Without GPS you’d have to start at HLI. That’s the only Feeder. EFPUB is not a connection to the Enroute Structure. Radar of course works fine also.
MSA has nothing to do with ‘procedure.’ There might have been obstructions between 25 and 30 miles that may have made TAA altitudes higher than 2500.
Exactly. The only two ways to get to EPUB via own nav are (1) via the HUA 136 Radial and (2) direct via one of the two TAAs. If you take the direct route, you need GPS.
I've heard some refer to the minimum procedure altitude with a TAA as a Minimum Sector Altitude, also using "MSA." I guess we're running out of acronyms
but I suppose it's because on an RNAV chart they (generally) replace MSAs.
The FAA calls them areas. In this case there is a straight-in area and a course-reversal area. TAA's lost much of their value when the T legs were greatly reduced by a policy change on minimum T leg length. This particular one is of questionable value.I've heard some refer to the minimum procedure altitude with a TAA as a Minimum Sector Altitude, also using "MSA." I guess we're running out of acronyms
Or start at HLI VOR Feeder Fix.
Good question. MEM VOR is not on an airway.
Makes sense. It's times like these when I realize that after flying with GPS for so long, I forget some of the regulatory restrictions on the equipment code formerly known as /A. For example, from the charts, it's clear that KAWM -D> MEM -D> EFPUB -> ILS 18 KOLV could be flown safely at 2500' with /A, but I suppose that doesn't mean it can be done legally. (Aside from the fact that the good folks at KMEM would presumably never want someone doing that in their airspace.)
No, as mentioned above, there is a feeder from HLI. Just not from MEM.
I'm no expert, but my take is that since KAWM and EFPUB are both within the service volume of MEM VORTAC, you have "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" as required in 9.205(d)(2). If you were cleared on that route, I presume that ATC would have to specify an altitude. My understanding is that they will not clear you on an unpublished route unless you are in RADAR contact. Whether they would actually do so if all those conditions were met, I have no idea, but if they did, I don't see anything illegal about it. You wouldn't be using the TAA to determine course and altitude, so it looks to me like the TAA note would not be applicable.
Maybe. But in a sense so is any equipment requirement on an approach chart. One can certainly look at a VOR or LOC chart and notice that every stepdown and the MAP are defined by DME distance with no other way to identify them and realize that DME is required. But we don't and we especially don't when selecting an approach in the middle of a flight. So approach design adds the note. All one needs to do is read a few approach chart questions with the usual number of incorrect answers to understand why things like this are made explicit.
I wouldn’t say the TAA Note is not applicable. Without GPS, you simply wouldn’t be able to use the TAA. For that reason I’d say the Note is unnecessary, because it is by default, applicable, so to speak. Actually, any RNAV should work, not just GPS. I think. @aterpster , @RussR , are TAA’s limited to use by GPS? Or are other RNAV’s ok?
That's a weird one. Any idea why?
It would be on an RNAV TAA IAP. But, this is an ILS IAP, which typically doesn't require GPS.
And add another question to that. I'm assuming it would it would be the same for Approaches with any RNAV initial/intermediate Segments. TAA or straight line Fix to Fix.
I'm glad you asked this question. It's giving me a headache.