GPS approaches with Center

[Dan Luke]

How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach control?
I'd be interested to hear your experiences.

I needed to fly one yesterday to get into Greenville, AL and the ZTL
controller sounded really befuddled about quite how to handle it. Because of
another recent experience, I told her 35 miles out just what I wanted to do,
including the name of the IAF I wanted to use. Her response was to clear me
down to 3,000', but nothing more. After about 10 miles of silence, I asked
her to clear me direct to the IAF and told her the heading I would need. She
said:

"Cessna '87D, cleared...ah...for what you requested. Maintain at or above
two thousand one hundred until established on the approach, cleared approach
to Greenville, report canceling...etc."

Now, the minimum altitude on that segment of the approach is 3,000'. Does
her altitude restriction of 2,100' mean she had no way of knowing that, and
could only use her MVA? After she cleared me, she came back a couple of
minutes later and asked me to spell the IAF waypoint again.

It seems that the Centers I talk to always fumble a bit when I ask for one
of these approaches. What's the problem?

The fun part of this was getting to say "UGMUF" several times on the radio.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Chip Jones]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach
control?
> I'd be interested to hear your experiences.
>
> I needed to fly one yesterday to get into Greenville, AL and the ZTL
> controller sounded really befuddled about quite how to handle it. Because
of
> another recent experience, I told her 35 miles out just what I wanted to
do,
> including the name of the IAF I wanted to use. Her response was to clear
me
> down to 3,000', but nothing more. After about 10 miles of silence, I asked
> her to clear me direct to the IAF and told her the heading I would need.
She
> said:
>
> "Cessna '87D, cleared...ah...for what you requested. Maintain at or above
> two thousand one hundred until established on the approach, cleared
approach
> to Greenville, report canceling...etc."
>
> Now, the minimum altitude on that segment of the approach is 3,000'. Does
> her altitude restriction of 2,100' mean she had no way of knowing that,
and
> could only use her MVA? After she cleared me, she came back a couple of
> minutes later and asked me to spell the IAF waypoint again.
>
> It seems that the Centers I talk to always fumble a bit when I ask for one
> of these approaches. What's the problem?
>

The problem is that these approaches quite literally just show up in a
sector's airspace without any advance warning. Believe it or not, there is
a great chance that your friendly ZTL controller didn't even *know* that
there was a GPS approach into Greenville. We are literally so far down the
staffing crapper at ZTL that we don't even have time for mandatory little
things like routine team/crew training anymore because we don't have the
operational staffing to conduct it. The ATC operation comes first and
"training" consists of reading and initialing a binder saying we've read it.
They don't ask us if we understand it... and chances are *they* don't
either. But don't worry, the enroute system is "overstaffed" in 75% of
America's ARTCC's according to the DOT IG.

I keep up with changes to my airspace as a religion, and I've been surprised
twice in as many years by a new GPS approach. When the 56 day chart cycle
comes up, our overwhelmed staffer up in the airspace office brings down a
new set of charts, plops them in the Area, collects the old charts, and
disappears. Don't bother asking for an interpretation or clarity on a
procedure. Like our "Quality Assurance" staffers, he hasn't keyed a mic in
over a decade, he doesn't maintain operational currency on an ATC position,
and he doesn't even have a freaking current Medical! After all, this one
airspace guy (pulling in six figures as a glorified secretary) is wearing
three or four airspace hats. He/she can't keep up with even the basic Area
support stuff anymore because of "staff workload".

ZTL controllers on the sector generally don't get any formal training on
exactly how a new fangled approach fits into the fabric of our sector
airspace. Instead, we get mandatory "read and initial" items so that FAA
can cover their ass if we kill someone. Rather than have an FAA staffer
teach us *exactly* how to utilize a new procedure via training tailored to
that *exact* procedure, we often don't even know it exists until you request
it.

Instead, we read and initial off on very useful (ahem) mandatory Air Traffic
Bulletins, such as how to vector aircraft for a GPS approach, even though we
don't have any airports in all of Atlanta-land that we can legally apply
such "mandatory" "training" to. See, we don't depict FAC's here except for
ILS's. Vectoring to GPS final is verboten here..., yet we just found out
how important it is that we vector you onto the GPS. We don't even have 10%
of the GPS fixes on these approaches charted on the scope either because
doing so would screw up our automation so badly that our old computer would
likely collapse under the strain. Instead, we dig out the plate when you
make your request, then hold the plate up next to the scope, then try to
mentally transpose the approach in 3D into our airspace, then try to figure
out what to say, then try to figure out how to say it safely, and then try
to figure out how to coordinate it and who to coordinate with, who it
conflicts with etc etc.

What's the problem? S.S ZTL is sinking stern first under a crush of air
traffic with only a skeleton crew to man the pumps, all the while as FAA
tries to convince Congress that all is well in Dixie, for the flagship is a
submarine...

Chip, ZTL
(Oops, I better say NATCA_ZTL lest the black helo's come for me...)

[Dan Luke]

"Chip Jones" wrote:
> The problem is that these approaches quite literally just show
> up in a sector's airspace without any advance warning. Believe
> it or not, there is a great chance that your friendly ZTL controller
> didn't even *know* that there was a GPS approach into Greenville.

I suspected as much. I suppose one should expect to have to "brief"
the controller on the approach desired and just how one plans to begin
it. I really don't mind, but it kinda seems like the pilot/controller
"team" is ad libbing it in this situation.

[snip]

> ZTL controllers on the sector generally don't get any formal
> training on exactly how a new fangled approach fits into the
> fabric of our sector airspace. Instead, we get mandatory
> "read and initial" items so that FAA can cover their ass

The impression I get is that controllers are saying "go for it!" and
watching to see what happens.

[snip more interesting stuff]

> What's the problem? S.S ZTL is sinking stern first under a crush
> of air traffic with only a skeleton crew to man the pumps,

From the rest of your post, I gather that while the soldiers in the
trenches are getting thin, highly paid professional chair swivelers
are still getting counted by the IG as "adequate staffing." So what
else is new in Fed Land?

Who shall say what the true staffing picture is? You have credibility
with me because I respect your dedication to your profession, but
NATCA cannot be objective on this matter, IMO. OTOH, my confidence in
the FAA management's ability to assess the situation accurately is
nil.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Chip Jones]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

[snipped]

> NATCA cannot be objective on this matter, IMO. OTOH, my confidence in
> the FAA management's ability to assess the situation accurately is
> nil.

Sadly, true on both accounts. With the latter, you can also toss in
Congress and the media as having a very loose grip on what is actually
broken, why it's broken and how to fix it. For example, even Aviation Week
keeps writing stuff about all of these "VHF" towers that might get
contracted out...

The only accurate view IMO is from the cockpit or from in front of a radar
scope, which brings us back to these GPS approaches. One of the things I am
doing hanging out here in RAI is trying to learn how IFR works from your
perspective, because we don't all have a very clear picture on my side of
the radio. You'd think we would train a little better down here, but it
seems to get in the way of our new first priority, "staffing efficiency".

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> [snipped]
>
> > NATCA cannot be objective on this matter, IMO. OTOH, my confidence in
> > the FAA management's ability to assess the situation accurately is
> > nil.
>
> Sadly, true on both accounts. With the latter, you can also toss in
> Congress and the media as having a very loose grip on what is actually
> broken, why it's broken and how to fix it. For example, even Aviation Week
> keeps writing stuff about all of these "VHF" towers that might get
> contracted out...

It is odd that the future sale of VHF navigation bandwidth and contractors
in towers could get muddled together.

> The only accurate view IMO is from the cockpit or from in front of a radar
> scope, which brings us back to these GPS approaches. One of the things I
am
> doing hanging out here in RAI is trying to learn how IFR works from your
> perspective, because we don't all have a very clear picture on my side of
> the radio. You'd think we would train a little better down here, but it
> seems to get in the way of our new first priority, "staffing efficiency".

ATC payroll is where the money is.

[Dan Luke]

"Chip Jones" wrote:
> One of the things I am doing hanging out here in RAI is trying to
> learn how IFR works from your perspective, because we don't
> all have a very clear picture on my side of the radio.

I'm glad you take the time. Whatever happened to those flying lessons?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Chip Jones]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" wrote:
> > One of the things I am doing hanging out here in RAI is trying to
> > learn how IFR works from your perspective, because we don't
> > all have a very clear picture on my side of the radio.
>
> I'm glad you take the time. Whatever happened to those flying lessons?

