Procedure turn required?

"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.

wrote in message ...

That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes
would have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation.


No, the clearance would be to the filed destination.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes
would have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation.


No, the clearance would be to the filed destination.

No, that would be the clearance limit. The last clearance fix coming to KFUL
from the west or northwest would be SLI. In the context of this thread: the
last airway fix would be SLI, not WILMA.

It's all academic anyway because routing over WILMA conflicts the SoCAL TEC
routes.

wrote in message ...

No, that would be the clearance limit.


The clearance limit will be the filed destination.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

No, that would be the clearance limit.


The clearance limit will be the filed destination.

That is what I said.

wrote in message ...

That is what I said.


No, you said the clearance would be to SLI VOR.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

That is what I said.


No, you said the clearance would be to SLI VOR.

Here is the context of the thread, what I said to another person who is not
playing your semantic games:

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
on your clearance route.

wrote in message ...

Here is the context of the thread, what I said to another person who is
not
playing your semantic games:

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
on your clearance route.


And here is a verbatim quote of your message:

"That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes would
have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation."

What you wrote is incorrect. The clearance would not be to SLI VOR, it
would be to the destination airport.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Here is the context of the thread, what I said to another person who is
not
playing your semantic games:

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
on your clearance route.


And here is a verbatim quote of your message:

"That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes would
have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation."

What you wrote is incorrect. The clearance would not be to SLI VOR, it
would be to the destination airport.

The context of that was WILMA or ALBAS vis-a-vis SLI. In that context the
clearance would be to SLI, the last airway fix before the clearance limit of
KFUL.

That was the context and is the context.

I can't help it if I don't meet your "special" view of precision. But, in the
context I have always stated the the airport was the clearance *limit.*

Sigh, there is no placating you in any case, for you love being combative and
obtuse, except when you're just plain wrong, then you simply remain silent
rather than conceding and, in the process, perhaps adding something meaninful to
the discussion.

wrote in message ...


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...
Sigh, there is no placating you in any case, for you love being combative
and
obtuse, except when you're just plain wrong, then you simply remain silent
rather than conceding and, in the process, perhaps adding something
meaninful to
the discussion.