I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
runway 27 at HGR the other day.

Here is a plate:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF

I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?

Anyone?

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> runway 27 at HGR the other day.
>
> Here is a plate:
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
>
> I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
>
> Anyone?
>
>
Assuming you were established on the localizer and were receiving vectors
to final, at 17 nm out you were 10 nm from NOLIN and you can descend to
4000.

In article >,
"Chris Brooks" > wrote:

> I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> runway 27 at HGR the other day.
>
> Here is a plate:
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
>
> I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
>
> Anyone?

When you're established on a segment of the approach. How were you
navigating? Direct HGR, I'm guessing, in which case notice the "4000 to
Haigs Int" note on the plate. Cross HGR at 5000, descent to 4000
tracking the 089 radial outbound, do the PT at 4000 outside of Haigs,
then step down to 2900 at Haigs inbound.

Chris Brooks wrote:

> I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> runway 27 at HGR the other day.
>
> Here is a plate:
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
>
> I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
>
> Anyone?

At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach. ATC was
required to give you an altitude to maintain and which to cross HAIGS. A
proper clearance would have been "X miles from HAIGS. Cross HAIGS at, or
above, 4,000, cleared for the ILS Runway 27 approach." The word "established"
is inappropriate in this instance. If you did not receive such a clearance
you were obligated to maintain 5,000 and question the clearance because 5,000
is not a reasonable altitude to cross HAIGS.

REF: ATC Handbook 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-8-1 b.2., Example for Aircraft 2 under
that subparagraph.

And, if you were vectored to the localizer that far out, then Paragraph 5-9-4
2. would apply, which is the radar arrival equivalent of the first cite;
specifically the Example Aircraft 4 under that subparagraph.

This section of approach clearances has often been misapplied and was the
subject of an Air Traffic Bulletin about three years ago.

Stan Prevost wrote:

> "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> > runway 27 at HGR the other day.
> >
> > Here is a plate:
> > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
> >
> > I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> > My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
> >
> > Anyone?
> >
> >
> Assuming you were established on the localizer and were receiving vectors
> to final, at 17 nm out you were 10 nm from NOLIN and you can descend to
> 4000.

How do you come up with that?

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> "Chris Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> > runway 27 at HGR the other day.
> >
> > Here is a plate:
> > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
> >
> > I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> > My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
> >
> > Anyone?
>
> When you're established on a segment of the approach. How were you
> navigating? Direct HGR, I'm guessing, in which case notice the "4000 to
> Haigs Int" note on the plate. Cross HGR at 5000, descent to 4000
> tracking the 089 radial outbound, do the PT at 4000 outside of Haigs,
> then step down to 2900 at Haigs inbound.

His information is incomplete, but it sounds like a straight-in on an
unpublished extension of the LOC to me, based on "I was about 17 miles out..."

When does a published part of the approach begin? At HAIGS? Can you be
considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?

Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to
descend to 4,000 feet?

Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down to
the altitude that is on the chart.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Chris Brooks wrote:
>
> > I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> > runway 27 at HGR the other day.
> >
> > Here is a plate:
> > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
> >
> > I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the
approach.
> > My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
> >
> > Anyone?
>
> At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach. ATC
was
> required to give you an altitude to maintain and which to cross HAIGS. A
> proper clearance would have been "X miles from HAIGS. Cross HAIGS at, or
> above, 4,000, cleared for the ILS Runway 27 approach." The word
"established"
> is inappropriate in this instance. If you did not receive such a
clearance
> you were obligated to maintain 5,000 and question the clearance because
5,000
> is not a reasonable altitude to cross HAIGS.
>
> REF: ATC Handbook 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-8-1 b.2., Example for Aircraft 2
under
> that subparagraph.
>
> And, if you were vectored to the localizer that far out, then Paragraph
5-9-4
> 2. would apply, which is the radar arrival equivalent of the first cite;
> specifically the Example Aircraft 4 under that subparagraph.
>
> This section of approach clearances has often been misapplied and was the
> subject of an Air Traffic Bulletin about three years ago.
>
>

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> > "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach
to
> > > runway 27 at HGR the other day.
> > >
> > > Here is a plate:
> > > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
> > >
> > > I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the
approach.
> > > My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
> > >
> > > Anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > Assuming you were established on the localizer and were receiving
vectors
> > to final, at 17 nm out you were 10 nm from NOLIN and you can descend to
> > 4000.
>
> How do you come up with that?
>

On the procedure track and in the PT area, within the 10 nm circle, there is
protected airspace at 4000. I don't know what is outside that. If he was
getting VTF, he should have been given an altitude restriction until
established, but he didn't tell us that part. Roy answered the full
procedure case.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Chris Brooks wrote:
>
> > I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> > runway 27 at HGR the other day.
> >
> > Here is a plate:
> > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
> >
> > I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the
approach.
> > My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
> >
> > Anyone?
>
> At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach.

If you're vectored onto the approach course and cleared for the approach,
how close to the FAF do you have to be to consider yourself on a published
part of the course and thus permitted to descend to the charted intercept
altitude?

