When to descend

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF


When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Dan Luke" > said:
>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
>
>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?

Good question. What does "established" mean on GPS approach? I'm
guessing they said that because they don't want you to descend to the
sector altitude (2700) when you hit 30nm out, so I guess I'd wait until
crossing UDUZI and descend to 2000. In a T182, I'm guessing you'd need to
make at least 1000 fpm to get to 2000 before UGMAH.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....I've discovered the one thing worse than people who open attachments
from people they don't know. People who delete files when instructed
by people they don't know. -- Michael

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:

> You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
> maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
>
> When do you descend below 4,000



Anytime after UDUZI.


and to what altitude?


At or above 2000

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
> maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
>
> When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>

30 miles from UDUZI, 2700 MSL.

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/09/07 08:09, Dan Luke wrote:
> You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
> maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
>
> When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>

UDUZI is the IAF, so once you're cleared for the approach, and you reach
the IAF, you fly the altitudes prescribed by the approach. For the leg
from UDUZI to UGMAH, that would be at or above 2000'.

I assume your question is due to the sector altitude of 2500 in the
region from UGMAH NW, between the 140 and 185 from UGMAH? Otherwise,
perhaps you could explain what it is about the plate that leaves you
with a question?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Bee]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>> maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>
>>
>> When do you descend below 4,000
>
>
>
>
> Anytime after UDUZI.
>
>
> and to what altitude?
>
>
> At or above 2000

wrong

[Bee]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>
>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>
>>
>>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>>
>
>
> 30 miles from UDUZI, 2700 MSL.
>
>
correct.

[Bee]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 10/09/07 08:09, Dan Luke wrote:
>
>>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>
>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>
>>
>>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>>
>
>
> UDUZI is the IAF, so once you're cleared for the approach, and you reach
> the IAF, you fly the altitudes prescribed by the approach. For the leg
> from UDUZI to UGMAH, that would be at or above 2000'.
>
> I assume your question is due to the sector altitude of 2500 in the
> region from UGMAH NW, between the 140 and 185 from UGMAH? Otherwise,
> perhaps you could explain what it is about the plate that leaves you
> with a question?
>
>
Assuming he is arriving between the UDUZI 185 bearing and the UGMAH 095
bearing (the TAA left base sector, AIM 5-4-5-d) he can descend to 2700
crossing 30 ATD from UDUZI. Then, once crossing UDUZI the altitude is
2,000.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 9, 8:22 am, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> In a previous article, "Dan Luke" > said:
>
> >You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
> >maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
> >http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
> >When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>
> Good question. What does "established" mean on GPS approach?

As soon as you are on a charted segment of the approach as depicted.

-Robert, CFII

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:09:26 -0500, "Dan Luke" >
wrote:

>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
>
>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?

Coming from the NE, you may descend to 2700' after crossing 30 NM from
UDUZI (in the Left Base Area of the TAA).

Since there seems to be some variation in the responses to your question,
here is the relevant AIM paragraph:

Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are expected
to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of the TAA at the
altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control. Cleared
direct to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) without a clearance for the
procedure does not authorize a pilot to descend to a lower TAA altitude.

Perhaps the controller should have said "...maintain 4000 until entering
the TAA". But I think his intent is clear. If he wanted you at 4000 until
crossing UDUZI, he should have either stated that explicitly, or not
cleared you for the approach.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Coming from the NE, you may descend to 2700' after crossing 30 NM from
> UDUZI (in the Left Base Area of the TAA).
>
> Since there seems to be some variation in the responses to your question,
> here is the relevant AIM paragraph:
>
> Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are expected
> to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of the TAA at the
> altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control.
> Cleared
> direct to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) without a clearance for the
> procedure does not authorize a pilot to descend to a lower TAA altitude.
>
> Perhaps the controller should have said "...maintain 4000 until entering
> the TAA". But I think his intent is clear. If he wanted you at 4000
> until crossing UDUZI, he should have either stated that explicitly, or not
> cleared you for the approach.
>

He doesn't say whether this is an actual clearance received or a
hypothetical scenario. The book phraseology would be, "Cleared to UDUZI,
maintain four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV runway niner
left approach." If he's already crossed the TAA boundary the clearance
would be just, "Cleared RNAV runway niner left approach."

