wrote:
We all have different experiences.

That's why we share on this newsgroup.

However, I'm still trying to pin down your thoughts on this issue, so
I'll ask again:

"Would your opinion change if the OP had been cleared direct to the IAF

at 2,100, yet approach clearance were withheld until he arrived there?"

I predict that either "yes" or "no" will undermine your evaluation of
the situation. ;-)


Under the new procedure ATC was required to tell him he was being
cleared directly to the IF for a straight-in, at least 5 miles before
the IF. Had I received that clearance I would set my navigator for
direct to the IF, cleared the hold-in-lieu if it were in the approach
flight plan, tracked the intermediate segment until the FAF, then
descended in accordance with the procedure.

Under the old procedures I would have not accepted lower than 2,800,
then done as above, except descending to 2,100 crossing the IF, and so
forth.

Under the old procedures, had this not been a TAA procedure I would have
accepted no lower than 2,800 and done the course reversal, making it
clear to ATC that I would do the course reversal.

What is inconsistent about any of that?