Why would you want to add extra work? The approaches are published that way
for a reason. Also, another poster commented about staying at an altitude
(above the published one) until intersecting the 'GP.' I can only assume
"GP" means glide path (or glide slope). Your example was a VOR appch I
believe, but in the case of an ILS approach, it is not wise to stay above,
as you can intercept a false glideslope.

If you do the approach your way then you have to account for wind, etc to
figure out if you are at the right descent speed, etc. Just descend as
published - it is easier than figuring out a descent rate to match the winds
and airplane speed.

The bottom line is the approach is the approach - I don't think it is
intended as a "suggestion." - why stay above the heights? Wouldn't you
rather get down as fast as possible than be in the clouds? The altitudes on
the approach chart guarantee more than reasonable obstacle clearance - not
performing the approach as published would also lead me to wonder if there
are other things you would make up your own procedures for and as a DE I
would consider that a bad thing...

tim

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
Is there any problem with controllers or examiners if I cross a stepdown
fix
several hundred feet above the depicted altitude? I believe that,
legally,
I can be at any altitude above the crossing minimum, but would this be a
bust of the PTS +/-100 tolerance, or cause a problem for ATC?

For example, take the SEA VOR 34L/R approach. Assume you are cleared for
the
approach at 5000ft. Profile is 5000 at FACTS - 6nm - 3000 at MILLT -
6.7nm -
1600 at DONDO, which is the last fix before descent to the MDA. I can set
up
a nice smooth descent at 300fpnm, arrive at 1600ft well before DONDO, and
avoid even thinking about a level-off by crossing MILLT something above
3200ft. Would that be a checkride ding?

-- David Brooks