They went out the window with my AOPA membership. Maybe next spring...

Chip, ZTL

[Mick Ruthven]

I remember about six years ago our local airport (Gnoss Field, DVO) got a
GPS approach and soon after I asked Oakland Center for that as a practice
approach. The controller was very straightforward about the fact that he
didn't know of the approach. So I told him where it was and gave him a
position report at the IAF and subsequent fixes.

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach
control?
> I'd be interested to hear your experiences.

[Dan Luke]

"Mick Ruthven" wrote:
> I remember about six years ago our local airport (Gnoss Field, DVO)
> got a GPS approach and soon after I asked Oakland Center for that
> as a practice approach. The controller was very straightforward about
> the fact that he didn't know of the approach. So I told him where it
> was and gave him a position report at the IAF and subsequent fixes.

So not much has changed, huh?

I assume you were in radar contact and the position reports were just for
the controllers curiosity...?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Snowbird]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message >...
> How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach control?

All the time. Usually ZKC, sometimes other centers.

It's generally pretty seamless. They know the fixes and the altitudes,
even though our approaches are obnoxious and contain little or no indication
of how they relate to the enroute system and the IAFs have nothing to
do with airways or intersections on airways or even charted transitions.

The only point of confusion seems to be with an approach which has
a holding pattern course reversal and no "NoPT" indications even if
you're almost aligned. We used to never do the PT, but now we know
we're supposed to--but it seems Center doesn't expect us to do it,
so we specify "with course reversal" if we're gonna do it.

> I'd be interested to hear your experiences.

So there you have it!

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message >...
> "Chip Jones" wrote:
> > The problem is that these approaches quite literally just show
> > up in a sector's airspace without any advance warning. Believe
> > it or not, there is a great chance that your friendly ZTL controller
> > didn't even *know* that there was a GPS approach into Greenville.

FWIW, I looked up the approach in AOPA and it seems to be a new
approach, just issued this cycle.

> I suspected as much. I suppose one should expect to have to "brief"
> the controller on the approach desired and just how one plans to begin
> it. I really don't mind, but it kinda seems like the pilot/controller
> "team" is ad libbing it in this situation.

Also FWIW, I've taken to looking up a VOR degree-distance bearing
for the GPS IAFs of approaches I think I might fly, if there isn't
a charted transition or distance from a ground-based navaid or
intersection on the plate.

I can describe how I do this but others probably have better
methods. Not sure if it's helpful to ATC, hasn't been called for
yet.

HTH,
Sydney

[Stan Gosnell]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in
:

> How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach
> control? I'd be interested to hear your experiences.

It's not just center, approach controllers sometimes have the same
problems. Most often, from center I get something like "Maintain [whatever
my assigned altitude is] until established on a published sector of the
approach, cleared [approach I asked for]", or "Cruise [altitude]". The
cruise clearance is easy for everyone, and I get it almost every time
offshore, because there isn't any other choice for center out there.

--
Regards,

Stan

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach control?
> I'd be interested to hear your experiences.
>
> I needed to fly one yesterday to get into Greenville, AL and the ZTL
> controller sounded really befuddled about quite how to handle it. Because of
> another recent experience, I told her 35 miles out just what I wanted to do,
> including the name of the IAF I wanted to use. Her response was to clear me
> down to 3,000', but nothing more. After about 10 miles of silence, I asked
> her to clear me direct to the IAF and told her the heading I would need. She
> said:
>
> "Cessna '87D, cleared...ah...for what you requested. Maintain at or above
> two thousand one hundred until established on the approach, cleared approach
> to Greenville, report canceling...etc."
>
> Now, the minimum altitude on that segment of the approach is 3,000'. Does
> her altitude restriction of 2,100' mean she had no way of knowing that, and
> could only use her MVA? After she cleared me, she came back a couple of
> minutes later and asked me to spell the IAF waypoint again.

I would *highly* recommend you file a NASA ASRS report about the fumbling and
clearance below the altitude for the approach segment to which you were being
sent. That is your best opportunity to provide some input to hopefully get the
system working before someone bites a dirt sandwhich.

>
>
> It seems that the Centers I talk to always fumble a bit when I ask for one
> of these approaches. What's the problem?
>
> The fun part of this was getting to say "UGMUF" several times on the radio.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

Snowbird wrote:

>
> It's generally pretty seamless. They know the fixes and the altitudes,
> even though our approaches are obnoxious and contain little or no indication
> of how they relate to the enroute system and the IAFs have nothing to
> do with airways or intersections on airways or even charted transitions.

Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless
there are no IAFS (I.e., radar required).

[Stan Gosnell]

wrote in :

> Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs
> anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
> required).

That's a pretty broad statement. Want me to show you some that aren't?

--
Regards,

Stan

[[email protected]]

Stan Gosnell wrote:

> wrote in :
>
> > Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs
> > anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
> > required).
>
> That's a pretty broad statement. Want me to show you some that aren't?
>

No broader than the policy presently in effect.

If you can find any that are less than 3 years old, fire away. In the
early days there were a lot of them that weren't anchored to airways.

And, of course, RNAV IAPs with TAAs are a different matter.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I would *highly* recommend you file a NASA ASRS report about the fumbling
> and clearance below the altitude for the approach segment to which you
were
> being sent. That is your best opportunity to provide some input to
hopefully
> get the system working before someone bites a dirt sandwhich.
>

He wasn't cleared below the altitude for the approach segment, the clearance
was "maintain at or
above two thousand one hundred until established on the approach." Nothing
required him to descend below any charted altitude. No doubt 2100 is the
local MVA, and you're not gonna bite a dirt sandwich at the MVA.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs anchored
> on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar required).
>

Rubbish. Many RNAV approaches have been established within the last three
years that have no connection to Victor airways.

[[email protected]]

Stan Gosnell wrote:

> wrote in :
>
> > Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs
> > anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
> > required).
>
> That's a pretty broad statement. Want me to show you some that aren't?
>

I misspoke, slightly. If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder fix that
is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with both GPS
approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).

[Chip Jones]

> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stan Gosnell wrote:
>
> > wrote in :
> >
> > > Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs
> > > anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
> > > required).
> >
> > That's a pretty broad statement. Want me to show you some that aren't?
> >
>
> I misspoke, slightly. If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder fix that
> is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with both GPS
> approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).
>

Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix, the IAF,
the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on the sector PVD (ie- radar
scope). For example, on the GPS RWY 32 into Greenville, CHAFF intersection
helps define the IAF UGMUFF's relationship to the rest of the sector fabric.
However, CHAFF is *unknown* to the ARTCC controller. It isn't plotted and
displayed on the scope. She has likely *never* even heard of CHAFF in 20
years of working the same piece of airspace, regardless of the fact that the
intersection may be established on an airway. Likely, CHAFF only exists on
a paper chart somewhere in her Area's overhead displays, maybe not even a
chart she can get to, assuming she isn't too busy to even try to get to it.
To the controller, assuming that she even knows what CHAFF is, where CHAFF
is and that CHAFF is now on the plate for the GPS 32 at PRN, she still
doesn't have a lot to work with. The fact that IAF UGMUFF is plotted on
the plate 080 degrees at 3.3 miles from CHAFF means nada to the controller
because CHAFF is just another one of thousands of named fixes in her
airspace.


This is a training and procedural support issue that is reaching critical
mass at ZTL and other busy, understaffed FAA ATC facilities. Simply put, we
are now too busy working airplanes with a skeleton crew at ZTL to squeeze in
training on "little" technical things like new IAP's. It's starting to
seriously impact our technical services to the user, but at least they're
getting maximum customer service efficiency for their tax dollar.

Chip, ZTL

[Greg Esres]

<<Many RNAV approaches have been established within the last three
years that have no connection to Victor airways.
>>

Any airway that passes through one of the TAA sectors is considered
connected, but it's difficult to tell when looking at an approach
plate. Still, even considering that, what you say may be true.

