Descending to an IAP
Walter Murray
"When Are You A Non-Radar Arrival?". This passage caught my eye:
"If you're cleared for the approach while still on an
airway, ATC has no obligation to provide you with an
altitude since you're on a published route. Carefully
select the applicable minimum altitude for your position
on the airway, with particular caution in selecting the
correct MEA for your direction of flight. You should
be on speed and minimum altitude when departing the
en route structure on to either a feeder route or an
initial approach segment."
I was under the impression that you were required to maintain the
last assigned altitude until established on a segment of the IAP
or a published feeder route. But checking the AIM (Para 5-47),
maybe that rule applies only when being radar vectored.
What does the net think? Is Mr. Roberts giving sound advice?
Walter
John Stephens
I am appalled to read the section you quoted. My understanding (reinforced
by every CFI and DE that I know) is that you are NOT free to descend below
the currently assigned altitude until you ARE ESTABLISHED on the published
approach (heavy arrow on NOS plates) AND have been cleared for the
approach. This is why we have procedure turns and full approaches -- to
give one an opportunity to get established at the proper altitude crossing
the FAF.
If you are on an airway and are at an altitude much higher than the MEA,
then by all means ask the controller for lower as you approach your
destination. If he/she won't/can't assign it, then you may have to request
a hold at some point, explaining to the controller that slam dunks aren't
always possible in GA aircraft. *Although the flaps in Cessnas do pretty
good job, if you don't mind cooling the engine down in fairly short order. :-) :-)
******************************************************************
* . *
* John Stephens ._______|_______. Montgomery County Airpark *
* COMM-ASEL \(*)/ ( GAI ) *
* C-172P N51078 o/ \o Gaithersburg, Maryland *
* *
******************************************************************
Ron Natalie
: I am appalled to read the section you quoted. My understanding (reinforced
: by every CFI and DE that I know) is that you are NOT free to descend below
: the currently assigned altitude until you ARE ESTABLISHED on the published
: approach (heavy arrow on NOS plates) AND have been cleared for the
: approach. This is why we have procedure turns and full approaches -- to
: give one an opportunity to get established at the proper altitude crossing
: the FAF.
Yeah, there's a nice sooty spot on Mt. Weather here from the last guy
who descended below his assigned altitude after he was cleared for the
appraoch.
-Ron
Allen Thompson
> or a published feeder route. But checking the AIM (Para 5-47), ...
Brand new IFR pilot, so take my data FWIW. But I have been reading FARs
lately. (:-)
I read the AIM to say "Yep, he's right". Critical point is "begin descent
TO the altitude on a publish transition or feeder route", and _NOT_ "begin
descent of the final approach". As soon as ATC clears you for the
approach, you may begin descent to the MEA of the airway, then the
transition altitude top of the dark black line on the transition, then
begin approach descent crossing the intermediate fixes as published on
SIAP or at FAF.
Don't forget that another rule also applies here: report leaving an
assigned altitude even if ATC hasn't asked you to.
CavDude
provided), you may call out of x altitude for MEA (or min IFR) and
execute, shoot, fly, or do the approach.
Bill Nagle
Cav...@aol.com
CavDude
If you are Cleared for approach, you are clear to descend. You need only
report leaving previously assigned alt. If ATC desires you to stay at an
altitude..he come with "Cross MINDO at 5 Thousand, cleared ILS."
Bill Nagle
Cav...@aol.com
John Stephens
thom...@sgate.com (Allen Thompson) wrote:
>>> "If you're cleared for the approach while still on an airway...
>>
>>> or a published feeder route. But checking the AIM (Para 5-47), ...
AIM 5-47 discusses procedurte turns -- are you referring to the current AIM??
>>
>>Brand new IFR pilot, so take my data FWIW. But I have been reading FARs
>>lately. (:-)
>>
>>I read the AIM to say "Yep, he's right". Critical point is "begin descent
>>TO the altitude on a publish transition or feeder route", and _NOT_ "begin
>>descent of the final approach". As soon as ATC clears you for the
>>approach, you may begin descent to the MEA of the airway, then the
>>transition altitude top of the dark black line on the transition, then
>>begin approach descent crossing the intermediate fixes as published on
>>SIAP or at FAF.
Please qote the FAR or AIM reference for this. I have always understood that
the standard procedure is to remain at the last assigned altitude until ON the
charted approach or feeder route, not decend immediately after being given the
clearance, if above the MEA.
>>
>>Don't forget that another rule also applies here: report leaving an
>>assigned altitude even if ATC hasn't asked you to.
It is generally not permissable to leave an assigned altitude on your own
aythority, unless you have been cleared to do so by "descend at pilot's
discretion", or given a cruise clearance, or assigned a block altitude.
John Stephens
Contrary to my earlier posts on this subject, I believe now that this is
correct. An airway which leads to an IAF or a published feeder route is by
definition a "published segment for the approach" AFTER the approach clearance
has been received. Unless a crossing restriction is given, descent to the MEA
is permissable, and probably desirable (assuming no need to stay high due to
possible icing below, etc.)
John Stephens
step...@access.digex.net (John Stephens) wrote:
>>It is generally not permissable to leave an assigned altitude on your own
>>aythority, unless you have been cleared to do so by "descend at pilot's
>>discretion", or given a cruise clearance, or assigned a block altitude.
Crow-eating time. I was incorrect -- after the approach clearance has been
issued, in the absence of any crossing restrictions, you are free to descent
to the MEA. After the clearance has been issues, the airway BECOMES part of
the charted approach procedure.
Skip Forster
A "published route" is a route for which an IFR altitude is shown on
the chart. Examples are airways and feeder routes.
An instrument approach is made up of "segments": initial, intermediate,
final and missed.
If you are on a published route and you get an approach clearance, you
may descend to the IFR altitude published for that route.
For example, assume that you are on an airway which goes to a VOR.
Between the VOR and the IAF is a feeder route. The airway has a MEA of
4000', a MOCA of 3000' and the feeder route has a minimum altitude of
2000'. You are 30 nm from the VOR, on the airway at 5000' when you
receive approach clearance. You may descend immediately to 4000'. When
you get 22 nm from the VOR you can go down to 3000' and after crossing
the VOR and established on the feeder, you may go down to 2000'.
Maintaining the last assigned altitude only applies when you are not on
a published route or approach segment. You can't descend because you
don't know what the minimum IFR altitude is in that area -- only the
controller knows the MVA (unless you ask). So you must remain at the
last assigned altitude until you are established on a published route
or approach segment.
Back in the mid-70s TWA 514 hit a hill near Dulles because of an early
descent while on a radar vector, and ever since controllers have
reminded us of the rule every time we are vectored onto the approach:
"Maintain XXXX until established..."
Hope this helps,
Skip Forster, CFII
Results Pilot Training, Inc.
San Jose, CA
CL Driver
miles minimum safe altitude and it appears on each approach plate. When
within 100 miles of the facility, and cleared for the approach, you may
descend to that altitude until on a publish segment of the IAP.
Another thought is that in many international approaches, there is a
holding pattern depicted at the BEGINNING of the approach. If arriving at
the fix at a higher altitude than shown in the profile, it is expected
that you will enter holding and descend as depicted to the initial
approach altitude. Holding instructions are not normally given. It can
cause a lot of confusion, the first time you see it, when you hit a VOR at
16,000 feet with an approach clearance and no vectors, etc. from ATC.
gee...@indirect.com
> I was under the impression that you were required to maintain the
> last assigned altitude until established on a segment of the IAP
> or a published feeder route. But checking the AIM (Para 5-47),
> maybe that rule applies only when being radar vectored.
As an Enroute controller, I would expect a pilot, after being "cleared for approach", to descend to
the MEA for the airway segment he was on. If on a radar vector or a non-published direct route,
ATC is required to issue an altitude to maintain until established on a portion of the arrival.
Glenn Hamilton ATCS ZAB ARTCC
Ron Natalie
: Back in the mid-70s TWA 514 hit a hill near Dulles because of an early
: descent while on a radar vector, and ever since controllers have
: reminded us of the rule every time we are vectored onto the approach:
: "Maintain XXXX until established..."
Actually, he was on the feeder route, but he descended to the Initial
Approach Altitude before reaching the IAF. There was some discussion
on the CVR about whether being cleared for the approach meant you could
go on down, and also there was a misinterpretation of the DME distance
printed on the chart (the number 11 meant 11 miles from the IAF not
11 from the VORTAC).
-Ron
John Stanley
John Stephens <step...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Crow-eating time. I was incorrect -- after the approach clearance has been
>issued, in the absence of any crossing restrictions, you are free to descent
>to the MEA. After the clearance has been issues, the airway BECOMES part of
>the charted approach procedure.
Do you have a reference for this? This is NOT what the AIM says in
5-46. The AIM says the airway becomes part of the CLEARANCE. That means
that you don't need a specific CLEARANCE to fly along the airway to get
to the IAF, it's part of the approach clearance. That doesn't make the
airway part of the procedure.
If it isn't printed as part of the procedure on the approach plate, it
isn't part of the procedure.
Wally Roberts
article "assuming no ATC altitude restrictions are
contained in the approach clearance" but I felt that
might be a bit redundant.
It's always difficult to decide where to draw the line
with stuff that has so many twists and nuances.
Also, although you quoted me accurately, you left off
the last part of the last sentence "but not at the
expense of busting a minimum altitude."
As a controller says here, unless they issue a restriction,
they expect you to descent to the MEA once cleared for an
approach on a published route.
If you double check the pertinent AIM language, you will note
references to either published routes or approach segments.
Best regards....
Wally Roberts
>>who descended below his assigned altitude after he was cleared for the
>>appraoch.
I'm very familiar with that accident, having worked on the NTSB investigation
of it. I was a pilot for TWA at the time, and was then flying the same type
(727).
TWA 514 was on an unpublished extension of the final approach course
radial. They had previously been vectored to that radial by Washington
Center, but were then handed off to IAD Approach Control. IAD Approach
did not provide further vectors, but simply cleared 514 for the approach,
from the last assigned altitude of 7,000.
The approach chart's profile view was not in conformance with charting
standards, as it failed to include the intermediate segment (not Jepp's
fault, but the FAA's). The crew got sucked in by a common training
concept at the time that you could descend to the highest altitude shown
in the profile once cleared for an approach. They were, of course, dead
wrong.
One result was the FAR that tells you to maintain the last assigned altitude
until on a published route or segment.
Regards....
CavDude
NTSB-AAR-75-16, the TWA NTSB Report sez that is was on an unpublished
route, and was cleared for approach 44 miles from the airport.
Amazing, the crews poor decision making...but isn't it always?
Bill
CavDude
the MEA and transition to a feeder, but airways are still airways. Feeder
routes and Airways have the same obst clnc criteria. An initial segment of
an instrument approach commences at the IAF (TERPS para 230).
Are we separating the the fly SH_ _ from the pepper now?
Bill
John Stanley
>I agree that an airway doesn't become part of the IAP. You may descend to
>the MEA and transition to a feeder,
And I asked once. Maybe you ignored it. Where does it say this?
>Feeder routes and Airways have the same obst clnc criteria.
So what? What has this to do with following ATC instructions?
>Are we separating the the fly SH_ _ from the pepper now?
I don't know. I don't deal with fly shit. You tell us.
Wally Roberts
instrument approach procedure a part of that approach procedure?
Another one: what are the minimum number of segments an instrument approach
can have, and what are they?
Wally Roberts
the intermediate segment, and the generally poor training
at the time had the crew believing that they could
descend to the highest altitude shown in the profile view
after having been vectored to the unpublished raidal
extension of the final approach course--which, in this
case, was 1,800 feet.
Of course, they were wrong. Also, the clearance was really
lousy, as was the weather. They were on an unpublished
route, and the approach controller simply cleared them
for the approach without stating any crossing altitudes,
or anything.
The FAA was as misguided as was the crew. But, as usual,
the FAA only paid with taypayers' money.
Skip Forster
writes:
>Okay, how about this: is a feeder route that is established for a
particular
>instrument approach procedure a part of that approach procedure?
I believe that the FAA considers the instrument approach procedure to
consist of only the *segments* and therefore the feeder route, while
depicted on the approach chart would not be part of the *procedure*.
