How do I fly this approach?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


You did it wrong about every way possible.


Okay. Please describe the right way ... and provide references.


First, by what authority did you descend 700 feet flow the MEA for V-187
simply because you were within 25 miles of AST? The MEA is 5,000 all
the way to AST VOR. That is basic chart reading.


The plate gives the MSA within a 25-nm radius. Once I was within the 25-nm
radius, I could safely descend to the MSA, and I did so, because it
facilitated entering the approach.

You must think you are in Canada. MSAs are emergency altitudes only in
the U.S.


Then, when you turn around at about 12 miles and headed north you
departed protected airspace.


I'm not sure what you mean by protected airspace. Once I was clear of the
Seattle Class B, the rest of the flight was conducted entirely in Class E
airspace, right up to landing.

Airspace protected from obstacles.

The 19 DME arc is available only to non-radar arrivals on on V-27
(R-328) from the northwest or V-27 (R-166) from the south. For any
other arrival the approach begins at AST via the feeder route to KARPEN,
then the procedure turn.


Okay. How do you know this? Explain where and how it is documented on the
plate, or where it is documented elsewhere, so that I can look it up.

Chief counsel's November, 1994 legal ruling on use of IAP's in non-radar
conditions. It is available on Summit's Aviation Reference Library:

The letter states in part:

"You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc
initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along
any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a
published IAF along a portion of the published arc."

Sam Spade writes:

You must think you are in Canada. MSAs are emergency altitudes only in
the U.S.

Even if I grant this (the FARs mention it but do not define it), how would I
then determine the minimum altitude when moving from the airway to the DME
arc? The airway MEA applies only on the airway, which I had left. The
sectional MEF for the quadrant in which I was operating was 1100 feet below
the MSA.

If I'm off-airway, and not within an area for which a MSA is published, how do
I determine my minimum instrument altitude? If the MEA on the airway had been
14,000 feet, how would I get from that altitude to the appropriate altitude to
capture the ILS glide slope in the distance available to me?

Airspace protected from obstacles.

By remaining at or above the MSA, I was protected from obstacles. This is true
whether an emergency existed or not.

Chief counsel's November, 1994 legal ruling on use of IAP's in non-radar
conditions. It is available on Summit's Aviation Reference Library:

The letter states in part:

"You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc
initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along
any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a
published IAF along a portion of the published arc."

I have the letter in front of me, but I do not see the relevance of it.
Explain how it applies here.

I also don't see any indication of feeder routes on the IAP plate. Can you
point these indications out to me?

I'll ask again: Describe exactly how I should have flown this, and explain
why, step by step.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


You must think you are in Canada. MSAs are emergency altitudes only in
the U.S.


Even if I grant this (the FARs mention it but do not define it), how would I
then determine the minimum altitude when moving from the airway to the DME
arc? The airway MEA applies only on the airway, which I had left. The
sectional MEF for the quadrant in which I was operating was 1100 feet below
the MSA.

If I'm off-airway, and not within an area for which a MSA is published, how do
I determine my minimum instrument altitude? If the MEA on the airway had been
14,000 feet, how would I get from that altitude to the appropriate altitude to
capture the ILS glide slope in the distance available to me?


Airspace protected from obstacles.


By remaining at or above the MSA, I was protected from obstacles. This is true
whether an emergency existed or not.


Chief counsel's November, 1994 legal ruling on use of IAP's in non-radar
conditions. It is available on Summit's Aviation Reference Library:

The letter states in part:

"You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc
initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along
any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a
published IAF along a portion of the published arc."


I have the letter in front of me, but I do not see the relevance of it.
Explain how it applies here.

I also don't see any indication of feeder routes on the IAP plate. Can you
point these indications out to me?

I'll ask again: Describe exactly how I should have flown this, and explain
why, step by step.

If you don't see the relevance of the letter and you don't understand
MSAs, then just go play with yourself. You are up to the same bull****
game.

Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although not
understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the case.

His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
procedures.

Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection seat
handle in a Baron.

Viperdoc wrote:
Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although not
understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the case.

His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
procedures.

Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection seat
handle in a Baron.


It all goes beyond his inability and unwillingness to learn. He
displays a profound personality defect by the need to ask for technical
help then attacking those who try to help.

I don't know why the nut house permits him access to the Internet.

Given his history, it's no wonder why he can't find a job in either the US
or France, yet he only blames others and never takes responsbility himself.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Viperdoc wrote:
Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although
not understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the
case.

His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
procedures.

Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection
seat handle in a Baron.
It all goes beyond his inability and unwillingness to learn. He displays
a profound personality defect by the need to ask for technical help then
attacking those who try to help.

I don't know why the nut house permits him access to the Internet.

I don't know why you feed the troll then wonder why he keeping popping up.

Matt B.

Tom S. wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Viperdoc wrote:

Classic example of Anthony thinking that by reading something (although
not understanding) he somehow gains expertise, which is of course not the
case.

His questions and responses clearly demonstrate his fundamental lack of
knowledge of how the system works, as well as how to fly instrument
procedures.

Perhaps he should go back to asking about the location of the ejection
seat handle in a Baron.

It all goes beyond his inability and unwillingness to learn. He displays
a profound personality defect by the need to ask for technical help then
attacking those who try to help.

I don't know why the nut house permits him access to the Internet.


I don't know why you feed the troll then wonder why he keeping popping up.

Matt B.


Because I mistakenly thought he was asking some quasi-legitimate
questions. Or, perhaps I just wanted to rub his face in his unending
ignorance, not stopping to realize it is impossible to have an
intelligent discussion with a troll. Shame on me.