Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

Because they asked for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach. Pilots request a
"full" approach when they want to do it on their own navigation, almost
always for training purposes. You can't navigate direct to MINES using
VOR,
you've got to go to HCH and fly the feeder route.

But the aircraft in question was /G, so he could fly direct MINES. And
MINES is an IAF, so an approach beginning there would be a "full
approach" ???

Thanks,
John

"John Clonts" wrote in message
oups.com...
Because they asked for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach. Pilots request a
"full" approach when they want to do it on their own navigation, almost
always for training purposes. You can't navigate direct to MINES using
VOR,
you've got to go to HCH and fly the feeder route.

But the aircraft in question was /G, so he could fly direct MINES. And
MINES is an IAF, so an approach beginning there would be a "full
approach" ???


Yes, he could use GPS to fly direct to MINES. But if he wanted to use GPS
why did he ask for the "full VOR/DME 22" approach? Check the plate, there's
a GPS overlay, he could have used GPS exclusively to fly the approach.
Requesting the "full VOR/DME 22" approach suggests the objective of their
navigational exercise was VOR/DME approaches, not GPS approaches.

But the aircraft in question was /G, so he could fly direct MINES. And
MINES is an IAF, so an approach beginning there would be a "full
approach" ???


Yes, he could use GPS to fly direct to MINES. But if he wanted to use GPS why did he ask for the "full
VOR/DME 22" approach? Check the plate, there's a GPS overlay, he could have used GPS exclusively to fly the
approach. Requesting the "full VOR/DME 22" approach suggests the objective of their navigational exercise was
VOR/DME approaches, not GPS approaches.

I see what you mean, thanks!

John