Approach Clearance?

[T/O w/FSII]

I can't believe this is even a discussion. The rules say you do the PT or HILO. Unless cleared differently.

ATC is not some end all be all entity. Cover your own ass first. You never know when a fed or sup is listening.

 

[RDoug]

The only real question about this procedure was whether ATC wanted a course reversal or not. Which is a problem of phraseology here - it is hard for any of us to say without hearing the instruction exactly. There might have been a "we're going to vector you around for the straight in" before that clearance for all we know.

No question in my mind even without having heard the previous transmissions. According to the .65 phraseology examples, if the controller didn't want the pilot to reverse course then the phraseology at the time the clearance was issued should have been:

N123AB, cleared direct to MEGPE, cross MEGPE at 3000, cleared straight-in RNAV Runway 11 approach.

Even if the controller had said to expect the straight-in prior to the clearance, omitting the words "straight-in" from the clearance would have negated the prior discussion.

 

[gotWXdagain]

I mean, you can and all. But 99.999% of the time, if you in radar coverage, they meant straight in. Enough that I've stopped asking.

Anyway, the clearance was to cross MEGPE, not to do a course reversal there. So cross at 3000 and then descend (and blow out your eardrums).

For the controllers reading this, I think "N123AB, cleared direct to MEGPE, cross MEGPE at 3000, cleared straight in RNAV 11 approach" is what pilots are more comfortable hearing, right or wrong.

In fact, your only relief from doing the PT would be to receive an explicitly stated straight in clearance.

That, and look at how much altitude loss we're seeing in the given scenario, some situations it might not be possible to reach the GS intercept alt before that FAF and still be stabilized. As no "Straight In" clearance was received, my answer is and always will be "Clarify with ATC."

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I mean, you can and all. But 99.999% of the time, if you in radar coverage, they meant straight in. Enough that I've stopped asking.

Anyway, the clearance was to cross MEGPE, not to do a course reversal there. So cross at 3000 and then descend (and blow out your eardrums).

For the controllers reading this, I think "N123AB, cleared direct to MEGPE, cross MEGPE at 3000, cleared straight in RNAV 11 approach" is what pilots are more comfortable hearing, right or wrong.

Or, alternatively, "Buzzsaw 5105, direct MEGPE, maintain 3000 UNTIL PROCEDURE TURN OUTBOUND and cleared for the RNAV Runway 11."

 

[NovemberEcho]

The controller SHOULD have cleared you with a straight in. But if not sure, or unable to make the descent, you SHOULD ask for clarification or advise.

I don't deal with PT/HILO much anymore, but we did at my last facility and made it a habit of specifiying PT or no, and time permitting asking if you wanted the pt or not.

As for when to descend, whether you do the Pt/hilo or not, with the clearance as written you should be at 3000' until after passing MEGPE inbound.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I'm posting this in general, because I want the traffic.

Your clearance is:

"N123AB, cleared direct to MEGPE, cross MEGPE at 3000, cleared RNAV 11 approach." What do you do at MEGPE? When can you start a descent below 3000?

Discuss.

I'm late to the discussion, but here's my 2¢.

The "rule" is simple. A PT, here a HILPT. is mandatory unless one of the conditions in 91.175(j) exists (vector to the FAC, a NoPT route or one of those rare timed approaches from a holding fix) or you are specifically cleared straight in. So, as stated, the right regulatory answer is, you need to do the PT.

My practical answer is different. ATC is notorious for "pseudo vectors"

We are starting at 3,000 msl with 6 miles in which to drop to 1,800 msl. 1200' in 6 miles? Piece of cake. I definitely want to go straight in. That's probably what the controller means even if he didn't say the required words. ATC is notorious for doing that, basically treating it a s a pseudo vector. The catch is, I'm no mind reader, so I don't know that for sure.

So my answer is: When I read back the clearance I say, "Direct MEGPE, cross MEGPE at 3,000. Confirm we're cleared straight in for the approach." Then I cross MEGPE at 3,000 and start descending.

