"Jose" wrote in message
om...
It's better because it's safer.

You have not demonstrated that. To demonstrate an improvement in safety,
you need to compare a statistically significant number of samples using both
methods, and then look at the resulting accident rates for each method.

You certainly can't claim that it's "obviously safer". That is, it's not
true that "one standard rate turn is like another". Any maneuvering runs
the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent maneuvering, the
greater the exposure to that risk (this is no different from saying "any
flight runs the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent flying,
the greater the exposure to that risk").

As far as the difference in difficulty, one can debate that as well.
Inasmuch as a pilot ought to be maintaining a mental picture of his position
while flying by instruments, an extended turn away from one's destination
certainly could be more difficult than a prompt turn toward one's
destination. Furthermore, the right-310 turn is just one option of many,
and several of the other options involve multiple turns in multiple
directions. Increased complexity implies increased difficulty IMHO.

Whether this increase in complexity offsets the potential increase in
complexity of turning directly 50 degrees onto the final approach course,
has not been established. I suggest it does, you suggest it doesn't, and
neither of us has any justification for making such statements, other than
our own intuition.

[...]
When you make the turns used for the full procedure, you end up right
where you are supposed to be.

You might be, if you do it right. There's no guarantee though. Even if
done properly, you are still "allowed" a significant margin of error.

But if you make a turn to final that takes fifty degrees, you will =not=
be on the FAC.

If you simply intercept the approach course, how would you not wind up on
the approach course?

You'll have lagged, and have to squirrel yourself back to be on course.
You're also approaching the MAP and descending.

This is harder.

It is different. I see it as being FAR from a foregone conclusion that it
is harder.

Or you can anticipate the turn. How much? Well, (fudge fudge fudge)...
This is harder.

Maybe not harder enough to be =unsafe=, but harder enough that, combined
with proximity (to the ground and the airport) it is less safe.

Well, we're back to that. You haven't demonstrated "less safe". You simply
asserted it. There's a difference.

Pete