[Mitty]

On 10/9/2007 1:20 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:
>>
>
> He doesn't say whether this is an actual clearance received or a
> hypothetical scenario. The book phraseology would be, "Cleared to UDUZI,
> maintain four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV runway niner
> left approach." If he's already crossed the TAA boundary the clearance
> would be just, "Cleared RNAV runway niner left approach."
>
>
"Cleared direct UDUZI, maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L
approach." sounds like a lot of clearances I have received. Possibly not by the
book verbiage, but real world IMHO.

Why would you read anything into it? I'm not being argumentative; I just don't
understand why you would not "maintain 4000' until established" and at that
point begin to descend. Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and
"request lower."

It could be that ATC had crossing traffic at 3000' -- no?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cleared direct UDUZI, maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L
> approach." sounds like a lot of clearances I have received. Possibly not
> by the book verbiage, but real world IMHO.
>
> Why would you read anything into it?
>

I don't.


>
> I'm not being argumentative; I just don't understand why you would not
> "maintain 4000' until established" and at that point begin to descend.
> Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and "request lower."
>

I don't have to request lower from ATC, clearance for the approach
authorizes me to descend to 2700 at the TAA boundary.


>
> It could be that ATC had crossing traffic at 3000' -- no?
>

Then he's got a deal.

[gman]

>don't have to request lower from ATC, clearance for the approach
>authorizes me to descend to 2700 at the TAA boundary.


I'm with Mitty on this one. AIM Section 5-4-5.d.4(b) Says:

"Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are
expected to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of
the TAA at the altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air
traffic control."

If the clearance was indeed "...maintain 4000 until established" that
would fit the "..unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control"
clause.

To put this to a test, ask yourself when would you report established
on the approach if asked by ATC to ".. report established on the
approach"? My answer would be when I'm on one of the depicted
portions of the approach and not the TAA.

I guess one could argue that the TAA is a depicted portion of the
approach but I can't find any official publication pointing to that
fact.

[Mitty]

Still not arguing, just trying to understand ...

On 10/9/2007 2:38 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:
>
>> I'm not being argumentative; I just don't understand why you would not
>> "maintain 4000' until established" and at that point begin to descend.
>> Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and "request lower."
>>
>
> I don't have to request lower from ATC, clearance for the approach
> authorizes me to descend to 2700 at the TAA boundary.
>
>

So the boundary is equivalent to becoming established? Or the "until
established" bit is bad phraseology or redundant?

>> It could be that ATC had crossing traffic at 3000' -- no?
>>
>
> Then he's got a deal.
>

What if you _were_ the controller and _did_ have the crossing traffic. What
would be the clearance you would give to the guy at 4000' to keep him up there
until the potential deal was over? Simply delay the approach clearance?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I'm with Mitty on this one. AIM Section 5-4-5.d.4(b) Says:
>
> "Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are
> expected to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of
> the TAA at the altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air
> traffic control."
>
> If the clearance was indeed "...maintain 4000 until established" that
> would fit the "..unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control"
> clause.
>

You didn't go far enough:

"Cleared direct to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) without a clearance for the
procedure does not authorize a pilot to descend to a lower TAA altitude. If
a pilot desires a lower altitude without an approach clearance, request the
lower TAA altitude."


>
> To put this to a test, ask yourself when would you report established
> on the approach if asked by ATC to ".. report established on the
> approach"? My answer would be when I'm on one of the depicted
> portions of the approach and not the TAA.
>

My answer would be when I'm within the TAA, because a TAA is by definition a
published portion of the approach.

TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)? The TAA is controlled airspace established in
conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV approach
configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas: straight-in,
left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three areas of the TAA
are published portions of the approach and allow aircraft to transition from
the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs will also eliminate
or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and procedure turns or course
reversal.