 

[bp]

And it says it right there, you're not expected to do a PT if one of 3 conditions, one of which is:

"When ATC provides a radar vector to the Final approach course "

Which is exactly what I implied with the regional airline approach into SCE (UNV) in which we were told to expect a full approach for Rwy 24. I asked for radar vectors and he wasn't able (New York center, not approach, good catch). We were coming in from ppposite direction, and it was fairly obvious from the setup and lack of radar vectors to final that we would be doing a PT, and the controller was expecting it too.

I have never gotten vectors to final into UNV, I think the MVA there is too high to be useful. Always full procedure or visual

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[tlewis95]

I can't believe this is even a discussion. The rules say you do the PT or HILO. Unless cleared differently.

ATC is not some end all be all entity. Cover your own ass first. You never know when a fed or sup is listening.

Right? A lot of people would be failing their instrument checkrides right now. To PT or not to PT is a pretty basic and important part of instrument training.

 

[gotWXdagain]

As Midlife said, ATC can and does give pseudo-vectors all the time because it's easy, convenient, and in most cases makes sense. The big caveat, however, is there's a certain phraseology that goes along with it and if you hear thing A and assume he means thing B, well, you know what they say about Ass U Me. Although in this case there'd only be one ass in the room.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Roger Roger]

Gotta do the hold mang.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

As Midlife said, ATC can and does give pseudo-vectors all the time because it's easy, convenient, and in most cases makes sense. The big caveat, however, is there's a certain phraseology that goes along with it and if you hear thing A and assume he means thing B, well, you know what they say about Ass U Me. Although in this case there'd only be one ass in the room.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

(AIM page 5-4-25 rev. 2016)

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Right? A lot of people would be failing their instrument checkrides right now. To PT or not to PT is a pretty basic and important part of instrument training.

But then again, use common sense too. In the scenario presented by the OP, it's fairly obvious what ATC expects you to do (and if you follow their instruction verbatim). You can also live and die by it. Part 91 takeoff in 0/0, go right ahead. Just because it says you can do it, doesn't actually mean it's a good idea.

In this scenario on vectors for final approach, I'd be hesitant to do a PT when we were vectored to final and I know there's gonna be other aircraft behind me being sequenced in for the same approach. If either pilot is adamant about doing a PT, I would just encourage to go ahead and query the controller, and he's going to clarify that. In this instance, as with that pdf document, "scenario 1" , same situation when being vectored for what looks like a straight in, it's gonna be a straight in.

Now if you guys wanna get a piece of paper to help gain support to mandate that they must issue the instruction as cleared for the "straight in" RNAV approach, then I'll sign it....

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I have never gotten vectors to final into UNV, I think the MVA there is too high to be useful. Always full procedure or visual

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I seem to recall getting vectors to join the ILS 24, without a PT, circa 2008/9.

 

[gotWXdagain]

Now if you guys wanna get a piece of paper to help gain support to mandate that they must issue the instruction as cleared for the "straight in" RNAV approach, then I'll sign it....

They already have one of those, it's called 14 CFR 91, and does not require your signature.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[tlewis95]

They already have one of those, it's called 14 CFR 91, and does not require your signature.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Also 5-4 of the AIM to spell out the details that are being discussed here for some reason.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Also 5-4 of the AIM to spell out the details that are being discussed here for some reason.

The missing piece to the above is that 91.175(i) doesn't explicitly spell out RNAV direct to the IF as approved.

Of course, random RNAV routes also only happen in areas with radar monitoring, so...

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

They already have one of those, it's called 14 CFR 91, and does not require your signature.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I mean to get them to enforce it on ATC in terms of their instructions provided to pilots . So that way there's no confusion.

 

[gotWXdagain]

I mean to get them to enforce it on ATC in terms of their instructions provided to pilots . So that way there's no confusion.

Who is confused?

 

[Roger Roger]

View attachment 39239

(AIM page 5-4-25 rev. 2016)

This is interesting, and apparently new from when I was last discussing this as a CFI many moons ago.

 

[BobDDuck]

This is interesting, and apparently new from when I was last discussing this as a CFI many moons ago.

The thing of note is that you can no longer be cleared on a heading to join an RNAV approach, anywhere in side the initial fix. You have to be cleared to an actual fix.