Procedure turn required?

Paul Lynch wrote:

Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.

Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route.



1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
It is a feeder for the airport.

A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other
segments of the IAP.



2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.

True enough.



3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
descend to MDA for the circle to land.


They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook
7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude
compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at
the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to
the FAF).

ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and
probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this
procedure?

Sounds like you are a controller or approach designer! Your comments have always been germane and on point, unlike many others. So maybe you can set me straight...

Wilma may be a feeder, but it is not an Intial Approach Point (IAP). That means if you filed to Wilma as the final point on your route, your next point is your destination. Thinking in terms of lost communication, which is a driver for many procedural practices... If you went from Wilma to one of the 2 initials (SLI or ALBAS) you have some predictability. If you go from Wilma to some place on the approach because you believe you can hack the intercept (which some proposed), you have less predictability. If you were shooting an approach at some airports that have several more feeders, then what is ATC supposed to do? Clear the airspace for a 25 NM radius?

Although I have never flown the approaches at FUL, I have been vectored with the instructions similar to what I mentioned at several places in the easter half of the country. WRT to the VOR-A at FUL, when arriving at WILMA, I would not be surprised to hear "descend to 2600 feet, turn to 090 and intercept the SLI 200 radial inbound, you are cleared for the VOR-A approach." 1500 feet came from the ALBAS IAP. I didn't see the asterisk before. My screwup.

wrote in message ...


Paul Lynch wrote:

Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.

Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route.



1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
It is a feeder for the airport.

A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other
segments of the IAP.



2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.

True enough.



3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
descend to MDA for the circle to land.


They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook
7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude
compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at
the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to
the FAF).

ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and
probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this
procedure?

Tough to reply because you message is in a text box this time for some
reason.

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
on your clearance route.

As to the heading you suggest of 090 at 2600 that would not be a vector
permitted by 7110.65, 5-9-1.

Paul Lynch wrote:

Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: quoted-printable

wrote in message ...

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination.


He didn't suggest filing to WILMA, he suggested filing WILMA as the last fix
on the route.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination.


He didn't suggest filing to WILMA, he suggested filing WILMA as the last fix
on the route.

That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the fix/facility
closest to the airport from that direction.

wrote in message ...

That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the
fix/facility
closest to the airport from that direction.


Pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the
fix/facility
closest to the airport from that direction.


Pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense.

And, in the context of this thread, your point is?

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:cmFoe.34289$Fv.22813@lakeread01...

Wilma may be a feeder, but it is not an Intial Approach Point (IAP). That
means if you filed to Wilma as the final point on your route, your next
point is your destination. Thinking in terms of lost communication, which
is
a driver for many procedural practices... If you went from Wilma to one of
the 2 initials (SLI or ALBAS) you have some predictability. If you go from
Wilma to some place on the approach because you believe you can hack the
intercept (which some proposed), you have less predictability. If you were
shooting an approach at some airports that have several more feeders, then
what is ATC supposed to do? Clear the airspace for a 25 NM radius?


There is no predictability in these situations. ATC is going to do whatever
is necessary to ensure separation. If you still present a radar target they
can work with then they'll keep other IFR aircraft away from you and
continue with other operations as best they can. If it means clearing the
airspace for 25 miles then that's what they'll do.

wrote in message ...

A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the
other segments of the IAP.


Not according to the Pilot/Controller Glossary. That defines the four
segments of an instrument approach procedure as initial, intermediate,
final, and missed. I can't find "feeder route" anywhere in Part 97.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the
other segments of the IAP.


Not according to the Pilot/Controller Glossary. That defines the four
segments of an instrument approach procedure as initial, intermediate,
final, and missed. I can't find "feeder route" anywhere in Part 97.

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.
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.