Narrative:

My flight departed lns on an IFR flight plan to N70. I departed lns about XA10 local time on nov/xa/98. Harrisburg approach handed me off to phl approach. The first phl controller asked me what approach I wanted. I asked him to stand by while I checked the WX. After checking the WX, I asked for the GPS to runway 26 at N70. I was at 3000 ft at this time. He wanted to send me to oxbob to start the approach. This is not correct. An approach must begin from the IAF appropriate to your route of flight, or ATC must vector you to the final approach course to intercept the approach course prior to the FAF. I told him that I did not want to start at oxbob, but I could go to metropolitan, yardley, or abbys. He told me to take my request up with the next controller and handed me off to 123.80. This guy said that metropolitan and yardley were out of the question. However, he asked me if I could go to abbys and do the approach from there on my own. I said yes. He told me to report the procedure turn inbound. I said that there wasn't a procedure turn, and that I would go to abbys and make a left turn around to join the approach course, which I did. I landed at N70 at about XA50. I asked the last controller for a phone number so that I could talk to them after I landed, which he gave me. After talking to them and the local FSDO on the phone for some time, I was told by both that ATC is not ready for GPS approachs and this one is almost impossible for ATC to clear you for. They don't even have the plate for it. In may/98 I was involved in a very similar situation at the same airport and on the same approach. I was cleared direct to oxbob to start the approach at 3000 ft. After I started to do a procedure turn to turn around (ATC told me to report procedure turn inbound), he asked what I was doing and then canceled my approach clearance. After talking with the FAA about this, an air traffic bulletin was sent out because of my flight and one other flight that was mishandled. 6 months later the problem still is not corrected. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: pilot was flying a pilatus PC12 high performance turboprop. Hehad an IFR certified GPS system. 6 months prior to this incident, the pilot attempted to fly the GPS runway 26 approach at N70. The controller would not allow the pilot to go to the IAF. He could only be cleared to oxbob for the approach. In this incident the controller stated to the pilot that ard and metropolitan were in ZNY's airspace and he would be unable to begin GPS approach from either. The pilot called TRACON after landing and was told that the GPS runway 26 approach to N70 was unusable and could not be used as published. The GPS runway 8 approach was acceptable because it was within TRACON's airspace. On discussion with the phl TRACON, they indicated that no GPS FAF is shown on their radar display. They are just now getting into using GPS approachs. Not everyone is up to speed, pilots included. Callback conversation with phl TRACON specialists revealed the following information: metropolitan intersection IAF and abbys intersection begin in N90 airspace. The IAF at ard VOR is within phl airspace. An approach clearance from ard VOR proceeds through 2 phl sectors en route to N70. To make this approach work from ard or metropolitan, considering the 2 phl control sectors, the aircraft must pass through the phl runway 17 final approach course, be pointed out to NAS willow grove (nxx) and to allentown approach control -- due to approach course proximity to other delegated airspace. The reporter mistakenly states that an approach must begin at an IAP. An aircraft making this approach could descend in the published holding pattern at oxbob intersection and make the approach. The specialists stated that a controller mistakenly told the pilot -- in 2 separate instances -- to call procedure turn inbound. There is no procedure turn for this approach. The TRACON is waiting for a map upgrade to include map adjustments and amendments, but there is no proposed effective date. Controllers have been briefed about this and other GPS proposed approachs. Interfacility intrafac coordination is formidable in the approval/clearance of this GPS approach. A specialist advised that they have been the subject of focus in the reporter's magazine and other publications. Approach approval is predicated on traffic volume and workload. This specific GPS approach can expect delays due to its positioning location and coordination complexities.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PILATUS PC12 PLT REQUESTED THE GPS RWY 26 APCH AT PERKASIE, PA, N70. THE TRACON APCH CTLR GAVE A CLRNC TO GO DIRECT TO OXBOB. THE PLT REQUESTED THAT HE BEGIN HIS APCH OVER ONE OF THE IAF'S.

