GPS approaches with Center

Many RNAV approaches have been established within the last three
years that have no connection to Victor airways.


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. Still, even considering that, what you say may be true.

"Chip Jones" wrote:
If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder
fix that is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with
both GPS approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).


Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix,
the IAF, the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on
the sector PVD

So Chip, let's suppose you're working my target the next time I need to fly
a GPS approach into Bug Floater Regional. What's the best way I could let
you know my intentions with a view to making the whole thing go smoothly?
What do you need from me - and when?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote:
If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder
fix that is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with
both GPS approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).


Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix,
the IAF, the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on
the sector PVD

So Chip, let's suppose you're working my target the next time I need to
fly
a GPS approach into Bug Floater Regional. What's the best way I could let
you know my intentions with a view to making the whole thing go smoothly?
What do you need from me - and when?

Dan, it sounds to me like you did just about everything that you could do to
make things go as smoothly as possible. I would personally need exactly
what you gave ATC. You gave plenty of lead time, made a clear request and
even offered helpful information about what you needed to do to get to the
IAF. I can't think of anything you could have done better.

The confusion was on the part of ZTL, and IMO it is a result of
unsatisfactory recurrent procedures training (virtually non-existent) on our
part. I can guess what happened behind the scenes too. You made your
request. It caught her by surprise (and controllers hate surprises). Off
mic, she likely cursed aloud and asked her peers if anyone had ever heard of
a GPS 32 into PRN. Someone dug out the plate, and an off mic discussion
took place on what she needed to do to CYA on her phraseology, MIA
requirements etc. I'm sure she had some choice words for her airspace and
procedures person too. We know we have a procedures training problem down
here, or at least the controller workforce knows it. There is no end in
sight and IMO its slowly getting worse as we continue to lose experienced
controllers without replacement. Sorry man.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote:
If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder
fix that is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with
both GPS approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).


Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix,
the IAF, the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on
the sector PVD

So Chip, let's suppose you're working my target the next time I need to
fly
a GPS approach into Bug Floater Regional. What's the best way I could
let
you know my intentions with a view to making the whole thing go
smoothly?
What do you need from me - and when?

Dan, it sounds to me like you did just about everything that you could do
to
make things go as smoothly as possible. I would personally need exactly
what you gave ATC. You gave plenty of lead time, made a clear request and
even offered helpful information about what you needed to do to get to the
IAF. I can't think of anything you could have done better.

The confusion was on the part of ZTL, and IMO it is a result of
unsatisfactory recurrent procedures training (virtually non-existent) on
our
part.

I read it as an automation problem.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

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.


He wasn't cleared below the altitude for the approach segment, the clearance
was "maintain at or
above two thousand one hundred until established on the approach." Nothing
required him to descend below any charted altitude. No doubt 2100 is the
local MVA, and you're not gonna bite a dirt sandwich at the MVA.

No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case. But, the problem is
systemic and a different set of misapplications could result in a serious
situation or an accident.

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. In fact, it's "cute."

wrote in message
...


[snipped]

No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case. But, the problem
is
systemic and a different set of misapplications could result in a serious
situation or an accident.

Agreed.


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. In fact, it's "cute."


Looking at this specific procedure, what altitude assignment phraseology
would you suggest as being compatible with both this approach and the
ARTCC's terrain and obstruction separation requirement for enroute IFR
aircraft? "Maintain 3000 until established?"

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:

wrote in message
...


[snipped]

No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case. But, the problem
is
systemic and a different set of misapplications could result in a serious
situation or an accident.

Agreed.


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. In fact, it's "cute."


Looking at this specific procedure, what altitude assignment phraseology
would you suggest as being compatible with both this approach and the
ARTCC's terrain and obstruction separation requirement for enroute IFR
aircraft? "Maintain 3000 until established?"

Chip, ZTL

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." Or, alternatively, it could
be "Cross ACMEE at, or above, 3,000, cleared....." This was brought to APTAC a
couple of years ago and an ATB was issued in 2001 reminding controllers that
"established" is only appropriate for vectors into an airway or published
segment of the IAP. The 7110.65 has had the correct example for years, but it
was (and still is) mostly missed by controllers.

The history behind the distinction is that "established" is suppose to be
limited to published routes or segments to help keep that "TWA 514 hole" tightly
sealed.

Greg Esres wrote:

Many RNAV approaches have been established within the last three
years that have no connection to Victor airways.


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. Still, even considering that, what you say may be true.

When a TAA IAP is designed they are supposed to make sure airways pass
through each of the three areas. If not, they are supposed to establish
a feeder fix on an airway that points to the area that has no airways
within it.

I emphasize "suppose," especially since TAAs are sort of like doodoo
birds. (alas).

Chip Jones wrote:

wrote in message
...


Stan Gosnell wrote:

wrote in :

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).

That's a pretty broad statement. Want me to show you some that aren't?


I misspoke, slightly. If the IAF is not on airways then a feeder fix that
is on airway will lead to the IAF. That is the case with both GPS
approaches for Greenville, AL (KPRN).


Which does *nothing* at all to assist ATC unless the feeder fix, the IAF,
the FAF and the MAP are plotted and displayed on the sector PVD (ie- radar
scope). For example, on the GPS RWY 32 into Greenville, CHAFF intersection
helps define the IAF UGMUFF's relationship to the rest of the sector fabric.
However, CHAFF is *unknown* to the ARTCC controller. It isn't plotted and
displayed on the scope. She has likely *never* even heard of CHAFF in 20
years of working the same piece of airspace, regardless of the fact that the
intersection may be established on an airway. Likely, CHAFF only exists on
a paper chart somewhere in her Area's overhead displays, maybe not even a
chart she can get to, assuming she isn't too busy to even try to get to it.
To the controller, assuming that she even knows what CHAFF is, where CHAFF
is and that CHAFF is now on the plate for the GPS 32 at PRN, she still
doesn't have a lot to work with. The fact that IAF UGMUFF is plotted on
the plate 080 degrees at 3.3 miles from CHAFF means nada to the controller
because CHAFF is just another one of thousands of named fixes in her
airspace.

This is a training and procedural support issue that is reaching critical
mass at ZTL and other busy, understaffed FAA ATC facilities. Simply put, we
are now too busy working airplanes with a skeleton crew at ZTL to squeeze in
training on "little" technical things like new IAP's. It's starting to
seriously impact our technical services to the user, but at least they're
getting maximum customer service efficiency for their tax dollar.

Chip, ZTL

No doubt about it, something is broken.

I passed this thread along to AVN-1. He is bothered by it, too. He was a
controller at one time. I am sure he will communicate with ATS about it all.

The system needs both pilots and controllers on board or RNAV IAPs will end up
becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And, then there
is RNP.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the ATC radar display system is quite
incapable of supporting this emerging technology.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

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).


Rubbish. Many RNAV approaches have been established within the last three
years that have no connection to Victor airways.

Give me some examples. Your choice of words reek of tact. 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.

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