Feeders are considered transitions and en route obstacle criteria
apply.
According to the Pilot-Controller Glossary, the ICAO definition
includes "defined arrival routes" which might include feeder routes.
>Another one: what are the minimum number of segments an instrument
approach can have, and what are they?
>
The possible segments are Initial, Intermediate, Final and Missed
approach. Only final and missed approach segments are required for
every approach. ASR and PAR approaches are examples where only the
final and missed approach segments are designed.
Non-radar approaches will have an intermediate segment. If necessary,
there may also be an initial segment.
A comment about IAFs. The IAF does not necesssarily signify the
beginning of the initial segment. A segment which begins at an IAF and
terminates at a FAF is an intermediate segment and the “IAF” is
actually an intermediate fix. Also, it is possible to design an
approach without any IAF. Often “radar required” approaches are
designed this way.
Best,
Skip Forster, CFII
Results Pilot Training, Inc.
San Jose, CA (SJC)
CavDude
I was simply stating that feeder routes and airways have the same obstable
clearance requirements...and I stated that neither are part of an IAP. My
refererence is TERPS ch4 para 220
Bill
CavDude
part of an IAP.
>Minimum number of segments....
I think that would be 2. For an on-airport VOR or NDB Initial approach
segment begins overhead the facility and final approach begins when
established inbound from the procedure turn.
Here is one. What does the term "established inbound" mean? Centered CDI?
W/IN 5deg? 10? Reference please.
Bill
Bob Furtaw
Stanley) wrote:
Burried in AIM 5-47b:
"...when an approach clearance is received, shall ,in addition to complying
with the minimum altitudes for IFR operation (FAR 91.177), maintain his
last assigned altitude unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC, OR
UNTIL THE AIRCRAFT IS ESTABLISHED ON A SEGMENT OF A PUBLISHED ROUTE **OR**
IAP. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply TO
DESCEND within each succeeding ROUTE segment or approacch segment unless a
different altitude is assigned by ATC."
Note the AIM makes a distinction between "published route" and "IAP" here.
In the full paragraph(b) one can initially misread it as instructions for
unpublished routes operations only, but the words clearly involve (non-IAP)
published route procedures also.
--
Bob Furtaw W8IL fur...@comm.mot.com
ATP, CFI-A-I/ME/G, CGI-A/I
Wally Roberts
>>part of an IAP.
It's not as simple as it seems. Feeder routes are indeed not a segment of an
instrument approach procedure, but they are enacted into regulation under FAR
Part 97 (approach procedures) not under FAR Part 95 (airways). Further, a
feeder route for any particular approach appears on the official form for that
approach.
Is this a distinction without a difference?
Well, what about when a non-radar controller tells you to "report established
on the approach." Does that mean on the feeder route, or passing the IAF after
the feeder route?
As to approach segments, two is the correct minimum number. With your example of
an on-airport VOR or NDB without a FAF, there are three segments: course-reversal
initial approach segment, followed by direct entry into the final approach segment,
followed by the missed approach segment.
It is conceviable to have only two segments: the final and the missed approach.
For this to occur, a victor airway would have to meet the criteria for descent
gradient and segment lengths to eliminate the intial and intermediate segments.
It almost never would be practical for the procedures specialist to build it
that way, though.
Regards....
Wally Roberts
>Here is one. What does the term "established inbound" mean? Centered CDI?
>W/IN 5deg? 10? Reference please.
There is no regulatory definition of "established." By inference in TERPs,
it means a centered needle, and with certainty past the point or fix that marks
the beginning of the segment, and making the best effort to track the indicated
centerline of the segment.
But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the FAA legal gurus would take that
tact if it were to become an issue.
To me, the practical terms vary considerably as to whether it is NDB, VOR,
LOC-type guidance, or GPS. With the latter two, a "centered needle" is assurance
that you are pretty much at the nominal center of the procedural containment
area; not so with NDB or VOR.
Regards....
Rick Wayne
thought i'd try it again in this forum and see what i get:
for those of you with access to NOS approach plates, find one that has a
skinny arrow with altitude and distance depicted. my question: what is
that little bugger called, and under what circumstances can you descend
to the depicted altitude?
thanks!
-- rick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rick wayne, UW horticulture dept/integrated pest mgt.
481 horticulture, 1575 linden drive madison, wi 53706
(608-262-6010) http://redbird.hort.wisc.edu/rick.htm
Gentle reader, if you use Pretty Good Privacy public-key encryption,
my public key is at http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-commands.html.
If you don't, feel free to ask me about it!
Brian Mellor
te...@netcom.com "Wally Roberts" writes:
> Well, what about when a non-radar controller tells you to "report established
> on the approach." Does that mean on the feeder route, or passing the IAF after
> the feeder route?
>
Is the expression "Report established on the approach" a valid one? I don't
ever remember hearing that in Europe, but I wouldn't be surprised if some
expressions are different between here and the USA. Some I am used to are:
Report beacon outbound
Report localiser established
Report beacon inbound
Report outer marker, inbound
Report base turn complete
(The US style PT doesn't seem to be used much, if at all. The approaches
that I fly most, typically have (for a VOR on the field) an outbound track
that diverges by 20 degees from the inbound track, with a turn specified
at 7 dme, or a holding pattern, which is s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d on the outbound
leg, to 7 dme, after which you start your "base" turn).
I am out of practice at flying IFR in the USA; have I missed any major
standard reports?
--
Brian Mellor
John Stanley
Bob Furtaw <fur...@comm.mot.com> wrote:
>Burried in AIM 5-47b:
I went home and looked this up. In the latest AIM I have (March 30),
this paragraph deals with procedure turns. In the JEPP J-Aid, which
apparently just got renumbered, the old 5-47b also deals with procedure
turns.
There is a 5-46b, and a new 5-4-7 in the J-AID.
>"...when an approach clearance is received, shall ,in addition to complying
>with the minimum altitudes for IFR operation (FAR 91.177), maintain his
>last assigned altitude unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC, OR
>UNTIL THE AIRCRAFT IS ESTABLISHED ON A SEGMENT OF A PUBLISHED ROUTE **OR**
>IAP. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply TO
>DESCEND within each succeeding ROUTE segment or approacch segment unless a
>different altitude is assigned by ATC."
Of course, the published altitudes apply. You are not to descend below
the MEA. Any descent you make cannot go lower than that. That doesn't
mean you must descend to the MEA, or that you are cleared to do so.
I also looked in every instrument manual I could find. Not even in the
FAA instrument flight manual does it say you must descend to the MEA,
or even that you are authorized to descend from the last assigned
altitude just because the airway has an MEA and you are going to be
flying an approach when you get to the end of it.
John Rohrer
Doesn't the protected area of the approach include +/- full scale
deflection of the needle on a VOR or LOC approach? My instructor
taught me to descend on an approach when the needle is "alive",
(lets say two-thirds to one-half scale deflection). So am I
descending before I am "established", if "established" is a centered
needle?
John.
Skip Forster
writes:
>i've gotten different answers to this question throughout the years, so i
>thought i'd try it again in this forum and see what i get:
>
>for those of you with access to NOS approach plates, find one that has a
>skinny arrow with altitude and distance depicted. my question: what is
>that little bugger called, and under what circumstances can you descend
>to the depicted altitude?
>
>thanks!
>
>-- rick
There still seems to be a lot of confusion about this. Let's try to sort it
out:
1. The skinny arrow with altitude, distance and direction is referred to as
a "transition route" in the NOS IAP legend and a "feeder route" in TERPS. To
further confuse things, Jepp calls them "approach transitions."
2. Since it is published and includes an altitude it is "a published
route." Its purpose is to get you from the enroute structure to the
approach procedure without hitting anything. Remember, in the event of
a communication failure, you have to be able to do all the navigating
without benefit of controllers to issue vectors, clearances, altitude
alerts, etc. The transition is part of the approach design but it is
not considered to be part of the "approach procedure." It is a
transition from the enroute structure to the approach procedure.
2. The rule about descending is really very simple: If you are on a
published route or a segment of the approach, you may descend to the
published minimum altitude when cleared for the appoach. This includes
the MOCA when within 22 nm of a VOR (FAR 91.177). Controllers expect
you to begin descent within a reasonable time period after getting the
clearance. If they want to allow more discretion they will issue a
cruise clearance.
3. If you are not on a published route or segment of the approach, you
must remain at the last assigned altitude until you get established on
a published route or segment.
Hope this helps
Regards,
Wally Roberts
>FAA instrument flight manual does it say you must descend to the MEA,
>or even that you are authorized to descend from the last assigned
>altitude just because the airway has an MEA and you are going to be
>flying an approach when you get to the end of it.
Unless an altitude restriction is issued in conjunction with an
approach clearance, the published altitudes for the route or segment
you are on apply. What else could it be?
If you are still on an airway when cleared for an approach (this would
only occur at a relatively remote, non-radar location) and you don't
want to descend to MEA, you would be well advised to let ATC know your
intentions. Otherwise, the controller will assume that you are
descending to MEA. On the other hand, the contoller shouldn't base
non-radar traffic separation on the assumption you have departed an
altitude between your last assigned and the MEA. The controller
should solicit a report from you.
That is the very point I try to make in my current article. Most
pilots use non-radar procedures so seldom these days they should
really be cautious when operating at such locations. It's a
cooperative system, and the AIM is full of holes.
After a 40 year trend of increased radar operations in this country,
it will now tend to go a bit the other way, as GPS makes approach and
departure procedures available to many more airports.
Regards....
Wally Roberts
>beginning of the initial segment. A segment which begins at an IAF and
>terminates at a FAF is an intermediate segment and the “IAF” is
>actually an intermediate fix. Also, it is possible to design an
>approach without any IAF. Often “radar required” approaches are
>designed this way.
It would be an unusual procedure that would be constructed in that
manner. What is more typical is that the pilot cannot determine with
certainty where the intermediate segment begins, because there is no
charting or operational requirement for the procedure designer to flag
out the intermediate fix. Also, where the intermediate segment is
entered out of a procedure turn there is no intermediate fix.
Only by looking at the Form 8260-9 for a given approach procedure,
which is an FAA data record of each segment and its controlling
obstacle, can you figure with certainty all the nuances of the
segments.
Regards....
Andrew Boyd
>
>Another one: what are the minimum number of segments an instrument
>approach can have, and what are they?
I suppose if you're designing an approach, that might be a mildly
interesting question.
But 99.9999999999999% of us here, I suspect, just fly the damned things.
When was the last time you picked up an NOAA or jeppeson approach plate
and said, "Ah ha! This isn't a valid instrument approach! It doesn't
have enough segments!!"
sheesh.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
John Stanley
Wally Roberts <te...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Unless an altitude restriction is issued in conjunction with an
>approach clearance, the published altitudes for the route or segment
>you are on apply. What else could it be?
There is no published "correct" altitude for an airway. There is a
published MINIMUM altitude, and possibly a MAXIMUM altitude, but not
an assigned altitude. That's why you get an altitude assigned when
you get a clearance to fly on an airway.
What else could apply? Well, your last assigned altitude.
>If you are still on an airway when cleared for an approach (this would
>only occur at a relatively remote, non-radar location) and you don't
>want to descend to MEA, you would be well advised to let ATC know your
>intentions. Otherwise, the controller will assume that you are
>descending to MEA.
The controller shouldn't assume I am descending to the MEA unless he has
cleared me to do so. I have read in this thread where a controller has
said he is expecting it, but I haven't seen any reference that says that
you are supposed to do it.
>That is the very point I try to make in my current article. Most
>pilots use non-radar procedures so seldom these days they should
>really be cautious when operating at such locations.
This isn't really an issue of "non radar procedures". I have been
cleared for an approach while still well out from the IAF, and it has
been because there wasn't anything between me and the approach, not
because the radar was broken. And I have never had a controller ask me
why I hadn't started a descent to the MEA when he cleared me.
Wally Roberts
>Is the expression "Report established on the approach" a valid one? I don't
>ever remember hearing that in Europe, but I wouldn't be surprised if some
>expressions are different between here and the USA. Some I am used to are:
Many European countries follow ICAO communications and flight
procedures much more carefully than does the U.S.
