OLV GPS 36 approach question

Greg Esres wrote:

MVA trumps MSA, and that is what was issued. Published 2800 would be
required if no radar.

MSA is irrelevant, except in an emergency. And MVA only trumps the
2800 if being RADAR VECTORED to the final approach course. In this
case, the pilot was flying a non-radar procedure in a radar
environment. ATC should have given him no altitude below 2800.


Not so with this past February's AIM and ATC procedure change:

"AIM 5-4-7

i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment
suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument
approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing
Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:
1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix."

Item 1 "Radar Monitor" is the functional equivalent to a radar vector
for purposes of this provision. That was all explained in the preamble
to the change, which appeared in this news group a while back.

Not so with this past February's AIM and ATC procedure change:

You informed me of this change a month or two ago, but that doesn't
change the fact that published altitudes apply after arriving at the
IF. An assigned altitutde below an intermediate segment altitude would
be an error, as I think you'd agree.

However, as I reviewed the original post, he said he was cleared to
DOCAP. In my mind, I pictured the right base entry, which is the one
that I usually make, but DOCAP is the IF/IAF and which makes it a
straight-in. The first published altitude IS (I think) 2,100, so the
controller didn't make an error after all. The 2,800 that the OP
mentioned was probably the straight in sector altitude, which becomes
irrelevant when cleared to the IF.

wrote:
Not so with this past February's AIM and ATC procedure change:

You informed me of this change a month or two ago, but that doesn't
change the fact that published altitudes apply after arriving at the
IF. An assigned altitutde below an intermediate segment altitude would
be an error, as I think you'd agree.

I would agree, and if there were a step-down altitude in the
intermediate higher than 2,100, then the assignment would have been in
error.

But, in the circstances with this IAP, it was functionally no different
than "vectors to final" (i.e., the intermediate segment), which wouldn't
be any surprise to have done at 2,100 feet.

Having said that, because of the nuance of this new procedure, an
assignment to cross DOCAP at 2,800 would be better human-factors.

However, as I reviewed the original post, he said he was cleared to
DOCAP. In my mind, I pictured the right base entry, which is the one
that I usually make, but DOCAP is the IF/IAF and which makes it a
straight-in. The first published altitude IS (I think) 2,100, so the
controller didn't make an error after all. The 2,800 that the OP
mentioned was probably the straight in sector altitude, which becomes
irrelevant when cleared to the IF.