Cleared for an approach, then given a different altitude assignment

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

"Peter R." wrote:

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

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. 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.

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
sky is bad, follow the controller.
If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.
Michelle

Peter R. wrote:

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).




--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

Michelle P wrote:

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
sky is bad, follow the controller.
If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.


Why do you think IMC would change it? I've had this very thing happen many
times over the years going into LAX in IMC when they misjudged lateral
separation and had to apply vertical separation on a tactical basis after my
approach clearance was issued. This type of thing occurred a fair distance
out, where my altitude on the extended approach profile was well above the
MVA.

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.

Mike

Michelle P wrote:

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
sky is bad, follow the controller.
If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.
Michelle

Peter R. wrote:

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).

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

Peter R. wrote:

I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain
3,000."

Being momentarily confused ...

What's confusing about "maintain 3000"?

Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then

issued the altitude restriction?

His primary responsibility is to keep you spearated from traffic. He
should have given you clear, simple instructions to that end, which he
did.

Would cancelling your approach clearance, assigning an altitude, then
re-vectoring you on the approach have been easier, or clearer, or
safer?

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.

... 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).

Fortunately, most controllers have enough sense to fill in where more
is needed.

A Lieberman wrote:

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

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.

Mike

Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?

No, it's in the ATC Handbook. I get it about 1 out of 50 approaches.

Brien K. Meehan ) wrote:


Well then, there was no conflict, and no reason to be confused.

It must be hard for you to walk the earth with us mere mortal pilots.

As a two year instrument pilot who has only logged about 80 hours IMC
now, I *was* confused but complied with his instruction nonetheless.
Carrying that confusion with me outside of the cockpit is what prompted
the question here.

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