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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?
No, it's in the ATC Handbook. I get it about 1 out of 50 approaches. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |