"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.