GPS approaches with Center

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
...

No doubt you won't bite a dirt sandwhich in this case.


Nor will you bite a dirt sandwich in any similar case.


But, the problem is systemic and a different set of misapplications could
result in a serious situation or an accident.


Why, yes, different circumstances could have different results. In fact,
I'd go a bit further and say that different circumstances would very
probably produce different results. I believe that's true in any endeavor.
But let's confine our discussion to the circumstances in this case.

The controller is obviously unfamiliar with the desired approach, probably
because she didn't have access to current publications. When about 25 miles
out, the pilot requests a clearance direct to an IAF and states the heading
that would require. She issues the clearance; "Cessna '87D,
cleared...ah...for what you requested. Maintain at or above two thousand one
hundred until established on the approach, cleared approach to Greenville,
report canceling...etc." Not the best way to handle it, but perhaps the
best that could be done under the circumstances.

Your advice was; "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."

First of all, the guy wasn't "being sent" anywhere. He REQUESTED a
clearance direct to the IAF and he was cleared as requested. Nor was he
cleared below the approach segment for which he was cleared. The clearance
was "Maintain at or above two thousand one hundred until established on the
approach". We must assume 2100 was the MIA for the area and the controller
didn't know the published altitudes because she didn't have the IAP and the
pilot didn't tell her. So "at or above two thousand one hundred" covers all
the bases. It does not require him to descend below the published altitude
for the approach segment but it does provide obstacle clearance until he is
on a published segment.

A greater concern is what they're using in lieu of current publications.
Perhaps data from old publications? Greenville Muni was formerly served by
a single IAP, the NDB or GPS RWY 32. (I have an SE4 book dated 26 Feb
1998.) Persimmon NDB was on the field, but it was decommissioned at some
point in the past five years. There are now two GPS approaches serving this
field, GPS RWY 14 and GPS RWY 32. They're apparently quite recent as
MyAirplane.Com doesn't have them yet.


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.


Really? In what universe is 3,000 MSL not above 2,100 MSL?


In fact, it's "cute."


In fact, it's "logic". You should try it.

I recommended the NASA report after a friend of mine review the message. He is
a former USAF ATC and TERPs type who is a TERPs expert with the FAA.

wrote in message
...


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.

Constructively, nothing; my guess is it's all his own delicate and overblown
ego. He's been in my "bozo bin" for some time based his childish manner.

wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
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.

Oh, FerCryingOutLoud. Gawd knows that I've been drawn into
long nitpicking exchanges with SPM myself in the past, but
I take responsibility MYSELF for that. If I don't like that
sort of exchange, I'm free to state my bit once then shut up
and move on.

There's no question that over the long haul, Steve McNicoll
has made many factual and correct contributions to the group
which are positive and helpful. (He's made many nitpicking
arguments too, but we all have our flaws)

Maybe I'll be able to say the same about you some day, but
I can't now, so IMHO it is WAY out of line to discuss "kicking
out" a long-term contributor as a "positive contribution".

If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.

Best wishes,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.

It's not the "what", but the "how".

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.

It's not the "what", but the "how".

So Tom, you claim that you can hear the voices in Steve's head?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

If you don't like what SPM posts, I suggest a killfile.

It's not the "what", but the "how".

So Tom, you claim that you can hear the voices in Steve's head?

Yup, in your head as well....and I'm telling your mother!

wrote in message ...

I just left this part in 'cuz it wasn't addressed:
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...."

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.

BTTT, Negative.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird wrote:

wrote in message ...

I just left this part in 'cuz it wasn't addressed:
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...."

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.

BTTT, Negative.


I'm not surprised. It seems no one within the industry or FAA wants input from
outside their busy "insider" work groups.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
news

And the functional difference is?


Irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

wrote in message
...

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.


There was nothing wrong with the controller's use of "until established" in
this case. FAAO 7110.65 para 4-8-1.b.2. requires controllers to assign an
altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a
published route or instrument approach procedure to aircraft operating on
unpublished routes. It does not prescribe specific phraseology. It does
provide an example of a proper clearance which uses the "cross FIX" format,
but phraseology examples provided where the preceding paragraph does not
include specific prescribed phraseology are just suggestions. Remember, the
controller in this case was not familiar with the approach, presumably for
reasons beyond her control. She can hardly be expected to specify an
unknown fix.



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.


You're confusing the situation here with being vectored for an approach.
"Maintain X thousand until established on the localizer" is problematical
when the vector will intercept the localizer beyond the published segment.
In that case the clearance must be withheld until the aircraft is
established
on a published segment, or a crossing restriction must be issued with the
clearance. In the situation here the pilot requested clearance direct to an
IAF, he was cleared as requested, told to maintain at or above 2100 until
established on the approach, and cleared for the approach. He was on his
own navigation all the way and had good altitude information throughout.