OLV GPS 36 approach question

John Clonts wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

John Clonts wrote:


wrote:


It seems to me you are ignoring the depiction of the southern sector on
the map view that shows 2800. This applies to aircraft inbound to
DOCAP from anywhere southern. Why are you saying that it does not
apply? (I.e. why is the controller allowed to clear the a/c to DOCAP
and descend to 2100?).

2,100 applies at DOCAP per the IAP. The MVA is 2,000 to the west of
DOCAP and 2,100 to the east.


Yes but I am talking about *prior to* DOCAP. 2800 applies prior to
DOCAP per the IAP. If ATC clears an a/c to 2100 prior to DOCAP is it
(1) a controller error which should be refused by the pilot, or (2) ok
because somehow "mva trumps iap arrival sector altitude"?


Again, a more consistent handling with the IAP profile and human-factors
would have been for ATC to assign 2,800 to DOCAP.


Under the present wording in the ATC Handbook MVA trumps the
direct-entry sector's altitude.

Another way to look at it is the IAP begins at the IF based on the
clearance.

An anology would be a "true" vector to final, say a 30 degree cut to the
approach course 2 miles inside DOCAP. 2,100 would be an acceptable
controller assignment in that case.

The new application might work better with a restriction to not assign
an altitude below the IF crossing altitude. But, that is not how it
reads at present.

wrote:

If they don't then the pilot has a regulatory obligation to challenge
the lack of an
altitude assignment

Unless they've changed 91.175, it merely says that if an altitude isn't
assigned when an approach clearance is received, the pilot is to
maintain the last altitude assigned. Where is the regulatory
requirement to challenge the lack of assignment?

It is implicit in 91.175 to challenge an assigned off-route altitude if
it appears to the pilot to be incorrct.

When this change to the AIM and ATC Order was discussed, I think
everyone envisioned 2,800 being assigned for a direct-to DOCAP. But,
once the real-world takes over...

I'm not clear on how this clearance relates to the new change to ATC
procedures. That pertains to direct to IF's, but this fix is a
combined IAF/IF and has been for years, most likely prior to the AIM
change, and a clearance direct to an IAF has long (forever?) been ok.


Prior to the new change a clearance direct to DOCAP would have required
a course reversal. No one was doing that, though, thus the pressure for
the change.

Before the change it would have been a clearance to DOCAP, the IAF.
Now, it's a clearance to DOCAP, the IF.

Prior to the new change a clearance direct to DOCAP would have
required
a course reversal. No one was doing that, though, thus the pressure
for
the change.

But the TAA has had a NoPT sector for a straight-in ever since its
inception.

As far as I can tell, this new rule only affects Non-TAA RNav
approaches.

wrote:

Prior to the new change a clearance direct to DOCAP would have
required
a course reversal. No one was doing that, though, thus the pressure
for
the change.

But the TAA has had a NoPT sector for a straight-in ever since its
inception.

As far as I can tell, this new rule only affects Non-TAA RNav
approaches.


The new procedure does not exclude RNAV IAPs with TAAs.

You are correct, though, that prior to the new procedure with a TAA I
could have gone straight-in if cleared direct to DOCAP anywhere within
the straight-in TAA sector. I could not have accepted an altitude of
less than 2,800 in that case, though.

Then, there are TAA straight-in sectors at other locations with
subsectors that must be satisfied before "NoPT" is authorized.

Seems like some unintended consequences at play here.

A Lieberma wrote:


Too new and green to know any difference *smile*.

Been in the IA world for two years, and everytime I launch, it's a new
experience!

Allen

For future reference, if in doubt about an altitude assignment,
especially when it is below what seems reasonable, just request the
higher altitude.

It's important to keep the controller's expectations in sync with your's.

The new procedure does not exclude RNAV IAPs with TAAs.

I know, but it appears it is irrelevant for TAA's.

I could have gone straight-in if cleared direct to DOCAP anywhere
within
the straight-in TAA sector. I could not have accepted an altitude of
less than 2,800 in that case, though.

And why is that? "Skyhawk 1234X, cleared direct to DOCAP, maintain
2,100 until established, cleared RNAV 18 Olive Branch."

Since DOCAP is and has always been labeled as an IAF, how is this any
different from being given MVA direct to any other IAF on non-RNAV
approaches, something that is done a thousand times every day?

wrote:
The new procedure does not exclude RNAV IAPs with TAAs.

I know, but it appears it is irrelevant for TAA's.

I could have gone straight-in if cleared direct to DOCAP anywhere
within
the straight-in TAA sector. I could not have accepted an altitude of
less than 2,800 in that case, though.

And why is that? "Skyhawk 1234X, cleared direct to DOCAP, maintain
2,100 until established, cleared RNAV 18 Olive Branch."

Since DOCAP is and has always been labeled as an IAF, how is this any
different from being given MVA direct to any other IAF on non-RNAV
approaches, something that is done a thousand times every day?


Yes, but on thoese thousands of other IAPs, you are not in a published
segment of the approach. In the case of the OLV RNAV 36 you are within
a giant initial approach "segment" (the right and left base TAA sectors
are feeder "routes"), thus once cleared for the approach you are
operating below the minimum segment altitude while on a published IAP
segment. You don't do that on the thousands of other IAPs.

thus once cleared for the approach you are operating below the
minimum segment altitude while on a published IAP segment. You don't
do that on the thousands of other IAPs.

In the example cited, the clearance didn't start until DOCAP. Prior to
that, he was on a "direct clearance". If you hold that that is
invalid, then it seems that the same logic applies to any direct
clearance that happens to either cross or coincide with an airway or
feeder route.

1) If I cross an airway at MVA that is lower than MEA on a direct
clearance, then am I in violation of 91.177?

2) If I am tracking a radial that happens to coincide with a feeder
route, then am I in violation of 91.177 when I'm below the published
altitude, even though I've never been cleared for the feeder route?

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.

The controller's instructions for the new procedure can be found at:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/ATC/Chp4/atc0408.html#4-8-1

Tim.


On 10 Aug 2006 09:27:39 -0700, wrote:

Prior to the new change a clearance direct to DOCAP would have
required
a course reversal. No one was doing that, though, thus the pressure
for
the change.

But the TAA has had a NoPT sector for a straight-in ever since its
inception.

As far as I can tell, this new rule only affects Non-TAA RNav
approaches.

wrote:
thus once cleared for the approach you are operating below the
minimum segment altitude while on a published IAP segment. You don't
do that on the thousands of other IAPs.

In the example cited, the clearance didn't start until DOCAP. Prior to
that, he was on a "direct clearance". If you hold that that is
invalid, then it seems that the same logic applies to any direct
clearance that happens to either cross or coincide with an airway or
feeder route.

1) If I cross an airway at MVA that is lower than MEA on a direct
clearance, then am I in violation of 91.177?

2) If I am tracking a radial that happens to coincide with a feeder
route, then am I in violation of 91.177 when I'm below the published
altitude, even though I've never been cleared for the feeder route?

The issue isn't 91.177, rather it is the minimum altitude set forth
under Part 97.

Before the advent of the direct-to-the-IF procedure, I would not have
accepted 2,100 at this location because of the TAA's minimum altitude.

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

Your example #2 is difficult to envision happening.