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 Upon receipt of an approach clearance while on an unpublished route or being radar vectored: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

 

[Singlecoil]

Re: 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?

First, let me say that I appreciate this discussion. I've seen a few FO's over the years that are clearly uneasy with this and I too would like to find a written reference to put all of this to rest.
Right now it is 1:40 am and my 3 day-old son is finally asleep in my lap (I think he likes the white noise of the computer fan) so here we go.

I dug through a couple of books but couldn't find anything. Sleep deprivation does have some advantages, not the least of which is digging through the dusty books on the shelf.

Say I am flying to Sheeptown airport. It is uncontrolled and has two approaches, a VOR 7 and a VOR 25. The VOR is at the field and the approaches are the basic procedure turn type. The MEA is 4000 feet, the MOCA is 3500 feet, and I am cruising along at 8000 feet.
You get the winds off ASOS, and request the VOR 7 approach.

If the controller says, "Cleared for the VOR 7 approach Sheeptown airport." You woud read back, "Cessna 65C roger, cleared for the VOR 7 approach Sheeptown." Whenever you decide to descend, then you must also report leaving 8000 feet. That is what I was referring to about reporting leaving the last assigned altitude. You are good down to 4000, then within 22 NM, down to 3500, then you are on the approach plate, etc.

If he said, "Cleared for approach Sheeptown airport", then you would do it just the same, except you could shoot either approach or a visual, but not a contact.

If he said, "Cruise Sheeptown 8000", then you could descend to the MEA at your leisure. You can also climb back up to 8000 if you got ice or something. Not the case with the other clearance. This can be real handy if you are very bored and want to stay on an IFR clearance but do some zero g pushovers. But seriously, on the cruise clearance, once you report out of 8000, you can't go back. When you get to the VOR, you can do any approach, except for a contact.

You can also get a Cruise Through clearance. Say you were going to Sheeptown to drop off a bag of mail, then continue on to Placerville, 30 miles away. Its kind of a pain to have to cancel the one clearance when you get to Sheeptown, then pick up the other one through FSS or on the phone to go to Placerville. If it is a quiet airport or late at night, request a Cruise Through Sheeptown to Placerville clearance. If there isn't anybody else out there ATC can say, "Cruise through Sheeptown to Placerville 8000". Now you can descend and do any approach to Sheeptown, land, drop off the mail, take-off, fly any altitude from the MEA up to and including 8000 from Sheeptown to Placerville, do any approach to Placerville and land, and not say another word to ATC after you report out of 8000. But don't forget to cancel when you get there. I have done this numerous times in 121 ops. You won't find that one in the regs either.

A long winded reply (he's still asleep) but I'm afraid that's the best I can do. It is an excellent question to ask on an interview because it is a test of practical knowledge, not just book knowledge.
By the way, crow isn't served here, only humble pie, and I've had several servings on flightinfo.com.

 

[stillaboo]

We're getting there

"Right now it is 1:40 am and my 3 day-old son is finally asleep in my lap"

Well first off, congrats on the birth of your new son! You shouldn't be discussing obscure FARs with me at this time!

Thanks to my trusty IFR Magazine subscription (and the recent FAR reviews I've had to do b/c of this thread), I'm quite familiar with cruise clearances and through clearances and what have you.

Regarding through clearances, Singlecoil wrote "You won't find that one in the regs either."

Singlecoil, at least challenge me. YAWN. It's 7110.65 4-2-6 (the controllers' manual).

By the way, the references for Cruise clearances are AIM 4-4-3 & 7110.65 4-5-7, and contact approaches (another obscure one thrown down) is 7110.65 7-4-6 & AIM 5-4-22. I'm quite familiar with all of them, though I'm sure many of the board members are not. I'll post the references to the elusive one that covers approach clearances allowing en route descents if I ever find it

So, now to the subtle nuances:
"If the controller says, "Cleared for the VOR 7 approach Sheeptown airport." You woud read back, "Cessna 65C roger, cleared for the VOR 7 approach Sheeptown." Whenever you decide to descend, then you must also report leaving 8000 feet. That is what I was referring to about reporting leaving the last assigned altitude."