Controllers in this country improvise instructions that can tend to
gain a life of their own. I know for certain that the quoted phrase
has been used in the U.S. in non-radar ops.
Whether it is good ATC procedure is another matter. ;-)
Regards....
Roy Smith
> My CFII taught (is teaching might be better, considering my
> IA-free state) me that "established" officially means 2/3rds
> deflection on the localizer.
That seems like a reasonable starting point, but I'd certainly include
some criteria such as "and your heading is a reasonable approximation to
the localizer axis, plus or minus some reasonable approximation of wind
correction, and you're converging on the centerline". You could be
blowing through the localizer at right angles and momentariy have 2/3
deflection. That's clearly not "established".
> Then, once the loc says the 3rd dot on the HSI, we start
> turning inwards using the age-old HSI trick
Never used a HSI. What's the age-old trick?
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Doug Fields
>(lets say two-thirds to one-half scale deflection). So am I
>descending before I am "established", if "established" is a centered
>needle?
My CFII taught (is teaching might be better, considering my
IA-free state) me that "established" officially means 2/3rds
deflection on the localizer. The way it usually goes is...
(Practice ILS-5 at GON, Groton-New London, CT)
Mooney 1WC, 3 miles from <intersection> cleared ILS runway
5, report established on the localizer.
(This is a RV approach, rather than the full procedure from
MAD VOR.)
Then, once the loc says the 3rd dot on the HSI, we start
turning inwards using the age-old HSI trick, and call in
to NY App. "Localizer inbound, 1WC."
Cheers,
Doug
PS: I hate these approaches here in CT like GON, HVN,
BDR, etc... All of 'em are "splash" type: lose the
engine and go swimming... At least my instructor has
life vests in his bag. I need to get some!
--
_ Doug
/ | Fields http://www.interpage.net/
/ |_______ ^^Weather Charts by Fax^^
/ N311WC
Wally Roberts
experience that lots of CFI-Is really want this
information.
CavDude
the discussion serves us well.
Peter Duniho
>i've gotten different answers to this question throughout the years, so i
>thought i'd try it again in this forum and see what i get:
>
>for those of you with access to NOS approach plates, find one that has a
>skinny arrow with altitude and distance depicted. my question: what is
>that little bugger called, and under what circumstances can you descend
>to the depicted altitude?
From your description, it sounds like you're talking about a
"transition," used to get to the IAF from some airway intersection or
navaid. If that's what you're talking about, then you may descend to
the given altitude as soon as you're on the transition (ie,
immediately after leaving the navaid or intersection).
On the Jepp charts, these are actually fat arrows with altitude and
distance. Skinny arrows with distance (no altitude) give navaid info
for identifying intersections listed on the approach plate.
Peter Duniho N1404Y, Lake Renegade
pe...@microsoft.com PP-ASEL&S-IR
Redmond, WA "Please, take my advice...I'm not using it anyway"
John Stephens
pe...@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho) wrote:
>>From your description, it sounds like you're talking about a
>>"transition," used to get to the IAF from some airway intersection or
>>navaid. If that's what you're talking about, then you may descend to
>>the given altitude as soon as you're on the transition (ie,
>>immediately after leaving the navaid or intersection).
>>
>>On the Jepp charts, these are actually fat arrows with altitude and
>>distance. Skinny arrows with distance (no altitude) give navaid info
>>for identifying intersections listed on the approach plate.
I'm not sure about this. I once (with an instructor on board during IR
training) had ATC "chastise" me for descending to the published transition
route (thin NOS line with altitude and mileage) altitude before being cleared
for the approach. I had been cleared for the xyz transition, but ATC expected
me to stay at my last asigned altitude until cleared for the actual approach.
Not really sure what the correct procedure is, but do know that i was in the
wrong that time, as I (incorrectly) *thought* I had been cleared for the
actual approach.
Comments from the net? (This has actually been quite a good thread, above
average, in fact, in terms of rerasonable responses. Keep it up, people. :-)
--- John Stephens (step...@access.digex.net)
Frost Air
cleared for an approach on a published routing ie. feeder route, that
clearance allows a pilot to decend as published. If a clearance for an
approach has not been issued then the pilot is expected to remain at last
assigned altitude until cleared lower or for the approach. Think about
the reason for altitude assignments--IFR separation, there may be someone
below you and until the airspace below is resolved of traffic conflicts
then the last altitude pertains. Think also about lost comm. What would
a controller expect you to do (when would you descend on the approach?) in
the event of communication failure. The answer to that is in the FARS.
Keep these things (lost comm and separation) in mind and your
understanding of why ATC does certain things may be more tolerable and
easier to understand.
Jack Frost
Frost Air Aviation
Frost Air
: I am appalled to read the section you quoted. My understanding
(reinforced
: by every CFI and DE that I know) is that you are NOT free to descend
below
: the currently assigned altitude until you ARE ESTABLISHED on the
published
: approach (heavy arrow on NOS plates) AND have been cleared for the
: approach. This is why we have procedure turns and full approaches -- to
: give one an opportunity to get established at the proper altitude
crossing
: the FAF.
Yeah, there's a nice sooty spot on Mt. Weather here from the last guy
who descended below his assigned altitude after he was cleared for the
appraoch.
>>
One should not be appalled by the above above. If on published routing
(airway, approach procedure, etc) go ahead and descend to what is
published. The controller would not use the words cleared for approach
without crossing restrictions if there were traffic conflicts. The
PUBLISHED routing (with altitudes) will keep you cleared of obsticles. If
traffic conflicts exist, then the controller would not clear one for an
approach without some sort of restriction.
NOW, when on a vector, DME arc, or some other type of NON-PUBLISHED
routing it is a must to remain at last assigned altitude--ATC is required
to issue it. You'll hear words such as "maintain one thousand five hunded
until established on the appraoch procedure/final approach course, etc.."
One must remain at that last assigned altitude until established on a
segment of the published APPROACH procedure.
The comment referring to the sooty spot on Mt. Weather pertains obviously
to my second pargraph, otherwise that poor soul must have busted some
published altitude.
Jonathan A. Frost
President, Frost Air Aviation
PS: FAA Order 7110.65 (Air Traffic Controllers Handbook) gives fairly
clear information on this subject. Controllers' jobs are to separate
IFR/IFR, SVFR/IFR traffic and if a specific altitude assignment is not
required for separation then descending to what is published is NOT a
problem, otherwise a controller with good since would not let the word
CLEARED come out of his/her mouth. I think most realize the ambiguity of
this subject, so a wise controller should probably be prepared for the
pilot to descend whenever that pilot is cleared via published routing.
Think about lost comm also. What altitude does a pilot decsend to or
maybe even CLIMB to in the absence of an appropriate last assigned
altitude? Then what altitude would he descend to when approaching a
destination IAF. I dread to think about staying at say, a last assigned
altitude of 12,000 ft enroute to an IAF when the airport is at sea level!
Nuff said!
Frost Air
Air) writes:
>: by every CFI and DE that I know) is that you are NOT free to descend
>below
>: the currently assigned altitude until you ARE ESTABLISHED on the
>published
>: approach (heavy arrow on NOS plates) AND have been cleared for the
>: approach. This is why we have procedure turns and full approaches --
to
>: give one an opportunity to get established at the proper altitude
>crossing
>: the FAF.
Procedure turns, course reversal procedures, etc. are the initial segments
of a approach procedures (defined by TERPS). This segment begins at the
IAF. If one is cruising at a last assigned altitude of "way up there,"
when could a pilot desend to the IAF altitude if "way up there" was the
pilot's last assigned altitude" And what if the IAF altitude was a
mandatory altitude? I truly believe a pilot can descend on published
routing enroute to a IAP when cleared for the approach OR maintain the
last assigned altitude when on NON-PUBLISHED routing until established on
the IAP. The Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS) manual is
another reference which could help clear up this ambiguity of when or
where to decend for an approach, but you have to be an expert or at least
have some training in drawing IAPs to understand it.
John Stanley
Frost Air <fros...@aol.com> wrote:
>Think about
>the reason for altitude assignments--IFR separation, there may be someone
>below you and until the airspace below is resolved of traffic conflicts
>then the last altitude pertains.
And if there is someone below you on an airway when you are cleared for
an approach? No, they aren't going the same place you are, they are just
on the airway. They aren't anywhere close to the approach. There is no
reason not to be cleared for the approach from a traffic conflict
viewpoint, as long as you maintain the last assigned altitude until on
the approach.
>Think also about lost comm. What would
>a controller expect you to do (when would you descend on the approach?) in
>the event of communication failure.
When I reach the IAF of an approach. Before that time, I am bound by the
higher of the MEA/last assigned altitude.
I CERTAINLY wouldn't assume that, were I to lose comms, that I was
cleared to fly an approach as soon as I lost them and descend to the MEA
of every airway I was currently on.
>The answer to that is in the FARS.
Where?
>Keep these things (lost comm and separation) in mind and your
>understanding of why ATC does certain things may be more tolerable and
>easier to understand.
Why ATC does things is not the issue. Why a pilot would descend on an
airway without being cleared is.
John Stanley
Frost Air <fros...@aol.com> wrote:
><< John Stephens (step...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
Your threading is messed up.
>NOW, when on a vector, DME arc, or some other type of NON-PUBLISHED
>routing
DME arcs aren't published?
>PS: FAA Order 7110.65 (Air Traffic Controllers Handbook) gives fairly
>clear information on this subject. Controllers' jobs are to separate
>IFR/IFR, SVFR/IFR traffic and if a specific altitude assignment is not
>required for separation then descending to what is published is NOT a
>problem,
What is a "problem" is not the question. What is authorized is.
>Think about lost comm also. What altitude does a pilot decsend to or
>maybe even CLIMB to in the absence of an appropriate last assigned
>altitude?
You do not descend to the MEA when you lose comms. The FAR is not
unspecific about this. Last assigned altitude or MEA, whichever is
HIGHER. (Free hint: if you are DESCENDING from your last assigned
altitude to the MEA, then the MEA is LOWER than your last assigned
altitude.)
>Then what altitude would he descend to when approaching a
>destination IAF. I dread to think about staying at say, a last assigned
>altitude of 12,000 ft enroute to an IAF when the airport is at sea level!
I dread to think about you, with lost comms, descending through my
altitude as I fly the airway the opposite direction, just because you
didn't want to wait until a point where you were authorized to descend.
>Nuff said!
No, I think "Nuff said" will apply when someone says where the
authorization to descend to an airway's MEA comes from.
Harlo Peterson
Stanley) wrote:
>Why ATC does things is not the issue. Why a pilot would descend on an
>airway without being cleared is.
An approach clearance IS a clearance to descend as desired to some
altitude at or above the MEAs applicable to the airway and/or approach
segments that lead to your desired runway. The only restriction on
descending is that you must be on published segments with published MEAs
in order to desend as you have to know what the MEAs are in order to be
sure to stay obove them. With few exceptions, altitudes shown on
non-precision approach routes are MEAs. The MEA on the approach segment
terminating at the missed approach point is called the MDA.
--
Harlo Peterson Digital Equipment Corporation
pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd South (CXO3-1/E9)
+1.719.592.5124 Colorado Springs, CO 80919-2398
Harlo Peterson
Stanley) wrote:
>No, I think "Nuff said" will apply when someone says where the
>authorization to descend to an airway's MEA comes from.
I comes from ATC in the form "cleared for the approach". What additional
authorization do you think necessary? Why do you believe it is necessary
to stay at your previous assigned altitude? It is OK if you do so, of
course, but why would you want to?
John Stanley
Harlo Peterson <pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>An approach clearance IS a clearance to descend as desired to some
>altitude at or above the MEAs applicable to the airway and/or approach
>segments that lead to your desired runway.
Unless you can provide some reference that says this, somewhere in the
AIM or FAR, would everyone please stop just repeating the same thing
over and over? "Everybody knows..." cuts no mustard with the FAA when
it comes to enforcement actions.
Peter Duniho
>I'm not sure about this. I once (with an instructor on board during IR
>training) had ATC "chastise" me for descending to the published transition
>route (thin NOS line with altitude and mileage) altitude before being cleared
>for the approach. I had been cleared for the xyz transition, but ATC expected
>me to stay at my last asigned altitude until cleared for the actual approach.
