If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
) wrote:
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. 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. No doubt that it is a squeeze play, but the controller apparently had a good reason. Once he deletes the restriction and, if at the point you are too high to continue the approach, then you so advise him. This scenerio will (or should) only happen in a radar environment. Thank you for your concise explanation. -- Peter |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Procedure Turn | Bravo8500 | Instrument Flight Rules | 65 | April 22nd 04 03:27 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |