Cleared for an approach, then given a different altitude assignment

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
clarity, it is not required.

What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
clearance?

Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
example. I would think that any instruction which included an
altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
cases which I haven't thought of?

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
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.


This is getting flaky. The controller used 500' vertical separation so it
is logical to conclude that one of the concerned aircraft was VFR and the
other IFR. Since the other aircraft was below your altitude and in an area
where it's stated 2500' altitude appears to be below the minimum altitude
for IFR operations I assumed you were IFR and the other aircraft was VFR.
Do you know if the other aircraft was IFR or VFR? If he was IFR, do you
know if he was on another approach? If you were both VFR no separation was
required, just traffic advisories.

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

If you were both VFR no separation was required, just traffic advisories.

We were both VFR.

--
Peter

"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.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

A little more information would be helpful. From your description it
appears you were enroute to ELESE from PAGER, is that correct? Do you
know
if the VFR aircraft was also inbound to SYR?

Here's the chart, Steven:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0412/00411RY15.PDF

I was actually 5 miles east of PAGER, heading west towards that
waypoint. The other VFR aircraft was southbound direct to SYR airport
and crossing at 500 feet below us.

In hindsight and with the help of the more respectable answers
previously, I see now that there really was no reason for me to get
concerned about the altitude restriction, especially given the fact that
I still had 13 more minutes there. Make no mistake that I had no
problem adhering to the instruction, but I was simply curious about the
wording in which it was given.


It appears there was also no need for the altitude restriction at all. The
procedure didn't allow a descent below 3000' until ELESE anyway, so the
restriction was superfluous even if you had been IFR. Since you were both
VFR there was no need for the restriction since no VFR/VFR separation is
provided in that airspace.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
clarity, it is not required.

What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
clearance?

Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
example. I would think that any instruction which included an
altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
cases which I haven't thought of?


Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say an
aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
complete it's approach.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

If you were both VFR no separation was required, just traffic
advisories.

We were both VFR.


Then the controller erred when he told you to maintain 3000.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
clarity, it is not required.

What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
clearance?

Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
example. I would think that any instruction which included an
altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
cases which I haven't thought of?


Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say an
aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
complete it's approach.

But, how do I tell, just from what the controller says, if it will
prevent the completion of the approach or not? It seems reasonable in
the scenario under discussion, that "cross PAGAR at or above 4000"
should not be a problem. But what about "Cross ELESE at or above
4000", or "Cross NADSY at or above 4000", or "Cross PAGER at or above
15,000"? Do any of those imply "cancel previous approach clearance?"

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
clarity, it is not required.

What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
clearance?

Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
example. I would think that any instruction which included an
altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
cases which I haven't thought of?


Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say
an
aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
complete it's approach.

But, how do I tell, just from what the controller says, if it will
prevent the completion of the approach or not? It seems reasonable in
the scenario under discussion, that "cross PAGAR at or above 4000"
should not be a problem. But what about "Cross ELESE at or above
4000", or "Cross NADSY at or above 4000", or "Cross PAGER at or above
15,000"? Do any of those imply "cancel previous approach clearance?"


You use your knowledge and experience as a pilot.

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
clarity, it is not required.

What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
clearance?

Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
example. I would think that any instruction which included an
altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
cases which I haven't thought of?


Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say
an
aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
complete it's approach.

But, how do I tell, just from what the controller says, if it will
prevent the completion of the approach or not? It seems reasonable in
the scenario under discussion, that "cross PAGAR at or above 4000"
should not be a problem. But what about "Cross ELESE at or above
4000", or "Cross NADSY at or above 4000", or "Cross PAGER at or above
15,000"? Do any of those imply "cancel previous approach clearance?"


You use your knowledge and experience as a pilot.




My knowledge and experience as a pilot can tell me whether *I* think I
can safely complete the approach or not. They cannot tell me whether
my clearance to do so has been revoked.