If ATC did not ask you to descend (and remember, I'm still maintaining that they have not authorized you to descend), then you don't have to report jack to ATC. In my case, b/c I'm not descending (yet). In your case, b/c AIM 4-4-9d doesn't mention anywhere about reporting anything to ATC, only that you must descend "at an optimum rate". AIM 4-4-6b, the read back rules, states that pilots should read back "those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments or vectors as a means of mutual verification." Now, I would argue that ATC didn't clear you to descend in the first place b/c they DIDN'T mention any altitude in your "Cleared for the VOR 7 approach Sheeptown airport". Even if I'm wrong about the approach clearance being an allowance for an en route descent, you still are not required to report leaving an altitude here (you would be in your second example of "Cruise Sheeptown 8000" if you were permanently vacating 8000, of course).

Assuming I'm correct on the en route descent not being part of an approach clearance (just go with it, for the moment, since neither of us can actually site a reg. here), how have pilots been able to continually descend to Sheeptown, despite not having a clearance to? I would say that we were unknowingly using AIM 4-4-1b, which says "If a pilot prefers to follow a different course of action [i.e., leaving their assigned altitude to get down for the approach, which is perfectly understandable] the pilot is expected to inform ATC accordingly." So, we tell ATC that "Cessna 65C is leaving 8 for 4." ATC, who couldn't care less (nobody's anywhere near Sheeptown but you) knows why you're going down, where you're going to, and has no problem with it. Furthermore, they are not required to read back your self-amended clearance unless they have an issue with it. So they say nothing, you descend, and everything is covered by the AIM. Maybe?

See, this whole situation only happens in sparsely populated airspace, so we'll never know based on experience what's going on. Normally, ATC would clear you for the approach and give you a descent to 4000. You read back the 4000 (which you "should" do (AIM 4-4-6b), but are still not required to, by the FARs or AIM at least)), and then you drop down to the 3,500 MOCA w/in 22 nm of the VOR, then go shoot the approach. This scenario is totally covered by the FARs and AIM. If you leave out the descent clearance, than that's where it gets hairy.

In short, there is compelling evidence in the FARs, AIM, and 7110.65 that an approach clearance is NOT a clearance to descend on an en route segment, but there is plenty of anecdotal experience from flying that, if you report leaving your assigned altitude, you can go down to the MEA and subsequent MOCA w/in 22 NM after hearing your are 'cleared for the approach.'

End result, you can descend and ATC likely won't care, even if they didn't clear you to (which is unresolved). But, this is a FARs discussion, so the answer has to be better than that for me.

"It is an excellent question to ask on an interview because it is a test of practical knowledge, not just book knowledge.
By the way, crow isn't served here, only humble pie, and I've had several servings on flightinfo.com."

I've got my piece of pie selected, but I think someone else should too. There's no resolution on this issue as far as I can see . . . yet.

-Boo!

Who would have ever though 'Checks' simple post could get so difficult? I'm thrilled to see that this thread hasn't wandered off topic, and has remained a civil discussion

 

[Checks]

I cant find evidence to support conclusively either position. I went thru all the regs with a fine tooth comb myself and was hoping you guys could provide some clarification.

Thanks for all the research.

Mike

 

[Singlecoil]

Ok, I found it in writing, so it must be true...

From the Instrument Flight Training Manual by Peter Dogan

p. 137

"Cleared for the Approach"

This clearance authorizes you to fly the prodedure indicated on the approach plate and to descend to the published altitudes. You may not descend during an approach until you have received an approach clearance and are on a published route. The published route may be any approach segment, transition, or airway. If it is an airway, you may descend to the MEA, or the MOCA if within 22 nautical miles of the VOR, but be sure this altitude is higher than the transition or initial approach altitude. Otherwise, you will find yourself climbing later on. When flying "direct" to an approach fix, you may not descend, even if you are cleared for the approach, until you are on a published route. The importance of understanding and complying with this rule is underscored by the fact that the regulation was established and clarified as the result of an airliner's crash into a hilltop on an approach to Dulles Airport near Washington, D. C.

I know, not regulatory, but interesting.

 

[A Squared]

Singlecoil,

Interesting, that was the only supporting reference I could come up with also.
regards

 

[stillaboo]

So I guess the real question is "where did Peter Dogan find the reg that allows us to descend?"