[Dan Luke]

"Chip Jones" wrote:
> > If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder
> > fix that is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with
> > both GPS approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).
> >
>
> Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix,
> the IAF, the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on
> the sector PVD

So Chip, let's suppose you're working my target the next time I need to fly
a GPS approach into Bug Floater Regional. What's the best way I could let
you know my intentions with a view to making the whole thing go smoothly?
What do you need from me - and when?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Chip Jones]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" wrote:
> > > If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder
> > > fix that is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with
> > > both GPS approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).
> > >
> >
> > Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix,
> > the IAF, the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on
> > the sector PVD
>
> So Chip, let's suppose you're working my target the next time I need to
fly
> a GPS approach into Bug Floater Regional. What's the best way I could let
> you know my intentions with a view to making the whole thing go smoothly?
> What do you need from me - and when?

Dan, it sounds to me like you did just about everything that you could do to
make things go as smoothly as possible. I would personally need exactly
what you gave ATC. You gave plenty of lead time, made a clear request and
even offered helpful information about what you needed to do to get to the
IAF. I can't think of anything you could have done better.

The confusion was on the part of ZTL, and IMO it is a result of
unsatisfactory recurrent procedures training (virtually non-existent) on our
part. I can guess what happened behind the scenes too. You made your
request. It caught her by surprise (and controllers hate surprises). Off
mic, she likely cursed aloud and asked her peers if anyone had ever heard of
a GPS 32 into PRN. Someone dug out the plate, and an off mic discussion
took place on what she needed to do to CYA on her phraseology, MIA
requirements etc. I'm sure she had some choice words for her airspace and
procedures person too. We know we have a procedures training problem down
here, or at least the controller workforce knows it. There is no end in
sight and IMO its slowly getting worse as we continue to lose experienced
controllers without replacement. Sorry man.

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
> ...
> > "Chip Jones" wrote:
> > > > If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder
> > > > fix that is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with
> > > > both GPS approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix,
> > > the IAF, the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on
> > > the sector PVD
> >
> > So Chip, let's suppose you're working my target the next time I need to
fly
> > a GPS approach into Bug Floater Regional. What's the best way I could
let
> > you know my intentions with a view to making the whole thing go
smoothly?
> > What do you need from me - and when?
>
> Dan, it sounds to me like you did just about everything that you could do
to
> make things go as smoothly as possible. I would personally need exactly
> what you gave ATC. You gave plenty of lead time, made a clear request and
> even offered helpful information about what you needed to do to get to the
> IAF. I can't think of anything you could have done better.
>
> The confusion was on the part of ZTL, and IMO it is a result of
> unsatisfactory recurrent procedures training (virtually non-existent) on
our
> part.

I read it as an automation problem.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I would *highly* recommend you file a NASA ASRS report about the fumbling
> > and clearance below the altitude for the approach segment to which you
> were
> > being sent. That is your best opportunity to provide some input to
> hopefully
> > get the system working before someone bites a dirt sandwhich.
> >
>
> He wasn't cleared below the altitude for the approach segment, the clearance
> was "maintain at or
> above two thousand one hundred until established on the approach." Nothing
> required him to descend below any charted altitude. No doubt 2100 is the
> local MVA, and you're not gonna bite a dirt sandwich at the MVA.

No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case. But, the problem is
systemic and a different set of misapplications could result in a serious
situation or an accident.

As far as "maintain at or above 2,100," that is a real stretch to say that is an
altitude assignment compatible with the procedure. In fact, it's "cute."

[Chip Jones]

> wrote in message
...
>
>
[snipped]
>
> No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case. But, the problem
is
> systemic and a different set of misapplications could result in a serious
> situation or an accident.

Agreed.

>
> As far as "maintain at or above 2,100," that is a real stretch to say that
is an
> altitude assignment compatible with the procedure. In fact, it's "cute."
>

Looking at this specific procedure, what altitude assignment phraseology
would you suggest as being compatible with both this approach and the
ARTCC's terrain and obstruction separation requirement for enroute IFR
aircraft? "Maintain 3000 until established?"

Chip, ZTL

[[email protected]]

Chip Jones wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> [snipped]
> >
> > No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case. But, the problem
> is
> > systemic and a different set of misapplications could result in a serious
> > situation or an accident.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > As far as "maintain at or above 2,100," that is a real stretch to say that
> is an
> > altitude assignment compatible with the procedure. In fact, it's "cute."
> >
>
> Looking at this specific procedure, what altitude assignment phraseology
> would you suggest as being compatible with both this approach and the
> ARTCC's terrain and obstruction separation requirement for enroute IFR
> aircraft? "Maintain 3000 until established?"
>
> Chip, ZTL

Not quite. "Established" is not appropriate since he was not on a published
route or segment of the approach. The correct phraseology would be "Cross ACMEE
at 3,000, cleared for the Runway 32 RNAV approach." Or, alternatively, it could
be "Cross ACMEE at, or above, 3,000, cleared....." This was brought to APTAC a
couple of years ago and an ATB was issued in 2001 reminding controllers that
"established" is only appropriate for vectors into an airway or published
segment of the IAP. The 7110.65 has had the correct example for years, but it
was (and still is) mostly missed by controllers.

The history behind the distinction is that "established" is suppose to be
limited to published routes or segments to help keep that "TWA 514 hole" tightly
sealed.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Many RNAV approaches have been established within the last three
> years that have no connection to Victor airways.
> >>
>
> Any airway that passes through one of the TAA sectors is considered
> connected, but it's difficult to tell when looking at an approach
> plate. Still, even considering that, what you say may be true.

When a TAA IAP is designed they are supposed to make sure airways pass
through each of the three areas. If not, they are supposed to establish
a feeder fix on an airway that points to the area that has no airways
within it.

I emphasize "suppose," especially since TAAs are sort of like doodoo
birds. (alas).

[[email protected]]

Chip Jones wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Stan Gosnell wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in :
> > >
> > > > Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs
> > > > anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
> > > > required).
> > >
> > > That's a pretty broad statement. Want me to show you some that aren't?
> > >
> >
> > I misspoke, slightly. If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder fix that
> > is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with both GPS
> > approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).
> >
>
> Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix, the IAF,
> the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on the sector PVD (ie- radar
> scope). For example, on the GPS RWY 32 into Greenville, CHAFF intersection
> helps define the IAF UGMUFF's relationship to the rest of the sector fabric.
> However, CHAFF is *unknown* to the ARTCC controller. It isn't plotted and
> displayed on the scope. She has likely *never* even heard of CHAFF in 20
> years of working the same piece of airspace, regardless of the fact that the
> intersection may be established on an airway. Likely, CHAFF only exists on
> a paper chart somewhere in her Area's overhead displays, maybe not even a
> chart she can get to, assuming she isn't too busy to even try to get to it.
> To the controller, assuming that she even knows what CHAFF is, where CHAFF
> is and that CHAFF is now on the plate for the GPS 32 at PRN, she still
> doesn't have a lot to work with. The fact that IAF UGMUFF is plotted on
> the plate 080 degrees at 3.3 miles from CHAFF means nada to the controller
> because CHAFF is just another one of thousands of named fixes in her
> airspace.
>
> This is a training and procedural support issue that is reaching critical
> mass at ZTL and other busy, understaffed FAA ATC facilities. Simply put, we
> are now too busy working airplanes with a skeleton crew at ZTL to squeeze in
> training on "little" technical things like new IAP's. It's starting to
> seriously impact our technical services to the user, but at least they're
> getting maximum customer service efficiency for their tax dollar.
>
> Chip, ZTL

No doubt about it, something is broken.

I passed this thread along to AVN-1. He is bothered by it, too. He was a
controller at one time. I am sure he will communicate with ATS about it all.

The system needs both pilots and controllers on board or RNAV IAPs will end up
becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And, then there
is RNP.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the ATC radar display system is quite
incapable of supporting this emerging technology.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs anchored
> > on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar required).
> >
>
> Rubbish. Many RNAV approaches have been established within the last three
> years that have no connection to Victor airways.

Give me some examples. Your choice of words reek of tact. Yet, when you are
proven wrong, you never fess up to the fact that you don't run AVN or AFS or,
for that matter, ATS.

I work with the IAP policy, you don't.

[Greg Esres]

<<When a TAA IAP is designed they are supposed to make sure airways
pass through each of the three areas. >>

Interesting that there is no guidance published for pilots to indicate
that a whole airway segment might be within a TAA and thus is
considered a "published segment." (I got my factoid from FAAO
8260.45A.)

