Help with instrument approach

[ahmad]

94? Wha’d ya do, spell your name wrong

Actually 95. Missed 3 questions. I am mad. Ha

 

[midlifeflyer]

We are all learning here. Great info and discussion.

I was hesitant to ask because I just passed the written a few weeks ago with a 94 score.

Don't be. Hang around and watch the questions and incorrect answeres from experienced people. We all have gaps. This forum is one of those where we fill them (ok, sometimes we make them wider but... ).

 

[John Collins]

Not that it changes the OP question or the answer, but the only feeder route depicted is from FARMINGTON. (For those just joining the underlined is clearly wrong, they are all 3 feeder routes, somehow on my 1st obviously to brief of look at the plate I didn't notice that altitudes)

You still don't have it correct, there are only two feeder routes shown on the approach chart, one from DUEAS and the other from PAMPI. FAM is an IAF and the route from FAM to TANZI is an initial leg of the approach procedure that ends at an IF. Although it may look like it is a feeder route, note that the route is shown as Bold which indicates it is a part of the IFP, whereas the other two routes are not bolded, indicating they are used to connect from an airway to an IAF. The fix at FAM is an IAF that is on an airway, so a feeder route isn't needed. Besides VTF, the typical IFR GPS will offer all the IAF and all the feeder fixes as transitions, so the choices will be two IAF at FAM and DUTCH and two feeder fixes at DUEAS and PAMPI.

 

[John Collins]

I have completely given up the need to distinguish "feeders" from any other type of approach transition, except as a purely academic exercise. I can't see any practical difference.

There are a few practical distinctions, in mountainous areas, the ROC is more for the feeder route 2000 VS 1000 feet verses an initial segment defined by an IAF to IF. Also, the regulations define an IAF as a fix where an approach begins. This applies to lost Com where one can begin the descent IAW 91.185(3).

From the TERPS:

2-4-1. Initial Approach Segment. The instrument approach commences at the IAF. In the initial approach, the aircraft has departed the en route phase of flight and is maneuvering to enter an intermediate segment.

A feeder route is a route from the enroute structure to IAF and uses the enroute structure TERPS criteria for ROC. Its purpose is to connect from an enroute airway to the IAF where the approach begins.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There are a few practical distinctions, in mountainous areas, the ROC is more for the feeder route 2000 VS 1000 feet verses an initial segment defined by an IAF to IF. Also, the regulations define an IAF as a fix where an approach begins. This applies to lost Com where one can begin the descent IAW 91.185(3).

From the TERPS:



A feeder route is a route from the enroute structure to IAF and uses the enroute structure TERPS criteria for ROC. Its purpose is to connect from an enroute airway to the IAF where the approach begins.

...and that affects how I would fly it or select it as a transition by....?

 

[John Collins]

...and that affects how I would fly it or select it as a transition by....?

In most cases, not much other than when lost com would be involved.

 

[WDD]

We are all learning here. Great info and discussion.

I was hesitant to ask because I just passed the written a few weeks ago with a 94 score.

Instrument written isn't exactly easy. Nicely done!

 

[ahmad]

Instrument written isn't exactly easy. Nicely done!

Thank you.

Flight went flawless (except it was bumpy so I was fighting the controls). Ended up getting vectors to final for ILS 10 into CGI.
Filed for and got direct back to MVN . Got cleared to gejto for RNAV 05. It was a good day. Next up will be the long 250 mile cross country trip.

 

[luvflyin]

...and that affects how I would fly it or select it as a transition by....?

Good point. But the academic discussions can be valuable sometimes. Sometimes in action. Often as pertains to test questions. And sometimes as pertains to Flight Checks.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In most cases, not much other than when lost com would be involved.

That's why I initially said I saw not practical difference, just an academic one.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Good point. But the academic discussions can be valuable sometimes. Sometimes in action. Often as pertains to test questions. And sometimes as pertains to Flight Checks.

I hope I didn't suggest academic discussions don't have value! And yes, I know a feeder is part of the enroute structure and not an approach segment.

 

[luvflyin]

I hope I didn't suggest academic discussions don't have value! And yes, I know a feeder is part of the enroute structure and not an approach segment.

Gotcha. I hadn’t read the post you had replied to. Just your reply. My bad. I do know you value knowledge.

 

[Palmpilot]

There is one. The FAM R-144. It and I-CGI define TANZI.

Oops, I missed that one!

 

[Palmpilot]

I think @brcase's defense is not paying attention. We all do that from time to time. I don't think it's about the thickness of the lines, but the course, distance, and especially altitude on transitions as opposed to radials used solely to identify an intersection which has only the frequency and radial (and DME distance if it can be identified that way). I guess we all learn things differently. You might differentiate these two based on line thickness. I look at the information provided and it seems obvious without comparing line thickness.

View attachment 117848 View attachment 117850

I do it your way. The lack of an altitude is the quickest way to rule it out as a published IFR route.