When to descend II

Bee wrote:
But, the clearance for the visual was for a future point in space; i.e.,
ROYCE, which was still to be crossed.

Is this really the case? I hear clearances for visual approaches with
altitude restrictions all the time. Normally the restriction is not
based on a point in space (fix) but rather on a distance from the
airport (or VOR) or until crossing a radial of a VOR.

I've never heard of a "future" approach clearance.

wrote:

Bee wrote:

But, the clearance for the visual was for a future point in space; i.e.,
ROYCE, which was still to be crossed.


Is this really the case? I hear clearances for visual approaches with
altitude restrictions all the time. Normally the restriction is not
based on a point in space (fix) but rather on a distance from the
airport (or VOR) or until crossing a radial of a VOR.

I've never heard of a "future" approach clearance.


What the OP stated,

Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared
visual approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."

I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.

That happens all the time, "Cross ARNES at 10,000, cleared Runway 25L ILS."

Bee wrote:
I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.

I still don't understand what it means for the approach clearance to
not be applicable. You can be given instructions with a clearance for
the visual, but that doesn't mean that you are not navigating visually
to the airport.

Such as, at OAK they frequently say "cross 6 DME at or above 2000
feet" and at SBA they tell folks to "remain off shore until turning
base." Those instructions don't delay the applicability of the
clearance for the visual approach, whatever that would mean.

If the controller doesn't intend on a visual to be "applicable" then
why would he issue the clearance? And if it weren't "applicable" then
would the OP still have been getting vectors until such time as the
clearance became "applicable"? I don't think so.

wrote:
Bee wrote:

I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.


I still don't understand what it means for the approach clearance to
not be applicable. You can be given instructions with a clearance for
the visual, but that doesn't mean that you are not navigating visually
to the airport.

Such as, at OAK they frequently say "cross 6 DME at or above 2000
feet" and at SBA they tell folks to "remain off shore until turning
base." Those instructions don't delay the applicability of the
clearance for the visual approach, whatever that would mean.

If the controller doesn't intend on a visual to be "applicable" then
why would he issue the clearance? And if it weren't "applicable" then
would the OP still have been getting vectors until such time as the
clearance became "applicable"? I don't think so.


He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

So, is that a visual prior to ROYCE? If you choose to view it that way,
fine just so long as you cross exactly at ROYCE at, or above, 2,000.

If, at OAK, you can cross anywhere along the 6 DME at or above 2,000,
that indeed is a visual approach without a route restiction.

SBA example is pure visual with a noise abatement restriction.

;-)

Bee wrote:
He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

Yes, but without a route. He was on vectors, and as he clarified
since the first post, he was on a "right base" somewhere outside of
ROYCE when he got the clearance. So how was he to get to ROYCE?

Would it have been totally different had the controller said "turn
final 7 miles out, cross 7 DME at or above 2000, cleared for the
visual runway 12R"?

So, is that a visual prior to ROYCE? If you choose to view it that way,
fine just so long as you cross exactly at ROYCE at, or above, 2,000.

Yes this is how I see it (except that nothing is exact). I don't know
if this is a "proper" clearance or not, but I can't see what else you
would do given that the controller stopped giving vectors. You are on
your own in getting to ROYCE, by GPS direct, by 90 degree intercept of
the localizer and then flying to ROYCE or by flying towards Texas
Southern University and then turning final and descending. The pilot
has to make something up and not crash into anything. That's a visual
approach with an inconvenient restriction.

If, at OAK, you can cross anywhere along the 6 DME at or above 2,000,
that indeed is a visual approach without a route restiction.

SBA example is pure visual with a noise abatement restriction.

Yes I know these aren't exactly the same, I was merely giving examples
of restrictions that don't cause the visual approach to be "not yet
applicable" as you stated before. I still think the "not applicable"
idea is wrong.

"Bee" wrote in message ...

He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.


Nothing on the OP's message required the aircraft to cross ROYCE.

On Nov 9, 8:20 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Bee" wrote in ...

He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

Nothing on the OP's message required the aircraft to cross ROYCE.

So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?

What would you do and/or say if you got exactly that clearance?
("Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7." )

Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

"John Clonts" wrote in message
ups.com...

So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?


Could be either, but it's definitely one of them.



What would you do and/or say if you got exactly that clearance?
("Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7." )


I'd respond, "Unable". You can't pin an aircraft down to a specific route
on a visual approach, he's got to remain clear of clouds so you've got to
allow him to maneuver as needed. If the controller needed the aircraft over
ROYCE he should stick to the ILS approach. Why the controller issued the
altitude restriction is a mystery.

"Bee" wrote in message ...

What the OP stated,

Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared
visual approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."

I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.


And you're wrong each time you say it.