--Gary

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...

We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the
controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then it
doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain
VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow the
regs as if you were IFR.


> When does a published part of the approach begin?

On any thick black line.


At HAIGS?

Sure.

Can you be
> considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?

While doing the procedure turn.



>
> Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence
to
> descend to 4,000 feet?

Yes.


>
> Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down to
> the altitude that is on the chart.

Were you IFR at the time? If you were VFR then the controller does not ever
have to mention an altitude.

I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.

> >
> > Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence
> to
> > descend to 4,000 feet?
>
> Yes.

Can you provide a reference for that fact? So if that is the case, when can
the descent be initiated? Pilots discretion?



"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the
> controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then
it
> doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain
> VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow
the
> regs as if you were IFR.
>
>
> > When does a published part of the approach begin?
>
> On any thick black line.
>
>
> At HAIGS?
>
> Sure.
>
> Can you be
> > considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?
>
> While doing the procedure turn.
>
>
>
> >
> > Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence
> to
> > descend to 4,000 feet?
>
> Yes.
>
>
> >
> > Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down
to
> > the altitude that is on the chart.
>
> Were you IFR at the time? If you were VFR then the controller does not
ever
> have to mention an altitude.
>
>

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> > > Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a
clearence
> > to
> > > descend to 4,000 feet?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Can you provide a reference for that fact?

What's the alternative? What else could you do? That clearance is
essentially a pilots discretion descent. All you gotta do is make the
crossing restriction which in this case is an at or above altitude. Most
pilots in this situation would just stay at your previous altitude until
intercepting the glideslope, then follow it down.


So if that is the case, when can
> the descent be initiated?

Right now if you want.

Pilots discretion?

Yes.

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> runway 27 at HGR the other day.
>
> Here is a plate:
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
>
> I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
>
> Anyone?
>

What was your previous clearance?

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
> 5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.
>

You can descend to 4000 immediately.

"Newps" > wrote:
> We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the
> controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then it
> doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain
> VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow the
> regs as if you were IFR.

From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's
a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life,
the less effective the training is.

One thing I see fairly often is controllers not assigning altitudes on
VFR practice approaches. You end up with one of two scenarios, neither
of which is very useful:

1) You stay high until you're so far above the charted descent profile
that you can't possibly make it down in time.

2) You ask the controller for lower and get back, "altitude your
descretion, maintain VFR". A not so sharp student might start to think
that the altitude is ALWAYS his discretion in a situation like this.

In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high you
should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight.

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> "Newps" > wrote:
>> We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what
>> did the controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches
>> while VFR then it doesn't matter what he said because the last thing
>> he'll say is maintain VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for
>> the controller to follow the regs as if you were IFR.
>
> From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
> controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones.
> It's a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real
> life, the less effective the training is.
>
> One thing I see fairly often is controllers not assigning altitudes on
> VFR practice approaches. You end up with one of two scenarios,
> neither of which is very useful:
>
> 1) You stay high until you're so far above the charted descent profile
> that you can't possibly make it down in time.
>
> 2) You ask the controller for lower and get back, "altitude your
> descretion, maintain VFR". A not so sharp student might start to
> think that the altitude is ALWAYS his discretion in a situation like
> this.
>
> In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high
> you should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight.



Every region must have different operating pratices because around here
VFR and IFR approaches are treated almost exactly the same except for the
phrase "maintain VFR".

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
> controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's
> a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life,
> the less effective the training is.

I can understand that from the trainees point of view, but alas it isn't
that way.
>
> In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high you
> should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight.

Yep.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
>
> Every region must have different operating pratices because around here
> VFR and IFR approaches are treated almost exactly the same except for the
> phrase "maintain VFR".
>

I would say it is facility by facility. Regions don't interpret the .65.
Some facilities place stricter standards on their controllers. We do that
to the tower controller.

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would
> prefer that controllers treat VFR practice approaches
> *exactly* like IFR ones. It's a training exercise; the
> more things you do differently from real life, the less
> effective the training is.

If you want it treated *exactly* like IFR, then file IFR.
Controllers don't know if you're an instructor training a
student, or just playing around, or what if you're VFR. If
you're IFR, then they have to do everything by the IFR book,
regardless of the weather. Do you feel that filing and flying
IFR is really that difficult, or restrictive, when teaching?

--
Regards,

Stan

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:06:02 GMT, "Gary Drescher" >
wrote:

>If you're vectored onto the approach course and cleared for the approach,
>how close to the FAF do you have to be to consider yourself on a published
>part of the course and thus permitted to descend to the charted intercept
>altitude?

There are several issues here. But they are pretty well covered, in my
opinion, in the AIM.

In the instance of being vectored onto the final approach course by ATC,
ATC should clear you for the approach only after you are established; or
give you an altitude to maintain until established.

