CFII question for Approach Gurus

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:

Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these
microscopic nits?

How is pointing us to the specific document where we can read the
controller's view picking nits?

Because whether or not the AIM "imposes requirements" or merely
describes requirements imposed by some other document or whatever is
irrelevant to the point I was making, namely, that the section in
question is talking about ATC actions and not pilot actions. (To which
Steven would probably say something along the lines of "The AIM, being
an inanimate object, cannot "talk" about anything.")

rg

In article , B wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article , B wrote:


Ron Garret wrote:

In article , B wrote:



You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006


5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.

In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.

rg

I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.


Yes.


What part of number 4 do you not understand?

"Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate
segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude
that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to the final
approach fix."


What part of number 4 do you think is at odds with what I said?

rg
The hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is an initital approach segment.

So what? ZARTO is both an IF and and IAF. How is the pilot supposed to
know that the controller intended for him to treat it as an IF under the
auspices of 5-4-7-i (it is an "i" by the way, not a "1") and not as a
regular old approach with ZARTO as the IAF? And even if the pilot knew
that this was what the controller intended, the language of 5-4-7-i is
permissive, not restrictive. Nothing in that language requires the
pilot to fly it that way if cleared "direct ZARTO cleared for the
approach" instead of a vector to final.

In fact, we don't even know for certain that 5-4-7-i applies at all
because Bill never actually said whether or not he was filed /R or /G.
(Not that it matters. My point is just that those who say that the
pilot was wrong to fly the PT and cite 5-4-7-i as their evidence are
making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions.)

rg

Thanks to BillJ and B and all the group. I learned a great deal from this
thread today!!!
John Severyn
instrument student

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Because whether or not the AIM "imposes requirements" or merely
describes requirements imposed by some other document or whatever is
irrelevant to the point I was making, namely, that the section in
question is talking about ATC actions and not pilot actions. (To which
Steven would probably say something along the lines of "The AIM, being
an inanimate object, cannot "talk" about anything.")


Steven wouldn't say anything like that because he knows one definition of
"talk" is "to communicate ideas by means other than speech, as by writing,
signs, or signals."

"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.

"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".

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.

"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.