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.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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.

So what would you do in the situation I described? You're at 4000 feet
on V21 going to FUL. You have not been cleared for the approach or told
to descend when you lose comm. If you go straight in you'll get to FUL
right at your filed ETA.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

So what would you do in the situation I described? You're at 4000 feet
on V21 going to FUL. You have not been cleared for the approach or told
to descend when you lose comm. If you go straight in you'll get to FUL
right at your filed ETA.


I answered that the first time you asked. I'd go straight in on the 020
radial.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

So what would you do in the situation I described? You're at 4000 feet
on V21 going to FUL. You have not been cleared for the approach or told
to descend when you lose comm. If you go straight in you'll get to FUL
right at your filed ETA.


I answered that the first time you asked. I'd go straight in on the 020
radial.

My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer:

I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd make
the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a feeder
route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots
can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air.

So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm
you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I
also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree?

rg

Pilots often create fixes in the air and use them.

Often it eases the route to intercept a radial of a VOR, since FMS boxes are
inherently fix to fix. It makes navigating much easier and is done
routinely.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

In article ,
"kgruber" wrote:

Pilots often create fixes in the air and use them.

Not as part of an instrument approach they don't.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer:

I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd
make
the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a
feeder
route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS.


No, my answer was, "It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the
approach and land because doing anything else is nutty."



I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots
can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air.


If my response isn't funny, I'm being serious.



So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm
you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I
also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree?


It appears you're losing context. Mark Hansen mentioned creating a fix
somewhere on V21 and initiating the approach from that point. My message
was written along those lines, what I would do if I was designing the
approach.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer:

I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd
make
the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a
feeder
route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS.


No, my answer was, "It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the
approach and land because doing anything else is nutty."



I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots
can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air.


If my response isn't funny, I'm being serious.



So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm
you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I
also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree?


It appears you're losing context. Mark Hansen mentioned creating a fix
somewhere on V21 and initiating the approach from that point. My message
was written along those lines, what I would do if I was designing the
approach.

But I'm the one who posed the original question, and my question is what
you would do if you were *flying* the approach (as it currently exists)
and lost comm.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

But I'm the one who posed the original question, and my question is what
you would do if you were *flying* the approach (as it currently exists)
and lost comm.


Which I have twice answered.