If you are receiving vectors to final, (and ATC has certain requirements at
their end in order to allow that), then you can descend when you are
established (an admittedly somewhat fuzzy term, but I would interpret it as
not more than 1/2 scale deflection and moving to center) on the localizer.

If you are just receiving vectors on a random route, then you cannot
descend until you are on a "hard, black line". However, in the situation
being discussed, if it is not the specific "radar vectors to final" or a
radar approach, then the AIM states that: "For this purpose, the procedure
turn of a published IAP shall *NOT* be considered a segment of that IAP
until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon
which the procedure turn is predicated."

In the latter case, ATC's clearance should be to maintain a certain
altitude until reaching that fix. If it is not worded that way, you must
maintain the last assigned altitude until reaching (but I would clarify
with ATC if I had any questions).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:20:40 -0400, "Chris Brooks"
> wrote:

>When does a published part of the approach begin? At HAIGS?

Yes.

>Can you be considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?
>

For the purposes of altitude, only if you are receiving "vectors to final"


>Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to
>descend to 4,000 feet?

Yes.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> ...the AIM states that: "For this purpose, the procedure
> turn of a published IAP shall *NOT* be considered a segment of that IAP
> until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon
> which the procedure turn is predicated."

Ah, that's the key rule here. Thanks for the reminder!

--Gary

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> If you are just receiving vectors on a random route, then you cannot
> descend until you are on a "hard, black line". However, in the situation
> being discussed, if it is not the specific "radar vectors to final" or a
> radar approach, then the AIM states that: "For this purpose, the procedure
> turn of a published IAP shall *NOT* be considered a segment of that IAP
> until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon
> which the procedure turn is predicated."

There's still something that's confusing me. Immediately prior to the
sentence you quote (5-4-7b), the AIM says "for aircraft operating on
unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when
conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the
aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign
an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a
published route or instrument approach procedure".

If you're being radar vectored and you're then issued an IFR approach
clearance, doesn't that constitute a radar approach? If so, what does it
mean in that situation to say "except when conducting a radar approach"? And
doesn't the requirement for an altitude-until-established (if you're not
already on a published segment) apply during a radar approach? So why the
"exception"?

The example that the AIM then cites exacerbates the confusion. The clearance
is "maintain 2000 until established >on the localizer<", but the subsequent
note suggests that the interim altitude is to be maintained until
established on a published segment, not just on the localizer.

--Gary

This is addressed in procedures written after an airline crash in
Virginia of a flight inbound to Dulles in the 1970's (?)
The cause leading up to the crash and procedures developed afterward
are a case study in when you can descend.
It has been studied and written up in many aviation periodicals in the
last 30 years.

In article >,
Stan Gosnell <me@work> wrote:

> If you want it treated *exactly* like IFR, then file IFR.
> Controllers don't know if you're an instructor training a
> student, or just playing around, or what if you're VFR. If
> you're IFR, then they have to do everything by the IFR book,
> regardless of the weather. Do you feel that filing and flying
> IFR is really that difficult, or restrictive, when teaching?

Sometimes the convenience or flexibility of VFR is useful. But, I see
your point. I get to pick the rules, but once I've done that, I need to
play by them; fair enough. All things considered, that's not bad. It's
not often you get to pick the rules :-)

Stan Prevost wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Stan Prevost wrote:
> >
> > > "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach
> to
> > > > runway 27 at HGR the other day.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a plate:
> > > > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
> > > >
> > > > I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the
> approach.
> > > > My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
> > > >
> > > > Anyone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Assuming you were established on the localizer and were receiving
> vectors
> > > to final, at 17 nm out you were 10 nm from NOLIN and you can descend to
> > > 4000.
> >
> > How do you come up with that?
> >
>
> On the procedure track and in the PT area, within the 10 nm circle, there is
> protected airspace at 4000. I don't know what is outside that. If he was
> getting VTF, he should have been given an altitude restriction until
> established, but he didn't tell us that part. Roy answered the full
> procedure case.

But, it's not a procedure turn, it's a hold-in-lieu of. Where does the
protected airspace begin for a HIL?

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:AYeAc.106416$3x.41993@attbi_s54...
>
> There's still something that's confusing me. Immediately prior to the
> sentence you quote (5-4-7b), the AIM says "for aircraft operating on
> unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when
> conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after
the
> aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or
assign
> an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of
a
> published route or instrument approach procedure".
>
> If you're being radar vectored and you're then issued an IFR approach
> clearance, doesn't that constitute a radar approach? If so, what does it
> mean in that situation to say "except when conducting a radar approach"?

Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
PAR. It's in the AIM but don't have the reference.

Chris Brooks wrote:

> When does a published part of the approach begin? At HAIGS? Can you be
> considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?
>

No.

>
> Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to
> descend to 4,000 feet?

Yes. But, if you have an iota of doubt you request clarification.

>
>
> Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down to
> the altitude that is on the chart.
>

That's what they're supposed to do.

>
> > wrote in message ...
> >

Newps wrote:

> "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the
> controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then it
> doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain
> VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow the
> regs as if you were IFR.

