![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
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 |