GPS approaches with Center

"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

"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

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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