Cleared for an approach, then given a different altitude assignment

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
sky is bad, follow the controller.
If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.
Michelle

Peter R. wrote:

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).




--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

Michelle P wrote:

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
sky is bad, follow the controller.
If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.


Why do you think IMC would change it? I've had this very thing happen many
times over the years going into LAX in IMC when they misjudged lateral
separation and had to apply vertical separation on a tactical basis after my
approach clearance was issued. This type of thing occurred a fair distance
out, where my altitude on the extended approach profile was well above the
MVA.

Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach approved, maintain VFR", or did they
say "cleared for the approach"? If it's a practice approach in a VFR environment, it's not all that
unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above the VFR traffic pattern, if they can't
work you in.

Mike

Michelle P wrote:

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
sky is bad, follow the controller.
If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.
Michelle

Peter R. wrote:

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).

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:43:20 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:

Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach approved, maintain VFR", or did they
say "cleared for the approach"? If it's a practice approach in a VFR environment, it's not all that
unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above the VFR traffic pattern, if they can't
work you in.

Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....

I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach when I
am doing approaches under VMC.

Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?

Allen

A Lieberman wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:43:20 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:

Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach
approved, maintain VFR", or did they say "cleared for the approach"?
If it's a practice approach in a VFR environment, it's not all that
unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above
the VFR traffic pattern, if they can't work you in.

Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....

I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach
when I am doing approaches under VMC.

Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?

Allen

Maybe so. My experience is mostly with the Phoenix Tracon, and they have a standard litany, "Practice
approach approved. No separation services provided. Maintain VFR.", which to me has always seemed
distinct from the normal IFR "cleared for the approach" terminology. I looked in the AIM, and there's some
words on practice approaches in 4-3-21, but I didn't see anything on communications terminology.

Mike

"Mike Adams" wrote in message
news:AnKsd.176820$bk1.47553@fed1read05...

Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....

I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach
when I am doing approaches under VMC.

Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?


Maybe so. My experience is mostly with the Phoenix Tracon, and they have a
standard litany, "Practice approach approved. No separation services
provided.
Maintain VFR.", which to me has always seemed distinct from the normal IFR
"cleared for the approach" terminology. I looked in the AIM, and there's
some
words on practice approaches in 4-3-21, but I didn't see anything on
communications terminology.


It's standard phraseology where separation services are not provided to VFR
aircraft practicing instrument approaches.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 8. Approach Clearance Procedures

4-8-11. PRACTICE APPROACHES

Except for military aircraft operating at military airfields, ensure that
neither VFR nor IFR practice approaches disrupt the flow of other arriving
and departing IFR or VFR aircraft. Authorize, withdraw authorization, or
refuse to authorize practice approaches as traffic conditions require.
Normally, approaches in progress should not be terminated.

NOTE-
The priority afforded other aircraft over practice instrument approaches is
not intended to be so rigidly applied that it causes grossly inefficient
application of services.

a. Separation.

1. IFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches shall be afforded
standard separation in accordance with Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5,
Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 minima until:

(a) The aircraft lands, and the flight is terminated, or

(b) The pilot cancels the flight plan.

2. Where procedures require application of IFR separation to VFR
aircraft practicing instrument approaches, standard IFR separation in
accordance with Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7
shall be provided. Controller responsibility for separation begins at the
point where the approach clearance becomes effective. Except for heavy
aircraft/B757, 500 feet vertical separation may be applied between VFR
aircraft and between a VFR and an IFR aircraft.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Practice Instrument Approaches, Para 6-4-4.
FAAO 7210.3, Practice Instrument Approaches, Para 10-4-5.

3. Where separation services are not provided to VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approaches, the controller shall;

(a) Instruct the pilot to maintain VFR.

(b) Advise the pilot that separation services are not provided.

PHRASEOLOGY-
"(Aircraft identification) MAINTAIN VFR, PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED,
NO SEPARATION SERVICES PROVIDED."

(c) Provide traffic information or advise the pilot to contact the
appropriate facility.

4. If an altitude is assigned, including at or above/below altitudes,
the altitude specified must meet MVA, minimum safe altitude, or minimum IFR
altitude criteria.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Altitude Assignments, Para 7-7-5.

5. All VFR aircraft shall be instructed to maintain VFR on initial
contact or as soon as possible thereafter.

NOTE-
This advisory is intended to remind the pilot that even though ATC is
providing IFR-type instructions, the pilot is responsible for compliance
with the applicable parts of the CFR governing VFR flight.

b. Missed Approaches.

1. Unless alternate instructions have been issued, IFR aircraft are
automatically authorized to execute the missed approach depicted for the
instrument approach being flown.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Missed Approach, Para 4-8-9.

2. VFR aircraft are not automatically authorized to execute the missed
approach procedure. This authorization must be specifically requested by the
pilot and approved by the controller. When a missed approach has been
approved, separation shall be provided throughout the missed approach.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Visual Separation, Para 7-2-1.

Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?

No, it's in the ATC Handbook. I get it about 1 out of 50 approaches.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:43:20 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:

Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach
approved, maintain VFR", or did they
say "cleared for the approach"? If it's a practice approach in a VFR
environment, it's not all that
unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above the
VFR traffic pattern, if they can't
work you in.

Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....

I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach when I
am doing approaches under VMC.

Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?

Allen

Yes it can be a "regional thing" or more correctly an "airspace" or
"workload" thing.

VFR aircraft making practice approaches are supposed to be provided standard
IFR separation from the time clearance is issued until the MAP. The
phraseology for that is one of the normal approach clearances. See FAAO
7110.65 4-8-11a(2)

However, sometimes full IFR separation not worth the effort so there are
provisions to let VFR aircraft do the approaches pure VFR with no separation
provided. The phraseology for that is "Practice approach approved..." See
FAAO 7110.65 4-8-11a(3)

KP wrote:


VFR aircraft making practice approaches are supposed to be provided standard
IFR separation from the time clearance is issued until the MAP.

Except we only need 500 feet vertical.

"KP" nospam@please wrote in message
...

VFR aircraft making practice approaches are supposed to be provided
standard IFR separation from the time clearance is issued until the MAP.


Only if the aircraft is a heavy or a Boeing 757.



However, sometimes full IFR separation not worth the effort so there are
provisions to let VFR aircraft do the approaches pure VFR with no
separation provided. The phraseology for that is "Practice approach
approved..." See FAAO 7110.65 4-8-11a(3)

Actually, it's the other way around. VFR aircraft practicing approaches are
provided separation where procedures are established for it. Where no
procedures have been established no separation is provided.