Cleared for an approach, then given a different altitude assignment

[Peter R.]

Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
GPS 15 approach."

A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
took over that slice of airspace.

The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
was crossing my path right to left underneath me).

I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."

Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.

Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
issued the altitude restriction?

I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach, and
it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse manner
that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
clearance).

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

"Peter R." wrote:

> Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
> approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
> GPS 15 approach."
>
> A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
> took over that slice of airspace.
>
> The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
> traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
> was crossing my path right to left underneath me).
>
> I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."
>
> Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
> restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
> at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.
>
> Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
> issued the altitude restriction?
>
> I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
> before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach, and
> it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
> minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse manner
> that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
> clearance).
>
> --
> Peter

When they say "Maintain XXXXX altitude" after having received an approach
clearance you have to maintain the altitude. Obviously, you can't continue
the approach and maintain 3,000. So, you comply with the latest clearance.
No doubt that it is a squeeze play, but the controller apparently had a good
reason. Once he deletes the restriction and, if at the point you are too
high to continue the approach, then you so advise him.

This scenerio will (or should) only happen in a radar environment.

[Michelle P]

If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
sky is bad, follow the controller.
If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.
Michelle

Peter R. wrote:

>Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
>approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
>GPS 15 approach."
>
>A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
>took over that slice of airspace.
>
>The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
>traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
>was crossing my path right to left underneath me).
>
>I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."
>
>Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
>restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
>at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.
>
>Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
>issued the altitude restriction?
>
>I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
>before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach, and
>it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
>minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse manner
>that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
>clearance).
>
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[[email protected]]

Michelle P wrote:

> If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
> on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
> sky is bad, follow the controller.
> If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.
>

Why do you think IMC would change it? I've had this very thing happen many
times over the years going into LAX in IMC when they misjudged lateral
separation and had to apply vertical separation on a tactical basis after my
approach clearance was issued. This type of thing occurred a fair distance
out, where my altitude on the extended approach profile was well above the
MVA.

[Mike Adams]

Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach approved, maintain VFR", or did they
say "cleared for the approach"? If it's a practice approach in a VFR environment, it's not all that
unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above the VFR traffic pattern, if they can't
work you in.

Mike

Michelle P > wrote:

> If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating
> on IFR and VFR rules. You will have VFR conflicts and a big bang in the
> sky is bad, follow the controller.
> If you were in IMC this would have been a different story.
> Michelle
>
> Peter R. wrote:
>
>>Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
>>approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
>>GPS 15 approach."
>>
>>A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
>>took over that slice of airspace.
>>
>>The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
>>traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
>>was crossing my path right to left underneath me).
>>
>>I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."
>>
>>Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
>>restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
>>at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.
>>
>>Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
>>issued the altitude restriction?
>>
>>I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
>>before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach, and
>>it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
>>minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse manner
>>that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
>>clearance).
>>
>>
>>
>

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:43:20 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:

> Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach approved, maintain VFR", or did they
> say "cleared for the approach"? If it's a practice approach in a VFR environment, it's not all that
> unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above the VFR traffic pattern, if they can't
> work you in.

Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....

I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach when I
am doing approaches under VMC.

Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?

Allen

[Brien K. Meehan]

Peter R. wrote:

> I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain
3,000."
>
> Being momentarily confused ...

What's confusing about "maintain 3000"?

> Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then

> issued the altitude restriction?

His primary responsibility is to keep you spearated from traffic. He
should have given you clear, simple instructions to that end, which he
did.

Would cancelling your approach clearance, assigning an altitude, then
re-vectoring you on the approach have been easier, or clearer, or
safer?

> I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
> before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach ...

Well then, there was no conflict, and no reason to be confused.

> ... and
> it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
> minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse
manner
> that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
> clearance).

Fortunately, most controllers have enough sense to fill in where more
is needed.

[Mike Adams]

A Lieberman > wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:43:20 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach
>> approved, maintain VFR", or did they say "cleared for the approach"?
>> If it's a practice approach in a VFR environment, it's not all that
>> unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above
>> the VFR traffic pattern, if they can't work you in.
>
> Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....
>
> I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach
> when I am doing approaches under VMC.
>
> Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?
>
> Allen

Maybe so. My experience is mostly with the Phoenix Tracon, and they have a standard litany, "Practice
approach approved. No separation services provided. Maintain VFR.", which to me has always seemed
distinct from the normal IFR "cleared for the approach" terminology. I looked in the AIM, and there's some
words on practice approaches in 4-3-21, but I didn't see anything on communications terminology.

