Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Victor 21 is not a feeder route for the approach. If it was, it would
be charted as such. So you may be able to argue your point with the
procedure designers...


Feeder routes are depicted on SIAPs to designate routes for aircraft to
proceed from the en route structure to the IAF. Charting V21 as a feeder
route would be superfluous as the airway already performs that function.

Note that they did superfluously chart a feeder route from WILMA, that route
is also known as V8. Go figure.



What is the MEA on the victor airway (I don't have it here...) Something
like 4000'? They aren't going to change the MEA of the airway just to
satisfy an approach (or at least they didn't in this case). So, you'll
be approaching the VOR at 4000' ... much to high to begin the approach.


The MEA on V21 southwest of SLI is 4000. One has to wonder why it's that
high near the VOR. It's certainly not required by terrain or obstruction
and the A/FD shows no navaid restrictions that would affect it. V21 crosses
V25 about nine miles southwest of SLI, it seems there could easily be a
named intersection at that point with an MEA change. A MOCA would seem to
be appropriate as well.



Note that WILMA requires a PT because it is not aligned within 30
degrees of the FAC...


There are many examples of routes marked NoPT that are offset by more than
thirty degrees.