"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

As a matter of definition a feeder route is not a segment of an IAP (but
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...).
As a
matter of regulation, it is a component of an IAP, which is by procedure
design
an evaluated and designed segment, just like the four set forth in the
definition.


What regulation?


FAR 97.2X, the "X" varying with the type of IAP that is issued under Part 97.



Further, you can find it on any Part 97-issued Form 8260 -3 or -5 that has
a feeder route and you can find it in TERPs Paragraph 220:

220. FEEDER ROUTES. When the IAF is part of the enroute structure there
may be no need to designate additional routes for aircraft to proceed to
the IAF.
In some cases, however, it is necessary to designate feeder routes from
the
enroute structure to the IAF. Only those feeder routes which provide an
operational advantage shall be established and published. These should
coincide with the local air traffic flow. The length of the feeder route
shall not
exceed the operational service volume of the facilities which provide
navigational guidance unless additional frequency protection is provided.
Enroute airway obstacle clearance criteria shall apply to feeder routes.
The minimum altitude established on feeder routes shall not be less than
the
altitude established at the IAF.


Based on that it appears to be more closely related to enroute airways than
IAPs.

A feeder route is, indeed, constructed to airway criteria, except the descent
gradient limitations have to be calculated in accordance with initial approach
segment criteria. Further, in non-DMAs there is absolutely no difference in any
aspect of a feeder route or initial approach segment for ground-based IAPs.

Also, airways are issued under Part 95 and feeder routes are issued under Part
97.