If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Luke wrote: wrote: "Maintain 3000 until established?" Not quite. "Established" is not appropriate since he was not on a published route or segment of the approach. The correct phraseology would be "Cross ACMEE at 3,000, cleared for the Runway 32 RNAV approach." To be fair to the controller involved, I must say that I am not 100% certain she used the word "established" in the clearance. -- That's a small point. The greater issue is that you were not assigned 3,000 (or at or above 3,000) to cross the IAF. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I misspoke, slightly. No, you were flat-out wrong. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Any airway that passes through one of the TAA sectors is considered connected, but it's difficult to tell when looking at an approach plate. Considered by whom? A Victor airway passing through a TAA is not the same as "IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless there are no IAFS (I.e., radar required)." Still, even considering that, what you say may be true. One need only examine the TPPs to see that it's true. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... A few centers accept them without much heartburn. Most centers, though, fight them. Where they are needed the most; i.e., out in the intermountain west with no radar coverage at TAA altitudes, ATC claims that FAA controllers don't have the training to provide non-radar separation in TAA areas. Can you cite that claim? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Considered by whom?
Flight Procedures. A Victor airway passing through a TAA is not the same as "IAFs anchored on Victor airways They're identical to a feeder route anchored on a Victor Airway, which leads to an IAF. Same thing. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Flight Procedures. Citation? They're identical to a feeder route anchored on a Victor Airway, which leads to an IAF. Same thing. The assertion by Airperson 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)." Feeder routes and Victor airways passing through TAAs are not the same as "IAFs anchored on Victor airways". |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote in message ... | How many here have flown GPS approaches with Center as the approach control? | I'd be interested to hear your experiences. | I have not had a problem with it yet, having flown GPS approaches with Seattle, Salt Lake, and Albuquerque centers. Of course, they could be just bluffing: "N7277M, cleared GPS Hoquiam, etc." without really knowing what they are talking about. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Citation?
FAAO 8260.45A "TAA Design Criteria" -------------snip-------------- CONNECTION TO EN ROUTE STRUCTURE. Normally, a portion of the TAA will overlie an airway. If this is not the case, construct at least one feeder route from an airway fix or NAVAID to the TAA boundary aligned along a direct course from the en route fix/NAVAID to the appropriate IF(IAF) and/or T IAF(s) (see figure 5F). Multiple feeder routes may be established if the procedure specialist deems necessary. -------------snip-------------- Feeder routes and Victor airways passing through TAAs are not the same as "IAFs anchored on Victor airways". And the functional difference is? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Esres wrote in message . ..
chart the GPS approaches completely independently of the ground-based navaid and airway system on which ATC currently still relies. I bet if you check, you'll see that an airway runs through one of the TAA sectors. That's the case with our local TAAs. I'll check. In at least one case, I know you're right (though it only runs through two of the three TAAs) but .... .....whether or not this is true, it A. doesn't help the pilot understand how the approach fits into the ground based navaid/Victor airway system because the airways aren't charted on the IAP and the TAAs/IAFs aren't charted on the low altitude enroute B. doesn't help the controller understand the position of the various RNAV approach fixes if they aren't in their host computer database C. it differs substantively IMO from the original statement, which was IIRC that all GPS approaches developed in the last three years have their IAFs anchored on Victor airways unless they are radar- required and have no IAFs. At least "there is a Victor airway running through the TAA somewhere" and "the IAF is anchored on a Victor airway" are statements with different meaning to me. Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RNAV approaches | Kevin Chandler | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | September 18th 03 06:00 PM |
"Best forward speed" approaches | Ben Jackson | Instrument Flight Rules | 13 | September 5th 03 03:25 PM |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |
Suppose We Really Do Have Only GPS Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 20th 03 05:10 PM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |