Procedure turn or no procedure turn

[flyinghunter]

Ok, doing some more research on the subject, in the fron of the AIM it talks about the changes in the '06 edition, under 5-4-9 it says:

"This is for the folks that think a procedure turn is required unless it meets one of the exceptions which does not include 'if the aircraft is aligned within 90 degrees of the inbound course.'"

Now I'm just confused :nuts:

 

[midlifeflyer]

So what defines a course reversal, is there some degree of change that would qualify it?

That's one of the kickers that people talk about. That's because the basic rule is that the PT barb on the chart only tells you which side of the FAC to do the PT on. The type of turn you do is up to you. (Unless, of course, the PT is shown as a holding or teardrop pattern).

Beyond that, there's not a lot of guidance as to how much to turn, except that plain English word "reversal" suggests to me that at some point in the PT you should be heading in a direction opposite to the FAC direction.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Now I'm just confused :nuts:

No wonder.

The '06 edition is already out of date. This past year, the FAA made a change to the section, accompanied by that cryptic remark you quoted. They ended up making the issue even more confusing than it was before, especially since the remark really does sound like the FAA was going the other way.

A bunch of people pointed it out pretty quickly. So they fixed it.

Unfortunately, the fix doesn't fit into the AIM publication schedule, hence the AIM NOTAM I linked to.

 

[flyinghunter]

Thanks midlife, I missed that link earlier, that quote that I used earlier from the explenation of the AIM sounds like a dig at pilots....hahaha....I love the FAA. All in all, I think my initial statement still holds true, we needed to do a procedure turn if not given a vector on that approach.

 

[nosehair]

No. The next sentence says:

==============================
The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.
==============================

http://www.faa.gov/ntap/NTAP06JAN19/gen05007.htm

OK, Mark, now I'm up to speed on the current AIM text. Look at this introducing the newest change:
Change to the Procedure Turn Text in the AIM

The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).

91.175(j) Limitations 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 "NoPT", no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

So, this "change" has done nothing to support you or me. The definition is the same. Now they say:
5-4-9. Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course.

Then the next sentence follows:
The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.

When it is depicted on the chart, and when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on the inbound course, the procedure turn, as depicted on the chart, is the prescribed maneuver.

Too bad they didn't clear this up at all. This is still not effective. It will be published in August of '06 as a change to the AIM.

If it was really the intent of the FAA for us to always do a PT no matter what, except fot the noted exceptions, why wouldn't they simply replace the current bold letter words, "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal", with something like, "in all cases, except...", and list the 4 cases following in the next sentence when a PT is prohibited.

No, they don't say, in all cases. The sentence everyone quotes is the one you use to support your belief.
==============================
The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.
==============================

That sentence follows "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal."

What we have is a difference of opinion about what is a course reversal.

And that definition would change with different airplanes. I wouldn't do things in a big fast airplane that I would do in a small slow airplane.
The definition would also change with location and familiarity with the approach.

That is why I think the definition is left as broad as it is - - to give us some room for our own decision about when to turn directly inbound or make a turn outbound to have enough room and time to do it safely. And that is what we teach. And that is probably why so many of us demand the PT at all times with noted exceptions, 'cause it's the safest (generally) thing to do.
But is isn't required, when all the parameters of safety are considered, and a direct turn inbound of 20-30 degrees will place you on the final approach course with no problem, and you know it - you're not guessing, or doing it routinely at unfamiliar places or getting youself rushed into a final youre not ready for.

I am not promoting unsafe habits or routines, but I am promoting using your brain and being aware of your position in space and your surroundings, and when all things are right, a PT is not always necessary, so why do it?​

 

[A Squared]

Uhhh, nosehair,

You're looking for a loophole that just doesn't exist.

It doesn't say. "a procedure turn is required when it is depicted on the chart and when it is required to reverse course "

There is no combining of the first and second sentences.

The first sentence tells you what a procedure turn is:

A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course.

The second sentence tells you when it's required:

The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.

There is no "but if I'm alighned with final....." clause.

Look, I know you don't like the answer. I know you really, really want procedure turns to be discretionary. They aren't

The Chief Counsel has issued a legal interpretation which makes it very clear that the PT is not discretionary.

The latest version of hte AIM makes it very clear that the PT is not discretinary. In fact the FAA *ammended* the AIM because the previous version made it *appear* that the PT *is* discretionary, so they changed the wording so it is very clear that it is *not* discretionary.

There is not wiggle room in; "The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart."

 

[flyinghunter]

A Squared, do you have the link for that leagal interpretation, I tried searching for it and couldn't find it.

 

[avbug]

I think the information provided is fairly clear.

Regarding the initial post of this thread, no approach clearance was given. Accordingly, the poster was not authorized any part of the approach. No routing in the approach was authorized. No proceedure turn was authorized. No altitudes specified in the approach was authorized. No course guidance in the approach was authorized. The poster was given a routing clearance, which included two fixes. One happened to be the FAF, and the other the airport. Period.

Why even guess at the need to make a proceedure turn there? Of course you wouldn't make a proceedure turn, because no mention or indication of an approach was made. You were given two waypoints defining your routing, period. You wouldn't execute a proceedure turn at a sharp bend in an airway, would you? Of course not. You shouldn't execute a proceedure turn when following the routing given, either, because you're not establishing yourself on the approach. You're merely flying routing.