>
> I guess one could argue that the TAA is a depicted portion of the
> approach but I can't find any official publication pointing to that
> fact.
>

It's in the Pilot/Controller Glossary.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> So the boundary is equivalent to becoming established? Or the "until
> established" bit is bad phraseology or redundant?
>

The TAAs are published portions of the approach, that's right out of the TAA
definition provided in the P/CG:

TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace established in
conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV approach
configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas: straight-in,
left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three areas of the TAA
are published portions of the approach and allow aircraft to transition from
the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs will also eliminate
or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and procedure turns or course
reversal.


>
> What if you _were_ the controller and _did_ have the crossing traffic.
> What would be the clearance you would give to the guy at 4000' to keep him
> up there until the potential deal was over? Simply delay the approach
> clearance?
>

That'd do it.

[Dane Spearing]

In article >, Bee > wrote:
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>>
>>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>>
>>>
>>>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>>>
>>
>>
>> 30 miles from UDUZI, 2700 MSL.
>>
>>
>correct.

Hmmmmm....I'm not sure I buy this. The clearance stated "...maintain 4000'
*until established*..." which to me says that I'm to remain at 4000' until
I am on a *charted* section of the approach. Simply being in the TAA
does not mean I'm on a charted section of the approach. For this clearance,
I would say I'm on a charted section of the approach after crossing the IAF
(UDUZI). I would not descend below 4000' until after crossing UDUZI, and
then I would descent to 2000' as depicted. Or am I being too conservative
here?

-- Dane

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmmmm....I'm not sure I buy this. The clearance stated "...maintain
> 4000'
> *until established*..." which to me says that I'm to remain at 4000' until
> I am on a *charted* section of the approach. Simply being in the TAA
> does not mean I'm on a charted section of the approach. For this
> clearance,
> I would say I'm on a charted section of the approach after crossing the
> IAF
> (UDUZI). I would not descend below 4000' until after crossing UDUZI, and
> then I would descent to 2000' as depicted. Or am I being too conservative
> here?
>

TAAs are published portions of the approach, when you cross the TAA boundary
you're *established* on the approach.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:20:14 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>He doesn't say whether this is an actual clearance received or a
>hypothetical scenario. The book phraseology would be, "Cleared to UDUZI,
>maintain four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV runway niner
>left approach." If he's already crossed the TAA boundary the clearance
>would be just, "Cleared RNAV runway niner left approach."

Exactly.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:27:34 -0500, Mitty > wrote:

>Why would you read anything into it? I'm not being argumentative; I just don't
>understand why you would not "maintain 4000' until established" and at that
>point begin to descend. Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and
>"request lower."

When you enter the TAA, you ARE established.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bee]

Dane Spearing wrote:
> In article >, Bee > wrote:
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>>>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>30 miles from UDUZI, 2700 MSL.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>correct.
>
>
> Hmmmmm....I'm not sure I buy this. The clearance stated "...maintain 4000'
> *until established*..." which to me says that I'm to remain at 4000' until
> I am on a *charted* section of the approach. Simply being in the TAA
> does not mean I'm on a charted section of the approach. For this clearance,
> I would say I'm on a charted section of the approach after crossing the IAF
> (UDUZI). I would not descend below 4000' until after crossing UDUZI, and
> then I would descent to 2000' as depicted. Or am I being too conservative
> here?
>
> -- Dane
>
Too conservative and wrong. The altitudes within a TAA are operational
altitudes, otherwise they would not contain an altitude with an underscore.

[Bee]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:09:26 -0500, "Dan Luke" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>
>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>
>>
>>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>
>
> Coming from the NE, you may descend to 2700' after crossing 30 NM from
> UDUZI (in the Left Base Area of the TAA).
>
> Since there seems to be some variation in the responses to your question,
> here is the relevant AIM paragraph:
>
> Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are expected
> to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of the TAA at the
> altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control. Cleared
> direct to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) without a clearance for the
> procedure does not authorize a pilot to descend to a lower TAA altitude.
>
> Perhaps the controller should have said "...maintain 4000 until entering
> the TAA". But I think his intent is clear. If he wanted you at 4000 until
> crossing UDUZI, he should have either stated that explicitly, or not
> cleared you for the approach.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
segment." Otherwise, the uncertainty and sharpshooting is endless. ;-)

[Bee]

Mitty wrote:

