2 Questions

[Checks]

A couple of questions came up recently:

1. Cleared for the ILS 24, circle to land 32.
-Is this approach flown as a non-precision or a precision approach? I have always just followed the GS down to the MDA.

2. Cleared ILS 24, circle to land 32.
-Runway 24 is closed. You are in a helicopter. Circle min's wont get you into the airport so you ask the controller if you can just shoot the straight in ILS and you will not actually land on 24 but will sidestep to the sod upon breaking out. Can ATC even legally authorize this?

3. "3. Upon receipt of an approach clearance while on an unpublished route or being radar vectored:

(a) Complies with the minimum altitude for IFR; and

(b) Maintains the last assigned altitude until established on a segment of a published route or IAP, at which time published altitudes apply."

Does published route include Enroute charts? Is the published altitude the MEA?


Thanks

 

[avbug]

1. It's still an ILS approach with glideslope, you're just circling rather than landing straight in. An ILS to circling minimums is still an ILS, and is still a precision approach.

2. Someone may have something different here, but I don't believe ATC will authorize the approach. You're making an approach to a closed runway that's already below circling minimums. You're asking if ATC will authorize you to fly an approach to a closed runway below minimums in order to circle below minimums.

3. Published is any route that has identified obstacle clearance criteria. An airway is a published route, as is a feeder route or part of an arrival proceedure (STAR).

In this case, you are assigned an altitude and cleared the approach, while off of a published routing (radar vector, etc). You must maintain that altitude until you're on a published segment of the approach. If you're cleared to a feeder fix, and have a published feeder route to the approach, you must maintain that altitude until established on the feeder route. In this case you're not simply picking an arbitrary minimum altitude from the nearest published routing.

The published segment may include any part of the approach proceedure itself, or those parts of the approach leading to the proceedure. That may be a feeder route, or you may be given a vector to incercept an airway leading to an IAF or feeder fix. When on that published segment, the lower altitudes apply.

 

[stillaboo]

Does published route include Enroute charts? Is the published altitude the MEA?


Thanks [/B]

Everything posted above is correct (far as my quick skim goes), I just want to clarify this for ease of reading (plus I know a guy who was hammered on this on his 121 interview when he was uncertain)

If you're cleared for an approach, you can descend as soon as you get to a bold lined portion on the approach chart (Jepp plates), even if it's before the IAF, which makes it a feeder route, provided if it has a minimum altitude. 'Cleared for the approach' does not include anything you might find on enroute charts, such as MEA's. In the real world, you won't be cleared for an approach when you're using an enroute chart for navigation anyway unless the enroute portion or vector is to a IAF.

If I just confused the situation more, than I'm sorry.

 

[Checks]

Thanks for the input guys.

I was in the sim when these two situations came up. Since the ILS was "down" and rwy 24 was closed, I had done a NDB approach with a HAA of 500ft and didnt break out. Upon declaring missed approach the controller stated the ILS was back up and I was given vectors to the ILS 24, circle to land 32. The circling HAA was also about 500ft so I asked the controller for the straight ILS to 24 and stated I wouldn't actually physically land on 24(I wasnt sure why 24 was closed..maybe a pothole?) I wasn't sure if this was legal or not(I suspected it wasnt) but I did it anyways because it was just the sim.

In regards to the descent question while on the Victor Airway. At the time I was given the approach clearance I was on a Victor Airway leading to a VOR that then was the beginning of a feeder route. Avbug, do you say the Victor Airway is "published" and you can descend to the MEA prior to the beginning of the Feeder Route?

Thanks

 

[A Squared]

Re: Re: 2 Questions

Originally posted by stillaboo 'Cleared for the approach' does not include anything you might find on enroute charts, such as MEA's.[/B]

Actually, yes, it does. If you are on an airway at an assigned altitude above the MEA and you are cleared for the approach, you may descend to the MEA, if you are within 22 NM of the AIrway Facility, you may descend to the MOCA, if there is one.

Originally posted by stillaboo In the real world, you won't be cleared for an approach when you're using an enroute chart for navigation anyway unless the enroute portion or vector is to a IAF.

