I once asked a then CAA head of policy on this how come the US managed to use GPS 20 years before Europe and yet the US is not covered in wreckage
You can apply that to a lot of things. There was a discussion a while back about classes of airspace. Someone was insistent that – speaking of Germany – it was unthinkable that airliner airspace could be less than Class C (guaranteed separation between IFR and all other traffic), because the soil of Germany would be littered with the wrecks of midair collisions. Yet in the US the entire airspace, other than a few small areas around major airports is Class E. Nothing bad happens.
EGKA procedure is never flown other than as published, via the IAFs
If you are inbound at 2200ft, you can fly via any IAF, OK !
You want more fun, let’s say you went missed after first attempt or someone else was first, how do you fly EGKA RNP02 if you go to SHM hold?
You are number 1 at SHM holding at 2000ft,
It’s Golf, no correct or wrong answers 
Probably, it’s not worth asking the question: that procedure can’t be flown as published, via the IAFs from the hold (one has to be creative to make it work, Glocs has similar funky design, I asked one examiner upfront how he likes us to proceed after going missed)
However 2000 is way above the MSA which over the ocean is 1000ft.
Yes at 2000ft, I won’t hit anything anyway over water…even over land, the tallest obstacle over the hill is fine with 1900ft and I have to be really lost to hit that one !
PS: small detail, MSA over water is 1500ft (sea wind farms are listed in the plates)Peter wrote:
I have always completely ignored those part-circles… assuming them to be MSA.
When I did my IR all those years ago and later while doing airline dispatching those circles were always pointed out as of high interest. And I agree. They give you quite valuable information and actually do provide the information you need if you crosscheck any clearance ATC may give you. As you rightly say, you are responsible.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with how you did react, if you felt uncomfortable with the clearance, revert to the full procedure. Safe way to do it.
The way I see it, at the time you were given the direct MT505 you were at your cleared altitude of 7000 ft, which also happens to be the initial approach altitude. I also understand that you were NOT cleared for the approach at this time, but only given a direct. Hence, you would have had to maintain 7000 ft anyhow.
My guess is, had you followed the direct to MT505, you would have gotten a descent to 5000 ft and the approach clearance once closer than 10 NM from MT505, the safety of which you can verify using the TAA/MSA in the semi circle which indicates 4800 ft. At least that is the way I’ve seen it done in similar cases.
E.g, in Geneva, the approaches to Runway 23 all start at SPR in 7000 ft. However, if you arrive from the West, you are often vectored or issued directs to altitudes way below that and then cleared onto the ILS at usually 4000 ft at about half way between SPR and the airport (which is quite a long distance). So what the Montpellier Controller did is not unusual.
I need to get the movie put together to answer those questions.
This is Manston EGMH, closed 2014, and it shows the same inexplicable part-circles. Nobody seems to know how this is supposed to work
but it is nothing new, and predates the mandatory PBN BS for the IR here.
I can see ncyankee’s statement that these would fail to meet TERPS, so what are they for?
Class G is irrelevant.
They could well be just MSA.
Peter, what’s wrong with this one? The IAF altitudes are higher than the MSAs.
Like the GOTOT one at EGKA, it makes sense if those circles are MSAs, and thus not for operational use.
But aren’t we being told they are not MSAs / are for operational use?
There must be a simple answer.
Perhaps the part-circles above are not the same as the part-circles at say LFMT.
They could well be just MSA.
Probably, NCYankee has explained the difference between MSA and TAA in US
I need to ask an ATC in France/UK what is their view on TAA vs MSA?
I would not be surprised if they turns out TAA = MSA in ATC eyes
My vague guess, if you think about allergic CAA or DGAC when GPS was introduced they decided to patch it and make it work with existing conventional infrastructure, the resulting procedures sometimes do not make sense (e.g. keep existing holds, use existing conventional routes and points, missed rely on ADF, don’t touch nearby airspace, vector to RNP, direct to ILS…)
Getting direct on GPS TAA bellow Radar MVA or Airway MEA is one example of that patchy approach, the whole picture on ATS routes & services is missing, the US went for more integrated approach…
I have nothing to support this claim just an observation
Peter, what’s wrong with this one? The IAF altitudes are higher than the MSAs.
How do you fly from GOPAN hold at 2000ft, cleared approach to each 3×IAF at Manston?
AFAIK, you never have this in US: RNP hold is “attached” to RNP IAF 
NCYankee post on RNP did talk about Holds I am sure he can confirm how holds are designed for RNAV IAP? in UK (and sometimes in France), there is a tendency to “reuse existing hold” (something to do with airspace change approval or getting new routes)
In the US, a TAA segment is considered as an RNAV variation of a feeder route. With a typical TAA and a T structured procedure, there are usually three IAF, two at the T arms for the RH base and LH base, and a third one at the center of the T that is also an IF. The middle IAF also has a hold in lieu of a procedure turn (HILPT), which is used to align the aircraft with the final, so first time over the center fix is an IAF, then the hold is executed to get aligned with final, and passing over the fix the second time, it is an IF. If there isn’t a hold at the center of the T, then the fix is just an IF and then one of the two other IAF are used to join the approach.
I am inclined to think the same thing happened for TAA, match it to existing MSA? in countries with Golf airspace and disjoint service, it avoids thinking about how would an aircraft would get there via radar, hold, direct, airway, star…
Peter wrote:
Nobody seems to know how this is supposed to work
Both I and NCYankee know how it works and we have tried to explain it. I backed up my explanation with quotes from PANS-OPS. Exactly what is it that you still find is not clear
It’s kind of funny how it has repeatedly been claimed here that PBN ops are so easy that there was absolutely no need to require training (or previous experience) to get PBN privileges, still over and again we find ourselves in discussions like this one.
