clarify this for me. for avid far readers

[aeronautic1]

What if...

... the final approach fix in this instance IS 1600 feet. Sure, we have all been slam dunked more than once, but then again we get a lot more issuances, like this one, that could have been to the FAF which is 1600 feet. Unless we know what approach he was shooting, then we can only make assumptions. Can someone pull the tape on this one so we can hear the controllers inflection? No? They can't find it? Forgettaboutit

 

[Flechas]

You are very right about that aeronautic, if the FAF is at 1600 then that's fine, but if it wasn't and it was lets say at 1000 feet, then that would have made for an unstable approach, which he shold have declined if unable or ask for lower.

But I still think the controller just mean maintain 1600 until the GS.

 

[aeronautic1]

Thanks..

... for not zipping down your fly. We both have valid points.

Even if you take a standard formula for 300 ft per nautical mile, a 5 mile final would be 1500 ft. 1000 ft isn't even TPA for turbojets at most airports.

I have always been under the assumption that anything BETWEEN the IAP (acutal or modified) and the FAF is called the approach segment and after the FAF you are on the final segment.

You are a CFII. I am just a humble Gulfstreram pilot. Your opinion is welcomed.

 

[Flechas]

Haha, seems like you may have just a bit more experience than me though.

I get the impression that he was doing a visual approach, not sure if under IFR or VFR, , but the segments may not apply in this case. It would be good to know all the facts in this case, then we could stop assuming.

It's good to have a civilized discussion once in a while thoug!

 

[aeronautic1]

Flechas

You are correct. We only have part of the picture. No, "call the tower on landline", no problem. Some captains just like to pontificate.

Good postings Flechas

 

[Singlecoil]

RTFQ. In the first sentence he says he was cleared for the visual. Therefore, 1600 until final means, maintain 1600 until on final, there is no final approach fix on a visual approach.

This could have either been for traffic or noise abatement as stated earlier. You said you had the traffic in sight, did you report the traffic in sight to ATC? If the altitude restriction was for the traffic and ATC verified that you saw them, then I wouldn't worry. If the restriction was for noise abatement you need to file a NASA report right now. If someone on the ground complained, the tower might be forced to pull the tapes and radar data. Right now it is likely that only that single controller knows what happened and he doesn't want to make a big deal of it. Get his supervisor involved and anything can happen.

I agree with the others who say you should have extended your downwind and turned a 5 mile final or so. These restrictions for noise abatement are not at all uncommon and should be complied with.

 

[CL60]

Clearance

"the other day i was cleared for a visual. was asked by ATC to maintain 1600 til final. also, be looking for two helos across the downwind path at 500 AGL. as I entering the downwind saw the traffic , maintained separation, then turning base I wanted to join the glide slope and make this a stabilized approach. since I was inside the OM. I landed without incident, the tower made no comment, but my captain said , I should have maintained the 1600.

question: avoid traffic, fly a stablized approach. was I was released from the 1600 til final caveat?"



If your clearance was to "maintain 1,600' until turning final" and you accepted it...

If you believed it was unsafe to do so for operational reasons then you could have said "unable" with an explanation to the controller. They have very specific guidelines that they must adhere to and will have to make changes to the big picture if you change their plans. The altitude restriction could have been derived from a letter of agreement, separation guidelines, or local noise rules.

 

[climbhappy]

Nothing like FARs to stir the pot...Like one POI told me. the FARs are there but there is some gray area...

I think my Captain was technically right. The reality is we're trained to fly stabilized approaches. I was was right seat on a left downwind...restricted view wind 090 18 g25 on the coast....I see the helos notice the slope and am gonna fly a boeing and turn around a point and stay wind corrected. personally, you got to fly the airplane in my view.. I have a kinder gentler FAA. obviously no NASA needed.. enjoyed reading your replies...

 

[Yank McCobb]

The "reality" is you blew it and are still trying to rationalize and justify it. This was no "either/or" about a stabilized approach or turning final above 1600 ft. It takes only marginal skill to do both. Where do you fall on the scale? I guess your actions and explanation for them make that clear.

Remind me again about that "kinder, gentler" FAA when they have your nutz in a noose and you are trying to justify what you did THAT time in blatent disregard of explicit instructions from ATC.

From now on keep your "grey area" grey matter out of my airspace, please.

 

[Ralgha]

You'll all thinking way too hard. Aviation is literal. Say exactly what you mean, exactly when you mean it. "Until final" means until you're on final, not "until intercepting the glideslope". Had the controller wanted something other than "until final" he/she would have said it.