Unless an approach is labled Radar Vectors Required, there *will* be a way to get from the Enroute Structure to the IAF. Most commonly, the IAF is the VOR or NDB which also defines the Airway (yes, NDB's are still used for airways) If that's not the case then there will be a transition shown to navigate to the IAF from the enroute structure.


>>>"On the descent while on the Victor Airway. At the time I was given the approach clearance I was on a Victor Airway leading to a VOR that then was the beginning of a feeder route. Avbug, do you say the Victor Airway is "published" and you can descend to the MEA prior to the beginning of the Feeder Route?"

Hmmm, that's a sticky question: Normally, the insruction "maintain" XXXX until established is issued when you are off the airway, on a direct clearence or on a vector. If you're on an Airway, the clearence is just "cleared for the approach", or "cleared for the (specific) Approach". As I noted above, on receipt of that clearence you may descend to the MEA, or within 22 NM of the Nav Facility, you may descend to the MOCA.

If you received that instruction while on an airway in flight from a real controller, he may have had some traffic reason to keep you at a specific altitude, although if there was conflicting traffic I doubt that you'd be given an approach clearence until it was resolved.

If you got this instruction in a sim, it probably was from the Sim instructor who isn't an ATC'r and isn't quite up to speed on how approach clearences are given.

 

[A Squared]

Stillaboo,

I was thinking a little more about your statement; "Cleared for the approach' does not include anything you might find on enroute charts, such as MEA's."

I'm not really sure what exactly you meant by that. If you meant that an approach clearence doesn't authorize you to descend to the minimum altitude, you are wrong, you may descend to the applicable minimum altituce while still on the enroute portion (unless ATC has issued a crossing altitude restriction) ie: "Maintain 5000 ft until crossing XYZ VOR, cleared for the approach"

If you mean that the approach clearence does not include clearence on enroute segments, I suppose that you're right in a way, an approach clearence includes the IAP and feeder routes, but you should already be cleared along an enroute portion which leads to an IAF or the begining of a feeder route.

regards

 

[A Squared]

OK,

I'm going to have to backpedal on this a little. It has always been my belief that when cleared for the approach one was allowed to descend to the MEA or MOCA as approapriate. However when I attempted to back this up with an official reference, I came up short. I've found statements like this in unofficial sources like Instrument training manuals, but nothing official. If anyone knows where the answer can be found, let us know.

regards

 

[stillaboo]

The FAR's say:

Checks,

What ‘A squared’ has said may be true, but I'd hesitate on using it until it can be verified in the FARS or some other regulatory capacity.

‘A squared’ wrote: "If you are on an airway at an assigned altitude above the MEA and you are cleared for the approach, you may descend to the MEA, if you are within 22 NM of the AIrway Facility, you may descend to the MOCA, if there is one."

I would argue it's not true simply b/c if you are above the MEA or MOCA, and ATC clears you "for the approach", they are clearing you for the "approach". The en route portion of a flight is exactly that, en route, NOT approach. If you can descend to the MEA, then ATC would issue "Decend maintain 'MEA/MOCA' until established, descent at pilot's discresion, cleared for the 'XYZ approach'."

Now, as far as the FARs and AIM go, it’s not explicitly stated (as far as I could see), but . . .

FAR 97 is the ruling FAR here. FAR 97.1 “prescribes standard instrument approach procedures for instrument LETDOWN [my emphasis] to airports . . .” FAR 97.3c defines approach procedure segments for which altitudes (all altitudes prescribed are minimum altitudes unless otherwise specified) or courses, or both, are prescribed in procedures, are as follows:” It then defines “IAF” through “missed approach”. So, en-route airways are certainly NOT part of an “approach procedure segment”, though neither are feeder routes, as far as FAR 97 is concerned.

FAR 91.175a, “Instrument approaches to civil airports”, only refers us back to FAR 97, so it’s of no help.

FAR 91.177a, “Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes”, tells us that “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing . . . if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned”.

So, if we are landing, we don’t use 91.177a, which is the FAR that allows us to descend to the MOCA. When we are cleared for an approach, we are landing, so I’d say that, this, by itself, makes FAR 91.177a useless for allowing us to descend to MEA’s or MOCA’s on a approach clearance. Furthermore, 91.177a is for “routes and route segments”, which are not part of a standard instrument approach according to FAR 97.3c.

