Procedure turn required?

"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.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:06:48 -0500, Yossarian
wrote:

I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
turn?

Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
route.


Well, for what it is worth. I just got back from SIMCOM where my
instructor there actually lived and flew out of KFUL for over 20
years. I brought this up to him and he said that if you do use WILMA,
then the procedure turn is required. He also made the comment about
how busy seal beach VOR is and that it is used for a variety of other
approaches for other airports.


Scott D.


Scott D.

Peter Duniho wrote:

wrote in message ...
[...]
So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that
it
would be regulatory.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be reinforcing
my point.

My point was that there is a specific regulatory description of the outbound
track of a standard procedure turn. I took it that you felt there was none,
since it was not set forth in 97.3.