Report Leaving Assigned Altitude?

Dave Butler wrote:
Bob Gardner wrote:

"Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?


Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned
altitude".

No, but you are leaving a previously assigned altitude which is your
original point as I recall. And the point is that once cleared for the
approach, you are also cleared to enter and leave all altitudes from
that point until you are on the runway.


OK, I'm grasping at straws to justify my position. I guess (in my mind)
the key thing is that on a visual approach clearance or a discretion to
[altitude] clearance, the controller has no way of anticipating my
actions. I can either start down now, or whenever I feel like it. So (to
me) it seems reasonable that I might be required to report, and I read
the AIM paragraph that way.

Yes, you are grasping for straws. :-)


It still seems to me that the discretion-to-altitude case definitely
requires a report, but, OK, I'll give up on the visual approach since
that is arguably not a newly assigned altitude.

Hopefully, one of the resident ATC folks will chime in with what they
believe is correct.


Matt

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:

"Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?



Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned
altitude".


No, but you are leaving a previously assigned altitude which is your
original point as I recall. And the point is that once cleared for the
approach, you are also cleared to enter and leave all altitudes from
that point until you are on the runway.

My "original point" is that we should do what the AIM says with regard to
reporting leaving assigned altitudes for a newly assigned altitude. The AIM says
(paraphrasing) that you should report when leaving an assigned altitude *for a
newly assigned altitude*.

I viewed a clearance for a visual approach as a newly assigned altitude. As a
result of this discussion, I no longer hold that view. I never viewed a falling
glideslope needle as a newly assigned altitude.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave Butler wrote:
Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

Dave Butler wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:

"Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report
leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down?




Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned
altitude".



No, but you are leaving a previously assigned altitude which is your
original point as I recall. And the point is that once cleared for
the approach, you are also cleared to enter and leave all altitudes
from that point until you are on the runway.


My "original point" is that we should do what the AIM says with regard
to reporting leaving assigned altitudes for a newly assigned altitude.
The AIM says (paraphrasing) that you should report when leaving an
assigned altitude *for a newly assigned altitude*.

Well, first, the AIM is advisory, not regulatory. However, I also agree
that it is good practice to adhere to the AIM suggestions. I don't
believe that the AIM section you are paraphrasing applies here as I
believe that a visual approach essentially has given you a new altitude
clearance, actually altitude range from where you are at the time of
accepting the clearance down to the airport elevation and thus you are
no longer leaving an assigned altitude.


I viewed a clearance for a visual approach as a newly assigned altitude.
As a result of this discussion, I no longer hold that view. I never
viewed a falling glideslope needle as a newly assigned altitude.

Yes, the visual approach is a newly assigned altitude range which goes
clean down to the runway.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

Well, first, the AIM is advisory, not regulatory. However, I also agree
that it is good practice to adhere to the AIM suggestions.

Oh, here we go again, reinventing the wheel. ;-) When the AIM pontificates
what any reasonable person would consider to be directive material, it is just
that--directive. The AIM cannot state "thou shall do this" because of
countless directives from the Department of Justice and even the federal
courts. To do so, would be issuing federal regulations without following the
Administrative Procedures Act.

Having said all that, if the AIM strongly suggests you do it, and you don't,
you can be charged with violating a relevant FAR. It's been done by the FAA
many times, and quite successfully.