>
>Not really sure what the correct procedure is, but do know that i was in the
>wrong that time, as I (incorrectly) *thought* I had been cleared for the
>actual approach.
Interesting. I can see how, if you're still following a previous
clearance from ATC that doesn't involve the approach *or* the
transition, they'd expect you to stay at the last altitude assigned.
However, especially if they explicitly cleared you for the transition,
my naive expectation would be that you *were* correct. Did your
instructor (presumably not ATC, but them too if they happened to) show
you actual references? I've learned (the easy way, fortunately) that
instructors aren't perfect and sometimes don't know the regs as well
as they think that they do.
For my part, I have not been able to find any references that
specifically address this. The AIM discusses "transitions" only in
the context of a SID or STAR (which is a similar concept, but since
it's not on an approach plate, I'm not sure it's immediately
applicable here, and besides, they don't appear to address this
question there anyway), but my chart legend for the Jepp charts has
some interesting (but not definitive) info:
As it describes the arrows for a transition, there are actually three
types shown (presumably, all combinations are possible and they just
show an interesting selection): full transition with altitude,
distance, and bearing from or to navaid; transition w/ alt & distance,
but with a heading (no navaid guidance is available); and finally,
transition with distance and bearing, but no altitude. The reason
this is interesting is that the comment for the transitions with
altitude simply state "NM distance and minimum altitude between fixes
and/or navaids" while the one without the altitude reads "Route
without minimum altitude. Altitude to be assigned by ATC." None of
this explicitly means that you can arbitrarily descend to the minimum
altitude, but since a) that's usually the procedure when you're
cleared for an approach you'd think that it'd also be the procedure
when you're cleared for the transition to an approach (the approach
doesn't start until the IAF anyway...why would you need to be cleared
for the actual approach before being allowed to follow the procedure
leading up to the approach?) and b) they do explicitly say that you're
expected to follow ATC assigned altitude in the absence of a published
one (sure, I mean...what else would you follow?), it may be reasonable
to think that if you were expected to not descend to the minimum
altitude published for the transition, they'd say that as well.
On the other hand, looking at the Jepp description of the SID/STAR
transitions (which, admittedly aren't necessary exactly the same thing
as the ones on the approach plate), they explicitly describe the
altitude given for the transition as the "Minimum enroute altitude
(MEA)" which as we all know is simply the lowest ATC can assign to you
while still expecting you to navigate on your own. This could go
either way: if we assume that SID/STAR transitions are enough like
approach transitions that we should apply the similar rules, then the
fact that the altitude for the SID/STAR is actually an MEA would imply
that the same is true for the approach transition; however, if we
assume that the information to be gleaned from this is "if the
altitude is an MEA and not a 'minimum descent altitude', then the
legend would say so explicitly" and since the legend for the approach
transition doesn't say so explicitly, the altitude *isn't* an MEA but
rather a procedural altitude, like an MDA for an actual approach.
Sigh...my brain hurts. What I remember (which is probably, but not
necessarily, exactly what I was taught) is that when you're cleared to
perform a publish procedure, that implies you can descend to the
altitude published as part of that procedure. Thus, if you've
actually been cleared to execute a transition (as opposed to simply
having randomly shown up flying along the transition due to radar
vectors or some other ATC instruction), you *are* allowed to descend
to the published altitude. Granted, I could be misremembering this,
or my instructor might just have been incorrect. It'd be nice if
someone could find an actual reference...I don't think that the stuff
I found in the chart legends really amount to a definitive answer.
-------------------
John Stanley
>Stanley) wrote:
>
>>No, I think "Nuff said" will apply when someone says where the
>>authorization to descend to an airway's MEA comes from.
>
>I comes from ATC in the form "cleared for the approach".
Prove it. If you know it's true, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up
with a FAR reference, should it? Someplace that says "cleared for the
approach means cleared to the MEA of any intervening airways." Trot it
out. Black and white. In writing, from the FAA. Paragraph and section
number. I'll even accept a reference in any of Kirshner's books.
Just no more "everybody knows that...". I keep asking for a reference,
and people keep acting like their word is good enough reference.
Unless you can provide some proof of your claim, it is more likely that
"cleared for the approach" means cleared for the approach, and that the
intervening airways do not become part of the approach procedure and
are covered only to the extent that you are cleared to fly the airway
(to get to the approach IAF). You already have an assigned altitude.
> What additional authorization do you think necessary?
Oh, something like ATC clearing you for a descent. They do that, you
know. They say something like "descend and maintain 4 thousand, cleared
for the XYZ VOR A approach...".
>Why do you believe it is necessary
>to stay at your previous assigned altitude?
Because the FAR says you are supposed to? You know, obeying ATC
instructions. That small detail.
>It is OK if you do so, of course, but why would you want to?
So I wouldn't run into someone else using the airspace, for one thing.
So I don't get asked to call ATC and explain why I descended without a
clearance, for another. Do you need any better reasons?
Donald A. Willard
Last approach I shot to an 88 ft field dropped me off at 9000 ft. "maintain
9000 until established on some portion of the published approach."
CavDude
>NON-PUBLISHED
>routing it is a must to remain at last assigned altitude--ATC is required
>to issue it. You'll hear words such as "maintain one thousand five
hunded
>until established on the appraoch procedure/final approach course, etc.."
Yes..Actually, the words would be "Cross (fix) at (alt), Cleared Approach"
CavDude
> I dread to think about staying at say, a last assigned
>altitude of 12,000 ft enroute to an IAF when the airport is at sea level!
>
>Nuff said!
>
>
Sir, You are required to stay up there until you reach the IAF, in your
example.
Bill Nagle
CavDude
Air) writes:
>? I truly believe a pilot can descend on published
>routing enroute to a IAP when cleared for the approach OR maintain the
>last assigned altitude when on NON-PUBLISHED routing until established on
>the IAP. The Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS) manual is
>another reference which could help clear up this ambiguity of when or
>where to decend for an approach, but you have to be an expert or at least
>have some training in drawing IAPs to understand it.
Nah. F.A.R.s and ATC Book are clear. It is a matter of rereading now and
again.
Bill
CavDude
Air) writes:
>PS: FAA Order 7110.65 (Air Traffic Controllers Handbook) gives fairly
>clear information on this subject. Controllers' jobs are to separate
>IFR/IFR, SVFR/IFR traffic and if a specific altitude assignment is not
>required for separation then descending to what is published is NOT a
>problem, otherwise a controller with good since would not let the word
>CLEARED come out of his/her mouth. I think most realize the ambiguity of
>this subject, so a wise controller should probably be prepared for the
>pilot to descend whenever that pilot is cleared via published routing.
Para 4-8-5 of the 7110.65J is crystal clear. A controller may omit
altitude unless doesn't want you to descend. In fact he expects a call if
you are NOT going to descend. Of course, you are also required to call
leaving last assigned altitude for new altitude.
CavDude
>You do not descend to the MEA when you lose comms. The FAR is not
>unspecific about this. Last assigned altitude or MEA, whichever is
>HIGHER. (
True. Except in a situation as follows:
MEA=3000
ASSIGNED=4000
you lost comm now
Enroute to destination on a different route SEGMENT (a segment is route
between two navaids or fixes),
MEA= 7000
LAST ASSIGNED= 4000
You must climb to 7000...
New segment
MEA 5000
Last assigned =4000
MOCA=3000
you may descend below the MEA.
How bout this though (unrelated to above specific situation). A Route
segment is defined by two navaids or fixes, but do they have to be
PUBLISHED fixes (intersections), or can you calculate a fix/DME fix that
will put you at 22NM in order to use a MOCA?
Bill
CavDude
:AIM or FAR, would everyone please stop just repeating the same thing
:over and over?
after cleared for approach on an airway have been given. Why do YOU keep
asking the same question over and over and over:) :)?
Bob Furtaw
Stanley) wrote:
> In article <peterson-180...@mac2cx.cxo.dec.com>,
> Harlo Peterson <pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com> wrote:
> >In article <410dk6$m...@news.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
Does not AIM 5-47(b) cover the question?
After clearance received and..."the aircraft is so established, published
altitudes apply TO DESCEND within each succeeding ROUTE or approach segment
unless a different altitude is assigned". Or did I mis-read the original
question?
--
Bob Furtaw W8IL e-mail: fur...@popmail.mcs.com
ATP, CFI-A-I/ME/G, CGI-A/I
Frost Air
writes:
>> I dread to think about staying at say, a last assigned
>>altitude of 12,000 ft enroute to an IAF when the airport is at sea
level!
>>
>>Nuff said!
>>
>>
>
>Sir, You are required to stay up there until you reach the IAF, in your
>example.
>
>Bill Nagle
>
>
I don't think so. That would be a waste of precious airspace and
controllers would want you down and out of it, otherwise an approach
clearance would not be issued, an intermediate altitude would be issued
instead.
Frost Air
Jonathan A. Frost
President, Frost Air Aviation (Consultant)
Frost Air
>>PS: FAA Order 7110.65 (Air Traffic Controllers Handbook) gives fairly
>>clear information on this subject. Controllers' jobs are to separate
>>IFR/IFR, SVFR/IFR traffic and if a specific altitude assignment is not
>>required for separation then descending to what is published is NOT a
>>problem,
>
>What is a "problem" is not the question. What is authorized is.
I think that the rules were written to "authorize" what is not a "problem"
and to NOT authorize what is a problem. Certainly the rules are not
always clear, and the system is so complex that every situation cannot be
addressed. That's why controllers are allowed to use their best judgement
when things are not or covered in the rules and pilots are allowed to
deviate from the rules to meet emergencies. The rules weren't written just
to make life difficult. Sounds like "what's authorized" could be very
unclear!"
>
>>Think about lost comm also. What altitude does a pilot decsend to or
>>maybe even CLIMB to in the absence of an appropriate last assigned
>>altitude?
The statement above pertains to appraoching an IAF. Got to start down
sometime.
>
>You do not descend to the MEA when you lose comms. The FAR is not
>unspecific about this. Last assigned altitude or MEA, whichever is
>HIGHER.
(Free hint: if you are DESCENDING from your last assigned
>altitude to the MEA, then the MEA is LOWER than your last assigned
>altitude.)
The free hints aren't neccessary!
Don't forget we are talking about approaching an IAF to land--one should
start down obviously when authorized, but when is that? And, is ATC
watching a 7600 code or just a primary target? Do they clear the airspace
below and make adjustments to traffic to allow a lost comm pilot to do
what's authorized, which is to descend (to join an IAP). This pargraph
refers maybe to a new subject--Desending to an IAF while Lost Comm. How
about it folks!
I merely mentioned lost-comm as a note to spawn more thought of why the
system is designed the way it is--sorry if I blurred the main subject.
Anyway, certainly one doesn't descend to the MEA from last assigned
altitude (enroute), but the subject is not about enroute. The original
question is about whether a pilot can desend on published routing when
nearing an IAF for an IAP after he has been cleared for an approach.
>
>>If NOT lost com, then what altitude would he descend to when approaching
a
>>destination IAF. I dread to think about staying at say, a last assigned
>>altitude of 12,000 ft enroute to an IAF when the airport is at sea
level, especially when one was CLEARED for an approach!
Perhaps this is why pilots still enroute sometime ask for lower after
being cleared for an approach which may be annoying to a busy controller
who has already authorized desent. Controllers what do you think?
>
>I dread to think about you, with lost comms, descending through my
>altitude as I fly the airway the opposite direction, just because you
>didn't want to wait until a point where you were authorized to descend.
I never said that "I" abitrarily would desend before authorized. If the
ATC sytem worked properly (I believe it does), and a pilot began descent
at an authorized point, lost comm or not, you wouldn't be below him/her,
ATC would have routed you out of the questionable airspace to allow a
pilot to desend where he was expected to descend according to the rules
that ATC and pilots play by, and that airspace would remain reserved for
the lost comm pilot until expiration of the time directed by the ATC
Handbook.
Back to the original subject--I am only saying that when a controller says
cleared for an approach, and a pilot is on PUBLISHED routing, then the
airspace below is free of traffic conflicts, otherwise the controller
would not say "cleaed" without some sort of a restriction for traffic
separation etc.