<<I emphasize "suppose," especially since TAAs are sort of like doodoo
birds. (alas).>>

Uhmm.....Dodo birds, or doodoo birds? :-) Meaning they are either
rare, or nasty. LOL.

Didn't you indicate sometime that the future of the TAA was uncertain,
because they were unpopular with ATC? (We have lots around here.)

[Chip Jones]

> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chip Jones wrote:
>
[snipped]

> >
> > Looking at this specific procedure, what altitude assignment phraseology
> > would you suggest as being compatible with both this approach and the
> > ARTCC's terrain and obstruction separation requirement for enroute IFR
> > aircraft? "Maintain 3000 until established?"
> >
> > Chip, ZTL
>
> Not quite. "Established" is not appropriate since he was not on a
published
> route or segment of the approach.

Gotcha.


>The correct phraseology would be "Cross ACMEE
> at 3,000, cleared for the Runway 32 RNAV approach." Or, alternatively, it
could
> be "Cross ACMEE at, or above, 3,000, cleared....." This was brought to
APTAC a
> couple of years ago and an ATB was issued in 2001 reminding controllers
that
> "established" is only appropriate for vectors into an airway or published
> segment of the IAP. The 7110.65 has had the correct example for years,
but it
> was (and still is) mostly missed by controllers.`

Hey, thanks for the reply. It's got the guys and gals on my crew reviewing
our phraseology and clearance procedures.

In most cases in my airspace the local MIA is higher than the initial
approach altitude on the IAP. Looking east to 47A (Canton/Cherokee County,
Georgia) for example, the MIA over the airport is 4100. Say I have an
aircraft proceding direct EDVIH from the NW, inbound for the GPS Rwy 4. I
have to protect for the 4100 MIA until the aircraft gets established on the
approach. I had been saying "Maintian 4100 until established on the
approach, cleared blah blah blah..." In my case, the safe clearance
phraseology for the GPS procedure at 47A should be "Cross EDVIH at 4100,
cleared GPS Rwy 4 approach." Correct?

Much obliged,

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

> wrote in message
...
>
>
[snipped]

>
> No doubt about it, something is broken.

Yep.

>
> I passed this thread along to AVN-1. He is bothered by it, too. He was a
> controller at one time. I am sure he will communicate with ATS about it
all.
>
> The system needs both pilots and controllers on board or RNAV IAPs will
end up
> becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And, then
there
> is RNP.
>
> It is becoming increasingly apparent that the ATC radar display system is
quite
> incapable of supporting this emerging technology.
>

Actually, the ATC radar display system isn't the weak link here. The
display is quite capable of supporting the technology IMO. The hardware
weak link is the computer system architecture. Adding all of these new
fixes into the local ARTCC data base causes automation problems with
flightplan ammendment processing. This is fixable.

However, the *main* problem is lack of specialized, detailed ATC training on
the particulars of each new approach. This is one of the many downsides to
running the ATC system with too few personnel. This too is fixable, but as
an Agency we are acting like this people part of the problem doesn't even
exist.

Chip, ZTL

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> > "Maintain 3000 until established?"

> Not quite. "Established" is not appropriate since he was not on
> a published route or segment of the approach. The correct
> phraseology would be "Cross ACMEE at 3,000, cleared
> for the Runway 32 RNAV approach."

To be fair to the controller involved, I must say that I am not 100%
certain she used the word "established" in the clearance.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...
> Snowbird wrote:
> > It's generally pretty seamless. They know the fixes and the altitudes,
> > even though our approaches are obnoxious and contain little or no indication
> > of how they relate to the enroute system and the IAFs have nothing to
> > do with airways or intersections on airways or even charted transitions.

> Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs
> anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
> required).

Horseradish. There aren't even charted transitions from ground-based
navaids or intersections on Victor airways on many approaches developed
in the last three years, much less all IAFs anchored on Victor airways.

The trend more and more is to include charted TAAs and to chart the
GPS approaches completely independently of the ground-based navaid
and airway system on which ATC currently still relies.

Sydney

[Greg Esres]

<<chart the GPS approaches completely independently of the
ground-based navaid and airway system on which ATC currently still
relies.
>>

I bet if you check, you'll see that an airway runs through one of the
TAA sectors. That's the case with our local TAAs.

[Mick Ruthven]

For more than their curiosity. They were appreciative of the information
about that new approach before they got their own informtion on it.

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> "Mick Ruthven" wrote:
> > I remember about six years ago our local airport (Gnoss Field, DVO)
> > got a GPS approach and soon after I asked Oakland Center for that
> > as a practice approach. The controller was very straightforward about
> > the fact that he didn't know of the approach. So I told him where it
> > was and gave him a position report at the IAF and subsequent fixes.
>
> So not much has changed, huh?
>
> I assume you were in radar contact and the position reports were just for
> the controllers curiosity...?
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

>
> Didn't you indicate sometime that the future of the TAA was uncertain,
> because they were unpopular with ATC? (We have lots around here.)

A few centers accept them without much heartburn. Most centers, though,
fight them. Where they are needed the most; i.e., out in the
intermountain west with no radar coverage at TAA altitudes, ATC claims
that FAA controllers don't have the training to provide non-radar
separation in TAA areas.

[[email protected]]

Snowbird wrote:

> wrote in message >...
> > Snowbird wrote:
> > > It's generally pretty seamless. They know the fixes and the altitudes,
> > > even though our approaches are obnoxious and contain little or no indication
> > > of how they relate to the enroute system and the IAFs have nothing to
> > > do with airways or intersections on airways or even charted transitions.
>
> > Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has its IAFs
> > anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
> > required).
>
> Horseradish. There aren't even charted transitions from ground-based
> navaids or intersections on Victor airways on many approaches developed
> in the last three years, much less all IAFs anchored on Victor airways.
>
> The trend more and more is to include charted TAAs and to chart the
> GPS approaches completely independently of the ground-based navaid
> and airway system on which ATC currently still relies.
>
> Sydney

I corrected the post to state that a feeder anchored on an airway will lead to the
IAFs. Do you have a horseradish example you would care to share?

[[email protected]]

Chip Jones wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Chip Jones wrote:
> >
> [snipped]
>
> > >
> > > Looking at this specific procedure, what altitude assignment phraseology
> > > would you suggest as being compatible with both this approach and the
> > > ARTCC's terrain and obstruction separation requirement for enroute IFR
> > > aircraft? "Maintain 3000 until established?"
> > >
> > > Chip, ZTL
> >
> > Not quite. "Established" is not appropriate since he was not on a
> published
> > route or segment of the approach.
>
> Gotcha.
>
> >The correct phraseology would be "Cross ACMEE
> > at 3,000, cleared for the Runway 32 RNAV approach." Or, alternatively, it
> could
> > be "Cross ACMEE at, or above, 3,000, cleared....." This was brought to
> APTAC a
> > couple of years ago and an ATB was issued in 2001 reminding controllers
> that
> > "established" is only appropriate for vectors into an airway or published
> > segment of the IAP. The 7110.65 has had the correct example for years,
> but it
> > was (and still is) mostly missed by controllers.`
>
> Hey, thanks for the reply. It's got the guys and gals on my crew reviewing
> our phraseology and clearance procedures.
>
> In most cases in my airspace the local MIA is higher than the initial
> approach altitude on the IAP. Looking east to 47A (Canton/Cherokee County,
> Georgia) for example, the MIA over the airport is 4100. Say I have an
> aircraft proceding direct EDVIH from the NW, inbound for the GPS Rwy 4. I
> have to protect for the 4100 MIA until the aircraft gets established on the
> approach. I had been saying "Maintian 4100 until established on the
> approach, cleared blah blah blah..." In my case, the safe clearance
> phraseology for the GPS procedure at 47A should be "Cross EDVIH at 4100,
> cleared GPS Rwy 4 approach." Correct?
>
> Much obliged,
>
> Chip, ZTL

Correct. And that is covered in a 2001 ATB, 2001-4 as I recall.

