Hold Altitude or Descend?

[dustoff17]

I don't know. He cancelled the previous clearance and gave him one that is depicted on a plate with an attitude, but did not specify a different one.

EXACTLY!!
This my guess as to why he descended and the reason I would have as well.

 

[Capt. Chaos]

I would expect to hear a crossing altitude given plus a clearance limit would need to be given on the inbound side of the turn.

 

[dasleben]

If there's any doubt, ask. Bad clearance, but the pilot should query.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

If I heard this I would assume I am being vectored for final, and he just intends to vector me via the procedure turn for some reason. But 'cleared for the procedure turn' doesn't actually make sense, but a lot of the times controllers or (especially) pilots say things that don't make sense from a phraseology standpoint, so I would probably also double check to see if thats what he meant, and I definitely wouldn't start descending -- unless I hear cleared for the approach, I am assuming any such nonsense is just lateral vectors.

Its clear there was a loss of seperation though so this snitch is automatic. However, with the non-standard and confusing phraseology I think there is a good chance no enforcement action of any consequence will come of this though, and the controller will get in trouble too.

 

[Stinger]

No it's something I've heard recently. My guess:
~ Because I'm beyond the usable range of the localizer.
~ Because I don't yet have terrain clearance.

I work with people that say it and I think it's ridiculous.
If you're beyond the range of the localizer, what are you going to intercept/track inbound?
Terrain clearance has nothing to do with intercepting a localizer.

Telling a pilot just to intercept the localizer, doesn't clear them for the approach, they hold altitude until some approach clearance is given.

 

[Roger Roger]

We get clearances like that all the time when ATC is expecting arrival to be reported in time to give us an approach clearance at a reasonable time. However, it's always given in a very specific format with an altitude assigned and a clearance limit. "Turbine suburban cleared to barlo via the ground track of the lda-z runway 8, maintain 7000."
It gets fun when the other aircraft is slower than anticipated and you get held at the faf at 7000....

 

[killbilly]

We get clearances like that all the time when ATC is expecting arrival to be reported in time to give us an approach clearance at a reasonable time. However, it's always given in a very specific format with an altitude assigned and a clearance limit. "Turbine suburban cleared to barlo via the ground track of the lda-z runway 8, maintain 7000."
It gets fun when the other aircraft is slower than anticipated and you get held at the faf at 7000....

So what happens? You get cleared for the approach and start circling down? You fly back to the IAF and do it over?

(I'm going to be asking lots of seemingly dumb questions like this over the next few months.)

 

[digduggy]

We get that all the time in the NY area... to intercept the loc but not cleared... I have heard it and done it so much I thought it was normal...

 

[jtrain609]

You're supposed to cross the fix at 2,800 while inbound on the approach from the reversal. How could the controller expect somebody to do that from 5,000'?

 

[Roger Roger]

So what happens? You get cleared for the approach and start circling down? You fly back to the IAF and do it over?

(I'm going to be asking lots of seemingly dumb questions like this over the next few months.)

Situation dependent. The most extreme case I was at the FAF 3500' above the minimum altitude (which even at minimums is a steeper than normal descent gradient) and ended up flying outbound on the localizer, doing a procedure turn, and coming back. This was in the Navajo IIRC. In other cases though where I've been not as high and further out just pull some power and point the nose down. We have the advantage of really good VNAV capabilities in our avionics (synthetic vision) that make it very easy to visualize if you're going to make a minimum altitude. Also the caravan will come down like a box of hammers, not so the Navajo.

You're supposed to cross the fix at 2,800 while inbound on the approach from the reversal. How could the controller expect somebody to do that from 5,000'?

I haven't looked at the chart, but especially in the flatlands minimum altitudes outside the FAF often put you well below a 3* descent angle.
*edit* ran the numbers and assuming you extend the 3.43* descent inside the FAF out to the PT fix, you'd be looking at 4200' give or take a few. So 5000 is pretty high but not unrealistic in a turboprop if you're ready for it.

 

[jtrain609]

I haven't looked at the chart, but especially in the flatlands minimum altitudes outside the FAF often put you well below a 3* descent angle.
*edit* ran the numbers and assuming you extend the 3.43* descent inside the FAF out to the PT fix, you'd be looking at 4200' give or take a few. So 5000 is pretty high but not unrealistic in a turboprop if you're ready for it.

You might be able to make it work, but it's not a very good way to set yourself up for a stabilized approach. 3.43 degrees wouldn't make that a cake walk in a slick airplane.

 

[Roger Roger]

You might be able to make it work, but it's not a very good way to set yourself up for a stabilized approach. 3.43 degrees wouldn't make that a cake walk in a slick airplane.

Stabilized means constant descent angle and on speed and configuration by 1000', no? If you start your 3.43 descent (which you're going to need inside the FAF anyway to get down to the VDP) 6 miles outside the FAF, doesn't that meet the criteria of a stabilized approach? I agree that it'd be more work in a slick airplane, but jets do 3.4-3.5 degree IAPs pretty regularly and make it work so I'd imagine it's not rocket surgery.

 

[jtrain609]

Stabilized means constant descent angle and on speed and configuration by 1000', no? If you start your 3.43 descent (which you're going to need inside the FAF anyway to get down to the VDP) 6 miles outside the FAF, doesn't that meet the criteria of a stabilized approach? I agree that it'd be more work in a slick airplane, but jets do 3.4-3.5 degree IAPs pretty regularly and make it work so I'd imagine it's not rocket surgery.

While I've never tried it, I'm pretty sure my jet won't do a 5 degree descent angle inside of 1,000' while fully configured. Hell, it'd have a hard time doing that at altitude with the boards all the way out.

Stabilized means on speed, without the speed accelerating, flaps and gear out, and engines spooled up. You can't descend at idle thrust all the way to the runway and still be stable.

 

[Roger Roger]

While I've never tried it, I'm pretty sure my jet won't do a 5 degree descent angle inside of 1,000' while fully configured. Hell, it'd have a hard time doing that at altitude with the boards all the way out.

Stabilized means on speed, without the speed accelerating, flaps and gear out, and engines spooled up. You can't descend at idle thrust all the way to the runway and still be stable.

I believe you, but we're not talking 5*, we're talking 3.4-3.5. Both the 737 and the 757 can do that just fine because that's what the IAPs they fly here are.

 

[jtrain609]

I believe you, but we're not talking 5*, we're talking 3.4-3.5. Both the 737 and the 757 can do that just fine because that's what the IAPs they fly here are.

Sorry, read that as 3-5 degree angles, not 3.5.

 

[Sol Rosenburg]

I get told to "track inbound" all the time when intercepting localizers. Seems pretty standard to me but this cleared PT is a terrible clearance and on a plate that has a 2800 altitude depicted for the hold. New clearance deletes old restrictions for previous clearance unless specifically noted, what happened to that rule? I agree with the 90/10% blame here.

Also there is no barb here, its a rnav with a hold inbound leg already setup for the stepdown, why would you need to turn around with PT anyways?