>
>>Nuff said!
Frost Air
Frost Air
Frost Air
Stanley) writes:
>>I comes from ATC in the form "cleared for the approach".
>
>Prove it. If you know it's true, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up
>with a FAR reference, should it? Someplace that says "cleared for the
>approach means cleared to the MEA of any intervening airways." Trot it
>out. Black and white. In writing, from the FAA. Paragraph and section
>number. I'll even accept a reference in any of Kirshner's books.
>
>Just no more "everybody knows that...". I keep asking for a reference,
>and people keep acting like their word is good enough reference.
Wow, if they wrote everthing that a pilot is ALLOWED to do, the AIM/FARs
would be pretty thick! Read what Frost Air says about it.
Frost Air
>Oh, something like ATC clearing you for a descent. They do that, you
>know. They say something like "descend and maintain 4 thousand, cleared
>for the XYZ VOR A approach...".
>
>>Why do you believe it is necessary
>>to stay at your previous assigned altitude?
>
>Because the FAR says you are supposed to? You know, obeying ATC
>instructions. That small detail.
>
>>It is OK if you do so, of course, but why would you want to?
>
>So I wouldn't run into someone else using the airspace, for one thing.
>So I don't get asked to call ATC and explain why I descended without a
>clearance, for another. Do you need any better reasons?
>
>
Then obvously a controller wouldn't give an additional restriction if not
required for traffic when clearing someone for an approach while still on
an airway.
Frost Air
Last approach I shot to an 88 ft field dropped me off at 9000 ft.
"maintain
9000 until established on some portion of the published approach."
You see, staying at that altitude doesn't make sense if you were cleared
without any further restrictions. I could almost hear the controller
saying "I wonder when this guys going to start down." Sure used up a lot
of precious airspace--between 9000 to 88ft, that's what the controller
had to keep clear to assure separation until you started freeing it up as
you desended because you were authorized desent when he said cleared for
the approach.
John Stanley
Bob Furtaw <fur...@popail.mcs.com> wrote:
Entire quoted, uncommented article, deleted.
>Does not AIM 5-47(b) cover the question?
If I thought it did, I would not be asking for some proof.
>After clearance received and..."the aircraft is so established, published
>altitudes apply TO DESCEND within each succeeding ROUTE or approach segment
>unless a different altitude is assigned". Or did I mis-read the original
>question?
What does "apply to descend" mean? The best translation I can come up
with is "is relevant to descend...", but that is nonsense. "Relevant to
descent...", perhaps. But then, MEA's are always relevant to descent,
unless you are being vectored, and then the MVA applies to descend.
What I see this saying is that the MVA is NOT applicable to travel on a
published route, unless ATC assigns you that altitude.
John Stanley
Frost Air <fros...@aol.com> wrote:
>Then obvously a controller wouldn't give an additional restriction if not
>required for traffic when clearing someone for an approach while still on
>an airway.
This is not an "obvious". Controllers give explicit restrictions on not
entering an active runway even though a clearance to "taxi to" does not
include "enter it when you get there". (Remember the "hold short
readback" that everyone was required to do, even though "taxi to" has
never meant "enter"?)
They may even issue an explicit "cross [intervening] runway" clearance
as part of the "taxi to", even though the "taxi to" DOES include the
implicit "cross" clearance.
In other words, controllers can give additional restictions based on
many things, and may do it even when previous clearances have already
included the restriction.
John Stanley
Frost Air <fros...@aol.com> wrote:
>I think that the rules were written to "authorize" what is not a "problem"
>and to NOT authorize what is a problem.
Many of the things that are not authorized are only problems sometimes.
For example, I cannot charge people for flying them someplace, because
SOME people who didn't have commercial licences were killing
passengers. I won't be able to fly after the end of the month, not
because I have some medical condition that makes me dangerous, but
because SOME people fly with dangerous medical conditions and thus a
medical is required.
>>You do not descend to the MEA when you lose comms. The FAR is not
>>unspecific about this. Last assigned altitude or MEA, whichever is
>>HIGHER.
>
>Don't forget we are talking about approaching an IAF to land--one should
>start down obviously when authorized, but when is that?
That is what I have been asking. Do you have a reference for any answer
you are going to give?
>And, is ATC
>watching a 7600 code or just a primary target? Do they clear the airspace
>below and make adjustments to traffic to allow a lost comm pilot to do
>what's authorized, which is to descend (to join an IAP).
No, I guess no reference exists.
>Anyway, certainly one doesn't descend to the MEA from last assigned
>altitude (enroute), but the subject is not about enroute.
Yes, the subject was about "being cleared for the approach while still
enroute."
>The original
>question is about whether a pilot can desend on published routing when
>nearing an IAF for an IAP after he has been cleared for an approach.
Yes, in other words, while still enroute. Do you have a verifiable answer.
>Perhaps this is why pilots still enroute sometime ask for lower after
>being cleared for an approach which may be annoying to a busy controller
>who has already authorized desent. Controllers what do you think?
When did he authorize descent?
>>I dread to think about you, with lost comms, descending through my
>>altitude as I fly the airway the opposite direction, just because you
>>didn't want to wait until a point where you were authorized to descend.
>
>I never said that "I" abitrarily would desend before authorized.
You would descend as soon as you were cleared for the approach. That is
implied in your defense of the "descend when cleared for the approach"
position.
>If the
>ATC sytem worked properly (I believe it does), and a pilot began descent
>at an authorized point, lost comm or not, you wouldn't be below him/her,
The phrase "at an authorized point" is important, and is the crux of
this discussion. So far, you have assumed that "cleared for the
approach" includes clearance for descent, but have yet to provide one
single reference that says that.
>Back to the original subject--I am only saying that when a controller says
>cleared for an approach, and a pilot is on PUBLISHED routing, then the
>airspace below is free of traffic conflicts, otherwise the controller
>would not say "cleaed" without some sort of a restriction for traffic
>separation etc.
Ok, you have just admitted that you can't prove it.
John Stanley
Frost Air <fros...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <414m0h$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cav...@aol.com (CavDude)
>writes:
>>example.
Exactly correct.
>I don't think so.
Then provide some reference to an FAR or something in the AIM that
proves you correct.
>That would be a waste of precious airspace and
>controllers would want you down and out of it, otherwise an approach
>clearance would not be issued, an intermediate altitude would be issued
>instead.
What the controllers want is irrelevant. Lost comms (the example
included that, did you notice?) means they can't tell you what they want
OR issue an intermediate altitude.
John Stanley
>Para 4-8-5 of the 7110.65J is crystal clear. A controller may omit
>altitude unless doesn't want you to descend. In fact he expects a call if
>you are NOT going to descend. Of course, you are also required to call
>leaving last assigned altitude for new altitude.
That's nice. In which publication regarding PILOTS is this written? If
7110.65J puts restrictions on pilots, why is it not part of the
regulations tested?
Frost Air
(John Stanley) writes:
>>Para 4-8-5 of the 7110.65J is crystal clear. A controller may omit
>>altitude unless doesn't want you to descend. In fact he expects a call
if
>>you are NOT going to descend. Of course, you are also required to call
>>leaving last assigned altitude for new altitude.
>
>That's nice. In which publication regarding PILOTS is this written? If
>7110.65J puts restrictions on pilots, why is it not part of the
>regulations tested?
>
It's not a restriction, that's why controllers must issue a restriction if
he does not want a pilot to desend.>
>
When a pilot says cleared for approach--that's the authorization to start
down. When a pilot claers a pilot for take-off--that's authoriztion to
take-off. It's not that hard to understand. In my take-off example, does
it need to be proved or written that a pilot can head down a runway when
he is cleared to do so?! What can be more black & white than the word
cleared.
Another example, if a controller says "cleared to descend" does one need
proof that it's authorized. "Cleared for the approach" means just what it
says. Maybe we can look at it from the opposite point of view--what does
it NOT mean. How about "cleared for approach", but don't start descending
because I want you to wait until whenever... And also, why in the world
would would any controller ever say "cleared for approach while someone is
still enroute if that controller wouldn't want you to desend.
Those who want every authorization to do something spelled out in balck
and white aren't going to get it. What you do get are rules that DO NOT
allow one to do something based on certain conditions.
>Don't forget we are talking about approaching an IAF to land--one should
>start down obviously when authorized, but when is that?
That is what I have been asking. Do you have a reference for any answer
you are going to give?
>And, is ATC
>watching a 7600 code or just a primary target? Do they clear the
airspace
>below and make adjustments to traffic to allow a lost comm pilot to do
>what's authorized, which is to descend (to join an IAP).
>No, I guess no reference exists.
Correct, there is no reference. There are many things that one is allowed
to do without a reference, but you would find a definite CLEAR reference
if you were NOT allowed do desend.
>Anyway, certainly one doesn't descend to the MEA from last assigned
>altitude (enroute), but the subject is not about enroute.
Yes, the subject was about "being cleared for the approach while still
enroute."
>The original
>question is about whether a pilot can desend on published routing when
>nearing an IAF for an IAP after he has been cleared for an approach.
Yes, in other words, while still enroute. Do you have a verifiable answer.
>Perhaps this is why pilots still enroute sometime ask for lower after
>being cleared for an approach which may be annoying to a busy controller
>who has already authorized desent. Controllers what do you think?
>When did he authorize descent?
When he cleared you!
John Stanley
Frost Air <fros...@aol.com> wrote:
>When a pilot says cleared for approach--that's the authorization to start
>down.
Prove it or stop saying it.
[useless take-off clearance example deleted]
[useless cleared to descend example deleted]
>"Cleared for the approach" means just what it says.
That's right. Just what it says. It doesn't say "cleared to descend." It
says "you are cleared to execute an approach procedure". The airways do
NOT become part of the procedure.
> Maybe we can look at it from the opposite point of view--what does
>it NOT mean. How about "cleared for approach", but don't start descending
>because I want you to wait until whenever... And also, why in the world
>would would any controller ever say "cleared for approach while someone is
>still enroute if that controller wouldn't want you to desend.
So your sole support for your continued parroting of your position is
that you are guessing what the controller intends? It is
incomprehensible to you that the controller might be thinking far enough
ahead to clear you in advance of you reaching the holding fix?
>Those who want every authorization to do something spelled out in balck
>and white aren't going to get it. What you do get are rules that DO NOT
>allow one to do something based on certain conditions.
Yes. Like "obeying ATC instructions." "Maintain 7 thousand" is one such
instruction. Approach procedures include altitude instructions that
cancel the "maintain" instruction, but the approach altitudes start at
the IAF. Route clearances do not contain altitude clearances.
>That is what I have been asking. Do you have a reference for any answer
>you are going to give?
I beg your pardon?
>>No, I guess no reference exists.
>
>Correct, there is no reference.
Fine. Since there is a reference that says you must obey ATC
instructions, and "maintain 7 thousand" is one such instruction, it
takes precedence. It doesn't really matter that that instruction may
have been given two hours ago.
>Yes, the subject was about "being cleared for the approach while still
>enroute."
I said that.
>Yes, in other words, while still enroute. Do you have a verifiable answer.
I said that, as well. Now you are asking me to verify your answer for
YOU?
>>When did he authorize descent?
>
>When he cleared you!
And your reference for this is? Oh, sorry, I forgot. You don't have
one.
Explain this: he cleared you FOR AN APPROACH. The airways are not part
of the approach. His clearance, on the face of it, does not include
anything about the airways on the way to the IAF. HOWEVER, the AIM DOES
say that the airways on the way to the IAF become part of the approach
clearance. Not the procedure, just the clearance. It doesn't say that
you are to descend to the minimum altitude.
The AIM does say that MEAs apply to published routes. That isn't a
surprise, they always apply. Why did they say it here? So that somoene
who has lost comms and is nearing the approach knows that the MVA or MSA
isn't the applicable minimum. It would be natural for someone in such a
situation to think that he can use one of them, if they are lower, since
ATC _could_ assign it if he were talking to them.
Now explain this: when you file an IFR flight plan, you include both
route and altitude. Why must the controller specify "maintain x
thousand" (not might, MUST) when he has already said "cleared as filed"?
