GPS approaches with Center

"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

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:

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."

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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.