He stated he was "cleared for the ILS approach." Perhaps he was issued a VFR
restriction, but absent his having added the qualifier the discussion is more
meaningful assuming IFR. This isn't an inquistion. ;-)

>
>
> > When does a published part of the approach begin?
>
> On any thick black line.
>
> At HAIGS?
>
> Sure.
>
> Can you be
> > considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?
>
> While doing the procedure turn.

In the case, the hold in lieu course reversal. ;-)

>
>
> >
> > Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence
> to
> > descend to 4,000 feet?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down to
> > the altitude that is on the chart.
>
> Were you IFR at the time? If you were VFR then the controller does not ever
> have to mention an altitude.

Chris Brooks wrote:

> I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
> 5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.
>
> > >
> > > Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence
> > to
> > > descend to 4,000 feet?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Can you provide a reference for that fact? So if that is the case, when can
> the descent be initiated? Pilots discretion?
>

Did you read the ATC Handbook references I provided to you? The current ATC
Handbook is on the FAA's web site:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/index.htm

> wrote in message ...
>
> That's what they're supposed to do.
>

What do you base that on?

Stan Gosnell wrote:

>
> If you want it treated *exactly* like IFR, then file IFR.
> Controllers don't know if you're an instructor training a
> student, or just playing around, or what if you're VFR. If
> you're IFR, then they have to do everything by the IFR book,
> regardless of the weather. Do you feel that filing and flying
> IFR is really that difficult, or restrictive, when teaching?

When I used to be a CFI-I (gad, I glad those days are behind me ;-) we
never, ever requested a VFR restriction during training. If, sometimes,
the controller would issue one we would request an IFR clearance. And,
in my early days at the airline, when we had to take 6-month checks in
the aircraft, company policy was IFR, period. But, some check pilots
would violate that policy to expedite things. Scud running in a 727 at
5:00 AM over the hills southeast of KONT isn't a whole lot of fun.

Gary Drescher wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Chris Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> > > runway 27 at HGR the other day.
> > >
> > > Here is a plate:
> > > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
> > >
> > > I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the
> approach.
> > > My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
> > >
> > > Anyone?
> >
> > At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach.
>
> If you're vectored onto the approach course and cleared for the approach,
> how close to the FAF do you have to be to consider yourself on a published
> part of the course and thus permitted to descend to the charted intercept
> altitude?
>
> --Gary

The controller is not suppose to issue an "until established" clearance unless
the vector is onto a published segment of the approach. In this case the
controller would issue a crossing restriction at HAIGS, which you are free to
descend to upon receipt of the clearance. If, however, you feel uncomfortable
with that, seek clarification! It is a dual responsibility to stay out of the
rocks and weeds.

EDR wrote:

> This is addressed in procedures written after an airline crash in
> Virginia of a flight inbound to Dulles in the 1970's (?)

TWA 514, December 1, 1974.

>
> The cause leading up to the crash and procedures developed afterward
> are a case study in when you can descend.
> It has been studied and written up in many aviation periodicals in the
> last 30 years.

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you are just receiving vectors on a random route, then you cannot
> > descend until you are on a "hard, black line". However, in the situation
> > being discussed, if it is not the specific "radar vectors to final" or a
> > radar approach, then the AIM states that: "For this purpose, the procedure
> > turn of a published IAP shall *NOT* be considered a segment of that IAP
> > until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon
> > which the procedure turn is predicated."
>
> There's still something that's confusing me. Immediately prior to the
> sentence you quote (5-4-7b), the AIM says "for aircraft operating on
> unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when
> conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the
> aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign
> an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a
> published route or instrument approach procedure".
>
> If you're being radar vectored and you're then issued an IFR approach
> clearance, doesn't that constitute a radar approach? If so, what does it
> mean in that situation to say "except when conducting a radar approach"? And
> doesn't the requirement for an altitude-until-established (if you're not
> already on a published segment) apply during a radar approach? So why the
> "exception"?

A radar approach is an ASR or PAR approach. A vector onto a non-radar approach
(all other approaches) is a vector that replaces a non-radar intitial approach
segment. Or, if you're vectored onto a segment prior to the final approach
course, it's a vector to replace an airway or a feeder route.

>
>
> The example that the AIM then cites exacerbates the confusion. The clearance
> is "maintain 2000 until established >on the localizer<", but the subsequent
> note suggests that the interim altitude is to be maintained until
> established on a published segment, not just on the localizer.
>
> --Gary

I don't think that 10nm circle is a 4000-foot-protected area. The 4000 feet
refers to the hold in lieu of a PT, and there's no distance specified for it
except for the "one minute" which really can't be interpreted as a distance
within which you can descend to 4000 feet. I'd say the only way to properly
descend on the LOC 17 NM out is to intercept the GS and follow it down.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> On the procedure track and in the PT area, within the 10 nm circle, there
is
> protected airspace at 4000. I don't know what is outside that. If he was
> getting VTF, he should have been given an altitude restriction until
> established, but he didn't tell us that part. Roy answered the full
> procedure case.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > That's what they're supposed to do.
> >
>
> What do you base that on?