Perhaps the controller intended to provide an approach clearance as you got closer to the FAF. Perhaps the congtroller intended to route you over the field into visual conditions and give you either a visual approach, or vectors onto a downwind for sequencing. Not enough informatino is given to speculate. What is given is a routing clearance, not an approach clearance. The issue of a proceedure turn should have never come up. You weren't given an approach, hence, you had no need to expect, anticipate, or consider a proceedure turn.

Perhaps the most relevant part of the Notice referenced in this thread is the following quote regarding changs to the proceedure turn text in the AIM:

If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Part 91.123).

In that respect, at least, nothing at all has changed...if any question exists at all in your mind, then you need to seek clarification before you arrive at that point in space where the proceedure turn might questionably be required. Especially considering the mention of congested airspace and other traffic, get on the same page as ATC to ensure that you understand and comply. Whenever any question exists, immediately seek, and obtain, clarification.

 

[avbug]

Nov. 28, 1994
Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070
Dear Mr. Young

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23, 1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175). You address the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.

Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in Part 97.

First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF as defined in Part 97. Descent gradients, communication, and obstruction clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure is not flown.

You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF along a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of the approach.

Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section 91.175(j) states that 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 procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not present.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.
Sincerely,

/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

 

[avbug]

July 25, 1977
Robert E. Little, Jr., Esquire
Dear Mr. Little:

We have reviewed your letter dated April 28, 1977, in which you requested an interpretation concerning whether, when depicted on an approach chart, a procedure turn is required under all circumstances in executing an IFR approach or it is permissive and subject to the pilot's judgment as to the need for the maneuver. Our conclusion is essentially as discussed with you on the phone on May 17, 1977.

In your letter, you indicated that during the first leg of an IFR training flight from Tipton Army Air Field, Fort Meade, Maryland to Westminster Airport (EMI), you were radar vectored to Federal Airway V-265 and thereafter maintained an altitude of 3,000 feet. Approximately 4 miles south of Westminster VORTAC you obtained the following Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearance:

"Army 295, radar service terminated 4 miles south of Westminster VOR, cleared for the VOR approach at Westminster, maintain 3000 feet until crossing the VOR."

You indicated that "for training purposes" you executed a procedure turn during the approach but concluded, after discussion with your instructor pilot, that the procedure turn was not required under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). You stated that you considered the following factors:

"(1) Our course was 11 to the right of the final approach course depicted on the plan view of the Westminster VOR Runway 36 approach;

(2) We were only 500 feet above the minimum procedure turn altitude; and

(3) We had approximately 4 minutes and 30 seconds to lose approximately 1500 feet at a rate of approximately 330 feet per minute after crossing the EMI VOR."

According to your letter, your subsequent research into the matter and inquiries of various FAA personnel into the correctness of your conclusion did not provide a satisfactory answer.

As you discovered, "procedure turn," as a symbol or term used in Part 97 of the FARs, is defined in Section 97.3(p) as follows:

"(p) Procedure Turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedures. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot." [Emphasis added]

Pertinent paragraphs of Section 91.116 "Takeoff and landing under IFR; General" provide as follows:

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator (including ATC), each person operating an aircraft shall, when an instrument letdown to an airport is necessary, use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for that airport in Part 97 of this chapter.

(h) Limitations on procedure turns. In the case of a radar initial approach to a final approach fix or position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where the procedure specifies "NOPT" or "FINAL", no pilot may make a procedure turn unless, when he receives his final approach clearance, he so advises ATC.

Paragraph (a) of Section 91.75 "Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions" states in pertinent part as follows:

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance, except in an emergency, unless he obtains an amended clearance. ... If a pilot is uncertain of the meaning of an ATC clearance, he shall immediately request clarification from ATC."

Accordingly, under Section 91.116, Part 97 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are regulatory and, unless otherwise authorized (such as by an ATC clearance to the contrary), a pilot is required to execute an IFR approach in accordance with the SIAP prescribed in Part 97. As you know, the substance of SIAPs is reflected on "approach plates" or other flight information available for use in the cockpit.

Particular SIAPs may prescribe a procedure turn that is mandatory, permissive, or prohibited depending on the application of criteria contained in the U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs). The TERPs are used by the FAA in developing SIAPs for particular regulatory approaches at particular airports. However, ATC may "authorize" a deviation from the prescribed procedure when it determines that a different approach procedure is appropriate. Accordingly, a pilot may request ATC for authorization to deviate from a prescribed procedure turn, if it is prescribed as mandatory or, if it is prescribed as permissive, he may request an approach clearance with or without the described procedure turn.

Thus, if you accepted the indicated ATC clearance, under the FARs, you were requested to maintain an altitude of 3000 feet on the inbound course until crossing the VOR and then to execute the prescribed (SIAP) VOR approach at Westminster. Since the (SIAP) VOR approach prescribes a mandatory procedure turn as part of that procedure, the procedure turn (as described) is required.

Further, please note that if a pilot is uncertain whether the IFR approach procedure for which he obtained ATC clearance requires or only permits a procedure turn, he is required under Section 91.75(a) to immediately request clarification from ATC.

You correctly noted that the discussion of procedure turns in Advisory Circular 90-1A is neither regulatory nor interpretive of the regulation. Advisory circulars, as their title suggests, are intended to provide information, suggestions and other guidance.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,

NEIL R. EISNER
NEIL R. EISNER
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations & Enforcement Division