Procedure turn required?

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.

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.

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?



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.

"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.