Cleared for an approach, then given a different altitude assignment

Peter R. wrote:

I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain
3,000."

Being momentarily confused ...

What's confusing about "maintain 3000"?

Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then

issued the altitude restriction?

His primary responsibility is to keep you spearated from traffic. He
should have given you clear, simple instructions to that end, which he
did.

Would cancelling your approach clearance, assigning an altitude, then
re-vectoring you on the approach have been easier, or clearer, or
safer?

I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach ...

Well then, there was no conflict, and no reason to be confused.

... and
it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse
manner
that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
clearance).

Fortunately, most controllers have enough sense to fill in where more
is needed.

Brien K. Meehan ) wrote:


Well then, there was no conflict, and no reason to be confused.

It must be hard for you to walk the earth with us mere mortal pilots.

As a two year instrument pilot who has only logged about 80 hours IMC
now, I *was* confused but complied with his instruction nonetheless.
Carrying that confusion with me outside of the cockpit is what prompted
the question here.

If this forum is only for expert IFR pilots like you, let me know and I
will be sure to filter my future questions appropriately. 'kay?

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

It must be hard for you to walk the earth with us mere mortal pilots.


There are good days and bad days.

If this forum is only for expert IFR pilots like you, let me know and
I
will be sure to filter my future questions appropriately. 'kay?

Okay, but I'd really like you to take this much away from this
discussion:

You were advised of traffic. You didn't report it in sight, so you
were given an altitude assignment.

If you found that so confusing that you actually found it necessary to
call the controller back for clarification, you're head is really in
the wrong place while you're flying.

Brien K. Meehan ) wrote:

You were advised of traffic. You didn't report it in sight, so you
were given an altitude assignment.

If you found that so confusing that you actually found it necessary to
call the controller back for clarification, you're head is really in
the wrong place while you're flying.

LOL! Usenet clairvoyance at its finest.

With nothing more than a few sentences in this forum, you somehow were
able to correctly deduce that my head was not in the right place,
although personally I don't consider my wife's lap the "wrong place."
That's too biblical.

--
Peter

In article , Peter R.
writes:

If this forum is only for expert IFR pilots like you, let me know and I
will be sure to filter my future questions appropriately. 'kay?

--
Peter

Peter,
In this (or any) form you get a varity of answers, some good and some from
"smart asses". It's up to you to separate them and ignore the latter.

Chuck

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Peter R. wrote:

I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."

Being momentarily confused ...


What's confusing about "maintain 3000"?


Perhaps the fact that he was already restricted to 3000 until passing ELESE.



I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach ...


Well then, there was no conflict, and no reason to be confused.


Since there was no conflict there was no reason for the 3000' restriction,
hence the confusion.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
GPS 15 approach."

A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
took over that slice of airspace.

The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
was crossing my path right to left underneath me).

I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."

Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.

Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
issued the altitude restriction?

I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach, and
it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse manner
that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
clearance).

--
Peter

What class of airspace were you in?

If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
approach clearance to be 'book correct." But maybe he decided ensuring
separation was a higher priority task. Or has the view that if he told you
to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to you you're no longer authorized
descend on the approach (not saying it is; saying he thinks it should be
-/ ) .

If Class D or E if either aircraft was VFR, he had no business issuing the
restriction in the first place. Traffic? Yes, altitude restrictions? No

Or there is also the possibility there was a genuine "deal" where standard
separation of 1000ft or 3NM was already lost, and the 500ft/2NM was better
than nothing. That might also explain the controller's "Do something now!
Worry about being "book correct" later" instruction as well as what seemed
to you a terse attitude.

KP (nospam@please) wrote:

What class of airspace were you in?

Class E airspace making a GPS approach while VFR into a class C airport
(we were still several miles outside the class C ring).

If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
approach clearance to be 'book correct." But maybe he decided ensuring
separation was a higher priority task. Or has the view that if he told you
to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to you you're no longer authorized
descend on the approach (not saying it is; saying he thinks it should be
-/ ) .

The other issue that prompted my confusion was the controller change.
One controller cleared me, the next issued an altitude restriction. Was
the second's altitude restriction due in part to the fact that he was
not familiar with the GPS approach?

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../00411RY15.PDF

On the chart above, we were still outside of PAGER, approaching from the
east, when this occurred.

The approach required at least another 5 miles west at 3,000, then 12
more southwest-bound at 3,000 before descending - with strong headwinds
that day I had at least another thirteen minutes at 3,000 without the
altitude restriction. The other VFR aircraft was 500 feet below us
crossing our path at a 90 degree right to left direction and was well
south of us a minute or so after the restriction.

--
Peter

Peter R. writes:
KP (nospam@please) wrote:

What class of airspace were you in?

Class E airspace making a GPS approach while VFR into a class C airport
(we were still several miles outside the class C ring).

If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
approach clearance to be 'book correct." But maybe he decided ensuring
separation was a higher priority task. Or has the view that if he told you
to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to you you're no longer authorized
descend on the approach (not saying it is; saying he thinks it should be
-/ ) .

The other issue that prompted my confusion was the controller change.
One controller cleared me, the next issued an altitude restriction. Was
the second's altitude restriction due in part to the fact that he was
not familiar with the GPS approach?

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../00411RY15.PDF

On the chart above, we were still outside of PAGER, approaching from the
east, when this occurred.

The approach required at least another 5 miles west at 3,000, then 12
more southwest-bound at 3,000 before descending - with strong headwinds
that day I had at least another thirteen minutes at 3,000 without the
altitude restriction. The other VFR aircraft was 500 feet below us
crossing our path at a 90 degree right to left direction and was well
south of us a minute or so after the restriction.

Am I missing something?

You were assigned an altitude that you were going to
maintain without the assignment?

It would seem that letting the assignment pass without
comment and simply waiting for the controller to remove
the altitude restriction, probably with the words "cleared
for the approach", would have worked. If the restriction
weren't removed before needing to start the descent, a
verification of the approached clearance would then be
in order.

Everett M. Greene ) wrote:

Am I missing something?

Just a low-time pilot who apparently over-analyzed the situation.

Nothing else to see here... please move along.

--
Peter