GPS approaches with Center

When a TAA IAP is designed they are supposed to make sure airways
pass through each of the three areas.

Interesting that there is no guidance published for pilots to indicate
that a whole airway segment might be within a TAA and thus is
considered a "published segment." (I got my factoid from FAAO
8260.45A.)

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

Uhmm.....Dodo birds, or doodoo birds? :-) Meaning they are either
rare, or nasty. LOL.

Didn't you indicate sometime that the future of the TAA was uncertain,
because they were unpopular with ATC? (We have lots around here.)

wrote in message
...


Chip Jones wrote:

[snipped]


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.

Gotcha.


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.`

Hey, thanks for the reply. It's got the guys and gals on my crew reviewing
our phraseology and clearance procedures.

In most cases in my airspace the local MIA is higher than the initial
approach altitude on the IAP. Looking east to 47A (Canton/Cherokee County,
Georgia) for example, the MIA over the airport is 4100. Say I have an
aircraft proceding direct EDVIH from the NW, inbound for the GPS Rwy 4. I
have to protect for the 4100 MIA until the aircraft gets established on the
approach. I had been saying "Maintian 4100 until established on the
approach, cleared blah blah blah..." In my case, the safe clearance
phraseology for the GPS procedure at 47A should be "Cross EDVIH at 4100,
cleared GPS Rwy 4 approach." Correct?

Much obliged,

Chip, ZTL

wrote in message
...


[snipped]


No doubt about it, something is broken.

Yep.


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.


Actually, the ATC radar display system isn't the weak link here. The
display is quite capable of supporting the technology IMO. The hardware
weak link is the computer system architecture. Adding all of these new
fixes into the local ARTCC data base causes automation problems with
flightplan ammendment processing. This is fixable.

However, the *main* problem is lack of specialized, detailed ATC training on
the particulars of each new approach. This is one of the many downsides to
running the ATC system with too few personnel. This too is fixable, but as
an Agency we are acting like this people part of the problem doesn't even
exist.

Chip, ZTL

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.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

wrote in message ...
Snowbird wrote:
It's generally pretty seamless. They know the fixes and the altitudes,
even though our approaches are obnoxious and contain little or no indication
of how they relate to the enroute system and the IAFs have nothing to
do with airways or intersections on airways or even charted transitions.

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).

Horseradish. There aren't even charted transitions from ground-based
navaids or intersections on Victor airways on many approaches developed
in the last three years, much less all IAFs anchored on Victor airways.

The trend more and more is to include charted TAAs and to chart the
GPS approaches completely independently of the ground-based navaid
and airway system on which ATC currently still relies.

Sydney

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.

For more than their curiosity. They were appreciative of the information
about that new approach before they got their own informtion on it.

"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Mick Ruthven" wrote:
I remember about six years ago our local airport (Gnoss Field, DVO)
got a GPS approach and soon after I asked Oakland Center for that
as a practice approach. The controller was very straightforward about
the fact that he didn't know of the approach. So I told him where it
was and gave him a position report at the IAF and subsequent fixes.

So not much has changed, huh?

I assume you were in radar contact and the position reports were just for
the controllers curiosity...?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Greg Esres wrote:


Didn't you indicate sometime that the future of the TAA was uncertain,
because they were unpopular with ATC? (We have lots around here.)

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.

Snowbird wrote:

wrote in message ...
Snowbird wrote:
It's generally pretty seamless. They know the fixes and the altitudes,
even though our approaches are obnoxious and contain little or no indication
of how they relate to the enroute system and the IAFs have nothing to
do with airways or intersections on airways or even charted transitions.

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).

Horseradish. There aren't even charted transitions from ground-based
navaids or intersections on Victor airways on many approaches developed
in the last three years, much less all IAFs anchored on Victor airways.

The trend more and more is to include charted TAAs and to chart the
GPS approaches completely independently of the ground-based navaid
and airway system on which ATC currently still relies.

Sydney

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?

Chip Jones wrote:

wrote in message
...


Chip Jones wrote:

[snipped]


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.

Gotcha.

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.`

Hey, thanks for the reply. It's got the guys and gals on my crew reviewing
our phraseology and clearance procedures.

In most cases in my airspace the local MIA is higher than the initial
approach altitude on the IAP. Looking east to 47A (Canton/Cherokee County,
Georgia) for example, the MIA over the airport is 4100. Say I have an
aircraft proceding direct EDVIH from the NW, inbound for the GPS Rwy 4. I
have to protect for the 4100 MIA until the aircraft gets established on the
approach. I had been saying "Maintian 4100 until established on the
approach, cleared blah blah blah..." In my case, the safe clearance
phraseology for the GPS procedure at 47A should be "Cross EDVIH at 4100,
cleared GPS Rwy 4 approach." Correct?

Much obliged,

Chip, ZTL

Correct. And that is covered in a 2001 ATB, 2001-4 as I recall.