When to descend II

"Bee" wrote in message ...

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


Traffic wasn't an issue.

If the controller is using vertical separation between the OP's aircraft and
traffic beneath him that lower traffic would also require an altitude
restriction that insured separation. The minimum separation is 1000' if the
lower aircraft is IFR and 500' if it's VFR, but the altitude restriction
cannot be lower than the MVA. Look at the approach plate, there is a 593
MSL tower about four miles southwest of ROYCE, the MVA can't be lower than
1600 MSL within three miles of that tower, and it's probably higher. Do the
math.

On Nov 9, 8:20 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Bee" wrote in ...

He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

Nothing on the OP's message required the aircraft to cross ROYCE.

So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?

What would you do and/or say if you got exactly that clearance?
("Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7." )

Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

"John Clonts" wrote in message
ups.com...

So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?


Could be either, but it's definitely one of them.



What would you do and/or say if you got exactly that clearance?
("Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7." )


I'd respond, "Unable". You can't pin an aircraft down to a specific route
on a visual approach, he's got to remain clear of clouds so you've got to
allow him to maneuver as needed. If the controller needed the aircraft over
ROYCE he should stick to the ILS approach. Why the controller issued the
altitude restriction is a mystery.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?


Could be either, but it's definitely one of them.

I think I have probably mis-remembered it.

Upon reflection, I believe I was most likely already on the localizer, not SW
of ROYCE.

However, my memory is clear about being given the visual with the crossing
restriction, then being immediately cleared to land.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

I think I have probably mis-remembered it.

Upon reflection, I believe I was most likely already on the localizer, not
SW of ROYCE.

However, my memory is clear about being given the visual with the crossing
restriction, then being immediately cleared to land.


The clearance issued doesn't make sense. If the controller really needs you
over ROYCE he shouldn't issue a visual approach clearance. On a visual
approach you must remain clear of clouds and maneuvering to avoid them could
take you away from ROYCE. A visual doesn't save time when it's issued to an
aircraft on the localizer and may take longer than the IAP if cloud
avoidance is needed. The altitude restriction doesn't make any sense at
all. Terrain/obstacle avoidance is the pilot's responsibility on a visual
so it can't be for that and there isn't enough room below at 2000 MSL for
any other traffic so it can't be for separation.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
The clearance issued doesn't make sense. If the controller really needs
you over ROYCE he shouldn't issue a visual approach clearance. On a visual
approach you must remain clear of clouds and maneuvering to avoid them
could take you away from ROYCE. A visual doesn't save time when it's
issued to an aircraft on the localizer and may take longer than the IAP if
cloud avoidance is needed. The altitude restriction doesn't make any sense
at all. Terrain/obstacle avoidance is the pilot's responsibility on a
visual so it can't be for that and there isn't enough room below at 2000
MSL for any other traffic so it can't be for separation.

Hmm. Evidently memory has failed me on some essential detail (altitude,
perhaps?).

In my experience, the Houston Approach controllers are not in the habit of
issuing screwy clearances. It must be me.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Nov 9, 9:10 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Bee" wrote in ...

If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.

A 330 heading to join the localizer inbound would make an intercept angle of
about 160 degrees. That'd be a cute one.

150 degrees...