Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As I was receiving a position relief briefing Aircraft X requested to proceed direct to HUBUK which is the eastern fix for the T-style RNAV 30 approach into AQH.  The controller I was relieving cleared the aircraft direct HUBUK and we completed the position relief briefing.  AQH airport is on the western coast of the Kuskokwim delta and the terrain is fairly low and flat and I am very familiar with the RNAV 12 approach to AQH and the fact that 025 is the TAA (Terminal Arrival Altitude) for this approach so I thought nothing of the fact that the aircraft was proceeding direct HUBUK at 030.  When I took the position I asked the aircraft to report 30 NM from HUBUK to establish him in the TAA and verified that the pilot had the weather and NOTAMs.  When the pilot reported 30 NM from HUBUK I cleared him for the RNAV 30 approach and advised him to change to advisory frequency over HUBUK.  Approximately 20 NM from HUBUK the MSAW alarm went off and the FLM (Front Line Manager) came over to verify if the aircraft was okay.  I said he was fine since he was in the TAA for the approach; he asked if we had looked at the approach which we hadn't.  When the MSAW alarm continued I checked the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude) charts and saw that the aircraft was at 030 entering a 042 MIA area.  I then asked my A-side to open the approach plate which was when I realized that the TAAs for the HUBUK transition for the RNAV 30 were 067 until 20 NM from HUBUK and then 052 until HUBUK.  I tried to contact the aircraft to climb him but there was no response and soon thereafter the pilot contacted me on another frequency and asked if they needed to be at a higher altitude for the approach.  I advised him affirmative and cleared him to climb to 042; which was the MIA; and then cleared him to climb and maintain 052 until 20 NM from HUBUK and re-cleared him for the RNAV 30 approach.We recently had a change to the sound of the aural alarm for the MSAW alert and even so it has been an incredible nuisance as the alert sounds quite often and is rarely necessary.  This has been an on-going problem at ZAN as controllers have tended to become complacent about the MSAW alarms; myself included.  Fortunately our FLM has remained steadfast in his dedication to the investigation of all alarms to verify that there is no issue since he is aware of the complacency issue.  Fortunately; this time it was necessary!  Something needs to be done to decrease the number of false or unnecessary MSAW alarms so that we are more attentive to the alarms.




Synopsis: ZAN Controller reports of issuing an altitude he thought would be safe for an aircraft. Moments later the MSAW alarm went off and the Front Line Manager (FLM) came over to investigate. The Controller then checked the approach plate and discovered that he was wrong and attempted to contact the pilot to have him climb. Contact was not made. The pilot later called and asked if he was supposed to be higher and the Controller then climbed the aircraft and cleared it for the approach.