>
>
> On 10/9/2007 1:20 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:
>
>>>
>>
>> He doesn't say whether this is an actual clearance received or a
>> hypothetical scenario. The book phraseology would be, "Cleared to UDUZI,
>> maintain four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV runway niner
>> left approach." If he's already crossed the TAA boundary the clearance
>> would be just, "Cleared RNAV runway niner left approach."
>>
>>
> "Cleared direct UDUZI, maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L
> approach." sounds like a lot of clearances I have received. Possibly
> not by the book verbiage, but real world IMHO.
>
> Why would you read anything into it? I'm not being argumentative; I
> just don't understand why you would not "maintain 4000' until
> established" and at that point begin to descend. Or, if you didn't like
> the profile, get back to ATC and "request lower."
>
> It could be that ATC had crossing traffic at 3000' -- no?
You are established when you enter the TAA.

[Bee]

gman wrote:

>>don't have to request lower from ATC, clearance for the approach
>>authorizes me to descend to 2700 at the TAA boundary.
>
>
>
> I'm with Mitty on this one. AIM Section 5-4-5.d.4(b) Says:
>
> "Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are
> expected to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of
> the TAA at the altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air
> traffic control."
>
> If the clearance was indeed "...maintain 4000 until established" that
> would fit the "..unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control"
> clause.
>
> To put this to a test, ask yourself when would you report established
> on the approach if asked by ATC to ".. report established on the
> approach"? My answer would be when I'm on one of the depicted
> portions of the approach and not the TAA.
>
> I guess one could argue that the TAA is a depicted portion of the
> approach but I can't find any official publication pointing to that
> fact.
>
>
The TAAs have published altitudes; i.e., with underscores as opposed to
MSA altitudes, which are not operational.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"bsalai" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm the least expert of anyone in this discussion, but doesn't the box
> around the 2700 mean that you should maintain 2700, that they expect you
> at that altitude once inside the TAA
>

I believe you're thinking of a Mandatory Altitude, which is indicated by
both underlining and overlining the altitude figure.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

bsalai wrote:
>
> I'm the least expert of anyone in this discussion, but doesn't the box
> around the 2700 mean that you should maintain 2700, that they expect you
> at that altitude once inside the TAA

Those are MSA's.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bee" wrote:

> I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base, or
> right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
> segment." Otherwise, the uncertainty and sharpshooting is endless. ;-)

Yep. And given the scanty training that controllers receive (or so I have
been told in these groups) WRT RNAV approaches, pilots had best make sure
that they and ATC have the same thing in mind when flying such a clearance.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
> or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
> segment." Otherwise, the uncertainty and sharpshooting is endless. ;-)
>

The AIM already states that, in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:


AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) APPROACH CONFIGURATION:

a. STANDARD T- An RNAV approach whose design allows direct flight to
any one of three initial approach fixes (IAF) and eliminates the need for
procedure turns. The standard design is to align the procedure on the
extended centerline with the missed approach point (MAP) at the runway
threshold, the final approach fix (FAF), and the initial
approach/intermediate fix (IAF/IF). The other two IAFs will be established
perpendicular to the IF.

b. MODIFIED T- An RNAV approach design for single or multiple runways
where terrain or operational constraints do not allow for the standard T.
The "T" may be modified by increasing or decreasing the angle from the
corner IAF(s) to the IF or by eliminating one or both corner IAFs.

c. STANDARD I- An RNAV approach design for a single runway with both
corner IAFs eliminated. Course reversal or radar vectoring may be required
at busy terminals with multiple runways.

d. TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace
established in conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV
approach configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas:
straight-in, left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three
areas of the TAA are published portions of the approach and allow aircraft
to transition from the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs
will also eliminate or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and
procedure turns or course reversal.

1. STRAIGHT-IN AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the IF bounded by a
straight line extending through the IF perpendicular to the intermediate
course.

2. LEFT BASE AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the right corner IAF.
The area shares a boundary with the straight-in area except that it extends
out for 30NM from the IAF and is bounded on the other side by a line
extending from the IF through the FAF to the arc.

