If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Sports class tasking | [email protected] | Soaring | 12 | April 25th 05 01:32 PM |
Agent86's List of Misconceptions of FAA Procedures Zero for 15 Putz!!! | copertopkiller | Military Aviation | 11 | April 20th 04 02:17 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Instrument Approaches and procedure turns.... | Cecil E. Chapman | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | September 18th 03 10:40 PM |