Procedure turn required?

wrote:
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...).

I think the looks like a duck comment is exactly right. If I were a
terpster, I would worry about that stuff. As a pilot, all I need to
worry about is where I'm going next and how low I can be while I'm
going there. If somebody else wants to split hairs about what to call
the segment I'm on, it's no skin off my teeth.

Roy Smith wrote:

wrote:
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...).

I think the looks like a duck comment is exactly right. If I were a
terpster, I would worry about that stuff. As a pilot, all I need to
worry about is where I'm going next and how low I can be while I'm
going there. If somebody else wants to split hairs about what to call
the segment I'm on, it's no skin off my teeth.

In 1967 when TERPs replaced the former IAP criteria from 1956 (and before) one of
the principles was that the procedures would be simple to understand and fly so
that pilots could safety and with "simplicity" remain within the airspace designed
by the procedures folks.

When you look at some of the missed approach procedures, though, you have to
wonder.