GPS approaches with Center

wrote in message
...

Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.


Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100 perhaps, but not by anyone with common
sense.

wrote in message
...

That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to
either feeder fixes or IAFs.


The statement was, "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or more, has
its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar
required)." It did not exclude TAA approaches.

wrote in message
...

That is a very old GPS approach, as indicated by the title not stating
"RNAV(GPS)."


So what? The assertion was, "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past 3 years, or
more, has its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS
(I.e., radar required)." Three years OR MORE.

wrote in message
...

That approach was effective 22 May 1997, and has not been amended since.


What's your point? Your assertion was, "Any RNAV IAP developed in the past
3 years, or more, has its IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are
no IAFS (I.e., radar required)." May 1997 was six and a half years ago,
that's more than three years.

AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 16
AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 34

I don't have the enroute charts for this area, but from my national
map, it looks as if V191 and V217 pass through both TAAs at AIG. Yes?

As for BCK, V246 would seem to be in the straight-in sector of the
TAA, and V345 might be in both base sectors.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
news

I don't have the enroute charts for this area, but from my national
map, it looks as if V191 and V217 pass through both TAAs at AIG. Yes?

As for BCK, V246 would seem to be in the straight-in sector of the
TAA, and V345 might be in both base sectors.


Yes, but that's not the issue. None of the IAFs are on airways.

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.

None of the IAFs are on airways.

Steven, get over it. g

The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
and let's move on. ;-)

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

Steven, get over it. g

The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
and let's move on. ;-)


If you don't want your questions answered, don't ask them.

wrote in message ...
Snowbird wrote:
wrote in message ...
That statement excluded TAA approaches, and was subsequently corrected to either feeder fixes or IAFs.

Um, no, not in the original post to which I was responding. It
didn't exclude anything, nor did the subsequent correction state
that a Victor airway running *through* the TAA was considered
a feeder route or being "anchored" or whatever you consider it as.

Well, the original post was corrected within a day. This isn't a
editor's review board, is it? ;-)

This is not an editor's review board, it's USENET.

And while most people of good will try to interpret someone as
they mean -- including later corrections -- it's considered
polite and good form to acknowledge that the original post was
erroneous or oversimplified, and later corrected -- especially
when you're responding to follows on the original post.

It's kinda tacky IMO to make a follow "that statement excluded
TAAs yadda yadda" when in fact, the statement to which I was
replying did no such thing. You know "yes, you're right, that
wasn't the original statement, but what I intended to say was...."

You were provided the criteria reference for TAAs by both
Greg and me. If you find a TAA IAP that does not
meet that criterion, tell it to the FAA. It's their criteria.

Oh, no. I'll be telling YOU, because you're the gent who's
insisting there's no such thing (albeit with many more qualifiers
than originally stated, and which may be sufficient), with
considerable vehemence and in previous follows, challenging
me to provide YOU with examples.

As for the FAA, I've expressed a couple of personal views about
GPS approaches and how they're being charted to them directly
on two occasions so far, in writing, for all the good it does me.

Cheers,
Sydney