GPS approaches with Center

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.

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

wrote in message
...

I misspoke, slightly.


No, you were flat-out wrong.

"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.

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?

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.

"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".

"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.

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?

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