The AIM’s Pilot/Controller Glossary defines “cleared approach” as “ATC authorization for an aircraft to execute any standard or special instrument approach procedure”. Now, going back to FAR 97, which defines what a standard instrument approach procedure includes, we find that an en-route airway, jet route, or anything with an MEA or MOCA is NOT part of an “instrument approach procedure” and so, therefore, cannot be part of any approach clearance. On the other hand, AIM 5-4-6a tells us that “When cleared for the approach, the published off airway (feeder) routes that lead from the en route structure to the IAF are part of the approach clearance”. This not only tells us that descent for a feeder route is covered under an approach clearance, but also that any part of flight that leads us to anything that starts a feeder route is NOT part of an approach clearance. Since there are only 3 ways to get to an IAF (the en route structure ends at a IAF, there’s a feeder route from the en route structure to the IAF, or radar vectors from the en route structure to the IAF), I would say pretty affirmatively that when you are cleared for an approach, you are not cleared to descend to an MEA or MOCA.

If anyone can find a FAR or part of the 7110.65 (the rules for ATC) that contradicts me, I’m all ears.

 

[Singlecoil]

Yes you can descend to the MEA/MOCA when cleared for the approach. When cleared for the approach, you own all of the airspace below you, all the way through the missed. This is pretty basic. ATC will not clear you if there is someone below you. If you call them and ask for lower, they will think you are a moron.
That's like asking for an approach clearance when you are already on a cruise clearance. Not needed, don't waste their time.

It may not be in the regs, but if you notice the regs basically tell you what you can't do.
Ever notice how most of them start: "No person may operate an aircraft unless..."
First there were no regs, then gradually more and more were added after accidents and incidents to yield what we have today.
Where in the regs does it say I can take my 172 and buzz a forest right down to the treetops? It doesn't. It just says I have to operate 500 feet from persons or property. That's just an example, but I will bet anyone $5000 that what I said above about descending when cleared is correct.

All you are required to do in this case, is report leaving your last assigned altitude. I've spent a large portion of my time flying in non-radar environments. That's the way it is.

 

[stillaboo]

That's the way it is?

So, if you're on a jet route or airway, the controller can say "cleared for the XYZ approach, report cancellation or missed on my frequency'' OR "Cruise clearance (present altitude) to XYZ, report cancelled or missed on my frequency", since both are the same thing, a clearance which authorizes you to 'own' all the airspace from your altitude on the airway down to the MEA/MOCA, and clearance for the approach and/or missed?

Why would the AIM or FARs not mention this anywhere for approach clearances, but be very explicit about it for a cruise clearance, which is quite a rare clearance in any part of the US I've flown (most every part but Alaska – which seems to have its own rules - and extensively in the Southwest to EAS destinations, where controlled air below 14,500 is as rare as the people at the destinations)? My point is, I’ve never run into this, and I’ve been cleared for quite a few approaches at un-controlled fields.

“All you are required to do in this case, is report leaving your last assigned altitude.” Why are you required to do that? How do I, an FAA certified instrument pilot, know that one of my duties is to report leaving MEA’s or MOCA’s when I am cleared for an approach? B/c “that’s the way it is”?

If I were a student, I would not tell my CFI or DE this, I'd let him/ her tell me. I'm intrigued by this question b/c my airline often asks potential applicants at their interview "Ok, you're here, when can you descend?" Of course, first we're looking to trip them up when they assume that they are cleared for the approach, which was never said. But we're also looking for FAR's knowledge. If someone were to tell me that they can do it b/c “It may not be in the regs, but if you notice the regs basically tell you what you can't do”, I’d laugh at them. I’d laugh even harder if they told me “That’s the way it is.”

The answer may be correct, but I personally need to hear more than “that’s the way it is”. If I’m wrong, I end up having to descend a bit more on my approach (and eat a bit of crow publicly on this board ). If I’m right, I could get a violation b/c I did something I wasn’t cleared for. So, until I see something more concrete, I’m gonna’ hold off on my descent till I’m on a published portion of an approach as defined by FAR 97 and AIM 4-5-6.