GPS approaches with Center

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

That approach was effective 22 May 1997, and has not been amended since.


What's your point? Your assertion 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)." May 1997 was six and a half years ago,
that's more than three years.

It should be apparent that l meant within the last three years, or so. Unlike
you, I am not a perfect typist at all hours of the day.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

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.

He has to argue with AT types at work. I doubt he wants to to it for "fun."

Greg Esres wrote:

Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.

I agree that it's common sense.

One thing about TAA's that bothers me is the definition of the
sectors. The distance is to the IAF in the right or left base, but
the bearings are to the IF. GPSs don't display the bearing to the IF,
when you're headed to one of the "T" IAFs. (But you can get it on the
KLN-94 by scrolling through the fixes in the active flight plan.)

More on this:

I have a modified version of the Garmin 530 trainer that works with MSFS
2002. I loaded the RNAV (GPS) RWY 21 approach for KPRC and set myself up
to enter the right-base TAA from the southwest. This would require DUKIW
to be the first active waypoint. I will remain within protected airspace
(within 30 miles of DUKIW) by using the 028 clockwise to 118 bearings off
DUKIW. All I do is exclude using the airspace east of the 118 bearing
from DUKIW to PEVYU.

wrote in message
...

It should be apparent that l meant within the last three years, or so.
Unlike you, I am not a perfect typist at all hours of the day.


You're saying you misspelled "so" as "more"? What's apparent is you don't
know what you're talking about.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

It should be apparent that l meant within the last three years, or so.
Unlike you, I am not a perfect typist at all hours of the day.


You're saying you misspelled "so" as "more"? What's apparent is you don't
know what you're talking about.

You just love being an antagonistic jerk. You bring discredit upon your
craft.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100, not to mention common sense.


Considered by AFS-420 and AVN-100 perhaps, but not by anyone with common
sense.

That comment says legions about you. Now, if only the FAA would recognize
your talent, you would be Administrator tomorrow.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
news

I don't have the enroute charts for this area, but from my national
map, it looks as if V191 and V217 pass through both TAAs at AIG. Yes?

As for BCK, V246 would seem to be in the straight-in sector of the
TAA, and V345 might be in both base sectors.


Yes, but that's not the issue. None of the IAFs are on airways.

That's not the issue, either.

Greg Esres wrote:

None of the IAFs are on airways.

Steven, get over it. g

The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
and let's move on. ;-)

Greg, it's his nature to be argumentative. What he has constructively
provided to this thread escapes me.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

Steven, get over it. g

The dispute has brought forth knowledge, just like it's supposed to,
and both Airperson and you have contributed. Accept a pat on the back
and let's move on. ;-)


If you don't want your questions answered, don't ask them.

If there was a way to kick you out of the "room" that would be the most
positive contribution to the forum.

Snowbird wrote:

wrote in message ...
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? ;-)

This is not an editor's review board, it's USENET.

And while most people of good will try to interpret someone as
they mean -- including later corrections -- it's considered
polite and good form to acknowledge that the original post was
erroneous or oversimplified, and later corrected -- especially
when you're responding to follows on the original post.

It's kinda tacky IMO to make a follow "that statement excluded
TAAs yadda yadda" when in fact, the statement to which I was
replying did no such thing. You know "yes, you're right, that
wasn't the original statement, but what I intended to say was...."

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.

Oh, no. I'll be telling YOU, because you're the gent who's
insisting there's no such thing (albeit with many more qualifiers
than originally stated, and which may be sufficient), with
considerable vehemence and in previous follows, challenging
me to provide YOU with examples.

As for the FAA, I've expressed a couple of personal views about
GPS approaches and how they're being charted to them directly
on two occasions so far, in writing, for all the good it does me.


You would probably get further with AOPA.