Procedure turn required?

"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 in message ...

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination.


He didn't suggest filing to WILMA, he suggested filing WILMA as the last fix
on the route.

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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination.


He didn't suggest filing to WILMA, he suggested filing WILMA as the last fix
on the route.

That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the fix/facility
closest to the airport from that direction.

wrote in message ...

That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the
fix/facility
closest to the airport from that direction.


Pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the
fix/facility
closest to the airport from that direction.


Pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense.

And, in the context of this thread, your point is?

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.

wrote in message ...

And, in the context of this thread, your point is?


That pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense. In the context of
this thread, what point were you trying to make?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

And, in the context of this thread, your point is?


That pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense. In the context of
this thread, what point were you trying to make?

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.