Answer: because the altitude is NOT part of the route clearance. He
clears you for a route and an altitude. But YOU are saying that, in
this case, a route clearance includes the altitude.
>You would descend as soon as you were cleared for the approach. That is
I most certainly would not.
>The phrase "at an authorized point" is important, and is the crux of
Yes, and you have provided absolutely no light on answering the
question.
>this discussion. So far, you have assumed that "cleared for the
>approach" includes clearance for descent, but have yet to provide one
>single reference that says that.
I have assumed exactly the opposite.
If you intend on misquoting me, then don't bother replying.
If you can't provide a reference to something that says what you say,
don't bother replying. I am getting tired of asking for a reference and
having you just repeat your contention that you are right.
Glenn Hamilton
>Perhaps this is why pilots still enroute sometime ask for lower after
>being cleared for an approach which may be annoying to a busy controller
>who has already authorized desent. Controllers what do you think?
I can't count the number of times I've given an approach clearance to
an aircraft, on an airway, above the MEA and been asked by the pilot
if a descent was approved. It always used to make us look at each
other and laugh - "I just basically gave this guy a clearance to the
ground, and here he is, asking for lower!?!" Now, however, after
following this thread, it seems that there is some genuine confusion
among pilots. As far as I know (let me get to work and I'll check MY
65) an approach clearance ALWAYS allows descent to the published MEA
for airway being flown, and if on a direct/RV an altitude WILL be
issued by ATC to maintain until established. Believe me, controllers
EXPECT pilots to start down when they are landing. If we didn't want
you to descend, you wouldn't be "CLEARED FOR APPROACH".
Glenn Hamilton, ATCS ZAB ARTCC.
Mike Oxner
>I can't count the number of times I've given an approach clearance to
>an aircraft, on an airway, above the MEA and been asked by the pilot
>if a descent was approved. It always used to make us look at each
>other and laugh - "I just basically gave this guy a clearance to the
>ground, and here he is, asking for lower!?!" Now, however, after
>following this thread, it seems that there is some genuine confusion
>among pilots. As far as I know (let me get to work and I'll check MY
>65) an approach clearance ALWAYS allows descent to the published MEA
>for airway being flown, and if on a direct/RV an altitude WILL be
>issued by ATC to maintain until established. Believe me, controllers
>EXPECT pilots to start down when they are landing. If we didn't want
>you to descend, you wouldn't be "CLEARED FOR APPROACH".
As a controller in Canada, I can say that the only times I have had a
pilot ask for descent after being cleared for "an approach" is if the
pilot is an American. I have never really known any reason for the
asking, so it never really bothered me when they asked. I just assumed
that there was a written regulation somewhere which made them ask. No
Canadian pilot has ever asked me for descent after being cleared for
an approach.
I, personally, would not clear ANY aircraft for an approach if
I didn't want him to descend any time between the issuance of approach
clearance and the airport if I had traffic beneath him.
Don't take this message as a flame against American pilots, by the
way. It was merely meant as another point of view. :)
-Mike
nstn...@fox.nstn.ca
Wally Roberts
It could be for the purpose of keeping you moving along toward the IAF, yet providing
vertical separation from someone crossing the feeder route from below, or perhaps ATC
is waiting to make certain that a preceeding aircraft on the approach is no longer a
factor.
In such a case, clearance along the feeder route would be just another route clearance,
so the last assigned altitude would apply unless a newly assigned altitude were given.
Clearance along a feeder route, per se, is not an approach clearance.
Frost Air
Thanks for your OUTSTANDING feedback on the desent to an IAP. Seems some
folks just don't get it. They seem to forget that the english launguage
still counts when there are no references to the contrary.
Jonathan A. Frost
President, Frost Air Aviation
Consultant
Retired Tower/Approach controller, TRACON Watch Supervisor, Aircraft
Carrier Air Traffic Control Center Controller/Supervisor, Comm,
Instrument, SEA, MEA, and CFI, Former Facility Chief for Bermuda Center,
completed TERPS school, and now--Aeronautical Engineering Student.
I'm done with this subject!
Harlo Peterson
assigned IFR altitudes:
From the AIM:
5-46. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
{New-94-1 Redesignated Jan. 6, 1994. Was 5-47.}
a. [not applicable]
b. When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored,
the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition
to complying with the minimum altitudes for IFR operations
(FAR 91.177), maintain his last assigned altitude unless a different
altitude is assigned by ATC, or until the aircraft is established on
# a segment of a published route or IAP. After the aircraft is so
# established, published altitudes apply to descent within each
# succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is
# assigned by ATC. Notwithstanding this pilot responsibility, for
aircraft operating on unpublished routes or while being radar
vectored, ATC will, except when conducting a radar approach, issue
an IFR approach clearance only after the aircraft is established on
a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign an altitude to
maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a
published route or instrument approach procedure. For this purpose,
the procedure turn of a published IAP shall not be considered a
segment of that IAP until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or
navigation facility upon which the procedure turn is predicated.
My interpretation of the above:
After receiving an approach clearance, you can descend to airway MEA if on
the airway as the MEA is the published altitude of a route segment.
What other interpretation can there be to 5-46(b)?
--
Harlo Peterson Digital Equipment Corporation
pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd South (CXO3-1/E9)
+1.719.592.5124 Colorado Springs, CO 80919-2398
Frost Air
Air) writes:
>
>When a (pilot)-oops- controller- says cleared for approach--that's the
authorization to start
>down. When a (pilot)-controller clears a pilot for take-off--that's
authoriztion to
>take-off. It's not that hard to understand. In my take-off example, does
>it need to be proved or written that a pilot can head down a runway when
>he is cleared to do so?! What can be more black & white than the word
>cleared.
>
>Another example, if a controller says "cleared to descend" does one need
>proof that it's authorized. "Cleared for the approach" means just what
it
>says. Maybe we can look at it from the opposite point of view--what does
>it NOT mean. How about "cleared for approach", but don't start
descending
>because I want you to wait until whenever... And also, why in the world
>would would any controller ever say "cleared for approach while someone
is
>still enroute if that controller wouldn't want you to desend.
>
>Those who want every authorization to do something spelled out in balck
>and white aren't going to get it. What you do get are rules that DO NOT
>allow one to do something based on certain conditions.
>
>>Don't forget we are talking about approaching an IAF to land--one should
>>start down obviously when authorized, but when is that?
>
>That is what I have been asking. Do you have a reference for any answer
>you are going to give?
>
>>And, is ATC
>>watching a 7600 code or just a primary target? Do they clear the
>airspace
>>below and make adjustments to traffic to allow a lost comm pilot to do
>>what's authorized, which is to descend (to join an IAP).
>
>>No, I guess no reference exists.
>
>Correct, there is no reference. There are many things that one is
allowed
>to do without a reference, but you would find a definite CLEAR reference
>if you were NOT allowed do desend.
>
>>Anyway, certainly one doesn't descend to the MEA from last assigned
>>altitude (enroute), but the subject is not about enroute.
>
>Yes, the subject was about "being cleared for the approach while still
>enroute."
>
>>The original
>>question is about whether a pilot can desend on published routing when
>>nearing an IAF for an IAP after he has been cleared for an approach.
>
>Yes, in other words, while still enroute. Do you have a verifiable
answer.
>
>>Perhaps this is why pilots still enroute sometime ask for lower after
>>being cleared for an approach which may be annoying to a busy controller
>>who has already authorized desent. Controllers what do you think?
>
>>When did he authorize descent?
>
>When he cleared you!
>
>>>I dread to think about you, with lost comms, descending through my
>>>altitude as I fly the airway the opposite direction, just because you
>>>didn't want to wait until a point where you were authorized to descend.
>>
>>I never said that "I" abitrarily would desend before authorized.
>
>You would descend as soon as you were cleared for the approach. That is
>implied in your defense of the "descend when cleared for the approach"
>position.
>
>>If the
>>ATC sytem worked properly (I believe it does), and a pilot began descent
>>at an authorized point, lost comm or not, you wouldn't be below him/her,
>
>The phrase "at an authorized point" is important, and is the crux of
>this discussion. So far, you have assumed that "cleared for the
>approach" includes clearance for descent, but have yet to provide one
>single reference that says that.
>
Glenn Hamilton
>In article <4136eu$h...@news.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
>Stanley) wrote asking for proof that approach clearance cancels previously
>assigned IFR altitudes:
>From the AIM:
>5-46. INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
>{New-94-1 Redesignated Jan. 6, 1994. Was 5-47.}
>My interpretation of the above:
>After receiving an approach clearance, you can descend to airway MEA if on
>the airway as the MEA is the published altitude of a route segment.
>What other interpretation can there be to 5-46(b)?
That's it EXACTLY, Mr. Peterson. Why else would controllers have a
requirement to specifically either have aircraft established on a
published route or instrument approach procedure OR issue an altitude
to maintain until established on a published route or instrument
approah as per the 7110.65J paragraph 4-8-1 b.?
Glenn Hamilton ATCS ZAB ARTCC
John Stanley
Harlo Peterson <pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com> wrote:
># a segment of a published route or IAP. After the aircraft is so
># established, published altitudes apply to descent within each
># succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is
># assigned by ATC. Notwithstanding this pilot responsibility, for
The published minimum altitudes apply to descent -- like they always
do. Unless, as the AIM says, you can get a clearance to the MVA. That
is the "different altitude" assigned by ATC.
No, this section does not say "descend to the minimum altitude", it says
they apply. And you do have an altitude assigned by ATC -- the last one
they gave you.
>What other interpretation can there be to 5-46(b)?
I have already made it clear how I interpret it.
John Stanley
Frost Air <fros...@aol.com> wrote:
>Controllers, Well Said!!!
Controllers, thanks for your input. It indicates that maybe, somewhere,
it is written down. Maybe it's only where controllers are expected to
see it. It certainly isn't in the FAR or AIM, or FAA Instrument Flying
Handbook, or Kirshner's books, or ....
>Thanks for your OUTSTANDING feedback on the desent to an IAP. Seems some
>folks just don't get it. They seem to forget that the english launguage
>still counts when there are no references to the contrary.
I am sorry you have such trouble finding a reference to support your
position. At one point, you told me it doesn't exist. Today, you sent
me a horribly misquoted section of the AIM. You still have been unable
to provide a simple reference that says that you are supposed to
descend. All you can come up with it a statement that the minimum
altitudes still apply unless you get a different altitude from ATC.
(Still apply, as in, they have applied for the duration of your flight,
and don't suddenly become irrelevant just because you have an approach
clearance.)
There isn't a single word in the section that doesn't exist but you
could misquote that says you are expected to descend, or that you are
expected to ignore your last assigned altitude.
>I'm done with this subject!
Thank God. Now maybe we can get an answer that you can't provide.
John Stanley
Glenn Hamilton <gee...@indirect.com> wrote:
>That's it EXACTLY, Mr. Peterson. Why else would controllers have a
>requirement to specifically either have aircraft established on a
>published route or instrument approach procedure OR issue an altitude
>to maintain until established on a published route or instrument
>approah as per the 7110.65J paragraph 4-8-1 b.?
Is it not also true that controllers must issue an altitude to maintain
even to those aircraft using published routes? I.e., when you get your
clearance to fly a route, you are also assigned an altitude. You are
not assumed to be cleared at the minimum altitude allowed. Even though
you have included an altitude in your flight plan, and you have been
cleared "as filed", the altitude is still assigned separately. And, if
you receive a new route assignment, your altitude assignment does not
change -- unless it is specifically part of the new clearance.
In other words, at no other time does a route clearance include an
implied altitude.
(Yeah, "minimum altitudes apply". They also apply to enroute segments
prior to being cleared for the approach. That doesn't mean you can
descend to the MEA whenever you want to.)
Now, you may think that "why else would..." is sufficient proof, but
I doubt that the FAA would accept that.
Mickey Baker
: (Yeah, "minimum altitudes apply". They also apply to enroute segments
: prior to being cleared for the approach. That doesn't mean you can
: descend to the MEA whenever you want to.)
Not "whenever you want to". After you've been cleared for the approach.
I have been following this thread for a week and I really fail to see
how this is so poorly understood. The AIM reference (quoted earlier)
is quite clear. It is even more clear after you fly a few dozen
approaches.
