Hold Altitude or Descend?

dustoff17

Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
Here's the scenario:
This happened to the aircraft right in front of me this last Saturday. The aircraft (let's call them EB) was about 20 miles to the SSW of FOVAB expecting the RNAV 27 approach. Weather is 1800 ovc /3 and numerous aircraft are inbound....so one on the approach and everyone else is holding and waiting for the them to cancel. One in and one out kind of day.....

This is the conversation EB had with Memphis Center (MC):

MC: "EB cleared direct to FOVAB, hold as published, maintain 5,000, EFC 1810"
EB gave read back

When the airplane was a couple of miles from FOVAB when we hear this:
MC: "Cancel holding clearance, crossing FOVAB cleared for the procedure turn"
EB gave read back

KEEP in mind the hold and procedure are one in the same......

MC: "EB I show you at 4,500', where are you going?"
EB: "In the procedure turn descending"
MC: "I have a plane holding at 4,000', return to 5,000'"
EB: hesitation in their voice: "5,000"

within literally 30 seconds, MC says:
MC: EB Cleared for the RNAV 27 approach at Oxford
EB gave read back..

A few seconds later MC told EB to contact MC for possible pilot deviation. EB sounded hesitant but acknowledged.

Thinking about this in flight, I was pretty much on board with what EB did in that situation considering the instructions from MC. I almost asked for MC's number as well but thought it best to stay out of it.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Airport code is KUOX
 
Last edited:
I would have never red back "Cleared for the procedure turn"

What the hell does that mean? Either give me a clearance limit, clear me for the approach, or assign a hold.

I, personally, would have asked for clearer instructions....but that's just me.
 
One thing that was told to me early on was that you do what is expected. If ATC last told me to maintain 5,000ft I'd maintain 5,000ft until told another altitude or given a clearance that allowed for lower.

In this case it doesn't seem like anyone was hurt and no metal bent, so file a NASA and a few parties will win on this as a learning experience. The pilot will learn a little bit about altitudes and clearances, and the controller about the importance of using standard phraseology (unless cleared for the procedure turn is actually something)
 
Had a similar thing happen to me. Flying into Astoria (KAST) we got cleared to start our approach. We start our decent down to 4500 for the approach and Seattle comes on and starts sternly telling me he did not approve my descent. Then asks me do I understand why? Didn't want to argue with the guy that he had cleared us for the approach so I said yes. He left it alone and a few minutes later approved us to continue to descend down to 4500. Didn't ask us to copy a number or anything. Kinda mountainous terrain that can affect radar in the area so who knows what was going on.
 
I think the controller was trying to convey that there would be no delay. If it went down this way, the phraseology was definitely non-standard. If I were on the pilot's side of the mic I would ask for clarification. If it were me I would have used the phraseology "no delay expected." The gotcha for the pilot is that once cleared into a hold, that is your clearance limit. I don't interpret being cleared for a procedure turn as being a clearance beyond the holding fix.
 
I'd hang this one on the controller for 90% of it and the pilot for 10% for accepting a strange clearance without questioning it.
 
Very poor instructions from ATC but the aircraft was NOT cleared for approach and there for should not descend. This is very much like; Fly heading xxx intercept the localizer and track inbound.

When I was an ATC'er few controllers understood the difference between a Procedure Turn and a Holding Pattern.

If I wanted to let the pilot know there would be no delay I'd use expect approach clearance turning inbound.
 
I too was on the pilot's side initially (confirmation bias?) But you guys bring up a good point. He/She was not cleared for the approach so nothing the controller said should be interpreted as a clearance to descend. I learned something today, now I'm going to take a nap.
 
Very poor instructions from ATC but the aircraft was NOT cleared for approach and there for should not descend. This is very much like; Fly heading xxx intercept the localizer and track inbound.

When I was an ATC'er few controllers understood the difference between a Procedure Turn and a Holding Pattern.

If I wanted to let the pilot know there would be no delay I'd use expect approach clearance turning inbound.

Maybe that's a thing of the past, "intercept the localizer, track inbound," but it makes no sense to me telling someone to track inbound. If they intercept the localizer, what else are they going to do? It's like telling a pilot to "join your airway, track outbound." Just extra words that do nothing.

For the OP, it's a pretty vague clearance ATC gave you. He didn't tell you to descend on the approach, but I would have questioned what he wanted. I would have done it something like: "Expect your approach clearance when you turn inbound, but for now maintain 5,000."
 
I had to read the story a couple of times. At first my thoughts were he was cleared for the approach, what's the big deal? Then I realized he was just cleared for the procedure turn (what ever the heck that means) as others have pointed out.

My point is, with that particular language my mind went instantly to the approach and I saw that as cleared for the approach. If I had to guess, that is what the pilot did as well. I would like to think I am sharp enough to realize that "cleared for the procedure turn" makes no damn sense and would question it...but the reality, for all of us, is when the controller cancelled the hold and then come on with "cleared for the..." it's not that big of a leap to assume the word "approach" is coming next. It's easy to go ahead and hear what you expect to hear.

All and all...ASAP and forget. Learning experience for everyone.
 
Ole Miss game day.

It's a cluster going in there when it's clear and a million let alone crappy Wx. Hate flying in there on game days.

Pilot should have asked for clarification. I would not have descended unless I asked first. Very vague clearance. Not surprising though.
 
I had to read the story a couple of times. At first my thoughts were he was cleared for the approach, what's the big deal? Then I realized he was just cleared for the procedure turn (what ever the heck that means) as others have pointed out.

My point is, with that particular language my mind went instantly to the approach and I saw that as cleared for the approach. If I had to guess, that is what the pilot did as well. I would like to think I am sharp enough to realize that "cleared for the procedure turn" makes no damn sense and would question it...but the reality, for all of us, is when the controller cancelled the hold and then come on with "cleared for the..." it's not that big of a leap to assume the word "approach" is coming next. It's easy to go ahead and hear what you expect to hear.

All and all...ASAP and forget. Learning experience for everyone.
This was my initial thought as well and I discussed it with our other pilot yesterday. My first thought was that the altitude assignment was part of the hold limit. ATC cancelled the hold and assigned the procedure turn (which is depicted at 2,800 feet both inbound and outbound). As the hold is the same as the PT from the SSW, I thought that the pilot was good to go for what he did. Also, I was thinking that since there was another plane ON the approach, ATC couldn't have cleared him for the approach just yet. A descent to the approach altitude at that point made sense in my head.

You guys have brought up very good points. I appreciate the input...this is a good learning exercise for me. I'll definitely ask for a LOT more clarity if I get something similar.
 
It was poor phraseology on the part of the controller no matter which way you cut it. If the aircraft isn't cleared for the approach, leave the aircraft in holding until he can be cleared for the approach and then clear him using standard phraseology. As another controller recently said in another thread, a controller should strive to not put a pilot into a position where a deviation could occur. This controller led the pilot right down the garden path, even if the pilot was willing to be led. While both may be at fault, in my opion the controller should bear the brunt of it.
 
After reading this thread first before looking at the plate, I forgot it was an RNAV approach and figure it had a barb. Since there is a hold, why cancel the hold clearance and sub that "cleared for the PT?" I don't get the intent of the controller.
 
Beats me what she wanted (shakes head), must be one of those new college trained controllers or worse some dumb ass supervisor! Oh well FFA keep dumbing down the career field.
 
Maybe that's a thing of the past, "intercept the localizer, track inbound," but it makes no sense to me telling someone to track inbound. If they intercept the localizer, what else are they going to do? ."
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 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.
 
Back
Top