Mike

[Greg Esres]

<<Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?>

No, it's in the ATC Handbook. I get it about 1 out of 50 approaches.

[Peter R.]

Brien K. Meehan ) wrote:

>
> Well then, there was no conflict, and no reason to be confused.

It must be hard for you to walk the earth with us mere mortal pilots.

As a two year instrument pilot who has only logged about 80 hours IMC
now, I *was* confused but complied with his instruction nonetheless.
Carrying that confusion with me outside of the cockpit is what prompted
the question here.

If this forum is only for expert IFR pilots like you, let me know and I
will be sure to filter my future questions appropriately. 'kay?

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

) wrote:

> When they say "Maintain XXXXX altitude" after having received an approach
> clearance you have to maintain the altitude. Obviously, you can't continue
> the approach and maintain 3,000. So, you comply with the latest clearance.

Which I did. Having heard "Aircraft XXX, cancel previous approach
clearance, maintain current heading" or some such instruction to other
aircraft many times now, I mistakenly assumed that the controller was
required to cancel the approach clearance first. That history is what
prompted my confusion.

> No doubt that it is a squeeze play, but the controller apparently had a good
> reason. Once he deletes the restriction and, if at the point you are too
> high to continue the approach, then you so advise him.
>
> This scenerio will (or should) only happen in a radar environment.

Thank you for your concise explanation.

--
Peter

[KP]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
> approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
> GPS 15 approach."
>
> A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
> took over that slice of airspace.
>
> The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
> traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
> was crossing my path right to left underneath me).
>
> I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."
>
> Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
> restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
> at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.
>
> Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
> issued the altitude restriction?
>
> I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
> before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach, and
> it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
> minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse manner
> that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
> clearance).
>
> --
> Peter

What class of airspace were you in?

If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
approach clearance to be 'book correct." But maybe he decided ensuring
separation was a higher priority task. Or has the view that if he told you
to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to you you're no longer authorized
descend on the approach (not saying it is; saying he thinks it should be
-/ ) .

If Class D or E if either aircraft was VFR, he had no business issuing the
restriction in the first place. Traffic? Yes, altitude restrictions? No

Or there is also the possibility there was a genuine "deal" where standard
separation of 1000ft or 3NM was already lost, and the 500ft/2NM was better
than nothing. That might also explain the controller's "Do something now!
Worry about being "book correct" later" instruction as well as what seemed
to you a terse attitude.

[KP]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:43:20 GMT, Mike Adams wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach
>> approved, maintain VFR", or did they
>> say "cleared for the approach"? If it's a practice approach in a VFR
>> environment, it's not all that
>> unusual to get altitude restrictions, especially to keep you above the
>> VFR traffic pattern, if they can't
>> work you in.
>
> Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....
>
> I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach when I
> am doing approaches under VMC.
>
> Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?
>
> Allen

Yes it can be a "regional thing" or more correctly an "airspace" or
"workload" thing.

VFR aircraft making practice approaches are supposed to be provided standard
IFR separation from the time clearance is issued until the MAP. The
phraseology for that is one of the normal approach clearances. See FAAO
7110.65 4-8-11a(2)

However, sometimes full IFR separation not worth the effort so there are
provisions to let VFR aircraft do the approaches pure VFR with no separation
provided. The phraseology for that is "Practice approach approved..." See
FAAO 7110.65 4-8-11a(3)

[Peter R.]

KP (nospam@please) wrote:

> What class of airspace were you in?

Class E airspace making a GPS approach while VFR into a class C airport
(we were still several miles outside the class C ring).

> If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
> approach clearance to be 'book correct." But maybe he decided ensuring
> separation was a higher priority task. Or has the view that if he told you
> to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to you you're no longer authorized
> descend on the approach (not saying it is; saying he thinks it should be
> -/ ) .

The other issue that prompted my confusion was the controller change.
One controller cleared me, the next issued an altitude restriction. Was
the second's altitude restriction due in part to the fact that he was
not familiar with the GPS approach?

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00411RY15.PDF

On the chart above, we were still outside of PAGER, approaching from the
east, when this occurred.

The approach required at least another 5 miles west at 3,000, then 12
more southwest-bound at 3,000 before descending - with strong headwinds
that day I had at least another thirteen minutes at 3,000 without the
altitude restriction. The other VFR aircraft was 500 feet below us
crossing our path at a 90 degree right to left direction and was well
south of us a minute or so after the restriction.

