![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Richard Kaplan wrote: "Dave Butler" wrote in message ... (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level. I agree this is an interesting question and raises an area of some ambiguity. I think the ambiguity is whether a visual approach (for example) is a "newly assigned altitude". However, my interpretation in all the cases discussed in this thread is that an intermediate altitude is not an assigned altitude and an approach clearance certainly is not an assigned altitude. I agree completely about intermediate altitudes. With respece to approach clearances, I wouldn't say "certainly", but I'll give you that. In other words, I interpret the above AIM section to require the pilot to provide a readbak of any altitude change. That readback might be "N102KY out of 5000 for 3000" or it might be "N102KY out of 5000 for 3000 pilot discretion" or it might be "N102KY will cruise 3000" -- any of these in my opinion satisfy the AIM requirement. I disagree about "out of 5000 for 3000 pilot discretion". I think that readback merely acknowledges the clearance and does not provide any information about when I might exercise my discretion to actually leave that altitude. When I leave the altitude, perhaps minutes later, I assert that a seperate report is required. The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach". Take the somewhat more extreme example of a DME step-down approach. Surely you will agree that there is no need to report to ATC each time you proceed to a new step-down altitude. Why not? Beause these step-down altitudes were not "assigned" by ATC; you were instead "cleared for the approach" I agree the step downs are not assigned altitudes and never asserted anything different. which is approval to descend as published on the approach plate without any further discussion with ATC. "Cleared for the visual" is just another extension of this underlying theme -- you may descend at will upon being "Cleared for the visual" as long as you do not violate another FAA rule in the process such as minimum altitude requirements. I think the question of whether a report is required hinges on whether a clearance for a visual approach is a "newly assigned altitude". I don't think it's clear cut, but I see the rationale for your interpretation. Dave Remove SHIRT to reply directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
ALTRAK pitch system flight report | optics student | Home Built | 2 | September 21st 03 11:49 PM |