Procedure Turn

"Barry" wrote in message
...

Here's a real-world scenario that I've encountered:

VOR 22 approach to GED (Georgetown, DE):

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/publis...s/00935V22.PDF

Coming from the northeast, on the 057 radial inbound to ATR (Victor 308),
Dover Approach says "cross Waterloo at 3000, cleared for the VOR 22
approach".
Since my course is now 237, I'm only three degrees off the final approach
course of 234. There's no "No PT" sector shown, and the charted hold in
lieu
of a PT would put me on the 033 radial, with a 23 degree turn at the FAF.
Obviously it makes no sense to do a turn in the hold, and Dover didn't
expect
me to, but some people would claim it's required. Is Dover doing anything
contrary to 7110.65?


Nope.

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

"Barry" wrote in message
...

Here's a real-world scenario that I've encountered:

VOR 22 approach to GED (Georgetown, DE):

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/publis...s/00935V22.PDF

Coming from the northeast, on the 057 radial inbound to ATR (Victor
308),
Dover Approach says "cross Waterloo at 3000, cleared for the VOR 22
approach".
Since my course is now 237, I'm only three degrees off the final
approach
course of 234. There's no "No PT" sector shown, and the charted hold in
lieu
of a PT would put me on the 033 radial, with a 23 degree turn at the
FAF.
Obviously it makes no sense to do a turn in the hold, and Dover didn't
expect
me to, but some people would claim it's required. Is Dover doing
anything
contrary to 7110.65?


Nope.



So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
Why not?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
Why not?


I said nothing at all like that. The question was; "Is Dover doing anything
contrary to 7110.65?" They aren't. The pilot was cleared via an airway and
the IAF was a VOR on that airway. That's a perfectly good clearance.

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

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
Why not?


I said nothing at all like that. The question was; "Is Dover doing
anything
contrary to 7110.65?" They aren't. The pilot was cleared via an airway
and
the IAF was a VOR on that airway. That's a perfectly good clearance.



Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required
here?"

Thanks,
John

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required
here?"


I don't think so. A procedure turn is "the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to reverse direction to establish an aircraft on the intermediate
approach segment or final approach course." Obviously it isn't necessary to
reverse direction in this case. Part 91 states when a procedure turn may
not be flown, it has not a word on when a procedure turn must be flown.

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

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required
here?"


I don't think so. A procedure turn is "the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to reverse direction to establish an aircraft on the
intermediate
approach segment or final approach course." Obviously it isn't necessary
to
reverse direction in this case. Part 91 states when a procedure turn may
not be flown, it has not a word on when a procedure turn must be flown.



I see what you mean, and that makes sense to me. But the sentence following
that one in AIM 5-4-8a. is "The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure
turn is a required maneuver." What do you suppose is meant by that? Or do
you invoke "the AIM is not regulatory" to dispatch it?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

I see what you mean, and that makes sense to me. But the
sentence following that one in AIM 5-4-8a. is "The procedure
turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver."
What do you suppose is meant by that? Or do you invoke
"the AIM is not regulatory" to dispatch it?


The AIM states in the preface, "This publication, while not regulatory,
provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and
procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or
regulations." Who am I to argue with the AIM?

John Clonts wrote:



So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
Why not?


The reason you (the collective you ;-) are picking this one to death is because
FAA air traffic management in DC can't manage. A proposal was taken to the Air
Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) 3 years ago to establish TERPs
"fences" for direct-to clearances that could bypass the IAF. In the case of
RNAV approaches the direct-to could not be to the FAF, but it could be to the
IF, with a limit of a 90-degree course change and provided the MVA (and altitude
assignment) were compatible with the procedure. In the case were a VOR or NDB
is both the IAF and FAF, the clearance could be directly to the facility
provided the course change was limited to 10-30 degrees (depending on length of
final and type aircraft).

Thus far, no action has been taken even though the proposal passed unanimously
at ATPAC.