--
Peter

[Newps]

KP wrote:

>
> VFR aircraft making practice approaches are supposed to be provided standard
> IFR separation from the time clearance is issued until the MAP.

Except we only need 500 feet vertical.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Peter R. wrote:

> It must be hard for you to walk the earth with us mere mortal pilots.


There are good days and bad days.

> If this forum is only for expert IFR pilots like you, let me know and
I
> will be sure to filter my future questions appropriately. 'kay?

Okay, but I'd really like you to take this much away from this
discussion:

You were advised of traffic. You didn't report it in sight, so you
were given an altitude assignment.

If you found that so confusing that you actually found it necessary to
call the controller back for clarification, you're head is really in
the wrong place while you're flying.

[Peter R.]

Brien K. Meehan ) wrote:

> You were advised of traffic. You didn't report it in sight, so you
> were given an altitude assignment.
>
> If you found that so confusing that you actually found it necessary to
> call the controller back for clarification, you're head is really in
> the wrong place while you're flying.

LOL! Usenet clairvoyance at its finest.

With nothing more than a few sentences in this forum, you somehow were
able to correctly deduce that my head was not in the right place,
although personally I don't consider my wife's lap the "wrong place."
That's too biblical.

--
Peter

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Peter R.
> writes:

>If this forum is only for expert IFR pilots like you, let me know and I
>will be sure to filter my future questions appropriately. 'kay?
>
>--
>Peter

Peter,
In this (or any) form you get a varity of answers, some good and some from
"smart asses". It's up to you to separate them and ignore the latter.

Chuck

[Everett M. Greene]

Peter R. > writes:
> KP (nospam@please) wrote:
>
> > What class of airspace were you in?
>
> Class E airspace making a GPS approach while VFR into a class C airport
> (we were still several miles outside the class C ring).
>
> > If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
> > approach clearance to be 'book correct." But maybe he decided ensuring
> > separation was a higher priority task. Or has the view that if he told you
> > to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to you you're no longer authorized
> > descend on the approach (not saying it is; saying he thinks it should be
> > -/ ) .
>
> The other issue that prompted my confusion was the controller change.
> One controller cleared me, the next issued an altitude restriction. Was
> the second's altitude restriction due in part to the fact that he was
> not familiar with the GPS approach?
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00411RY15.PDF
>
> On the chart above, we were still outside of PAGER, approaching from the
> east, when this occurred.
>
> The approach required at least another 5 miles west at 3,000, then 12
> more southwest-bound at 3,000 before descending - with strong headwinds
> that day I had at least another thirteen minutes at 3,000 without the
> altitude restriction. The other VFR aircraft was 500 feet below us
> crossing our path at a 90 degree right to left direction and was well
> south of us a minute or so after the restriction.

Am I missing something?

You were assigned an altitude that you were going to
maintain without the assignment?

It would seem that letting the assignment pass without
comment and simply waiting for the controller to remove
the altitude restriction, probably with the words "cleared
for the approach", would have worked. If the restriction
weren't removed before needing to start the descent, a
verification of the approached clearance would then be
in order.

[Peter R.]

Everett M. Greene ) wrote:

> Am I missing something?

Just a low-time pilot who apparently over-analyzed the situation.

Nothing else to see here... please move along.

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
> approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
> GPS 15 approach."
>
> A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
> took over that slice of airspace.
>
> The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
> traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
> was crossing my path right to left underneath me).
>
> I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."
>
> Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
> restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
> at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.
>
> Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
> issued the altitude restriction?
>
> I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
> before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach, and
> it seemed that his first call was simply reinforcing the altitude
> minimums on the approach (that is, until he responded in a terse manner
> that he wanted to keep me there without ever rescinding my approach
> clearance).
>

A little more information would be helpful. From your description it
appears you were enroute to ELESE from PAGER, is that correct? Do you know
if the VFR aircraft was also inbound to SYR?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> When they say "Maintain XXXXX altitude" after having received an approach
> clearance you have to maintain the altitude. Obviously, you can't continue
> the approach and maintain 3,000. So, you comply with the latest
> clearance.
> No doubt that it is a squeeze play, but the controller apparently had a
> good
> reason.
>

What good reason might there be?


>
> Once he deletes the restriction and, if at the point you are too
> high to continue the approach, then you so advise him.
>

The restriction was superfluous for the next five miles, as he was that far
outside of ELESE and 3000 was the minimum altitude until that fix.