3. RIGHT BASE AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the left corner IAF.
The area shares a boundary with the straight-in area except that it extends
out for 30NM from the IAF and is bounded on the other side by a line
extending from the IF through the FAF to the arc.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bee" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
>> or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
>> segment." Otherwise, the uncertainty and sharpshooting is endless. ;-)
>>
>
> The AIM already states that, in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
>
> AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) APPROACH CONFIGURATION:
>
> a. STANDARD T- An RNAV approach whose design allows direct flight to
> any one of three initial approach fixes (IAF) and eliminates the need for
> procedure turns. The standard design is to align the procedure on the
> extended centerline with the missed approach point (MAP) at the runway
> threshold, the final approach fix (FAF), and the initial
> approach/intermediate fix (IAF/IF). The other two IAFs will be established
> perpendicular to the IF.
>
> b. MODIFIED T- An RNAV approach design for single or multiple runways
> where terrain or operational constraints do not allow for the standard T.
> The "T" may be modified by increasing or decreasing the angle from the
> corner IAF(s) to the IF or by eliminating one or both corner IAFs.
>
> c. STANDARD I- An RNAV approach design for a single runway with both
> corner IAFs eliminated. Course reversal or radar vectoring may be required
> at busy terminals with multiple runways.
>
> d. TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace
> established in conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV
> approach configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas:
> straight-in, left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three
> areas of the TAA are published portions of the approach and allow aircraft
> to transition from the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs
> will also eliminate or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and
> procedure turns or course reversal.
>
> 1. STRAIGHT-IN AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the IF bounded by a
> straight line extending through the IF perpendicular to the intermediate
> course.
>
> 2. LEFT BASE AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the right corner IAF.
> The area shares a boundary with the straight-in area except that it
> extends out for 30NM from the IAF and is bounded on the other side by a
> line extending from the IF through the FAF to the arc.
>
> 3. RIGHT BASE AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the left corner IAF.
> The area shares a boundary with the straight-in area except that it
> extends out for 30NM from the IAF and is bounded on the other side by a
> line extending from the IF through the FAF to the arc.

The Instrument Flying Handbook, dated 2001, also states, "The arc boundaries
of the three areas of the TAA are published portions of the approach and
allow aircraft to transition from the en route structure direct to the
nearest IAF." Apparently pilots are not making an effort to keep current on
procedures.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:14:12 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
>or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach

It's in the PC/G:

TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace established in
conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV approach
configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas: straight-in,
left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three areas of the TAA
**are published portions of the approach** and allow aircraft to transition
from the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs will also
eliminate or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and procedure
turns or course reversal.

(emphasis mine)
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bee" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>> You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>> maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>>
>>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>>
>>>
>>> When do you descend below 4,000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Anytime after UDUZI.
>>
>>
>> and to what altitude?
>>
>>
>> At or above 2000
>
> wrong

You want to expand on that a bit, bucko?

Al G

[Bee]

Al G wrote:
> "Bee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>>>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When do you descend below 4,000
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Anytime after UDUZI.
>>>
>>>
>>> and to what altitude?
>>>
>>>
>>>At or above 2000
>>
>>wrong
>
>
> You want to expand on that a bit, bucko?
>
> Al G
>
>
I already did.

You descend to 2700 once inside the TAA.

Like Steve said, you guys need to read the AIM and the PC/G. ALo

[Bee]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:14:12 -0700, Bee > wrote:
>
>
>>I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
>>or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
>
>
> It's in the PC/G:
>
> TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace established in
> conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV approach
> configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas: straight-in,
> left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three areas of the TAA
> **are published portions of the approach** and allow aircraft to transition
> from the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs will also
> eliminate or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and procedure
> turns or course reversal.
>
> (emphasis mine)
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
find this stuff.

[Dave Butler]

Bee wrote:

> Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
> find this stuff.

Great cite of a pretty good site.

True enough, but if everyone just looked everything up and found the
answers and interpreted everything correctly, we wouldn't have much to
talk about here.

Anyway, I certainly wouldn't fault the OP for raising the question here.
It provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.

