Procedure turn required?

You have not demonstrated that [it's safer]. To demonstrate an improvement in safety,
you need to compare a statistically significant number of samples using both
methods, and then look at the resulting accident rates for each method.

I'm not going to do that. Neither are you going to do the same for your
contention that it's best to simply turn final, irrespective of what the
regulations (including the opinion of FAA legal council) state.

So we are back to using reasoning to infer safety from (personal and
shared) experience.

Any maneuvering runs
the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent maneuvering, the
greater the exposure to that risk

True. However, turns happen all the time. I'm not convinced that a
standard rate turn is so risky that an extra hundred degrees or two
makes a significant difference, all other things being equal.

That said, all other things are =not= equal. "My" turns are done at
altitude, flying towards protected airspace, in an area that has been
certified for such turns. "Your" turns are done flying towards the
final approach fix, at the commencement of a descent, off from the final
approach course, and in an area that has been proscribed by the FAA for
such turns (which means in this case that the terrain and airspace has
not been checked and approved for these turns).

It is those conditions that I contend make "your" turns less safe.

an extended turn away from one's destination
certainly could be more difficult than a prompt turn toward one's
destination.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning, and I don't agree with what I
think you mean. A pilot who's on top of things should have no problem
with either turn (in terms of situational awareness) and one that's a
little behind could use the extra time flying away and then back,
establishing themselves on the FAC long before the FAF.

I suggest it does, you suggest it doesn't, and
neither of us has any justification for making such statements, other than
our own intuition.

Well, we have our own flight experience, and I assume that much of it is
similar.

If you simply intercept the approach course, how would you not wind up on
the approach course?

This paraphrases as "if you succeed, how could you have failed"? A
course interception involves some S-turning or anticipation, iow some
slop. The shallower the intercept, the less slop. Intercepting the FAC
at low altitude is a critical enough maneuver that slop should be
minimized. You need to be dead on. (fsvo "dead" However, turning
away from the FAC and =not= descending would allow slop to be safer.
The FAA has chosen 30 degrees as the amount of turn which balances slop
one way with slop the other way. I don't know whether the number
"should" be 30 degrees, 50 degrees, or 10 degrees, but I suspect the
TERPS designers have some data to back themselves up, and I'll trust
their design.

You haven't demonstrated "less safe". You simply
asserted it. There's a difference.

I have asserted it and given my reasoning. Reasoning isn't proof, and
isn't intended to be.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I don't see how you came up with 1.4NM.
If you look at the example again, R1 distance for a standard 10 mile PT
starting at or below 6000 ft is 5 miles. Since the R1 pivot point is 1
mile offset from a point abeam the PT fix, that means there are 4 miles
of primary protection (5NM -1NM) on the non-PT side (not 1.4 miles) and
6 miles of primary protection on the turn side (5NM + 1NM) extending to
8 NM on the turn side (R3 6NM value plus 2 mile offset). There is an
additional 2 miles of secondary protection (R2 7NM value less 1 mile
offset = 6 NM)

JPH

Bob Gardner wrote:
Followed the instructions in TERPS 234 and plotted it out.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message ...


Bob Gardner wrote:


Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles
wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?


Where did you get that number?

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.

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:cmFoe.34289$Fv.22813@lakeread01...

Wilma may be a feeder, but it is not an Intial Approach Point (IAP). That
means if you filed to Wilma as the final point on your route, your next
point is your destination. Thinking in terms of lost communication, which
is
a driver for many procedural practices... If you went from Wilma to one of
the 2 initials (SLI or ALBAS) you have some predictability. If you go from
Wilma to some place on the approach because you believe you can hack the
intercept (which some proposed), you have less predictability. If you were
shooting an approach at some airports that have several more feeders, then
what is ATC supposed to do? Clear the airspace for a 25 NM radius?


There is no predictability in these situations. ATC is going to do whatever
is necessary to ensure separation. If you still present a radar target they
can work with then they'll keep other IFR aircraft away from you and
continue with other operations as best they can. If it means clearing the
airspace for 25 miles then that's what they'll do.

"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.