5-9-1 requirement to issue an altitude compatible with an NPA or an altitude
below the G/S for a PA.

"b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart.
c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent in
accordance with the published procedure."

Even if he was vectored onto "final" 50 miles out, 5-9-4 leads to 5-9-1.
This stuff is written to make the IAP flyable, not to provide loopholes for
controllers. ;-)

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:AYeAc.106416$3x.41993@attbi_s54...
>
>
> Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
> approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
> PAR. It's in the AIM but don't have the reference.

It's also a fundamental part of being qualified to hold an instrument rating.



Maule Driver wrote:

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
> approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
> PAR.

D'oh. Ok.

> wrote in message ...
>
> At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach. ATC
was
> required to give you an altitude to maintain and which to cross HAIGS. A
> proper clearance would have been "X miles from HAIGS. Cross HAIGS at, or
> above, 4,000, cleared for the ILS Runway 27 approach." The word
"established"
> is inappropriate in this instance. If you did not receive such a
clearance
> you were obligated to maintain 5,000 and question the clearance because
5,000
> is not a reasonable altitude to cross HAIGS.
>
> REF: ATC Handbook 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-8-1 b.2., Example for Aircraft 2
under
> that subparagraph.
>

That example is of an unpublished direct route. At the time he was cleared
for the approach he was on a published route.

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
> 5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.
>

In that case, you can descend to 4000 immediately. But why descend to 4000
at all? At the time you were cleared for the approach you were about 900
feet below the glideslope.

> wrote in message ...
>
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > news:AYeAc.106416$3x.41993@attbi_s54...
> >
> >
> > Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
> > approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
> > PAR. It's in the AIM but don't have the reference.
>
> It's also a fundamental part of being qualified to hold an instrument
rating.

Yup, well, I'm certainly aware of ASR and PAR approaches, though I'd
momentarily forgotten that they're what the term 'radar approach' refers to,
in contrast with 'radar vectors to an approach'. Now that my embarrassing
lapse is remedied, I hope my qualifications are restored.

Meanwhile, I'm still not certain I understand the example in AIM 5-4-7b.
When the specified clearance is to "maintain 2000 until established on the
localizer" (after being vectored to and cleared for the ILS approach), does
the clearance actually mean not just until established on the localizer, but
also "until established on a published segment" of the approach? That
interpretation is suggested by the preceding caveats and the subsequent note
in 5-4-7b. But if that's right, the phrasing of the clearance is confusing.

--Gary

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
> controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's
> a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life,
> the less effective the training is.
>

So do your training under IFR.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes.
>

So when you turn inbound on the hold you're not on a published part of the
approach?


>
> For the purposes of altitude, only if you are receiving "vectors to final"
>

Which he was in this case.

> wrote in message ...
>
> 5-9-1 requirement to issue an altitude compatible with an NPA or an
> altitude below the G/S for a PA.
>
> "b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
> glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
> specified on the approach procedure chart.
> c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent
> in accordance with the published procedure."
>

That's swell, but you said controllers were supposed to step down to the
altitude shown on the chart. Where is that requirement?


>
> Even if he was vectored onto "final" 50 miles out, 5-9-4 leads to 5-9-1.
> This stuff is written to make the IAP flyable, not to provide loopholes
> for controllers. ;-)
>

I think you'll find that 5-9-4 follows 5-9-1.

Because I could descend to 4000 fast and then get slowed down.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
> > 5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.
> >
>
> In that case, you can descend to 4000 immediately. But why descend to
4000
> at all? At the time you were cleared for the approach you were about 900
> feet below the glideslope.
>
>

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because I could descend to 4000 fast and then get slowed down.
>

Why do you want to do that?

Because it would be much harder to get slowed down going down the
glideslope, trying to get below gear speed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Because I could descend to 4000 fast and then get slowed down.
> >
>
> Why do you want to do that?
>
>

"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because it would be much harder to get slowed down going down the
> glideslope, trying to get below gear speed.
>

Well, why is that necessarily harder? Why do you want to go so slow so far
out? Even if you do, why is it harder to slow down at 5000 than it is at
4000?

At 5000 I was going to intercept the GS very shortly. I was going too fast
to put the gear down. Instead of incercepting the glideslope at 5,000 and
following it down 700 feet a minute where it would be very difficult to get
under gear speed, you can haul down to 4,000 feet (at 1000 - 1500fpm), then
start slowing down. Then when you hit HAIGS, you step down to the next fix
and then configure the airplane for GS intercept.

It was in a C402 which can be difficult to slow down, without shock cooling
the engines. if you intercept the glideslope high, it would be tough to get
within gear speed without bringing the engines way back (shock cooling).