Dave

[Bee]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Bee wrote:
>
>> Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
>> find this stuff.
>
>
> Great cite of a pretty good site.
>
> True enough, but if everyone just looked everything up and found the
> answers and interpreted everything correctly, we wouldn't have much to
> talk about here.
>
> Anyway, I certainly wouldn't fault the OP for raising the question here.
> It provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
>
> Dave

The NACO TAA charts are also covered in great detail in the NACO IAP
chart legend, which appears everytime someone downloads NACO approach
charts:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/pdf_files/7th_IAP_Intro.pdf

[Al G[_1_]]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Bee wrote:
>
>> Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to find
>> this stuff.
>
> Great cite of a pretty good site.
>
> True enough, but if everyone just looked everything up and found the
> answers and interpreted everything correctly, we wouldn't have much to
> talk about here.
>
> Anyway, I certainly wouldn't fault the OP for raising the question here.
> It provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
>
> Dave

Me too.

Al G

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:26:42 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
>find this stuff.

At least the question is asked and, in the various answers, these sorts of
things become known.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bee]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:26:42 -0700, Bee > wrote:
>
>
>>Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
>>find this stuff.
>
>
> At least the question is asked and, in the various answers, these sorts of
> things become known.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It didn't help that NACO chose to use the MSA box for the TAA area
minimum altitudes rather than the underscore as they have always used
for all other minimum alitudes and as illustrated in the AIM.

They also claim that the TAA area minimum altitudes replace MSAs for
these IAPs. That is incorrect. They make MSAs unnecessay but they do
not replace them. MSAs are not IFR altitudes in this country.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:13:00 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>They also claim that the TAA area minimum altitudes replace MSAs for
>these IAPs. That is incorrect. They make MSAs unnecessay but they do
>not replace them. MSAs are not IFR altitudes in this country.

Although the TAA minimum altitude, and MSA have different definitions, I
never had a problem with the concept of them being the same value when
there is a TAA published.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bee]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:13:00 -0700, Bee > wrote:
>
>
>>They also claim that the TAA area minimum altitudes replace MSAs for
>>these IAPs. That is incorrect. They make MSAs unnecessay but they do
>>not replace them. MSAs are not IFR altitudes in this country.
>
>
> Although the TAA minimum altitude, and MSA have different definitions, I
> never had a problem with the concept of them being the same value when
> there is a TAA published.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Well, I don't see how they can be the same value when the MSAs don't
exist. MSAs provide 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance everywhere. TAAs
provide 2,000 feet in DMAs.

But, the greater concern is someone tortures the comparision to conclude
that MSAs, where charted, must now be IFR altitudes.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:02:15 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>Well, I don't see how they can be the same value when the MSAs don't
>exist. MSAs provide 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance everywhere. TAAs
>provide 2,000 feet in DMAs.

By definition, MSAs provide **AT LEAST** 1,000 of obstacle clearance. So
2,000' would be included.

>
>But, the greater concern is someone tortures the comparision to conclude
>that MSAs, where charted, must now be IFR altitudes.

That was always a concern in the US, even before the establishment of TAAs.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[J. Severyn]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Bee wrote:
> Anyway, I certainly wouldn't fault the OP for raising the question here.
> It provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
>
> Dave

I agree completely. Very good discussion. Thanks for the original question
Dan.
John Severyn

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"J. Severyn" wrote:

>> Bee wrote:
>> Anyway, I certainly wouldn't fault the OP for raising the question here. It
>> provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
>>
>> Dave
>
> I agree completely. Very good discussion. Thanks for the original question
> Dan.

¡De nada!

(Full disclosure: I took the question from a thread in the Cessna Pilots Ass'n
forums)

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Bee]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:02:15 -0700, Bee > wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I don't see how they can be the same value when the MSAs don't
>>exist. MSAs provide 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance everywhere. TAAs
>>provide 2,000 feet in DMAs.
>
>
> By definition, MSAs provide **AT LEAST** 1,000 of obstacle clearance. So
> 2,000' would be included.
>
>
>>But, the greater concern is someone tortures the comparision to conclude
>>that MSAs, where charted, must now be IFR altitudes.
>
>
> That was always a concern in the US, even before the establishment of TAAs.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

For those who didn't read the AIM much, no doubt about it.