Established on the approach - Checkride question

So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the misleading
nature of the clearance, what would you do?

I'm thinking that the controller hasn't technically give me anything I can't
fly yet, it's just that I would like to be cleared lower outside of the FAF
(before established). So I would accept the clearance "123Foxtrot cleared
descend 2000". (I have never flown an NDB approach so bear with me here)
Once I had established myself on a course of 232 to the NDB, I would say
"123Foxtrot 2000 request descent 1400feet" The controller would either
reply "123Foxtrot cleared to descend 1400" or "123Foxtrot, radar contact
lost, maintain 2000 until established" I would respond with "123F
maintaining 2000, will report crossing the NDB".

I guess a third option would be "123F, you are cleared to descend once
established".....in which case, see last sentence above.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
I'd guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted the
inbound course,

Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of
the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.

they intend for me to follow any altitude instructions as soon as
I'm on the course, even if I won't be inside PT limits for another 10
minutes or more.

What ATC intends is irrelevant. If they want you at the published
altitude before you reached the point where that altitude applies,
then they're got to clear you down to it, using their MVAs.

Failure to understand this concept has killed some people in the past,
including at least 1 airliner, TWA 514.

See the AOPA article:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html

So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the
misleading nature of the clearance, what would you do?

This is a difficult question when the ATC guy doesn't understand the
approach. Like the case I mentioned at my own airport, ATC vectored
us at 2,500, but expected us to descend to 2,000 once on the
localizer, even though the chart didn't permit the descent.

My requests for "lower" were met with a bit of disdain when the
controller told me to fly the approach chart, which he *thought* said
2,000.

Some of your suggested dialog makes me a little uncomfortable, because
it seems to lend itself to some miscommunication between ATC and the
pilot about who is providing terrain clearance. (This was the essence
of the TWA514 accident.)

I suppose the easiest answer is to ask ATC to inform you when you're
within 10 nm of the NDB.

Good points. I agree. But I'm not sure I would be able to decipher the
problem during an actual single pilot approach. This analysis certainly
helps.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
news
So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the
misleading nature of the clearance, what would you do?

This is a difficult question when the ATC guy doesn't understand the
approach. Like the case I mentioned at my own airport, ATC vectored
us at 2,500, but expected us to descend to 2,000 once on the
localizer, even though the chart didn't permit the descent.

My requests for "lower" were met with a bit of disdain when the
controller told me to fly the approach chart, which he *thought* said
2,000.

Some of your suggested dialog makes me a little uncomfortable, because
it seems to lend itself to some miscommunication between ATC and the
pilot about who is providing terrain clearance. (This was the essence
of the TWA514 accident.)

I suppose the easiest answer is to ask ATC to inform you when you're
within 10 nm of the NDB.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
news

This is a difficult question when the ATC guy doesn't understand the
approach. Like the case I mentioned at my own airport, ATC vectored
us at 2,500, but expected us to descend to 2,000 once on the
localizer, even though the chart didn't permit the descent.

My requests for "lower" were met with a bit of disdain when the
controller told me to fly the approach chart, which he *thought* said
2,000.


You're referring to the OLV LOC/DME RWY 18 approach. The controller was
right, the procedure does permit a descent to 2000 once on the localizer. I
posted a scan of this procedure to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation for the
benefit of the non-packrats among us.



Some of your suggested dialog makes me a little uncomfortable, because
it seems to lend itself to some miscommunication between ATC and the
pilot about who is providing terrain clearance. (This was the essence
of the TWA514 accident.)


The essence of the TWA 514 accident was a misunderstanding of the clearance
by the pilot.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of
the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.


Actually, assuming a proper clearance is issued, it is OK. The controller
must assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a
segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. Once you're
established on a published segment you can descend to the appropriate
altitude for that segment.



What ATC intends is irrelevant. If they want you at the published
altitude before you reached the point where that altitude applies,
then they're got to clear you down to it, using their MVAs.


There's a question here about the clearance; either ATC issued an improper
clearance or it was quoted incorrectly. But ATC did issue an altitude to
maintain until established, 2000 feet.



Failure to understand this concept has killed some people in the past,
including at least 1 airliner, TWA 514.

See the AOPA article:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html


Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

Once you're established on a published segment you can descend to
the appropriate altitude for that segment.

Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
of the approach. A random controller is not qualified to determine
that.

There's a question here about the clearance; either ATC issued an
improper clearance or it was quoted incorrectly. But ATC did issue an
altitude to maintain until established, 2000 feet.


I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
established.

Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".

I think this example is appropriate because

1) involves the definition of "established", and
2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

Greg Esres wrote:



Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".

I think this example is appropriate because

1) involves the definition of "established", and
2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

The VOR/DME Runway 12 approach in effect at IAD at the time, which was
used by TWA 514, was defective in that the profile began at the FAF, even
though the intermediate segment was in the plan view. That did not meet
charting specs in effect at the time.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
of the approach.


The pilot should practice the fine art of navigation.



I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
established.


If the pilot doesn't know what it means to be established he shouldn't be
flying IFR.



No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".


How does that differ from what I wrote?

You can review the incident he

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html


I don't have a copy of the VOR/DME RWY 12 approach from 1974, but the
transcript has the pilot referring to a step-down fix on it.

Capt: "You know, according to this dumb sheet [referring to the instrument
approach chart] it says thirty-four hundred to Round Hill--is our minimum
altitude." The FE asked where the captain saw that, and the captain replied,
"Well, here. Round Hill is eleven-and-a-half DME."

Note that that conservation took place about three and a half minutes after
they were cleared for the approach and the pilot started a descent to 1800
feet. The pilot saw a minimum altitude applicable to the route in front of
them and he elected to descend through it.

Greg Esres wrote:

Once you're established on a published segment you can descend to
the appropriate altitude for that segment.

Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
of the approach. A random controller is not qualified to determine
that.

There's a question here about the clearance; either ATC issued an
improper clearance or it was quoted incorrectly. But ATC did issue an
altitude to maintain until established, 2000 feet.


I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
established.

Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".

I think this example is appropriate because

1) involves the definition of "established", and
2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

You're spot on. See example #3 in AIM 5-9-4.

Greg Esres wrote:


Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".

I think this example is appropriate because

1) involves the definition of "established", and
2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

TWA 514 is a good example. Contrary to what Steve asserts, they were
vectored and they were not on a published route at the terminous of that
vector.

Washington Center took them off their published route and vectored them to
an extension of the final approach course for the IAD VOR/DME RWY 12 IAP.
The intercept occurred some 30 miles NW of the VOR and told to descend to
and manintain 7,000. The center then handed them off to IAD TRACON. The
approach controller simply cleared them for the approach without issuing
any crossing fixes or altitude restrictions. The flight was still on an
unpublished extension of the final approach course when cleared for the
approach.

At the NTSB hearing the FAA alleged that the flight was a non-radar
arrival, thus the approach controller had no duties or responsibilities to
monitor the flight in any manner on radar. Needless to say, that didn't
sit well in most quarters.