So maybe, if you are still having trouble, you should rent a cfii and
go fly a few!
Mickey Baker | Sage Research Corporation
mba...@gate.net | Pompano Beach, FL
KC4ZU PP-ASEL-IA Cheetah N9856U | (305)785-2354›
"You don't have to be a dog to judge a dog show."
John Stanley
Mickey Baker <mba...@news.gate.net> wrote:
>Not "whenever you want to". After you've been cleared for the approach.
Right. And this is specified where?
>I have been following this thread for a week and I really fail to see
>how this is so poorly understood. The AIM reference (quoted earlier)
>is quite clear.
Right. It says, in black and white, "descend to the MEA when you are
cleared for the approach." No, it says that "minimum altitudes apply to
descent." Where does it say in that thay you are cleared to descend?
If it's so clear, why doesn't is say it?
>It is even more clear after you fly a few dozen approaches.
Thanks, I've flown a few dozen approaches. I've even flown some where I
was cleared for the approach while still enroute. While I was with a CFI,
even. Descend without a clearance? Of course not.
Now, why do you think a poorly worded section of the AIM (if it truly
means what everyone says it does, it is very poorly worded) will become
clearer after flying a few approaches? (And, should the FAA tell me
that they think it means what everyone says it does, I will be sending
in a change form so it is does get said clearly.)
>So maybe, if you are still having trouble, you should rent a cfii and
>go fly a few!
Thanks so much for the condescending answer. "If only you flew as much as
I did, you would be as smart as I am...".
John Stanley
Glenn Hamilton <gee...@indirect.com> wrote:
>>In other words, at no other time does a route clearance include an
>>implied altitude.
>
>airport in sight the controller will (assuming no separation
>responsibility exists) issue "Cleared Visual Approach" without stating
>an altitude.
Golly, guess what? A visual approach is not a published route. It is an
approach clearance.
>I suppose in this case too, you would reply "Roger, request lower."
Good try, but you failed miserably at putting words in my mouth.
>I maintain that an approach clearance IS a route and
>altitude (altitude being, ultimately the ground) assignment.
And I maintain that an approach PROCEDURE is path and altitude. A route
clearance is just that. Look it up. ROUTE doesn't mention vertical
guidance, only horizontal.
>I know of NO controller that ...
"Everyone knows..."
> It does if you're cleared for an approach.
And it says this exactly where? Can we get past "I say it is thus, so it
must be" and get to the FAA written word?
I would like to thank those few people who have accepted the fact that
reasonable people can differ on an interpretation of legalese. I would
like to give a raspberry to the rest of those who felt that I should
accept their interpretation of a rule no matter what else the FAR said,
some because they were controllers, and some because they were so
experienced.
And a double raspberry to those who continued to repeat their belief
without bothering to provide any support.
The matter is in the hands of the FAA. I have submitted a proposed
change which makes it crystal clear that pilots are both cleared and
expected to descend. If the FAA holds that interpretation, then I
expect that the AIM will say it soon. If not ... well, feel free to
discuss it amongst yourselves.
Glenn Hamilton
>In article <41aua0$d...@globe.indirect.com>,
>Glenn Hamilton <gee...@indirect.com> wrote:
>>That's it EXACTLY, Mr. Peterson. Why else would controllers have a
>>requirement to specifically either have aircraft established on a
>>published route or instrument approach procedure OR issue an altitude
>>to maintain until established on a published route or instrument
>>approah as per the 7110.65J paragraph 4-8-1 b.?
>Is it not also true that controllers must issue an altitude to maintain
>even to those aircraft using published routes? I.e., when you get your
>clearance to fly a route, you are also assigned an altitude. You are
>not assumed to be cleared at the minimum altitude allowed. Even though
>you have included an altitude in your flight plan, and you have been
>cleared "as filed", the altitude is still assigned separately. And, if
>you receive a new route assignment, your altitude assignment does not
>change -- unless it is specifically part of the new clearance.
>In other words, at no other time does a route clearance include an
>implied altitude.
Well, actually, if you are on an IFR flight plan and report the
airport in sight the controller will (assuming no separation
responsibility exists) issue "Cleared Visual Approach" without stating
an altitude. I suppose in this case too, you would reply "Roger,
request lower." I maintain that an approach clearance IS a route and
altitude (altitude being, ultimately the ground) assignment. I know of
NO controller that wouldn't EXPECT a pilot cleared for any kind of an
approach to start down to either; 1: The MEA for published route, 2:
Assigned crossing/intercept altitude for direct/RV or 3: As low as
desired if on a visual approach. If a controller couldn't release
descent to the ground, he would NOT issue "Cleared Approach." If this
HAS happened to you, I would like to talk to that guys' instructor.
Having said this, I can think of a variant. Assume you are flying an
airway at 12000 (MEA 10000) that has an IAP to an arc (MEA 10000) to
the final approach course. The controller wants you to commence the
arc, but due to traffic (at 10000, over VORTAC heading away), not
descend to the MEA published on the arc. He might issue, "Cleared ILS
RWY 2, via the 12 DME arc SW XXX VORTAC EXCEPT maintain 11000, I say
again, maintain 11000, expect descent to 10000 in 3 minutes." 3
minutes later (traffic no factor, you on the arc) you get "Descend and
maintain 10000, Cleared ILS RWY2 Approach." This might be considered
risky, due to the chances of readback error or lost comm, but it would
allow the most expeditious route to the approach, preclude holding or
being left "too high". In this case, altitudes would be specifically
issued to preclude the possibility of a descent in conjuntion with the
approach routing. I really have no more on this subject. I doubt YOU
will ever descend AT ALL when issued an approach clearance. Go ahead
and keep requesting lower, you'll get it (Every single time, I'll bet)
and we controllers ARE trained to deal with the small minority of
pilots who just aren't completely "clear on the concept."
>(Yeah, "minimum altitudes apply". They also apply to enroute segments
>prior to being cleared for the approach. That doesn't mean you can
>descend to the MEA whenever you want to.)
It does if you're cleared for an approach.
>Now, you may think that "why else would..." is sufficient proof, but
>I doubt that the FAA would accept that.
I work for the FAA and, in this case, it's accepted hundreds of times
a day.
Glenn Hamilton ZAB ARTCC
Harlo Peterson
Stanley) wrote:
I did some more research in this issue and looked at the ATC, Order
7110.65J, Air Traffic Control Handbook, the current AIM and the FARs. You
are looking for a statement similar to the one that states that speed
restrictions are cancelled when an approach clearance is issued. You want
to see a flat statement that altitude assignments and restrictions are
cancelled when an approach clearance is issued. I could not find such a
direct statement in the places I looked and I did a fairly complete search
using the Summit Aviation CD ROM search engine.
I found nothing in 7110.65J that supports the contention that an approach
clearance issued when on an airway allows descent to the MEA. I have
included the text of 7110.65J para 4-8-1b referenced by others in this
discussion as I don't think many people have easy access to the text.
I found one reference in the FARs similar to the AIM text 5-46(b) we have
been debating the meaning of.
91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(i) Operations on unpublished routes and use of radar in instrument
approach procedures.
When radar is approved at certain locations
for ATC purposes, it may be used not only for surveillance and
precision radar approaches, as applicable, but also may be used in
conjunction with instrument approach procedures predicated on other
types of radio navigational aids. Radar vectors may be authorized
to provide course guidance through the segments of an approach to
# the final course or fix. When operating on an unpublished route or
# while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is
# received, shall, in addition to complying with § 91.177, maintain the
# last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established
# on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure
# unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. After the aircraft is
# so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each
# succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is
# assigned by ATC. Upon reaching the final approach course or fix, the
pilot may either complete the instrument approach in accordance with
a procedure approved for the facility or continue a surveillance or
precision radar approach to a landing.
My reading of the above is, of course similar to my understand of the AIM
version - maintain last altitude assigned until established on a segment
of a published route which implies to me I don't need to maintain the last
altitude assigned after I am established on a segment of a published
route. The part we disagree on the meaning is the next sentence "published
altitudes apply". I maintain, that in context with the preceeding
sentence's eliminating the need to maintain the last altitude assigned
that the published altitudes are to be used instead. In other words you
must descend to the MEA as it becomes your assigned altitude after the
previous one is no longer in effect. If you stay at your previously
assigned altitude you are not conforming to ATC instructions.
However the above only applies to approach clearances received when
receiving radar vectors or on non-published routes. It does not address
the general question you raised of approach clearance received while on a
published route before the initial approach fix.
AIM 5-45 addressed part of this and I think we will agree on this.
5-45. APPROACH CLEARANCE
{New-94-1 Redesignated Jan. 6, 1994. Was 5-46.}
a. An aircraft which has been cleared to a holding fix and subsequently
"cleared ... approach" has not received new routing. Even though
clearance for the approach may have been issued prior to the aircraft
reaching the holding fix, ATC would expect the pilot to proceed via
the holding fix (his last assigned route), and the feeder route
associated with that fix (if a feeder route is published on the
approach chart) to the initial approach fix (IAF) to commence the
# approach. WHEN CLEARED FOR THE APPROACH, THE PUBLISHED OFF AIRWAY
# (FEEDER) ROUTES THAT LEAD FROM THE ENROUTE STRUCTURE TO THE IAF ARE
# PART OF THE APPROACH CLEARANCE.
b. If a feeder route to an IAF begins at a fix located along the route
of flight prior to reaching the holding fix, and clearance for an
approach is issued, a pilot should commence the approach via the
published feeder route; that is, the aircraft would not be expected
# to overfly the feeder route and return to it. The pilot is expected
# to commence the approach in a similar manner at the IAF, if the IAF
for the procedure is located along the route of flight to the holding fix.
I understand this to mean that feeder routes leading to the IAF are part
of the approach and, as such, you can descend to the feeder route MEA
after an approach clearance is received. I think this agrees with your
interpretation that you can't descend below the assigned altitudes until
actually following the published approach. There may be some discussion of
what a feeder route is and whether or not it includes airways leading to
the IAF, however the definition of feeder route:
Feeder Route -
A route depicted on instrument approach procedure charts to designate
routes for aircraft to proceed from the enroute structure to the
initial approach fix (IAF).
would seem to preclude it being a general airway segment unless the
segment is also depicted on the approach chart.
Anyway, this is all I could find that you might consider authorative. I
think there is enough ambiguity on this issue that the FAA should clarify
it. Other postings in this thread seem to indicate that controllers in
general expect a descent to the MEA. We are supposed to follow controller
instructions and if this is what they mean we should do it. How do we know
what they mean if it is not explicit in general pilot accessable
documents?
---------
ATC4-8-1 Approach Clearance
{New-95-7 Redesignated July 20, 1995. Was, "ATC4-100".}
{New-95-7 Revised July 20, 1995. Was, "... in accordance with ATC5-120."}
a. Clear aircraft for "standard" or "special" instrument approach
procedures only. To require an aircraft to execute a particular instrument
approach procedure, specify in the approach clearance the name of the
approach as published on the approach chart. Where more than one procedure
is published on a single chart and a specific procedure is to be flown,
amend the approach clearance to specify execution of the specific approach
to be flown. If only one instrument approach of a particular type is
published, the approach need not be identified by the runway reference. An
aircraft conducting an ILS/MLS approach when the glideslope/glidepath is
reported out of service shall be advised at the time an approach clearance
is issued. Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an
Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an
Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar
facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance
with paragraph ATC5-9-1.
Phraseology:
CLEARED (type) APPROACH.
For a straight-in approach - IFR,
CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH.
To authorize a pilot to execute his choice of instrument approach,
CLEARED APPROACH.
Where more than one procedure is published on a single chart and a
specific procedure is to be flown,
CLEARED (specific procedure to be flown) APPROACH.
To authorize a pilot to execute an ILS/MLS approach when the
glideslope/glidepath is out of service,
CLEARED (type) APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE/GLIDEPATH UNUSABLE.
Examples -
"Cleared Approach."
"Cleared V-O-R Approach."
"Cleared V-O-R Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared F-M-S Approach."
"Cleared F-M-S Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared I-L-S Approach."
"Cleared Localizer Back Course Runway One Three Approach."
