When to descend II

wrote:
Bee wrote:

I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.


I still don't understand what it means for the approach clearance to
not be applicable. You can be given instructions with a clearance for
the visual, but that doesn't mean that you are not navigating visually
to the airport.

Such as, at OAK they frequently say "cross 6 DME at or above 2000
feet" and at SBA they tell folks to "remain off shore until turning
base." Those instructions don't delay the applicability of the
clearance for the visual approach, whatever that would mean.

If the controller doesn't intend on a visual to be "applicable" then
why would he issue the clearance? And if it weren't "applicable" then
would the OP still have been getting vectors until such time as the
clearance became "applicable"? I don't think so.


He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

So, is that a visual prior to ROYCE? If you choose to view it that way,
fine just so long as you cross exactly at ROYCE at, or above, 2,000.

If, at OAK, you can cross anywhere along the 6 DME at or above 2,000,
that indeed is a visual approach without a route restiction.

SBA example is pure visual with a noise abatement restriction.

;-)

Bee wrote:
He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

Yes, but without a route. He was on vectors, and as he clarified
since the first post, he was on a "right base" somewhere outside of
ROYCE when he got the clearance. So how was he to get to ROYCE?

Would it have been totally different had the controller said "turn
final 7 miles out, cross 7 DME at or above 2000, cleared for the
visual runway 12R"?

So, is that a visual prior to ROYCE? If you choose to view it that way,
fine just so long as you cross exactly at ROYCE at, or above, 2,000.

Yes this is how I see it (except that nothing is exact). I don't know
if this is a "proper" clearance or not, but I can't see what else you
would do given that the controller stopped giving vectors. You are on
your own in getting to ROYCE, by GPS direct, by 90 degree intercept of
the localizer and then flying to ROYCE or by flying towards Texas
Southern University and then turning final and descending. The pilot
has to make something up and not crash into anything. That's a visual
approach with an inconvenient restriction.

If, at OAK, you can cross anywhere along the 6 DME at or above 2,000,
that indeed is a visual approach without a route restiction.

SBA example is pure visual with a noise abatement restriction.

Yes I know these aren't exactly the same, I was merely giving examples
of restrictions that don't cause the visual approach to be "not yet
applicable" as you stated before. I still think the "not applicable"
idea is wrong.

pgbnh wrote:

OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are switched to
the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The OP did receive
such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at the time)Does the
altitude restriction still hold?

I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in control
of my heading and altitude


You are correct.

Bee wrote:

pgbnh wrote:

OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?

I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
control of my heading and altitude


Not until you reach ROYCE and the visual approach clearance becomes
effective.

Just like reporting the OM to the tower when the weather is 200 and 1/2
and the tower says "Cleared to land."



Reporting the marker to the tower is not necessary unless asked for.

Newps wrote:


Bee wrote:

pgbnh wrote:

OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land.
(The OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he
was at the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?

I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
control of my heading and altitude



Not until you reach ROYCE and the visual approach clearance becomes
effective.

Just like reporting the OM to the tower when the weather is 200 and
1/2 and the tower says "Cleared to land."




Reporting the marker to the tower is not necessary unless asked for.

And, your point is?

Newps wrote:



pgbnh wrote:

OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?

I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
control of my heading and altitude



You are correct.

So, it is now okay to descend into that traffic that you speculated
exists in your early post in this thread?

Yes, because the issuance of the 'Clear to land' indicates that the traffic
is no longer an issue. I forget the FAR numbers, but I believe my obligation
is to comply with the most recently received directions from ATC. Clear to
land means I am the decision maker on heading and altitude and previous
restrictions and directions no longer apply
"Bee" wrote in message ...
Newps wrote:



pgbnh wrote:

OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?

I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
control of my heading and altitude



You are correct.

So, it is now okay to descend into that traffic that you speculated exists
in your early post in this thread?

At the least I would ask the tower if the ROYCE crossing restriction was
deleted.

pgbnh wrote:
Yes, because the issuance of the 'Clear to land' indicates that the traffic
is no longer an issue. I forget the FAR numbers, but I believe my obligation
is to comply with the most recently received directions from ATC. Clear to
land means I am the decision maker on heading and altitude and previous
restrictions and directions no longer apply
"Bee" wrote in message ...

Newps wrote:



pgbnh wrote:


OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?

I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
control of my heading and altitude



You are correct.

So, it is now okay to descend into that traffic that you speculated exists
in your early post in this thread?

Not necessary, if the tower wants it they need to restate it.



Bee wrote:

At the least I would ask the tower if the ROYCE crossing restriction was
deleted.

But, I don't know all those controller rules. Is that in the AIM anywhere?

If not, I would exercise my PIC option to seek clarification.

Newps wrote:
Not necessary, if the tower wants it they need to restate it.



Bee wrote:

At the least I would ask the tower if the ROYCE crossing restriction
was deleted.