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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
Required hold? | Nicholas Kliewer | Instrument Flight Rules | 22 | November 14th 04 01:38 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 |