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Because it would be much harder to get slowed down going down the
> > glideslope, trying to get below gear speed.
> >
>
> Well, why is that necessarily harder? Why do you want to go so slow so
far
> out? Even if you do, why is it harder to slow down at 5000 than it is at
> 4000?
>
>

Mick Ruthven wrote:

> I don't think that 10nm circle is a 4000-foot-protected area. The 4000 feet
> refers to the hold in lieu of a PT, and there's no distance specified for it
> except for the "one minute" which really can't be interpreted as a distance
> within which you can descend to 4000 feet. I'd say the only way to properly
> descend on the LOC 17 NM out is to intercept the GS and follow it down.

That will usually work, but it technically is not legal. The G/S is merely an
additional nav aid until the PFAF. At LAX there have been enforcement
violations for air carriers following the G/S prior to the PFAF. On a really
hot day, the airspace below rises sufficiently that TRACON airspace for the
Ontario area gets compromised unless the DME fixes and baro altitudes are used.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > 5-9-1 requirement to issue an altitude compatible with an NPA or an
> > altitude below the G/S for a PA.
> >
> > "b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
> > glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
> > specified on the approach procedure chart.
> > c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent
> > in accordance with the published procedure."
> >
>
> That's swell, but you said controllers were supposed to step down to the
> altitude shown on the chart. Where is that requirement?

I guess it depends on the definition of "is."~

>
>
> >
> > Even if he was vectored onto "final" 50 miles out, 5-9-4 leads to 5-9-1.
> > This stuff is written to make the IAP flyable, not to provide loopholes
> > for controllers. ;-)
> >
>
> I think you'll find that 5-9-4 follows 5-9-1.

Great observation! Also, there is the issue of context:

5-9-4 Arrival Instructions
Issue all of the following to an aircraft before it reaches the approach gate:

"Approach gate" sorta ties 5-9-4 to 5-9-1.

Gary Drescher wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > > news:AYeAc.106416$3x.41993@attbi_s54...
> > >
> > >
> > > Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
> > > approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
> > > PAR. It's in the AIM but don't have the reference.
> >
> > It's also a fundamental part of being qualified to hold an instrument
> rating.
>
> Yup, well, I'm certainly aware of ASR and PAR approaches, though I'd
> momentarily forgotten that they're what the term 'radar approach' refers to,
> in contrast with 'radar vectors to an approach'. Now that my embarrassing
> lapse is remedied, I hope my qualifications are restored.

It has been restored. ;-)

>
>
> Meanwhile, I'm still not certain I understand the example in AIM 5-4-7b.
> When the specified clearance is to "maintain 2000 until established on the
> localizer" (after being vectored to and cleared for the ILS approach), does
> the clearance actually mean not just until established on the localizer, but
> also "until established on a published segment" of the approach? That
> interpretation is suggested by the preceding caveats and the subsequent note
> in 5-4-7b. But if that's right, the phrasing of the clearance is confusing.
>

You got it right. "Established" is suppose to be used by ATC only in
conjunction with a published segment. If they vector you onto an unpublished
extension of the LOC, they are then obligated to either withhold approach
clearance until you reach a published segment, or issue the approach clearance
with a crossing restriction for a fix where you reach the published segment.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach. ATC
> was
> > required to give you an altitude to maintain and which to cross HAIGS. A
> > proper clearance would have been "X miles from HAIGS. Cross HAIGS at, or
> > above, 4,000, cleared for the ILS Runway 27 approach." The word
> "established"
> > is inappropriate in this instance. If you did not receive such a
> clearance
> > you were obligated to maintain 5,000 and question the clearance because
> 5,000
> > is not a reasonable altitude to cross HAIGS.
> >
> > REF: ATC Handbook 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-8-1 b.2., Example for Aircraft 2
> under
> > that subparagraph.
> >
>
> That example is of an unpublished direct route. At the time he was cleared
> for the approach he was on a published route.

I read he was 17 miles out. How do you conclude that is a published route?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:36:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>So when you turn inbound on the hold you're not on a published part of the
>approach?

Of course you are. What sort of question is that?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:08:16 GMT, "Gary Drescher" >
wrote:

>If you're being radar vectored and you're then issued an IFR approach
>clearance, doesn't that constitute a radar approach?

No it does not.

This is all in the AIM. Look under "Radar Approaches" (5-4-10).




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

wrote in :

> When I used to be a CFI-I (gad, I glad those days are behind me ;-) we
> never, ever requested a VFR restriction during training. If, sometimes,
> the controller would issue one we would request an IFR clearance. And,
> in my early days at the airline, when we had to take 6-month checks in
> the aircraft, company policy was IFR, period. But, some check pilots
> would violate that policy to expedite things. Scud running in a 727 at
> 5:00 AM over the hills southeast of KONT isn't a whole lot of fun.

We normally file IFR for our 6-month checkrides. We used to for the annual
recurrent, but that's done in the sim now. Some checkpilots don't want to
file, and I don't argue with them either way. That's not a smart way to
start a ride........

