GPS approaches with Center

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

"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...)

"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

"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

"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.

"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

"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

"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

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.

"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