clarify this for me. for avid far readers

[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.

 

[climbhappy]

Yank McCobb: Ouch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Man that hurts.. Lob the grenades, listen i know your type. probably walk on water, can't you. Sure I did what I did, NO HARM NO FOUL, avoiding in flight collsions is up to the crew. screw the clearance.. How many fake RA s have you had where you saw it was plane on a steep climb angle. yeah I blew it... think I'll have a beer, Yank you win, I surrender!.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Well, as long as we both agree.

Man, it's just a little Friday afternoon fun. Don't get all shook up.

Enjoy your weekend and have fun out there.

 

[climbhappy]

Yeah Yank, I agree, "A shot of Patrone for my frined here!"

 

[aeronautic1]

Jesus Cristo

This is giving me a headache. I gotta fly to LGA and deal with real controllers.

 

[B-727]

Clarify this for me

Thanks for the thoughtful question. Questions such as yours contribute to the overall understanding of our profession.

You were not correct to descend below 1600' prior to final. Your captain was correct to debrief the deviation from the ATC clearance. He would have been even more correct had he directed you to extend your downwind so as to have enough distance to intercept final at 1600'.

This does not seem (to me) to be a matter of interpretation, nor do I see any ambiguity.

For more information, see FAR 91.123(a) and 91.123(b).

These paragraphs state, in part, "When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained,...", and, "Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."


Regards,

B-727