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"Newps" > wrote:
>>
>>>We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what
>>>did the controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches
>>>while VFR then it doesn't matter what he said because the last thing
>>>he'll say is maintain VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for
>>>the controller to follow the regs as if you were IFR.
>>
>>From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
>>controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones.
>>It's a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real
>>life, the less effective the training is.
>>
>>One thing I see fairly often is controllers not assigning altitudes on
>>VFR practice approaches. You end up with one of two scenarios,
>>neither of which is very useful:
>>
>>1) You stay high until you're so far above the charted descent profile
>>that you can't possibly make it down in time.
>>
>>2) You ask the controller for lower and get back, "altitude your
>>descretion, maintain VFR". A not so sharp student might start to
>>think that the altitude is ALWAYS his discretion in a situation like
>>this.
>>
>>In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high
>>you should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight.
>
>
>
>
> Every region must have different operating pratices because around here
> VFR and IFR approaches are treated almost exactly the same except for the
> phrase "maintain VFR".
>

That has been my experience flying practice approaches at ELM, BGM and
ITH. Typically, I'm given the "maintain xxxx until established, cleared
Rxx yyy approach, maintain VFR." I agree that this is very good from a
training perspective. Training is meant to simulate reality as much as
possible and this helps do that.


Matt

The 10 mile circle isn't protected airspace. It means that the features
within in are drawn to scale.

Iain

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
>
> On the procedure track and in the PT area, within the 10 nm circle, there
is
> protected airspace at 4000. I don't know what is outside that. If he was
> getting VTF, he should have been given an altitude restriction until
> established, but he didn't tell us that part. Roy answered the full
> procedure case.
>
>
>

Matt Whiting ) wrote:

> That has been my experience flying practice approaches at ELM, BGM and
> ITH.

Matt, at what airport are you based? I am out of Syracuse and I like to
fly a lot of my practice IFR flights into those airports you listed.

--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

what was your exact instructions from the tower, its usually something like
cherokee xxx cleared for the LOC runways 27, maintain 5000 untill established
on the LOC

if you were told to maintain a altitude untill established, then as soon as
you were established on the LOC you could decend per your glideslope needle.

are you doing your training alone or with an instructor? I would suggest doing
most of this training with an instructor so that you pass your check ride.


Chris Brooks wrote:

> I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> runway 27 at HGR the other day.
>
> Here is a plate:
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
>
> I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
>
> Anyone?

At 17 miles point, he's not on a published portion of the approach,
since he's not doing the hold-in-lieu of PT. He should have received a
crossing restriction until HAIGS, since the vector did not place him on
the localizer within the published portion of the approach.
Approach could have provided a radar initial and cleared him to 4000
until HAIGS, but without that clearance, he's stuck at the last assigned
altitude until reaching HAIGS. At that point he can descend to 4000 if
he needs a course reversal, or 2900 if he continues straight-in.
I'm sure 4000 is fine at that point, because that's what the
hold-in-lieu uses, but from a procedural (TERPS and ATC) standpoint the
only "straight-in" procedure track at 17 miles is a radar initial from
ATC, and that altitude needs to be specified by ATC. The pilot could
even have been cleared to 2900 if it met the radar MVAC, but either way,
ATC has to provide the altitude to the pilot outside HAIGS.

JPH

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
>>5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.
>>
>
>
> In that case, you can descend to 4000 immediately. But why descend to 4000
> at all? At the time you were cleared for the approach you were about 900
> feet below the glideslope.
>
>

Jeff wrote:

> what was your exact instructions from the tower, its usually something like
> cherokee xxx cleared for the LOC runways 27, maintain 5000 untill established
> on the LOC
>
> if you were told to maintain a altitude untill established, then as soon as
> you were established on the LOC you could decend per your glideslope needle.
>

The word "established" is to be used only when you're vectored onto a published
route or segment of an approach. In this case, 17 miles out, it would be an
altitude restriction until *crossing* the first published fix.

Thanks, that is a good reply.

Do you confirm that if you hear "cross HAIGS at 4000 feet", that you can
immediately descend from whatever altitude you are at. Say you are at 5,000
feet (as I was). If you hear that you can descend to 4,000? Usually won't
the controller issue you a descent to 4,000 and then the crossing
restriction? Such as "descend maintain 4,000... cross HAIGS at 4,000,
cleared ILS 27". What if they just said "descend maintain 4,000, cleared ILS
27"... is that not proper procedure?


"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:B0JAc.20624$1L4.19005@okepread02...
> At 17 miles point, he's not on a published portion of the approach,
> since he's not doing the hold-in-lieu of PT. He should have received a
> crossing restriction until HAIGS, since the vector did not place him on
> the localizer within the published portion of the approach.
> Approach could have provided a radar initial and cleared him to 4000
> until HAIGS, but without that clearance, he's stuck at the last assigned
> altitude until reaching HAIGS. At that point he can descend to 4000 if
> he needs a course reversal, or 2900 if he continues straight-in.
> I'm sure 4000 is fine at that point, because that's what the
> hold-in-lieu uses, but from a procedural (TERPS and ATC) standpoint the
> only "straight-in" procedure track at 17 miles is a radar initial from
> ATC, and that altitude needs to be specified by ATC. The pilot could
> even have been cleared to 2900 if it met the radar MVAC, but either way,
> ATC has to provide the altitude to the pilot outside HAIGS.
>
> JPH
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
> >>5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.
> >>
> >
> >
> > In that case, you can descend to 4000 immediately. But why descend to
4000
> > at all? At the time you were cleared for the approach you were about
900
> > feet below the glideslope.
> >
> >

Peter R. wrote:

> Matt Whiting ) wrote:
>
>
>>That has been my experience flying practice approaches at ELM, BGM and
>>ITH.
>
>
> Matt, at what airport are you based? I am out of Syracuse and I like to
> fly a lot of my practice IFR flights into those airports you listed.
>

ELM.

