Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

"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.

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

"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.

Ah, so you have.

You said you'd go straight in.

So my followup question (if you'll indulge me) is: do you acknowledge
that this would be a technical violation of the FARS? (You'd have to
start descending below the MEA on V21 before passing an IAF for the
approach.)

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Ah, so you have.

You said you'd go straight in.

So my followup question (if you'll indulge me) is: do you acknowledge
that this would be a technical violation of the FARS? (You'd have to
start descending below the MEA on V21 before passing an IAF for the
approach.)


I wouldn't have to stay on V21, I could move over two degrees to the 200
radial used for the approach. As for a possible technical violation of the
FARs, I've had a complete communications failure for unknown reasons, and
while my navigational radios are functioning, I'm not sure how long they
will continue to do so. To avoid a possible loss of navigational capability
in IMC I'm using the emergency authority granted me by
FAR 91.3 to deviate from any rule of Part 91.