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> > wrote:
> > > "Maintain 3000 until established?"
>
> > Not quite. "Established" is not appropriate since he was not on
> > a published route or segment of the approach. The correct
> > phraseology would be "Cross ACMEE at 3,000, cleared
> > for the Runway 32 RNAV approach."
>
> To be fair to the controller involved, I must say that I am not 100%
> certain she used the word "established" in the clearance.
> --

That's a small point. The greater issue is that you were not assigned
3,000 (or at or above 3,000) to cross the IAF.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> No broader than the policy presently in effect.
>
> If you can find any that are less than 3 years old, fire away. In the
> early days there were a lot of them that weren't anchored to airways.
>
> And, of course, RNAV IAPs with TAAs are a different matter.
>

Here ya go:

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/EastCentral/3D2_gr32.pdf

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I misspoke, slightly.
>

No, you were flat-out wrong.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Any airway that passes through one of the TAA sectors is considered
> connected, but it's difficult to tell when looking at an approach
> plate.
>

Considered by whom? A Victor airway passing through a TAA is not the same
as "IAFs anchored
on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar required)."


>
> Still, even considering that, what you say may be true.
>

One need only examine the TPPs to see that it's true.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> A few centers accept them without much heartburn. Most centers, though,
> fight them. Where they are needed the most; i.e., out in the
> intermountain west with no radar coverage at TAA altitudes, ATC claims
> that FAA controllers don't have the training to provide non-radar
> separation in TAA areas.
>

Can you cite that claim?

[Greg Esres]

<<Considered by whom? >>

Flight Procedures.

<<A Victor airway passing through a TAA is not the same as "IAFs
anchored on Victor airways>>

They're identical to a feeder route anchored on a Victor Airway, which
leads to an IAF. Same thing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Flight Procedures.
>

Citation?


>
> They're identical to a feeder route anchored on a Victor Airway, which
> leads to an IAF. Same thing.
>

The assertion by Airperson was "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years,
or more, has its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS
(I.e., radar required)." Feeder routes and Victor airways passing through
TAAs are not the same as "IAFs anchored on Victor airways".

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
| How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach
control?
| I'd be interested to hear your experiences.
|

I have not had a problem with it yet, having flown GPS approaches with
Seattle, Salt Lake, and Albuquerque centers. Of course, they could be just
bluffing: "N7277M, cleared GPS Hoquiam, etc." without really knowing what
they are talking about.

[Greg Esres]

<<Citation?>>

FAAO 8260.45A "TAA Design Criteria"

<-------------snip-------------->
CONNECTION TO EN ROUTE STRUCTURE.
Normally, a portion of the TAA will overlie an airway. If this is not
the case, construct at least one feeder route from an airway fix or
NAVAID to the TAA boundary aligned along a direct course from the en
route fix/NAVAID to the appropriate IF(IAF) and/or T IAF(s) (see
figure 5F). Multiple feeder routes may be established if the procedure
specialist deems necessary.
<-------------snip-------------->

<<Feeder routes and Victor airways passing through TAAs are not the
same as "IAFs anchored on Victor airways".>>

And the functional difference is?

[Snowbird]

Greg Esres > wrote in message >...
> <<chart the GPS approaches completely independently of the
> ground-based navaid and airway system on which ATC currently still
> relies.

> I bet if you check, you'll see that an airway runs through one of the
> TAA sectors. That's the case with our local TAAs.

I'll check. In at least one case, I know you're right (though
it only runs through two of the three TAAs) but ....

.....whether or not this is true, it
A. doesn't help the pilot understand how the approach fits into
the ground based navaid/Victor airway system because the airways
aren't charted on the IAP and the TAAs/IAFs aren't charted on the
low altitude enroute
B. doesn't help the controller understand the position of the
various RNAV approach fixes if they aren't in their host
computer database
C. it differs substantively IMO from the original statement, which
was IIRC that all GPS approaches developed in the last three years
have their IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless they are radar-
required and have no IAFs.

At least "there is a Victor airway running through the TAA somewhere"
and "the IAF is anchored on a Victor airway" are statements with
different meaning to me.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Greg Esres]

<<At least "there is a Victor airway running through the TAA
somewhere" and "the IAF is anchored on a Victor airway" are statements
with different meaning to me. >>

I agree with your criticisms of the method of attachment and the lack
of information available to the pilot.

I believe the statement you quoted above was sorta "high level." Even
non-GPS approaches often are connected to the enroute segment via
feeder routes, rather than having an IAF on the airway.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A few centers accept them without much heartburn. Most centers, though,
> > fight them. Where they are needed the most; i.e., out in the
> > intermountain west with no radar coverage at TAA altitudes, ATC claims
> > that FAA controllers don't have the training to provide non-radar
> > separation in TAA areas.
> >
>
> Can you cite that claim?

Why don't you contact Brad W. Rush, Deputy Manager of AVN-100. He can tell
you all you want to know about centers and TAAs.

[[email protected]]

Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Any airway that passes through one of the TAA sectors is considered
> > connected, but it's difficult to tell when looking at an approach
> > plate.
> >
>
> Considered by whom? A Victor airway passing through a TAA is not the same
> as "IAFs anchored
> on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar required)."
>
> >
> > Still, even considering that, what you say may be true.
> >
>
> One need only examine the TPPs to see that it's true.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Flight Procedures.
> >
>
> Citation?

FAA Order 8260.45A, "Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) Design Criteria, specifically,
the following paragraph:

8.5 CONNECTION TO EN ROUTE STRUCTURE.
Normally, a portion of the TAA will overlie an airway. If this is not the case,

construct at least one feeder route from an airway fix or NAVAID to the TAA
boundary aligned along a direct course from the en route fix/NAVAID to the
appropriate IF(IAF) and/or T IAF(s) (see figure 5F). Multiple feeder routes may
be established if the procedure specialist deems necessary.

I thought you had all these orders in hand, Steve.

[[email protected]]

Snowbird wrote:

> Greg Esres > wrote in message >...
> > <<chart the GPS approaches completely independently of the
> > ground-based navaid and airway system on which ATC currently still
> > relies.
>
> > I bet if you check, you'll see that an airway runs through one of the
> > TAA sectors. That's the case with our local TAAs.
>
> I'll check. In at least one case, I know you're right (though
> it only runs through two of the three TAAs) but ....
>
> ....whether or not this is true, it
> A. doesn't help the pilot understand how the approach fits into
> the ground based navaid/Victor airway system because the airways
> aren't charted on the IAP and the TAAs/IAFs aren't charted on the
> low altitude enroute
> B. doesn't help the controller understand the position of the
> various RNAV approach fixes if they aren't in their host
> computer database
> C. it differs substantively IMO from the original statement, which
> was IIRC that all GPS approaches developed in the last three years
> have their IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless they are radar-
> required and have no IAFs.

That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to either feeder fixes or IAFs.

[Greg Esres]

<<Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.>>

I agree that it's common sense.

One thing about TAA's that bothers me is the definition of the
sectors. The distance is to the IAF in the right or left base, but
the bearings are to the IF. GPSs don't display the bearing to the IF,
when you're headed to one of the "T" IAFs. (But you can get it on the
KLN-94 by scrolling through the fixes in the active flight plan.)

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.>>
>
> I agree that it's common sense.
>
> One thing about TAA's that bothers me is the definition of the
> sectors. The distance is to the IAF in the right or left base, but
> the bearings are to the IF. GPSs don't display the bearing to the IF,
> when you're headed to one of the "T" IAFs. (But you can get it on the
> KLN-94 by scrolling through the fixes in the active flight plan.)

I'm not sure I follow you. If I am going to a right or left base IAF,
that is my active waypoint, with bearing and distance appropriate to the
TAA area. If I am in the straight-in area, then the IF is my active
waypoint.

Am I missing something?

Having said that, If TAAs ever really fly (no pun intended) the TAAs
would likely be part of a moving map at some point. Then, it would be
pretty straight forward.

[Greg Esres]

<<that is my active waypoint, with bearing and distance appropriate to
the TAA area. >>

The way the TAA's are charted, the bearings that define the sectors
are not to the active waypoint (except for the straight-in), they're
defined to the IF. (This is a bit clearer on the NACO charts.)

And the AIM says
----------<snip>-------------
TAA area lateral boundaries are identified by magnetic course to the
IF(IAF).
----------<snip>-------------

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<that is my active waypoint, with bearing and distance appropriate to
> the TAA area. >>
>
> The way the TAA's are charted, the bearings that define the sectors
> are not to the active waypoint (except for the straight-in), they're
> defined to the IF. (This is a bit clearer on the NACO charts.)
>
> And the AIM says
> ----------<snip>-------------
> TAA area lateral boundaries are identified by magnetic course to the
> IF(IAF).
> ----------<snip>-------------

I had missed that. I've only flown a couple of these and it was in the
straight-in area both times. Without a moving map display of the areas
that could be a trap using either base leg area.

