the FARs did you find that requirement?



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


Why?

"Brad Salai" wrote in message
...

Just to be certain what you mean, coming in from the NW, straignt in,
cross BURDK, enter the hold and decend from 1900 to 1600 when established
on
the inbound leg before reaching BURDK the second time? All this assumes no
radar vectors.


What ATC clearance are you following when you're coming in to BURDK from the
northwest?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

So then when is a PT mandatory, and by virtue of which regulation?


It's never mandatory by virtue of regulation.

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

I'm still confused. Assuming the following facts, how would you fly
the ILS RWY 28R at KSFO
(http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0510/00375I28R.PDF), which has a holding
pattern depicted in lieu of PT, and no indication that radar is
required?

Assumptions:
1) Upon departure, you were cleared to SFO, as filed;
2) your filed route takes you through the MENLO IAF (I don't know if
there's an airway through MENLO, but assume you got there for the sake
of argument);


MENLO is on the BIG SUR TWO arrival.



3) you lost radio contact before your arrival at MENLO; and
4) you arrive at MENLO at 4000 feet and at your filed ETA.

Here's how I'd fly the procedure - will I be in violation of any FARs,
even given the interpretation of the AIM change that is proposed here?
1) Cross MENLO at 4000, descend to 3200 and continue to CEPIN;
2) As I approach CEPIN and as the localizer comes alive and starts
moving toward center, begin turning left to intercept localizer - note
that I will initially have almost a 50 degree intercept - and begin
descent to 1800 feet; and
3) at AXMUL, intercept glideslope and continue descent.

Why would I turn right at CEPIN or even at MENLO to spend some time in
the hold at DUMBA, except perhaps if I arrived prior to my filed ETA?


I wouldn't turn right at CEPIN even if I was ahead of my filed ETA. There's
no way to turn at MENLO, the procedure goes only to CEPIN from MENLO.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:35:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

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


The FARs prohibit the PT under specific conditions, they say nothing about
when a PT is required.


So you are saying that Jeppesen's charting conventions, in which they
interpret the applicaple FAA forms 8260 are incorrect?


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

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:41:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

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).


Where in the FARs did you find that requirement?



14 CFR Part 97
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:41:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

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).


Where in the FARs did you find that requirement?

To elaborate, it is in the Jepp interpretation of the FAA published
approach procedure. These procedures are regulatory by virtue of 14 CFR 97
and must be followed by virtue of 14 CFR 91




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


Why?


Because the requirement is noted in TERPS which is used to design the
approach.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)