GPS approaches with Center

wrote in message ...

I corrected the post to state that a feeder anchored on an airway
will lead to the IAFs. Do you have a horseradish example you would
care to share?

As stated above, sure. However, if you're also excluding TAAs (as
you've stated in later posts elsewhere), or as Greg Esres says,
considering any Victor airway which passes through any portion of
a TAA as "anchoring the IAF to the airway", then I'm not sure and
need to do some checking.

The "horseradish" applied to your original post, as originally
stated, not as applied to all the caveats which gradually trickled
in at a later date

Sydney

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

No broader than the policy presently in effect.

If you can find any that are less than 3 years old, fire away. In the
early days there were a lot of them that weren't anchored to airways.

And, of course, RNAV IAPs with TAAs are a different matter.


Here ya go:

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...l/3D2_gr32.pdf

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

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? ;-)


I *think* it's still not true, but as qualified, it does apply
to several approaches I had in mind -- they do have TAAs and
at least one V airway running through a TAA. Or, they have
a feeder fix from an intersection, even if it might be an
intersection no sane pilot or ATCs would use as a feeder (while
others which would make sense are not charted). Hopefully I'll
have a little time to do some checking this weekend.



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.

Snowbird wrote:

wrote in message ...

I corrected the post to state that a feeder anchored on an airway
will lead to the IAFs. Do you have a horseradish example you would
care to share?

As stated above, sure. However, if you're also excluding TAAs (as
you've stated in later posts elsewhere), or as Greg Esres says,
considering any Victor airway which passes through any portion of
a TAA as "anchoring the IAF to the airway", then I'm not sure and
need to do some checking

A victor airway or airways passing through a TAA area ties that TAA area to the en
route structure.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

No broader than the policy presently in effect.

If you can find any that are less than 3 years old, fire away. In the
early days there were a lot of them that weren't anchored to airways.

And, of course, RNAV IAPs with TAAs are a different matter.


Here ya go:

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...l/3D2_gr32.pdf

That approach was effective 22 May 1997, and has not been amended since.
Since it is worked by your facility you should have a copy of the 8260 on
record (but then again, maybe not~)

that could be a trap using either base leg area.

Yes! The difference is greatest when approaching from the "bottom" of
the T. The AIM should be far more explicit regarding this, IMO.

Greg Esres wrote in message
...
that could be a trap using either base leg area.

Yes! The difference is greatest when approaching from the "bottom" of
the T. The AIM should be far more explicit regarding this, IMO.

Hello Greg,

I am interested in this but am having trouble visualizing the "trap" that
you are talking about. Isn't the appropriate arrival sector obvious once
you choose the closest IAF leg? Can you show an example where it isn't?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Isn't the appropriate arrival sector obvious once you choose the
closest IAF leg? Can you show an example where it isn't?

The arrival sector is obvious, but what isn't obvious is when you're
IN the sector.

There are two requirements to be in a sector:

1) You're within the distance specified, normally 30 nm, and
2) You're within the range of bearings depicted on the chart.

Seems clear?

BUT: the distance is specified to the IAF of either the left or right
base, but the bearings are ALWAYS to the IF.

Let's assume that the FAC is 180. If, for instance, you were exactly
at the bottom of the T, the GPS bearing would show maybe a 020,
because it would be indicating towards the IAF. In actuality, the
course defining the sector is to the IF, so what you need to see is
"360". In this instance, you might conclude that you were not in the
arrival area, when you really are. I haven't yet figured out a
geometry where the reverse is true, nor do I yet see how this might
make you hit something.

wrote in message
...

Give me some examples.


AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 16
AIG RNAV (GPS) RWY 34
BCK RNAV (GPS) RWY 8

There's three in just the first 53 pages out of 627 in TPP EC3.



Your choice of words reek of tact.


Let's see, words that reek of tact would be......tactful, would they not?



Yet, when you are proven wrong, you never fess up to the fact that you
don't run
AVN or AFS or, for that matter, ATS.


Well, I certainly have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong, and I have done
so. I fail to see the connection with running AVN or AFS or ATS though. I
don't recall being proven wrong in any discussion that you've participated
in.



I work with the IAP policy, you don't.


No, I don't. But I do work with IAP reality, and it appears you do not.

wrote in message
...

Why don't you contact Brad W. Rush, Deputy Manager of AVN-100. He can
tell you all you want to know about centers and TAAs.


When Brad W. Rush posts a dubious claim in this forum I'll ask him to
support it. While Mr. Rush may be able to tell me something about TAAs,
it's very unlikely he's in a position to tell me anything about ARTCCs.