All it took was one guy to write something in a book . . . and all it will take is another guy to find something in a book (a regs book).

Just so you know, I'm running this on 2 ATC boards as well, and they are right with us, stumpted.

-Boo!

 

[A Squared]

I asked Don Brown about this, Don is a controller and Safety Rep at Atlanta Center and writes an ATC column for Avweb. He couldn't provide any definitive references, but did confirm my statement that if you have been issued an approach clearence in this situation, all IFR traffic conflicts have been resolved. Essentially his position is he doesn't know if descending to the MEA is legal, but it won't cause any problems for him. I've copied his response below.


>>>>>>Just so you know, I'm running this on 2 ATC boards as well, and they are right with us, stumpted.

you wouldn't happen to have links for these boards would you?


regards



Don Brown responds:

The short answer is I don't really know. In my mind, you're actually asking a "pilot" question instead of an "ATC" question. After a controller clears you for this type of an approach, terrain becomes your problem (and your decision.)

One thing I do want to make sure you're aware of (I think you already are) is that a controller shouldn't give you an approach clearance without either an altitude to maintain until established on a published section of the approach or...making sure that you are already established on a published section. You are correct that all traffic conflictions should be resolved prior to the issuance of the approach clearance. Therefore, I don't see an operational problem from a controller standpoiint. Unless it sets off the low altitude alert. But that would be a local computer adaptation. The big worry of course is staying out of the rocks.

There should be someone in the FAA that could answer your question. The legal part should be covered in the FARs. The technical part should be in the TERPs manual. Figuring it out will be the fun part. <G>

Thanks for reading.

Don Brown

 

[stillaboo]

I concede defeat

I recently wrote the editors of IFR Magazine (if you've read it, you know ATC/FAR questions are their specialty). Their reply:

We say yes. "Cleared approach" allows you down to all the mins. ATC should not have anyone below.
--Paul Berge
IFR

---
So, from an ATC perspective it is VERY clear that nobody is below you (if an ATL safety rep and IFR Magazine editiors say so, it is so). If you descend down to the MEA/MOCA, then you'll have IFR separation all the way through the en route descent, the approach, and the missed.

While I'd like to see the reg that makes it legal for a pilot to descend w/o a specific ATC altitude change (or, if not that, the one for ATC to clear the area before authorizing the approach) . . . . it looks like the descent to MEA after the approach clearance is ok.

I'm warming up my piece of humble pie in the 1st class galley oven right now.

-Boo!

 

[A Squared]

Re: I concede defeat

I don't know if I'd concede defeat if I were you Stillaboo. I think the question of legality still stands.

I think that we can agree that there's no danger of running into another airplane, but we're still missing that regulatory blessing.


91.179(a) requires us to maintain the altitude assigned by ATC. Using the AIM, we can show pretty clearly that cleared for the approach allows us to descend to any altitude published on an IAP or published feeder route ...... however, it is still unclear that the approach clearence allows us to descend from the last cleared altitude while enroute.

Look at it a different way, suppose that you got a Letter of investigation alleging a violation of 91.179(a) for doing this. What are you going to point to to defend your actions. While I agree with Don Brown and the IFR editors, that it *should* be allowed, and it's not unsafe, nither of those sources would carry much weight in an FAA enforcement.



>>>>>>I'm warming up my piece of humble pie in the 1st class galley oven right now.


I started munching my humble pie a few days ago when I had to admit I couldn't back up my stance with a reference.

regards

 

[172driver]

Interesting thread. I have another question along the same lines. We've had many debates on this one.

91.177(i) states that once established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC.

Usually, minimum altitudes are published for each segment. Once established, can the pilot stay high or must he descend to the published altitude? Common examples are...maintain 3000 until established, cleared for the approach.
1. Published alt on a DME arc is 2000'. Obviously, no hurry to descend if you don't have to. But do you?
2. GS intercept alt is 2500'. Intercept at 3000 or descend to 2500 and intercept?

Some say that the published altitude is a minimum altitude and that you are complying with it as long as you are above it...even if thousands of ft above.

Others, including our DPE, say that because the reg reads, "published altitudes apply to descent," you must come down to the published altitude.