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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I have received a bunch of PD clearances, and I always reported when I
started down, whether required or not. Seemed like the thing to do. Bob Gardner "Dave Butler" wrote in message ... Bob Gardner wrote: "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down? Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned altitude". OK, I'm grasping at straws to justify my position. I guess (in my mind) the key thing is that on a visual approach clearance or a discretion to [altitude] clearance, the controller has no way of anticipating my actions. I can either start down now, or whenever I feel like it. So (to me) it seems reasonable that I might be required to report, and I read the AIM paragraph that way. It still seems to me that the discretion-to-altitude case definitely requires a report, but, OK, I'll give up on the visual approach since that is arguably not a newly assigned altitude. Dave Remove SHIRT to reply directly. Bob Gardner "Dave Butler" wrote in message ... Matthew S. Whiting wrote: Dave Butler wrote: ---------------- AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request: 1. At all times. (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level. ... ---------------- Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply (assuming the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned"). The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach". It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as required to execute the approach. I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual (please read what I wrote). I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and cleared for the visual, you have to report, since you're "vacating a previously assigned altitude". My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the visual approach", then when I (later) start the descent, "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000". I'll concede that there is some ambiguity about whether the visual approach is a "newly assigned altitude". I guess you could also argue that in the above example 5000 is no longer an assigned altitude. Is that what you are saying? OK. Dave Remove SHIRT to reply directly. -- Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
With reference to using Mode C as a defacto report....
5-5-6 Exceptions {New-2003-15 a. revised August 7, 2003} a. Do not use Mode C to effect vertical separation with an aircraft on a cruise clearance, contact approach, or as specified in paragraph 5-15-4, System Requirements, subparagraph e and f. Maybe not right on point, but a suggestion that controller's do not necessarily buy a Mode C readout all the time. Bob Gardner wrote in message ... I don't think I would "bob up and down" on a cruise clearance. I would request a block altitude assignment if I want to "bob up and down." A cruise clearance is also an instrument approach clearance, so once I leave the last assigned for all I know the controller may be using my Mode C as a de facto report out of that altitude. I don't have to worry about that possible ambiguity with a block altitude assignment. And, I learned a long time ago not to buy into any situation that can become ambiguous. That doesn't help me nor does it help the controller. I can certainly descend to an intermediate altitude on a curise clearance, then level off. But, "bob back up?" not me. Bob Gardner wrote: Something that has been missed in the responses to your post is that when given a cruise clearance you can bob up and down between the assigned cruise altitude and the MEA without any report at all UNTIL you report leaving the assigned cruise altitude...at that point, ATC can assign 7000 (in your example) to another aircraft. Don't report leaving until you know for sure that you won't be going back up. The most practical use of a cruise clearance is when you suspect that the ride or the weather would be better at a lower altitude, so you descend without saying a word to ATC and take a look...if conditions are better, you say "Cessna blah blah requests 5000 (or whatever) as a hard altitude" and stay there. If they are not, you go back up or choose an intermediate altitude. Bottom line is that you own the block of airspace between the assigned cruise altitude and the MEA and can do whatever you want to do within that block without report UNTIL you make the report...then you have given up the cruise altitude. Read the "Cruise" definition in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Bob Gardner "John Clonts" wrote in message ... 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent descents? E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending 2000"? 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will, right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000? 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I report my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"? Please read the above "do I" as "am I required to". In my (small) IFR experience to this point I have made the reports in many/all the above cases, so I'm now trying to confirm which of them are unnecessary... Thanks! John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Butler wrote:
Matthew S. Whiting wrote: Dave Butler wrote: ---------------- AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request: 1. At all times. (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level. ... ---------------- Richard, please explain why the citation above does not apply (assuming the O.P.'s starting altitudes were "assigned"). The AIM doesn't say (for example) "...unless the altitude assignment is superceded by a clearance for a visual approach". It doesn't have to say that as it would be redundant. There is no way to fly the visual approach clearance without descending! So, once you are cleared for the visual, you are cleared to descend and turn as required to execute the approach. I'm not saying you can't descend when cleared for the visual (please read what I wrote). I'm saying if you're at-an-assigned-altitude and cleared for the visual, you have to report, since you're "vacating a previously assigned altitude". My phraseology would be "spamcan 33333 cleared for the visual approach", then when I (later) start the descent, "spamcan 33333 leaving 5000". I'll concede that there is some ambiguity about whether the visual approach is a "newly assigned altitude". I guess you could also argue that in the above example 5000 is no longer an assigned altitude. Is that what you are saying? OK. Yes, this is my assertion. Matt |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote:
"Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down? Good analogy. You made the point better than I did. Matt |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Butler wrote:
Bob Gardner wrote: "Maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the ILS." Do you report leaving 2200 when the glideslope comes down? Nope, I don't. The glideslope coming down is not a "newly assigned altitude". No, but you are leaving a previously assigned altitude which is your original point as I recall. And the point is that once cleared for the approach, you are also cleared to enter and leave all altitudes from that point until you are on the runway. OK, I'm grasping at straws to justify my position. I guess (in my mind) the key thing is that on a visual approach clearance or a discretion to [altitude] clearance, the controller has no way of anticipating my actions. I can either start down now, or whenever I feel like it. So (to me) it seems reasonable that I might be required to report, and I read the AIM paragraph that way. Yes, you are grasping for straws. :-) It still seems to me that the discretion-to-altitude case definitely requires a report, but, OK, I'll give up on the visual approach since that is arguably not a newly assigned altitude. Hopefully, one of the resident ATC folks will chime in with what they believe is correct. Matt |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
One of the reasons why it is not required to report descending when you are
cleared for the visual approach is because it is quite plausible that you will be out of radio contact when you begin your descent. When the controller says "Cleared for the approach" not only is he assuring there are no airplanes on your intended course to the airport, but also he is transferring terrain avoidance responsibility solely to you, whereas previously he shared this responsibility with you. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Perhaps the visual approach and cruise clearance fall into the same category? Almost for sure these fall into the same categories. If you are cleared for an approach into an airport without radar approach service, the entire airport get shut down to IFR traffic until you cancel IFR, so spacing is a non-issue. If you are cleared for an approach into an airport with radar approach service, you will probably be vectored for an instrument approach or visually separated by a tower. If you conduct a visual approach into a non-towered field and do not cancel IFR, again the airport remains shut down so spacing is a non-issue. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Kaplan wrote: "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Perhaps the visual approach and cruise clearance fall into the same category? Almost for sure these fall into the same categories. If you are cleared for an approach into an airport without radar approach service, the entire airport get shut down to IFR traffic until you cancel IFR, so spacing is a non-issue. That is often true, but not always true. Timed approaches permit multiple IFR operations into some airports without radar services. Timed approaches used to be common, sort of went away, and are now used a lot again. San Luis Obispo, California ia an example that comes to mind. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote: With reference to using Mode C as a defacto report.... 5-5-6 Exceptions {New-2003-15 a. revised August 7, 2003} a. Do not use Mode C to effect vertical separation with an aircraft on a cruise clearance, contact approach, or as specified in paragraph 5-15-4, System Requirements, subparagraph e and f. Maybe not right on point, but a suggestion that controller's do not necessarily buy a Mode C readout all the time. That book has rules then it has rules. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
ALTRAK pitch system flight report | optics student | Home Built | 2 | September 21st 03 11:49 PM |