Narrative:

I had just assumed control of sector 9. A C130 was on the ILS/D Z runway 25 approach at adq. A dash 8 had been issued holding at chini at 6;000 ft. The dash 8 reported in the hold at chini. The C130 reported on the missed approach and a request to hold at chini. I asked the C130 if he wanted a higher altitude or to hold at 3;000 ft. He reported 3;700 ft and would like to hold at 4;000 ft. I issued 4;000 ft and an efc. At the time I didn't know if the C130 flew the wrong missed approach; or was actually cleared for the ILS/D-Y runway 25 approach and was flying the correct missed approach. The dash 8 requested lower and was issued 5;000 ft. The dash 8 and the C130 discussed how long they were able to hold before returning to anc; and the C130 indicated that he would like to accommodate the dash 8 and let them attempt an approach first. By this time the C130 was already to chini. I elected to clear him to proceed eastbound rather than north to be clear of the dash 8. I started to clear the C130 further out on the localizer; but realized I couldn't be sure the localizer was usable far enough east at 4;000 ft to allow the dash 8 to complete the approach; and advised the C130 to standby. The C130 then suggested continuing out to hinbu; a transition from the east to chini. The transition altitude is 1;600 ft; so cleared the C130 direct hinbu and to track outbound on the odk 084 radial with the intent of climbing and reversing course after the aircraft passed. This transition actually has a dogleg in it therefore the clearance direct hinbu is not actually the published transition course. The C130 indicated the weather was better and canceled IFR. The dash 8 was then cleared for the ILS/dz-25 approach. Adq tower later called the watch desk and reported that there was a tall ship in the harbor. Approaches to runway 25 are not authorized when there is a tall ship in the safety area. The sector was never informed of the ship. The other issue is the chini direct hinbu clearance. While it is in compliance with the 7110.65; CFR91.177; and all other national orders and regulations regarding minimum IFR altitudes; zan has recently changed the SOP to only allow the mearts mia polygon map or published MEA's on published courses to determine the minimum IFR altitude at anchorage ARTCC. Therefore; it is not in compliance with the zan SOP. I tried to comply with the SOP change by assigning the chini direct hinbu routing; believing that is was the transition with a 1;600 ft MEA; but didn't realize the transition had a dogleg when I issued the clearance.[recommend] changing the procedures for tall ships at adq to make reports more reliable. Delegate a government agency responsibility for the notification; i.e. Coast guard; harbor master; adq tower? There is an ongoing disagreement regarding the SOP change; but our requirements should be in line with national orders and directives; not local area specific rules. This routing over open water at 4;000 ft will more than likely be classified as an operational error by the qa department because it is in a 5;000 ft mia polygon. It is in compliance with the 7110.65 and every other national order and directive pertaining to mia's; but it not in compliance with the zan SOP.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAN Controller voiced concern regarding a recent facility SOP change that does not conform to national directives with regard to MIA altitude assignments and provided details on a recent example event.

Narrative: I had just assumed control of Sector 9. A C130 was on the ILS/D Z Runway 25 approach at ADQ. A Dash 8 had been issued holding at CHINI at 6;000 FT. The Dash 8 reported in the hold at CHINI. The C130 reported on the missed approach and a request to hold at CHINI. I asked the C130 if he wanted a higher altitude or to hold at 3;000 FT. He reported 3;700 FT and would like to hold at 4;000 FT. I issued 4;000 FT and an EFC. At the time I didn't know if the C130 flew the wrong missed approach; or was actually cleared for the ILS/D-Y Runway 25 approach and was flying the correct missed approach. The Dash 8 requested lower and was issued 5;000 FT. The Dash 8 and the C130 discussed how long they were able to hold before returning to ANC; and the C130 indicated that he would like to accommodate the Dash 8 and let them attempt an approach first. By this time the C130 was already to CHINI. I elected to clear him to proceed eastbound rather than north to be clear of the Dash 8. I started to clear the C130 further out on the localizer; but realized I couldn't be sure the localizer was usable far enough east at 4;000 FT to allow the Dash 8 to complete the approach; and advised the C130 to standby. The C130 then suggested continuing out to HINBU; a transition from the east to CHINI. The transition altitude is 1;600 FT; so cleared the C130 direct HINBU and to track outbound on the ODK 084 radial with the intent of climbing and reversing course after the aircraft passed. This transition actually has a dogleg in it therefore the clearance direct HINBU is not actually the published transition course. The C130 indicated the weather was better and canceled IFR. The Dash 8 was then cleared for the ILS/DZ-25 approach. ADQ Tower later called the Watch Desk and reported that there was a tall ship in the harbor. Approaches to Runway 25 are not authorized when there is a tall ship in the safety area. The sector was never informed of the ship. The other issue is the CHINI direct HINBU clearance. While it is in compliance with the 7110.65; CFR91.177; and all other national orders and regulations regarding minimum IFR altitudes; ZAN has recently changed the SOP to only allow the MEARTS MIA polygon map or published MEA's on published courses to determine the minimum IFR altitude at Anchorage ARTCC. Therefore; it is not in compliance with the ZAN SOP. I tried to comply with the SOP change by assigning the CHINI direct HINBU routing; believing that is was the transition with a 1;600 FT MEA; but didn't realize the transition had a dogleg when I issued the clearance.[Recommend] changing the procedures for tall ships at ADQ to make reports more reliable. Delegate a government agency responsibility for the notification; i.e. Coast Guard; Harbor Master; ADQ Tower? There is an ongoing disagreement regarding the SOP change; but our requirements should be in line with National Orders and directives; not local area specific rules. This routing over open water at 4;000 FT will more than likely be classified as an operational error by the QA department because it is in a 5;000 FT MIA polygon. It is in compliance with the 7110.65 and every other national order and directive pertaining to MIA's; but it not in compliance with the ZAN SOP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.