"B" wrote in message
...
Stan Prevost wrote:

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

"B" wrote in message
...

The pilot is responsible for the AIM.

The pilot is responsible for the FARs:

"(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a
final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an
approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a
procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC."

The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case
under discussion.


This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented
by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."


Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence
between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be
applicable.



I misspoke. Replace "vectors to IF" with "direct to IF".



The feds who cobbled this together state in internal documents that it is
the equivalent of vectors to the intermediate segment. Too bad they can't
convey that to pilots.

Yes, it is. It also opens up another can of worms. The FAR refers to
"vectors to final approach course", but the intermediate segment is not
always aligned with the final segment. So vectors to an intermediate
segment (or a supposedly equivalent action) not aligned with the final
approach course do not strictly meet the NoPT criteria of the above-quoted
FAR extract. But we have been around on that one before.