"Cleared R-NAV Runway Two Two Approach."
"Cleared GPS Runway Two Approach."
"Cleared Branch One R-NAV Arrival and R-NAV Runway One Three Approach."
"Cleared I-L-S Runway Three Six Approach, glideslope unusable."
"Cleared M-L-S Approach."
"Cleared M-L-S Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared M-L-S Runway Three Six Approach, glidepath unusable."
Note 1 - Clearances authorizing instrument approaches are issued on the
basis that, if visual contact with the ground is made before the approach
is completed, the entire approach procedure will be followed unless the
pilot receives approval for a contact approach, is cleared for a visual
approach, or cancels his IFR flight plan.
Note 2 - Approach clearances are issued based on known traffic. The
receipt of an approach clearance does not relieve the pilot of his
responsibility to comply with applicable FARs and the notations on
instrument approach charts which levy on the pilot the responsibility to
comply with or act on an instruction; e.g., "Straight-in minima not
authorized at night," "Procedure not authorized when glideslope/glidepath
not used," "Use of procedure limited to aircraft authorized to use
airport," or "Procedure not authorized at night."
Note 3 - The name of the approach, as published, is used to identify
the approach, even though a component of the approach aid, other than the
localizer on an ILS or the azimuth on an MLS is inoperative. Where more
than one procedure to the same runway is published on a single chart, each
must adhere to all final approach guidance contained on that chart, even
though each procedure will be treated as a separate entity when authorized
by ATC. For example, Instrument Approach Procedures published on a chart
as either Hi-VOR/DME or TACAN 1 would be stated as either "Hi V-O-R/D-M-E
1 Runway Six Left Approach" or "Hi TACAN 1 Runway Six Left Approach." The
use of numerical identifiers in the approach name, such as "Hi TACAN 1 Rwy
6L or Hi TACAN 2 Rwy 6L," denotes multiple straight-in approaches to the
same runway that use the same approach aid. Alphabetical suffixes denote a
procedure that does not meet the criteria for straight-in landing minimums
authorization."
Note 4 - Part 91.175(j) requires a pilot to receive a clearance for a
procedure turn when vectored to a final approach fix or position,
conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure specifies "No PT."
Note 5 - An aircraft which has been cleared to a holding fix and prior
to reaching that fix is issued a clearance for an approach, but not issued
a revised routing; i.e., "proceed direct to...." may be expected to
proceed via the last assigned route, a feeder route (if one is published
on the approach chart), and then to commence the approach as published.
If, by following the route of flight to the holding fix, the aircraft
would overfly an IAF or the fix associated with the beginning of a feeder
route to be used, the aircraft is expected to commence the approach using
the published feeder route to the IAF or from the IAF as appropriate;
i.e., the aircraft would not be expected to overfly and return to the IAF
or feeder route.
Reference - FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal
Instrument Approach Procedures.
{New-95-7 Revised July 20, 1995. Was "(See Figure 4-100[1])".}
b. For aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue the approach
clearance only after the aircraft is: (See Figure 4-8-1)
1. Established on a segment of a published route or instrument
approach procedure.
Example -
Aircraft 1: The aircraft is established on a segment of a published
route at 5,000 feet. "Cleared VOR Runway Three Four Approach."
2. Assigned an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is
established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach
procedure.
Example -
Aircraft 2: The aircraft is inbound to the VOR on an unpublished
direct route at 7,000 feet. The minimum IFR altitude for IFR operations
along this flight path to the VOR is 5,000 feet. "Cross the Redding VOR at
or above five thousand, cleared VOR Runway Three Four Approach."
Note 1 - The altitude assigned must assure IFR obstruction clearance
from the point at which the approach clearance is issued until established
on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
Note 2 - If the altitude assignment is VFR on top, it is conceivable
that the pilot may elect to remain high until arrival over the final
approach fix which may require the pilot to circle to descend so as to
cross the final approach fix at an altitude that would permit landing.
c. Except when applying radar procedures, timed or visual approaches,
clear an aircraft for an approach to an airport when the preceding
aircraft has landed or canceled IFR flight plan.
d. Where instrument approaches require radar monitoring and radar
services are not available, do not use the phraseology "cleared approach,"
which allows the pilot his choice of instrument approaches.
Frost Air
>>this discussion. So far, you have assumed that "cleared for the
>>approach" includes clearance for descent, but have yet to provide one
>>single reference that says that.
By the AIM paragraph previously quoted in the thread, it is
authorized--and yes, I suppose you don't have to desend, but it is
expected. I thought you were looking for something that authorizes
descent, not something that you don't have to do if you don't want to--or
did you change your position midway through this thread. Maybe I jumped
in to late.
Am I confused, or are you unwilling to admit defeat?. Well, I can and
here it is. I cannot find a single reference which says that you MUST
desend enroute to published MEAs, etc. when issued an approach clearance
before establishing themselves on an IAP (possibly, one may want to hold
altitude to complete a checklist, save gas if in a jet, etc.). BUT, IAW
AIM, one is authorized to start descent as soon as the clearance for
approach is issued, no matter where one may be on published routing--I
think that's clear.
You're quoted above asking whether it is authorized to desend--not whether
you must, for the latter, I guess you're right, I can't find a reference!
OR, does the word "shall" in the beginning of the AIM paragraph quoted
mean you MUST? Got me. Here's another way to look at it.
b. When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar
vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received,
**shall**,
in addition to complying with the minimum altitudes for IFR operations
(FAR Part 91.177), maintain his last assigned altitude
**unless**
a different altitude is assigned by ATC,
**or until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published
route...
(is there any English Majors out there that can tell me whether the word
shall becomes negative (shall not) to the "unless" part of this paragrah?
To paraphrase--"a pilot shall maintain last assigned altitude "unless"
establshed on published route, then MEAs etc. shall apply (as an assigned
altitude). Does this mean "upon a pilot recieving an approach clearance,
that pilot SHALL NOT maintain last assigned altitude if established on
published routing, but descend to altitudes as applicable (MEAs, etc.) on
published routing, etc...... HELP!!!!)
PS: I'll keep it out of your mailbox! I've enjoyed this dicussion and
look forward to more (on other subjects)!
David E Allen
May we please return the net to learning mode rather than paranoia-that-the-
FAA-will-bust-me-if-I-do-something-that-isn't-exactly-spelled-out-in-black-
and-white mode.
I learned something from this thread (many articles ago). That when cleared
for an approach on an airway, the MEA or whatever applies.
Hopefully, one is permitted to supplement AIM and FARs with the dictionary.
It's even printed in black and white...
"apply: 1. to make practical or active use of. ... 6. to be pertinent or
relevant."
I gotta say that to me "applies" means I can and/or should use it. Indeed,
before the approach clearance, the MEA did NOT "apply" - did not have anything
to do the altitude I was to maintain. Sure it was still the MEA, and there it
was on the chart. But it did not apply - was not relevant - to my situation.
After the approach clearance, it did. If I were to lose comm and the MEA rose
above my assigned altitude, then it would "apply". But not until then.
As I drive north to Denver, the speed limit starts at 55. After a while, the
sign says 65. When I see the 65 sign, that's the one that "applies" to my
current situation. The 55 signs are still back there along the highway, but
they no longer "apply".
If we should choose to be paranoid about the FAA, we might also want to
consider how they (it?) might feel ("careless and reckless"?) about us
disregarding all the very good advice in this thread, especially that which
has come from those who give hundreds of approach clearances daily.
Occasionally the AIM or FARs lend themselves to common sense. This, I submit,
is one of those blessed times.
dave allen - [Relax and] Fly because you love it.
Wally Roberts
>>implied altitude.
>>(Yeah, "minimum altitudes apply". They also apply to enroute segments
>>prior to being cleared for the approach. That doesn't mean you can
>>descend to the MEA whenever you want to.)
A clearance for an approach while still on an airway is not a route
clearance. The previous route clearance is still in effect. In fact,
the previous route clearance prevents you from using anything other than
the previously assigned route to get onto the approach by the shortest
means possible, within the limitations of the equipment you have (DME, or
not, etc.)
The approach clearance does remove the previous altitude assignment, thus
not only are you free to descend to MEA, you are expected to do so unless
you obtain concurrence from the controller to descend at your discretion.
The folks who wrote 5-46 in the AIM thought they were making it clear by
stating "route."
Check out "cruise" clearances. That authorizes any approach at the airport,
in addition to descent at pilot's discretion. An approach clearance for a
specific approach while still on airway is not at pilot's discretion.
Most of the time, controllers wouldn't care whether you started down right
away. But, nonetheless, the MEA of the airway belongs to you once you
are cleared for the approach along an airway, unless ATC issues some sort
of altitude restriction.
You are trying to self-impose an altitude restriction where none exists.
John T Plumbo
While being radar vectored, an approach clearance is
received. The last assigned altitude should be maintained until
A-reaching the FAF.
B-advised to begin descent.
C-established on a segment of a published route or IAP.
Correct answer is "C"
...you guys slug it out...
John T. Plumbo - President | "Life's dangerous,
Data Solutions, Inc. | so eat dessert
Voice: (612) 829-0712 | first..."
Fax: (612) 829-0712 | plum...@winternet.com
==================================================
Dan Rollins
repeating what someone else has said :) In my personal experience, if an
aircraft is on a published airway or transition to a published approach, and not
at the MEA, when I issue the clearance for approach I do NOT expect the pilot
to begin the desent to the MEA. I know the pilot MAY leave the assigned altitude
for the MEA and once an altitude has been vacated, the aircraft may NOT return
to that altitude without a new clearance. The approach clearance grant PILOT
DISCRETION descent to the MEA. If the aircraft is on a direct RNAV or radar
vector to join the published route, the controller MUST issue a altitude to maintain
until joining the published route because years ago when they didn't issue an
altitude, some pilot somewhere immediatly descended to the final approach altitude
(must have been a non-precision approach) and smacked into the ground.
Another example of a regulation based on someone doing something stupid and
not using their head. I'm at home on my vacation right now so I can't look up the
7110.65 but I will when I return. Believe me, if we didn't issue that altitude restriction
when necessary, we would really hear about it the next tape review we had:)...
Dan Rollins Seattle ARTCC Traffic Mgmt Unit Auburn Washington
Standard disclamer...I'm talking, not the FAA
CavDude
Air) writes:
>>Sir, You are required to stay up there until you reach the IAF, in your
>>example.
>>
>>Bill Nagle
>>
>>
>
>I don't think so. That would be a waste of precious airspace and
>controllers would want you down and out of it, otherwise an approach
>clearance would not be issued, an intermediate altitude would be issued
>instead.
>
>
Oh. I must've misunderstood the topic....Of course you can descend. I
thought you were speaking to that lost comm scenario that snuck in here.
In that case, You'd need to stay up.
Bill
CavDude
>>Para 4-8-5 of the 7110.65J is crystal clear. A controller may omit
>>altitude unless doesn't want you to descend. In fact he expects a call
if
>>you are NOT going to descend. Of course, you are also required to call
>>leaving last assigned altitude for new altitude.
>
>That's nice. In which publication regarding PILOTS is this written? If
>7110.65J puts restrictions on pilots, why is it not part of the
>regulations tested?
>
>
We work in a permissive, not a restrictive system. We are authorized to do
what we are not restricted from doing. ATC will restrict us to an altitude
if needed, the airways restrict us to a minimum altitude, because it is
necessary. If we are not otherwise restricted by ATC, we may descend on a
published route. BTW, 7110.65J is available to you, and if you want in
depth knowledge of the topic you are having trouble with I recommend you
track one down.
Bill
CavDude
Stanley) writes:
>In other words, at no other time does a route clearance include an
>implied altitude.
If an altitude restriction is omitted in a subsequent clearance, the
altitude restriction has been lifted. I've already given a reference, in
fact 2. General Planning (DOD FLIP), and the ATC Manual.
Bill
CavDude
Stanley) writes:
>And I maintain that an approach PROCEDURE is path and altitude. A route
>clearance is just that. Look it up. ROUTE doesn't mention vertical
>guidance, only horizontal.
>
>
John,
A Pubished route is by definition one for which altitude information is
provided. Or do you interpret your unmentioned reference differently?