Matt

>are you doing your training alone or with an instructor? I would suggest
>doing
>most of this training with an instructor so that you pass your check ride.

Passing the check ride is not enough.
Once you have the ticket you have to prove
over and over that you are proficient

Chris Brooks wrote:
> Thanks, that is a good reply.
>
> Do you confirm that if you hear "cross HAIGS at 4000 feet", that you can
> immediately descend from whatever altitude you are at. Say you are at 5,000
> feet (as I was). If you hear that you can descend to 4,000? Usually won't
> the controller issue you a descent to 4,000 and then the crossing
> restriction? Such as "descend maintain 4,000... cross HAIGS at 4,000,
> cleared ILS 27".

By providing an approach clearance and a crossing restriction, the
controller has authorized you to descend to that altitude immediately,
and to maintain that altitude until you reach the fix where the altitude
restriction applies.

> What if they just said "descend maintain 4,000, cleared ILS
> 27"... is that not proper procedure?
>
No, that's similar to what was given to TWA 514 (the airliner crash that
initiated the requirement for specific altitudes and clearances). In
that situation, the pilot was established at 7000 when cleared for the
approach, but not yet on a published portion of the procedure. The rules
were less clear back then, but the pilot should have been told to
maintain a specific altitude, as well as a point where that altitude no
longer applied (i.e., maintain 7000 until crossing XXXXX). When the
controller says "maintain 4000" they're supposed to also state the point
where the 4000 restriction no longer applies. It should be "maintain
4000 until HAIGS" if you intercept East of HAIGS, or "4000 until
established on the localizer" if interception is inside of HAIGS. I'm
concerned that some controllers feel that intercepting a localizer
anywhere is all that is needed, but that only works if the localizer
intercept point is within a published part of the procedure, or for this
approach, inside HAIGS.
You can review the TWA crash details at
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html

> By providing an approach clearance and a crossing restriction, the
> controller has authorized you to descend to that altitude immediately,
> and to maintain that altitude until you reach the fix where the altitude
> restriction applies.

Again, excellent reply... thank you for your help. Do you know where the
above is written? ATC handbook I am assuming, but what part?

Thanks again.

but passing the check ride is the first part.

Hankal wrote:

> >are you doing your training alone or with an instructor? I would suggest
> >doing
> >most of this training with an instructor so that you pass your check ride.
>
> Passing the check ride is not enough.
> Once you have the ticket you have to prove
> over and over that you are proficient

Here's a note from the Air Traffic Control "bible"; FAAO 7110.65P

NOTE-
1. A descent clearance which specifies a crossing altitude authorizes
descent at pilot's discretion for that portion of the flight to which
the crossing altitude restriction applies.

This can be found here at this link;
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0405.html#4-5-7

You might also be interested in Example 4 under para 5-9-4. ARRIVAL
INSTRUCTIONS found at this link;
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0509.html#5-9-1

"Aircraft 4 is established on the final approach course beyond the
approach segments, 8 miles from Alpha at 6,000 feet. The MVA for this
area is 4,000 feet. "Eight miles from Alpha. Cross Alpha at or above
four thousand. Cleared I-L-S runway three six approach."
(See FIG 5-9-1.)"
The depicted situation is very similar to the first question posed
regarding the approach procedure.

JPH


Chris Brooks wrote:
>>By providing an approach clearance and a crossing restriction, the
>>controller has authorized you to descend to that altitude immediately,
>>and to maintain that altitude until you reach the fix where the altitude
>>restriction applies.
>
>
> Again, excellent reply... thank you for your help. Do you know where the
> above is written? ATC handbook I am assuming, but what part?
>
> Thanks again.
>
>

Does anyone else find it interesting that a simple ILS question has so many
of you pondering the correct answer? So many with correct, or misleading ,
or incorrect answers.


"Chris Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
> runway 27 at HGR the other day.
>
> Here is a plate:
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF
>
> I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach.
> My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?
>
> Anyone?
>
>

> wrote in
:

> Does anyone else find it interesting that a simple ILS question has so
> many of you pondering the correct answer? So many with correct, or
> misleading , or incorrect answers.
>
>>
>

Neither surprising nor particularly interesting; rather typical of G/A
instrument rating knowledge level. Like any generalizationm, there are
exceptions.