OLV GPS 36 approach question

Tim Auckland wrote:

To me, the issue hinges on whether the controller thought he was
issuing a clearance based on the traditional method of clearing the
plane to the IAF.
In this case, it's my belief that the controller made a mistake, and
should have assigned 2800 as the altititude.

If, on the hand, the controller was intending to follow the new
procedure of "direct clearance to an intermediate fix", then 2100 is
appropriate, but the controller should have advised the pilot to
"expect clearance direct to the Intermediate Fix" while the plane was
at least 5 miles from the fix.
The OP didn't indicate whether or not he was advised of this.

Good points.

wrote:
Your example #1 is irrelevant because the airway is not part of your
clearance.

Neither was the feeder route (arrival sector) with the OP. He was
cleared direct to an IAF, not via the arrival sector (feeder route).

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?

Your example #2 is difficult to envision happening

Happened to me quite a few times practicing local approaches.


We all have different experiences. ;-)

I just hate seeing any of this stuff causing pilots to have to sort
through complexities than can result in tripping situational awareness
or minimum safe altitudes.

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. ;-)

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?

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?

As stated, sounds good to me. ;-) But the key phrase is "had this not
been a TAA procedure". Your earlier statements seemed to indicate you
were not drawing a distinction between a TAA and a random RNAV
approach.

Here's what I infer from your above paragraph:

With a TAA approach (such as the one under discussion), even under the
old procedure, it is ok to be cleared direct to the straight-in IAF at
an altitude below the sector altitude, as long as the altitude is
compatible with the minimum intermediate altitude and at or above MVA.

If you disagree with that, then I'd like to explore further why this
might be so,

wrote:
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?

As stated, sounds good to me. ;-) But the key phrase is "had this not
been a TAA procedure". Your earlier statements seemed to indicate you
were not drawing a distinction between a TAA and a random RNAV
approach.

I may have not drawn the distinction earlier until the TAA aspects sunk
in.

I am surprised that an RNAV IAP with TAAs even exists in a major metro
TRACON area. The decision to accept TAAs has been on a center/TACON and
sometimes regional basis. Some regions have rejected the concept
entirely. Most major TRACONS have rejected them. They have little
value where radar coverage and MVAs exist. All Memphis probably uses is
the T configuration, which is much more common than a T with TAAs.

Here's what I infer from your above paragraph:

With a TAA approach (such as the one under discussion), even under the
old procedure, it is ok to be cleared direct to the straight-in IAF at
an altitude below the sector altitude, as long as the altitude is
compatible with the minimum intermediate altitude and at or above MVA.

If you disagree with that, then I'd like to explore further why this
might be so,

If I said that earlier. I think you might have said something like
that. ;-) But, I am not going to go back and figure it out. Suffice it
to say that a clearance prior to the new procedure does not negate the
TAA sectors, unless it were a vector to within the intermediate segment.

I suspect Memphis doesn't concern themselves at all with the TAAs, but
that is supposition on my part based on how badly the TAA program is
going nationally.

The controller, as others have stated, has an MVA (minimum vectoring
altitude) chart. He wouldn't (shouldn't) clear you down to 2100'
outside DOCAP if you'd be hitting something.

Here's the plate: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05883R36.PDF

Nobody can fault you for being cautious and aware... I think
congratulations are in order for being "in the game" with your head and
not just BLINDLY following altitude and heading clearances. CFIT
results from that course of action.

That said, I think you should have just verified with the controller.
Congestion on the radio might have made that difficult.

Without that, I would have gone down to 2100, for two reasons:

1) That was your last clearance;
2) A look at the approach plate shows that the tallest obstruction is
just off to the east, ESE of Holly Springs, at 1049' MSL. The plates
always put the highest obstruction in a bolder / larger font.

Troy

Suffice it to say that a clearance prior to the new procedure does
not negate the TAA sectors, unless it were a vector to within the
intermediate segment.

Ok, this backs us up a few posts. ;-) I believe this to be
insupportable even in theory, not to mention contrary to ATC practice
and expectation.

I would appreciate your agreeing or disagreeing with the following
statements:

1) ATC has the right to clear me to any fix they choose, as long they
assign me an altitude at or above MVA/MIA, yes?

2) And it doesn't matter if my course happens to underlie any
published segment, such as an airway, feeder route, or IAP, because I
have an assigned altitude based on MVA, which assumedly meets 91.177
minimums and I'm not currently executing an IAP.

3) Once I arrive at that fix, if cleared for the approach, none of
the previous altitudes I flew while getting there suddenly become
illegal.



(As supporting evidence, the AIM says "Once cleared to fly the TAA,
pilots are expected to obey minimum altitudes depicted within the TAA
icons, unless instructed otherwise by air traffic control." This is
clearly permissive.)

Greg Esres wrote:


3) Once I arrive at that fix, if cleared for the approach, none of
the previous altitudes I flew while getting there suddenly become
illegal.

The FAA has decided to take a literal reading of the rules.
Approaches start with either an IAF or vectors to final.
While you might get some slack from a controller, that's
not the official FAA party line.

Greg Esres wrote:
Suffice it to say that a clearance prior to the new procedure does
not negate the TAA sectors, unless it were a vector to within the
intermediate segment.

Ok, this backs us up a few posts. ;-) I believe this to be
insupportable even in theory, not to mention contrary to ATC practice
and expectation.

I would appreciate your agreeing or disagreeing with the following
statements:

1) ATC has the right to clear me to any fix they choose, as long they
assign me an altitude at or above MVA/MIA, yes?

Yes, provided the fix is where you want to be going, or eithin reason.

2) And it doesn't matter if my course happens to underlie any
published segment, such as an airway, feeder route, or IAP, because I
have an assigned altitude based on MVA, which assumedly meets 91.177
minimums and I'm not currently executing an IAP.

Yes, that is generally correct in spite of occasional violations of
91.177 by some MVAs and MIAs, but those are "technical" so far as the
FAA is concernec, and (as you state) so long as you are not currently
executing an IAP.

3) Once I arrive at that fix, if cleared for the approach, none of
the previous altitudes I flew while getting there suddenly become
illegal.

True enough, provided the approach clearance is issued crossing that fix.

But, you are not covering the circumstance where the controller places
you on a published segment, and clears you for an approach *within the
segment* at an altitude below the segment altitude. Until the new
direct-to-the-IF procedure came into effect that immediate places you in
violation of the Part 95 minimum altitude for the segment, which
typically would be a TAA.

And, the new procedure is not triggered unless the controller says the
magic words, not less than five miles from the IF. Further, the new
procedure can only be used for RNAV IAPs. (The magic words being: The
pilot is advised to expect clearance direct to the Intermediate Fix at
least 5 miles from the fix.)




(As supporting evidence, the AIM says "Once cleared to fly the TAA,
pilots are expected to obey minimum altitudes depicted within the TAA
icons, unless instructed otherwise by air traffic control." This is
clearly permissive.)