Narrative:

We were being vectored for the GPS 9 approach on a 270 degree heading into tallahassee and told to descend to 2000 ft; direct conpa. We were given direct conpa and 'cleared for the GPS 9 approach.' we descended to 2000 ft and flew the approach at 2000 ft and I read back 'descend to 2000 and cleared for the full GPS 9 approach.' halfway to conpa we were told to contact tower and they cleared us to land. At ragko we proceeded outbound on the published course reversal for the GPS 9 approach. After landing tower queried us on our decision to fly the full approach and not to turn directly inbound for the GPS 9. I replied we were flying the full approach as depicted on our chart. ATC asked us a question after landing why we flew the approach with the course reversal. We believed we were being initially vectored for an intercept for the approach so I accepted 2000 ft. After being cleared for the approach from conpa; we followed the approach at ATC's MVA of 2000 ft. Nowhere was 2000 ft listed on the approach. I understand that ATC can vector us at lower altitudes when in the ATC radar environment and MVA's are not published. I read back 'cleared for the full GPS 9 approach' on 3 separate occasions; (this included approach control and tower). Clarification on the procedure with a note allowing a lower altitude when ATC instruction on the approach plate authorizing a lower MVA. On multiple approachs at multiple airports; IAF's are missing from the FMS database and must be manually inputted (ILS runway 18R clt; tomme). The FMS database needs to include all IAF's for approachs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIR CARRIER INBOUND TO TLH WAS CLEARED FOR RNAV GPS RWY 9 APPROACH; VIA CONPA; ELECTED TO TURN OUTBOUND AT RAGKO; PROMPTING QUESTIONS FROM ATC.

Narrative: WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE GPS 9 APCH ON A 270 DEG HDG INTO TALLAHASSEE AND TOLD TO DSND TO 2000 FT; DIRECT CONPA. WE WERE GIVEN DIRECT CONPA AND 'CLRED FOR THE GPS 9 APCH.' WE DSNDED TO 2000 FT AND FLEW THE APCH AT 2000 FT AND I READ BACK 'DSND TO 2000 AND CLRED FOR THE FULL GPS 9 APCH.' HALFWAY TO CONPA WE WERE TOLD TO CONTACT TWR AND THEY CLRED US TO LAND. AT RAGKO WE PROCEEDED OUTBOUND ON THE PUBLISHED COURSE REVERSAL FOR THE GPS 9 APCH. AFTER LNDG TWR QUERIED US ON OUR DECISION TO FLY THE FULL APCH AND NOT TO TURN DIRECTLY INBOUND FOR THE GPS 9. I REPLIED WE WERE FLYING THE FULL APCH AS DEPICTED ON OUR CHART. ATC ASKED US A QUESTION AFTER LNDG WHY WE FLEW THE APCH WITH THE COURSE REVERSAL. WE BELIEVED WE WERE BEING INITIALLY VECTORED FOR AN INTERCEPT FOR THE APCH SO I ACCEPTED 2000 FT. AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE APCH FROM CONPA; WE FOLLOWED THE APCH AT ATC'S MVA OF 2000 FT. NOWHERE WAS 2000 FT LISTED ON THE APCH. I UNDERSTAND THAT ATC CAN VECTOR US AT LOWER ALTS WHEN IN THE ATC RADAR ENVIRONMENT AND MVA'S ARE NOT PUBLISHED. I READ BACK 'CLRED FOR THE FULL GPS 9 APCH' ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS; (THIS INCLUDED APCH CTL AND TWR). CLARIFICATION ON THE PROC WITH A NOTE ALLOWING A LOWER ALT WHEN ATC INSTRUCTION ON THE APCH PLATE AUTHORIZING A LOWER MVA. ON MULTIPLE APCHS AT MULTIPLE ARPTS; IAF'S ARE MISSING FROM THE FMS DATABASE AND MUST BE MANUALLY INPUTTED (ILS RWY 18R CLT; TOMME). THE FMS DATABASE NEEDS TO INCLUDE ALL IAF'S FOR APCHS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.