Procedure turn required?

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
discretion of the pilot". Some of the types of turns that would not
require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop, racetrack
and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the "depicted
outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
according to both 97.3 and the AIM.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

Asked and answered.

You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
discretion of the pilot".

Unless by "turn" they are referring to the final course reversal, that
sentence IMHO basically makes this entire thread moot. That is, it answers
the question, and leaves the entire procedure up to the discretion of the
pilot.

Now, that's a fine interpretation by me. But I take it as granted that
those arguing that the entire procedure is required to be flown (absent the
explicitly stated exceptions, of course) feel that the sentence you quote is
referring only to the final course reversal, not the entire procedure turn.

Some of the types of turns that would not
require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop,
racetrack
and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the
"depicted
outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

All of your examples are ways to complete the course reversal *after flying
the outbound leg*. That is, if those are all valid methods for executing
the entire procedure turn itself, then surely so too is simply turning onto
the final approach course. So, either you are simply supporting my point,
or your examples are in no way a counter-example to what I've written.

At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
according to both 97.3 and the AIM.

If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
outbound at all?

Pete

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:54:12 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
outbound at all?


You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
"point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot. There is no
MINIMUM length of an outbound leg. There is only a maximum length. You
can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

But if you do not see that, then further discussion here is pointless.

There is certainly nothing wrong with returning to the outbound course
after Seal Beach, flying outbound for some length that you determine you
want to; and then executing a 45° turn on the charted side, so long as you
remain within the mileage limit. But it is not the only valid, legal
method of executing the procedure.


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

Matt Whiting wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:
Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Probably because neither pilots, their nav radios more the ground VOR
stations are that accurate. :-)

Matt

Especially at a VOR intersection.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course

I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
and controllers, nothing more.

Pete

Then again, an IAP is issued under a subset of 97.20 on a form 8260-3 or -5,
and on that form (which is regulatory as to courses, altitudes, and distances,
as it says at the top of the form) specifies the outbound course for the
procedure turn. Line 1 of the form. If, instead, the course reversal is a
holding pattern, then Line 2 specifies the inbound course of the holding
pattern.

Would you deem the inbound course for the holding pattern to be regulatory? I
would.

So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that it
would be regulatory.

Because the procedure turn is treated with sufficient detail under 97.2X (the
8260 form) there is no need for a definition under 97.3

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course. Just why are pilots supposed to go around in a hold or
execute a procedure turn under these circumstances? Flying good
approaches in IMC means MINIMIZING manuevering and MINIMIZING the time
spent in the clouds. Also it could disorient the pilot and make the
passengers sick. I don't believe any controller, who has turned an
airplane loose doing the full approach with no radar, would COUNT on an
aircraft doing or not doing a once around hold or procedure turn,
timing wise regarding seperation. Usually these non-radar approaches
are one in at a time, and no one gets to go in next until the previous
cancels.

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so. Even then, I would
argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
if the safety of the flight demands it.

I don't want to be cynical, but somehow I tend to think this whole
thing has been cooked up by some instructors with too much time on
their hands. Instructors seem to think that a good approach means the
MAXIMUM manuevering allowed by the approach. Fine for practice, but not
for real IMC. Straight as possible is the way to go.

I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug"
wrote:

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-7(e)?

"e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."

AIM 5-4-9(a)?

"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. The procedure turn or hold in
lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. 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."

Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a
PT, unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment,
you are required to fly it.

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course.

As I said earlier, I agree that skipping the PT is the sensible thing to do
in that case. I just question whether it's technically legal. Such a PT may
well have been prescribed in error, but an erroneous requirement is still a
requirement.

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-9a: "The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required maneuver." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Section 5-4-9
enumerates some exceptions to the requirement, but already being aligned is
not one of them.

Even then, I would
argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
if the safety of the flight demands it.

No, a pilot only has authority (under FAR 91.3b) to deviate from the
regulations when an *in-flight emergency* demands such a deviation. A
gratuitous PT is not (under ordinary circumstances) so unsafe as to
constitute an emergency. If ATC explicitly told you to hold there, you
wouldn't respond by declaring an emergency, would you?

I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

Uh, ok.

--Gary

I have to take issue with your statement:

"Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a PT,
unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment, you are
required to fly it."

But take another look at what the AIM actually says:

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal..."

As I read this, it is saying:

If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.

If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.

..It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED if
a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
circumstances...




"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug"
wrote:

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-7(e)?

"e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."

AIM 5-4-9(a)?

"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. The procedure turn or hold in
lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. 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."

Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a
PT, unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment,
you are required to fly it.

wrote in message ...
[...]
So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that
it
would be regulatory.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be reinforcing
my point.