Narrative: MY FLT DEPARTED LNS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO N70. I DEPARTED LNS ABOUT XA10 LCL TIME ON NOV/XA/98. HARRISBURG APCH HANDED ME OFF TO PHL APCH. THE FIRST PHL CTLR ASKED ME WHAT APCH I WANTED. I ASKED HIM TO STAND BY WHILE I CHKED THE WX. AFTER CHKING THE WX, I ASKED FOR THE GPS TO RWY 26 AT N70. I WAS AT 3000 FT AT THIS TIME. HE WANTED TO SEND ME TO OXBOB TO START THE APCH. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. AN APCH MUST BEGIN FROM THE IAF APPROPRIATE TO YOUR RTE OF FLT, OR ATC MUST VECTOR YOU TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE TO INTERCEPT THE APCH COURSE PRIOR TO THE FAF. I TOLD HIM THAT I DID NOT WANT TO START AT OXBOB, BUT I COULD GO TO METRO, YARDLEY, OR ABBYS. HE TOLD ME TO TAKE MY REQUEST UP WITH THE NEXT CTLR AND HANDED ME OFF TO 123.80. THIS GUY SAID THAT METRO AND YARDLEY WERE OUT OF THE QUESTION. HOWEVER, HE ASKED ME IF I COULD GO TO ABBYS AND DO THE APCH FROM THERE ON MY OWN. I SAID YES. HE TOLD ME TO RPT THE PROC TURN INBOUND. I SAID THAT THERE WASN'T A PROC TURN, AND THAT I WOULD GO TO ABBYS AND MAKE A L TURN AROUND TO JOIN THE APCH COURSE, WHICH I DID. I LANDED AT N70 AT ABOUT XA50. I ASKED THE LAST CTLR FOR A PHONE NUMBER SO THAT I COULD TALK TO THEM AFTER I LANDED, WHICH HE GAVE ME. AFTER TALKING TO THEM AND THE LCL FSDO ON THE PHONE FOR SOME TIME, I WAS TOLD BY BOTH THAT ATC IS NOT READY FOR GPS APCHS AND THIS ONE IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR ATC TO CLR YOU FOR. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE PLATE FOR IT. IN MAY/98 I WAS INVOLVED IN A VERY SIMILAR SIT AT THE SAME ARPT AND ON THE SAME APCH. I WAS CLRED DIRECT TO OXBOB TO START THE APCH AT 3000 FT. AFTER I STARTED TO DO A PROC TURN TO TURN AROUND (ATC TOLD ME TO RPT PROC TURN INBOUND), HE ASKED WHAT I WAS DOING AND THEN CANCELED MY APCH CLRNC. AFTER TALKING WITH THE FAA ABOUT THIS, AN AIR TFC BULLETIN WAS SENT OUT BECAUSE OF MY FLT AND ONE OTHER FLT THAT WAS MISHANDLED. 6 MONTHS LATER THE PROB STILL IS NOT CORRECTED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: PLT WAS FLYING A PILATUS PC12 HIGH PERFORMANCE TURBOPROP. HEHAD AN IFR CERTIFIED GPS SYS. 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT, THE PLT ATTEMPTED TO FLY THE GPS RWY 26 APCH AT N70. THE CTLR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE PLT TO GO TO THE IAF. HE COULD ONLY BE CLRED TO OXBOB FOR THE APCH. IN THIS INCIDENT THE CTLR STATED TO THE PLT THAT ARD AND METRO WERE IN ZNY'S AIRSPACE AND HE WOULD BE UNABLE TO BEGIN GPS APCH FROM EITHER. THE PLT CALLED TRACON AFTER LNDG AND WAS TOLD THAT THE GPS RWY 26 APCH TO N70 WAS UNUSABLE AND COULD NOT BE USED AS PUBLISHED. THE GPS RWY 8 APCH WAS ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT WAS WITHIN TRACON'S AIRSPACE. ON DISCUSSION WITH THE PHL TRACON, THEY INDICATED THAT NO GPS FAF IS SHOWN ON THEIR RADAR DISPLAY. THEY ARE JUST NOW GETTING INTO USING GPS APCHS. NOT EVERYONE IS UP TO SPD, PLTS INCLUDED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH PHL TRACON SPECIALISTS REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: METRO INTXN IAF AND ABBYS INTXN BEGIN IN N90 AIRSPACE. THE IAF AT ARD VOR IS WITHIN PHL AIRSPACE. AN APCH CLRNC FROM ARD VOR PROCEEDS THROUGH 2 PHL SECTORS ENRTE TO N70. TO MAKE THIS APCH WORK FROM ARD OR METRO, CONSIDERING THE 2 PHL CTL SECTORS, THE ACFT MUST PASS THROUGH THE PHL RWY 17 FINAL APCH COURSE, BE POINTED OUT TO NAS WILLOW GROVE (NXX) AND TO ALLENTOWN APCH CTL -- DUE TO APCH COURSE PROX TO OTHER DELEGATED AIRSPACE. THE RPTR MISTAKENLY STATES THAT AN APCH MUST BEGIN AT AN IAP. AN ACFT MAKING THIS APCH COULD DSND IN THE PUBLISHED HOLDING PATTERN AT OXBOB INTXN AND MAKE THE APCH. THE SPECIALISTS STATED THAT A CTLR MISTAKENLY TOLD THE PLT -- IN 2 SEPARATE INSTANCES -- TO CALL PROC TURN INBOUND. THERE IS NO PROC TURN FOR THIS APCH. THE TRACON IS WAITING FOR A MAP UPGRADE TO INCLUDE MAP ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS, BUT THERE IS NO PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE. CTLRS HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ABOUT THIS AND OTHER GPS PROPOSED APCHS. INTERFAC INTRAFAC COORD IS FORMIDABLE IN THE APPROVAL/CLRNC OF THIS GPS APCH. A SPECIALIST ADVISED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF FOCUS IN THE RPTR'S MAGAZINE AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS. APCH APPROVAL IS PREDICATED ON TFC VOLUME AND WORKLOAD. THIS SPECIFIC GPS APCH CAN EXPECT DELAYS DUE TO ITS POSITIONING LOCATION AND COORD COMPLEXITIES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.