Cleared for an approach, then given a different altitude assignment

"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).


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?

wrote in message ...

When they say "Maintain XXXXX altitude" after having received an approach
clearance you have to maintain the altitude. Obviously, you can't continue
the approach and maintain 3,000. So, you comply with the latest
clearance.
No doubt that it is a squeeze play, but the controller apparently had a
good
reason.


What good reason might there be?



Once he deletes the restriction and, if at the point you are too
high to continue the approach, then you so advise him.


The restriction was superfluous for the next five miles, as he was that far
outside of ELESE and 3000 was the minimum altitude until that fix.



This scenerio will (or should) only happen in a radar environment.


This scenario can happen only in a radar environment because IFR/VFR
separation is not provided in a nonradar environment.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Which I did. Having heard "Aircraft XXX, cancel previous approach
clearance, maintain current heading" or some such instruction to other
aircraft many times now, I mistakenly assumed that the controller was
required to cancel the approach clearance first. That history is what
prompted my confusion.


While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
clarity, it is not required.

"Michelle P" wrote in message
news

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating on
IFR and VFR rules.

What VFR rules am I operating on if I'm practicing approaches on an IFR
clearance?

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.

As I stated previously, I had grown accustomed to hearing "Cancel
Approach Clearance" and mistakenly assumed that a controller should
issue that phrase if s/he needed to issue an amendment to an approach
clearance.

--
Peter

"Mike Adams" wrote in message
news:cFIsd.176809$bk1.168609@fed1read05...

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.


He said the clearance was "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
GPS 15 approach." Since 500 feet vertical separation was used the other
aircraft had to be VFR so we can conclude it was a practice approach in a
VFR environment.

"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.

"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.

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

What class of airspace were you in?


ELESE is in Class E airspace just outside the Syracuse Class C airspace.



If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
approach clearance to be 'book correct."


Where does the book require that?



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 -/ ) .


He was five miles outside ELESE and couldn't descend below 3000' until ELESE
anyway, so the altitude restriction was unnecessary unless the VFR aircraft
would be crossing the final approach course inside of ELESE.



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


It's Class E but well within the outer area where Class C services are
provided to participating VFR traffic.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


This scenerio will (or should) only happen in a radar environment.


This scenario can happen only in a radar environment because IFR/VFR
separation is not provided in a nonradar environment.

I have no experience with that. I related my experience that this happened
several times over the years flying into LAX where practice approaches and VFR
aircraft were not involved.