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...

> That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to either feeder fixes or IAFs.

Um, no, not in the original post to which I was responding. It
didn't exclude anything, nor did the subsequent correction state
that a Victor airway running *through* the TAA was considered
a feeder route or being "anchored" or whatever you consider it as.

I *think* it's still not true, but as qualified, it does apply
to several approaches I had in mind -- they do have TAAs and
at least one V airway running through a TAA. Or, they have
a feeder fix from an intersection, even if it might be an
intersection no sane pilot or ATCs would use as a feeder (while
others which would make sense are not charted). Hopefully I'll
have a little time to do some checking this weekend.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...

> I corrected the post to state that a feeder anchored on an airway
> will lead to the IAFs. Do you have a horseradish example you would
> care to share?

As stated above, sure. However, if you're also excluding TAAs (as
you've stated in later posts elsewhere), or as Greg Esres says,
considering any Victor airway which passes through any portion of
a TAA as "anchoring the IAF to the airway", then I'm not sure and
need to do some checking.

The "horseradish" applied to your original post, as originally
stated, not as applied to all the caveats which gradually trickled
in at a later date :)

Sydney

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No broader than the policy presently in effect.
> >
> > If you can find any that are less than 3 years old, fire away. In the
> > early days there were a lot of them that weren't anchored to airways.
> >
> > And, of course, RNAV IAPs with TAAs are a different matter.
> >
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/EastCentral/3D2_gr32.pdf

That is a very old GPS approach, as indicated by the title not stating
"RNAV(GPS)."

[[email protected]]

Snowbird wrote:

> wrote in message >...
>
> > That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to either feeder fixes or IAFs.
>
> Um, no, not in the original post to which I was responding. It
> didn't exclude anything, nor did the subsequent correction state
> that a Victor airway running *through* the TAA was considered
> a feeder route or being "anchored" or whatever you consider it as.
>

Well, the original post was corrected within a day. This isn't a editor's review board, is it? ;-)

>
> I *think* it's still not true, but as qualified, it does apply
> to several approaches I had in mind -- they do have TAAs and
> at least one V airway running through a TAA. Or, they have
> a feeder fix from an intersection, even if it might be an
> intersection no sane pilot or ATCs would use as a feeder (while
> others which would make sense are not charted). Hopefully I'll
> have a little time to do some checking this weekend.
>
>

You were provided the criteria reference for TAAs by both Greg and me. If you find a TAA IAP that does not
meet that criterion, tell it to the FAA. It's their criteria.

[[email protected]]

Snowbird wrote:

> wrote in message >...
>
> > I corrected the post to state that a feeder anchored on an airway
> > will lead to the IAFs. Do you have a horseradish example you would
> > care to share?
>
> As stated above, sure. However, if you're also excluding TAAs (as
> you've stated in later posts elsewhere), or as Greg Esres says,
> considering any Victor airway which passes through any portion of
> a TAA as "anchoring the IAF to the airway", then I'm not sure and
> need to do some checking

A victor airway or airways passing through a TAA area ties that TAA area to the en
route structure.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No broader than the policy presently in effect.
> >
> > If you can find any that are less than 3 years old, fire away. In the
> > early days there were a lot of them that weren't anchored to airways.
> >
> > And, of course, RNAV IAPs with TAAs are a different matter.
> >
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/EastCentral/3D2_gr32.pdf

That approach was effective 22 May 1997, and has not been amended since.
Since it is worked by your facility you should have a copy of the 8260 on
record (but then again, maybe not~)

[Greg Esres]

<<that could be a trap using either base leg area.>>

Yes! The difference is greatest when approaching from the "bottom" of
the T. The AIM should be far more explicit regarding this, IMO.

[John Clonts]

Greg Esres > wrote in message
...
> <<that could be a trap using either base leg area.>>
>
> Yes! The difference is greatest when approaching from the "bottom" of
> the T. The AIM should be far more explicit regarding this, IMO.

Hello Greg,

I am interested in this but am having trouble visualizing the "trap" that
you are talking about. Isn't the appropriate arrival sector obvious once
you choose the closest IAF leg? Can you show an example where it isn't?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Greg Esres]

<<Isn't the appropriate arrival sector obvious once you choose the
closest IAF leg? Can you show an example where it isn't?>>

The arrival sector is obvious, but what isn't obvious is when you're
IN the sector.

There are two requirements to be in a sector:

1) You're within the distance specified, normally 30 nm, and
2) You're within the range of bearings depicted on the chart.

Seems clear?

BUT: the distance is specified to the IAF of either the left or right
base, but the bearings are ALWAYS to the IF.

Let's assume that the FAC is 180. If, for instance, you were exactly
at the bottom of the T, the GPS bearing would show maybe a 020,
because it would be indicating towards the IAF. In actuality, the
course defining the sector is to the IF, so what you need to see is
"360". In this instance, you might conclude that you were not in the
arrival area, when you really are. I haven't yet figured out a
geometry where the reverse is true, nor do I yet see how this might
make you hit something.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Give me some examples.
>

AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 16
AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 34
BCK RNAV (GPS) RWY 8

There's three in just the first 53 pages out of 627 in TPP EC3.


>
> Your choice of words reek of tact.
>

Let's see, words that reek of tact would be......tactful, would they not?


>
> Yet, when you are proven wrong, you never fess up to the fact that you
don't run
> AVN or AFS or, for that matter, ATS.
>

Well, I certainly have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong, and I have done
so. I fail to see the connection with running AVN or AFS or ATS though. I
don't recall being proven wrong in any discussion that you've participated
in.


>
> I work with the IAP policy, you don't.
>

No, I don't. But I do work with IAP reality, and it appears you do not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Why don't you contact Brad W. Rush, Deputy Manager of AVN-100. He can
> tell you all you want to know about centers and TAAs.
>

When Brad W. Rush posts a dubious claim in this forum I'll ask him to
support it. While Mr. Rush may be able to tell me something about TAAs,
it's very unlikely he's in a position to tell me anything about ARTCCs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.
>

Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100 perhaps, but not by anyone with common
sense.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to
> either feeder fixes or IAFs.
>

The statement was, "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has
its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
required)." It did not exclude TAA approaches.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> That is a very old GPS approach, as indicated by the title not stating
> "RNAV(GPS)."
>

So what? The assertion was, "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or
more, has its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS
(I.e., radar required)." Three years OR MORE.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> That approach was effective 22 May 1997, and has not been amended since.
>

What's your point? Your assertion was, "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past
3 years, or more, has its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are
no IAFS (I.e., radar required)." May 1997 was six and a half years ago,
that's more than three years.

[Greg Esres]

<<AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 16
AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 34>>

I don't have the enroute charts for this area, but from my national
map, it looks as if V191 and V217 pass through both TAAs at AIG. Yes?

As for BCK, V246 would seem to be in the straight-in sector of the
TAA, and V345 might be in both base sectors.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't have the enroute charts for this area, but from my national
> map, it looks as if V191 and V217 pass through both TAAs at AIG. Yes?
>
> As for BCK, V246 would seem to be in the straight-in sector of the
> TAA, and V345 might be in both base sectors.
>

Yes, but that's not the issue. None of the IAFs are on airways.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case.
>

Nor will you bite a dirt sandwich in any similar case.


>
> But, the problem is systemic and a different set of misapplications could
> result in a serious situation or an accident.
>

Why, yes, different circumstances could have different results. In fact,
I'd go a bit further and say that different circumstances would very
probably produce different results. I believe that's true in any endeavor.
But let's confine our discussion to the circumstances in this case.

The controller is obviously unfamiliar with the desired approach, probably
because she didn't have access to current publications. When about 25 miles
out, the pilot requests a clearance direct to an IAF and states the heading
that would require. She issues the clearance; "Cessna '87D,
cleared...ah...for what you requested. Maintain at or above two thousand one
hundred until established on the approach, cleared approach to Greenville,
report canceling...etc." Not the best way to handle it, but perhaps the
best that could be done under the circumstances.

Your advice was; "I would *highly* recommend you file a NASA ASRS report
about the fumbling and
clearance below the altitude for the approach segment to which you were
being sent. That is your best opportunity to provide some input to
hopefully get the system working before someone bites a dirt sandwhich."

First of all, the guy wasn't "being sent" anywhere. He REQUESTED a
clearance direct to the IAF and he was cleared as requested. Nor was he
cleared below the approach segment for which he was cleared. The clearance
was "Maintain at or above two thousand one hundred until established on the
approach". We must assume 2100 was the MIA for the area and the controller
didn't know the published altitudes because she didn't have the IAP and the
pilot didn't tell her. So "at or above two thousand one hundred" covers all
the bases. It does not require him to descend below the published altitude
for the approach segment but it does provide obstacle clearance until he is
on a published segment.

A greater concern is what they're using in lieu of current publications.
Perhaps data from old publications? Greenville Muni was formerly served by
a single IAP, the NDB or GPS RWY 32. (I have an SE4 book dated 26 Feb
1998.) Persimmon NDB was on the field, but it was decommissioned at some
point in the past five years. There are now two GPS approaches serving this
field, GPS RWY 14 and GPS RWY 32. They're apparently quite recent as
MyAirplane.Com doesn't have them yet.


>
> As far as "maintain at or above 2,100," that is a real stretch to say that
> is an altitude assignment compatible with the procedure.
>

Really? In what universe is 3,000 MSL not above 2,100 MSL?


>
> In fact, it's "cute."
>

In fact, it's "logic". You should try it.

[Greg Esres]

<<None of the IAFs are on airways.>>

Steven, get over it. <g>

The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
and let's move on. ;-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven, get over it. <g>
>
> The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
> and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
> and let's move on. ;-)
>

If you don't want your questions answered, don't ask them.

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...
> Snowbird wrote:
> > wrote in message >...
> > > That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to either feeder fixes or IAFs.

> > Um, no, not in the original post to which I was responding. It
> > didn't exclude anything, nor did the subsequent correction state
> > that a Victor airway running *through* the TAA was considered
> > a feeder route or being "anchored" or whatever you consider it as.

> Well, the original post was corrected within a day. This isn't a
> editor's review board, is it? ;-)

This is not an editor's review board, it's USENET.

And while most people of good will try to interpret someone as
they mean -- including later corrections -- it's considered
polite and good form to acknowledge that the original post was
erroneous or oversimplified, and later corrected -- especially
when you're responding to follows on the original post.

It's kinda tacky IMO to make a follow "that statement excluded
TAAs yadda yadda" when in fact, the statement to which I was
replying did no such thing. You know "yes, you're right, that
wasn't the original statement, but what I intended to say was...."

> You were provided the criteria reference for TAAs by both
> Greg and me. If you find a TAA IAP that does not
> meet that criterion, tell it to the FAA. It's their criteria.

Oh, no. I'll be telling YOU, because you're the gent who's
insisting there's no such thing (albeit with many more qualifiers
than originally stated, and which may be sufficient), with
considerable vehemence and in previous follows, challenging
me to provide YOU with examples.

As for the FAA, I've expressed a couple of personal views about
GPS approaches and how they're being charted to them directly
on two occasions so far, in writing, for all the good it does me.

Cheers,
Sydney

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That approach was effective 22 May 1997, and has not been amended since.
> >
>
> What's your point? Your assertion was, "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past
> 3 years, or more, has its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are
> no IAFS (I.e., radar required)." May 1997 was six and a half years ago,
> that's more than three years.

It should be apparent that l meant within the last three years, or so. Unlike
you, I am not a perfect typist at all hours of the day.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Why don't you contact Brad W. Rush, Deputy Manager of AVN-100. He can
> > tell you all you want to know about centers and TAAs.
> >
>
> When Brad W. Rush posts a dubious claim in this forum I'll ask him to
> support it. While Mr. Rush may be able to tell me something about TAAs,
> it's very unlikely he's in a position to tell me anything about ARTCCs.

He has to argue with AT types at work. I doubt he wants to to it for "fun."

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.>>
>
> I agree that it's common sense.
>
> One thing about TAA's that bothers me is the definition of the
> sectors. The distance is to the IAF in the right or left base, but
> the bearings are to the IF. GPSs don't display the bearing to the IF,
> when you're headed to one of the "T" IAFs. (But you can get it on the
> KLN-94 by scrolling through the fixes in the active flight plan.)

More on this:

I have a modified version of the Garmin 530 trainer that works with MSFS
2002. I loaded the RNAV (GPS) RWY 21 approach for KPRC and set myself up
to enter the right-base TAA from the southwest. This would require DUKIW
to be the first active waypoint. I will remain within protected airspace
(within 30 miles of DUKIW) by using the 028 clockwise to 118 bearings off
DUKIW. All I do is exclude using the airspace east of the 118 bearing
from DUKIW to PEVYU.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> It should be apparent that l meant within the last three years, or so.
> Unlike you, I am not a perfect typist at all hours of the day.
>

You're saying you misspelled "so" as "more"? What's apparent is you don't
know what you're talking about.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It should be apparent that l meant within the last three years, or so.
> > Unlike you, I am not a perfect typist at all hours of the day.
> >
>
> You're saying you misspelled "so" as "more"? What's apparent is you don't
> know what you're talking about.

You just love being an antagonistic jerk. You bring discredit upon your
craft.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.
> >
>
> Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100 perhaps, but not by anyone with common
> sense.

That comment says legions about you. Now, if only the FAA would recognize
your talent, you would be Administrator tomorrow.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't have the enroute charts for this area, but from my national
> > map, it looks as if V191 and V217 pass through both TAAs at AIG. Yes?
> >
> > As for BCK, V246 would seem to be in the straight-in sector of the
> > TAA, and V345 might be in both base sectors.
> >
>
> Yes, but that's not the issue. None of the IAFs are on airways.

That's not the issue, either.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<None of the IAFs are on airways.>>
>
> Steven, get over it. <g>
>
> The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
> and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
> and let's move on. ;-)

Greg, it's his nature to be argumentative. What he has constructively
provided to this thread escapes me.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Steven, get over it. <g>
> >
> > The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
> > and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
> > and let's move on. ;-)
> >
>
> If you don't want your questions answered, don't ask them.

If there was a way to kick you out of the "room" that would be the most
positive contribution to the forum.

[[email protected]]

Snowbird wrote:

> wrote in message >...
> > Snowbird wrote:
> > > wrote in message >...
> > > > That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to either feeder fixes or IAFs.
>
> > > Um, no, not in the original post to which I was responding. It
> > > didn't exclude anything, nor did the subsequent correction state
> > > that a Victor airway running *through* the TAA was considered
> > > a feeder route or being "anchored" or whatever you consider it as.
>
> > Well, the original post was corrected within a day. This isn't a
> > editor's review board, is it? ;-)
>
> This is not an editor's review board, it's USENET.
>
> And while most people of good will try to interpret someone as
> they mean -- including later corrections -- it's considered
> polite and good form to acknowledge that the original post was
> erroneous or oversimplified, and later corrected -- especially
> when you're responding to follows on the original post.
>
> It's kinda tacky IMO to make a follow "that statement excluded
> TAAs yadda yadda" when in fact, the statement to which I was
> replying did no such thing. You know "yes, you're right, that
> wasn't the original statement, but what I intended to say was...."
>
> > You were provided the criteria reference for TAAs by both
> > Greg and me. If you find a TAA IAP that does not
> > meet that criterion, tell it to the FAA. It's their criteria.
>
> Oh, no. I'll be telling YOU, because you're the gent who's
> insisting there's no such thing (albeit with many more qualifiers
> than originally stated, and which may be sufficient), with
> considerable vehemence and in previous follows, challenging
> me to provide YOU with examples.
>
> As for the FAA, I've expressed a couple of personal views about
> GPS approaches and how they're being charted to them directly
> on two occasions so far, in writing, for all the good it does me.
>

You would probably get further with AOPA.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case.
> >
>
> Nor will you bite a dirt sandwich in any similar case.
>
> >
> > But, the problem is systemic and a different set of misapplications could
> > result in a serious situation or an accident.
> >
>
> Why, yes, different circumstances could have different results. In fact,
> I'd go a bit further and say that different circumstances would very
> probably produce different results. I believe that's true in any endeavor.
> But let's confine our discussion to the circumstances in this case.
>
> The controller is obviously unfamiliar with the desired approach, probably
> because she didn't have access to current publications. When about 25 miles
> out, the pilot requests a clearance direct to an IAF and states the heading
> that would require. She issues the clearance; "Cessna '87D,
> cleared...ah...for what you requested. Maintain at or above two thousand one
> hundred until established on the approach, cleared approach to Greenville,
> report canceling...etc." Not the best way to handle it, but perhaps the
> best that could be done under the circumstances.
>
> Your advice was; "I would *highly* recommend you file a NASA ASRS report
> about the fumbling and
> clearance below the altitude for the approach segment to which you were
> being sent. That is your best opportunity to provide some input to
> hopefully get the system working before someone bites a dirt sandwhich."
>
> First of all, the guy wasn't "being sent" anywhere. He REQUESTED a
> clearance direct to the IAF and he was cleared as requested. Nor was he
> cleared below the approach segment for which he was cleared. The clearance
> was "Maintain at or above two thousand one hundred until established on the
> approach". We must assume 2100 was the MIA for the area and the controller
> didn't know the published altitudes because she didn't have the IAP and the
> pilot didn't tell her. So "at or above two thousand one hundred" covers all
> the bases. It does not require him to descend below the published altitude
> for the approach segment but it does provide obstacle clearance until he is
> on a published segment.
>
> A greater concern is what they're using in lieu of current publications.
> Perhaps data from old publications? Greenville Muni was formerly served by
> a single IAP, the NDB or GPS RWY 32. (I have an SE4 book dated 26 Feb
> 1998.) Persimmon NDB was on the field, but it was decommissioned at some
> point in the past five years. There are now two GPS approaches serving this
> field, GPS RWY 14 and GPS RWY 32. They're apparently quite recent as
> MyAirplane.Com doesn't have them yet.
>
> >
> > As far as "maintain at or above 2,100," that is a real stretch to say that
> > is an altitude assignment compatible with the procedure.
> >
>
> Really? In what universe is 3,000 MSL not above 2,100 MSL?
>
> >
> > In fact, it's "cute."
> >
>
> In fact, it's "logic". You should try it.

I recommended the NASA report after a friend of mine review the message. He is
a former USAF ATC and TERPs type who is a TERPs expert with the FAA.

[Tom S.]

> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Greg Esres wrote:
>
> > <<None of the IAFs are on airways.>>
> >
> > Steven, get over it. <g>
> >
> > The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
> > and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
> > and let's move on. ;-)
>
> Greg, it's his nature to be argumentative. What he has constructively
> provided to this thread escapes me.

Constructively, nothing; my guess is it's all his own delicate and overblown
ego. He's been in my "bozo bin" for some time based his childish manner.

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> > If you don't want your questions answered, don't ask them.

> If there was a way to kick you out of the "room" that would be the most
> positive contribution to the forum.

Oh, FerCryingOutLoud. Gawd knows that I've been drawn into
long nitpicking exchanges with SPM myself in the past, but
I take responsibility MYSELF for that. If I don't like that
sort of exchange, I'm free to state my bit once then shut up
and move on.

There's no question that over the long haul, Steve McNicoll
has made many factual and correct contributions to the group
which are positive and helpful. (He's made many nitpicking
arguments too, but we all have our flaws)

Maybe I'll be able to say the same about you some day, but
I can't now, so IMHO it is WAY out of line to discuss "kicking
out" a long-term contributor as a "positive contribution".

If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.

Best wishes,
Sydney

[Tom S.]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.

It's not the "what", but the "how".

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> om...
> > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.
>
> It's not the "what", but the "how".

So Tom, you claim that you can hear the voices in Steve's head? :)

[Tom S.]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> > >
> > > If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.
> >
> > It's not the "what", but the "how".
>
> So Tom, you claim that you can hear the voices in Steve's head? :)
>
Yup, in your head as well....and I'm telling your mother!

[Snowbird]

wrote in message >...

I just left this part in 'cuz it wasn't addressed:
> > And while most people of good will try to interpret someone as
> > they mean -- including later corrections -- it's considered
> > polite and good form to acknowledge that the original post was
> > erroneous or oversimplified, and later corrected -- especially
> > when you're responding to follows on the original post.

> > It's kinda tacky IMO to make a follow "that statement excluded
> > TAAs yadda yadda" when in fact, the statement to which I was
> > replying did no such thing. You know "yes, you're right, that
> > wasn't the original statement, but what I intended to say was...."

> > As for the FAA, I've expressed a couple of personal views about
> > GPS approaches and how they're being charted to them directly
> > on two occasions so far, in writing, for all the good it does me.

> You would probably get further with AOPA.

BTTT, Negative.

Cheers,
Sydney

[[email protected]]

Snowbird wrote:

> wrote in message >...
>
> I just left this part in 'cuz it wasn't addressed:
> > > And while most people of good will try to interpret someone as
> > > they mean -- including later corrections -- it's considered
> > > polite and good form to acknowledge that the original post was
> > > erroneous or oversimplified, and later corrected -- especially
> > > when you're responding to follows on the original post.
>
> > > It's kinda tacky IMO to make a follow "that statement excluded
> > > TAAs yadda yadda" when in fact, the statement to which I was
> > > replying did no such thing. You know "yes, you're right, that
> > > wasn't the original statement, but what I intended to say was...."
>
> > > As for the FAA, I've expressed a couple of personal views about
> > > GPS approaches and how they're being charted to them directly
> > > on two occasions so far, in writing, for all the good it does me.
>
> > You would probably get further with AOPA.
>
> BTTT, Negative.
>

I'm not surprised. It seems no one within the industry or FAA wants input from
outside their busy "insider" work groups.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the functional difference is?
>

Irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Not quite. "Established" is not appropriate since he was not on a
> published route or segment of the approach. The correct phraseology
> would be "Cross ACMEE at 3,000, cleared for the Runway 32 RNAV
> approach." Or, alternatively, it could be "Cross ACMEE at, or above,
> 3,000, cleared....." This was brought to APTAC a couple of years ago
> and an ATB was issued in 2001 reminding controllers that "established"
> is only appropriate for vectors into an airway or published segment of the
> IAP. The 7110.65 has had the correct example for years, but it was (and
> still is) mostly missed by controllers.
>

There was nothing wrong with the controller's use of "until established" in
this case. FAAO 7110.65 para 4-8-1.b.2. requires controllers to assign an
altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a
published route or instrument approach procedure to aircraft operating on
unpublished routes. It does not prescribe specific phraseology. It does
provide an example of a proper clearance which uses the "cross FIX" format,
but phraseology examples provided where the preceding paragraph does not
include specific prescribed phraseology are just suggestions. Remember, the
controller in this case was not familiar with the approach, presumably for
reasons beyond her control. She can hardly be expected to specify an
unknown fix.


>
> The history behind the distinction is that "established" is suppose to be
> limited to published routes or segments to help keep that "TWA 514 hole"
> tightly sealed.
>

You're confusing the situation here with being vectored for an approach.
"Maintain X thousand until established on the localizer" is problematical
when the vector will intercept the localizer beyond the published segment.
In that case the clearance must be withheld until the aircraft is
established
on a published segment, or a crossing restriction must be issued with the
clearance. In the situation here the pilot requested clearance direct to an
IAF, he was cleared as requested, told to maintain at or above 2100 until
established on the approach, and cleared for the approach. He was on his
own navigation all the way and had good altitude information throughout.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> That's a small point. The greater issue is that you were not assigned
> 3,000 (or at or above 3,000) to cross the IAF.
>

That's not an issue at all. He was issued "at or above two thousand one
hundred until established on the approach" which meets all requirements.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> You just love being an antagonistic jerk. You bring discredit upon your
> craft.
>

Not at all. When someone posts something in these forums that is
demonstrably untrue I simply feel compelled to correct the disinformation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> That's not the issue, either.
>

That's precisely the issue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> What he has constructively provided to this thread escapes me.
>

I'm sure that's true.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I recommended the NASA report after a friend of mine review the message.
> He is a former USAF ATC and TERPs type who is a TERPs expert with the FAA.
>

Well, if you and he are of the same mind on this, he was wrong as well. The
only problem illustrated in this episode is that some controllers may not
have current publications available.