>
> This scenerio will (or should) only happen in a radar environment.
>

This scenario can happen only in a radar environment because IFR/VFR
separation is not provided in a nonradar environment.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Which I did. Having heard "Aircraft XXX, cancel previous approach
> clearance, maintain current heading" or some such instruction to other
> aircraft many times now, I mistakenly assumed that the controller was
> required to cancel the approach clearance first. That history is what
> prompted my confusion.
>

While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
clarity, it is not required.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> If you are operating in VMC and practicing approaches you are operating on
> IFR and VFR rules.

What VFR rules am I operating on if I'm practicing approaches on an IFR
clearance?

[Peter R.]

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

> A little more information would be helpful. From your description it
> appears you were enroute to ELESE from PAGER, is that correct? Do you know
> if the VFR aircraft was also inbound to SYR?

Here's the chart, Steven:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0412/00411RY15.PDF

I was actually 5 miles east of PAGER, heading west towards that
waypoint. The other VFR aircraft was southbound direct to SYR airport
and crossing at 500 feet below us.

In hindsight and with the help of the more respectable answers
previously, I see now that there really was no reason for me to get
concerned about the altitude restriction, especially given the fact that
I still had 13 more minutes there. Make no mistake that I had no
problem adhering to the instruction, but I was simply curious about the
wording in which it was given.

As I stated previously, I had grown accustomed to hearing "Cancel
Approach Clearance" and mistakenly assumed that a controller should
issue that phrase if s/he needed to issue an amendment to an approach
clearance.

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
news:cFIsd.176809$bk1.168609@fed1read05...
>
> Yes, this is an interesting point. Did they say "practice approach
> approved,
> maintain VFR", or did they say "cleared for the approach"? If it's a
> practice
> approach in a VFR environment, it's not all that unusual to get altitude
> restrictions, especially to keep you above the VFR traffic pattern, if
> they
> can't work you in.
>

He said the clearance was "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
GPS 15 approach." Since 500 feet vertical separation was used the other
aircraft had to be VFR so we can conclude it was a practice approach in a
VFR environment.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
news:AnKsd.176820$bk1.47553@fed1read05...
>>
>> Hmmm, never got a practice approach approved.....
>>
>> I have always received cleared for the "type of approach" approach
>> when I am doing approaches under VMC.
>>
>> Maybe practice approach is a regional thing?
>>
>
> Maybe so. My experience is mostly with the Phoenix Tracon, and they have a
> standard litany, "Practice approach approved. No separation services
> provided.
> Maintain VFR.", which to me has always seemed distinct from the normal IFR
> "cleared for the approach" terminology. I looked in the AIM, and there's
> some
> words on practice approaches in 4-3-21, but I didn't see anything on
> communications terminology.
>

It's standard phraseology where separation services are not provided to VFR
aircraft practicing instrument approaches.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 4. IFR

Section 8. Approach Clearance Procedures

4-8-11. PRACTICE APPROACHES

Except for military aircraft operating at military airfields, ensure that
neither VFR nor IFR practice approaches disrupt the flow of other arriving
and departing IFR or VFR aircraft. Authorize, withdraw authorization, or
refuse to authorize practice approaches as traffic conditions require.
Normally, approaches in progress should not be terminated.

NOTE-
The priority afforded other aircraft over practice instrument approaches is
not intended to be so rigidly applied that it causes grossly inefficient
application of services.

a. Separation.

1. IFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches shall be afforded
standard separation in accordance with Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5,
Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 minima until:

(a) The aircraft lands, and the flight is terminated, or

(b) The pilot cancels the flight plan.

2. Where procedures require application of IFR separation to VFR
aircraft practicing instrument approaches, standard IFR separation in
accordance with Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7
shall be provided. Controller responsibility for separation begins at the
point where the approach clearance becomes effective. Except for heavy
aircraft/B757, 500 feet vertical separation may be applied between VFR
aircraft and between a VFR and an IFR aircraft.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Practice Instrument Approaches, Para 6-4-4.
FAAO 7210.3, Practice Instrument Approaches, Para 10-4-5.

3. Where separation services are not provided to VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approaches, the controller shall;

(a) Instruct the pilot to maintain VFR.

(b) Advise the pilot that separation services are not provided.

PHRASEOLOGY-
"(Aircraft identification) MAINTAIN VFR, PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED,
NO SEPARATION SERVICES PROVIDED."

(c) Provide traffic information or advise the pilot to contact the
appropriate facility.

4. If an altitude is assigned, including at or above/below altitudes,
the altitude specified must meet MVA, minimum safe altitude, or minimum IFR
altitude criteria.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Altitude Assignments, Para 7-7-5.

5. All VFR aircraft shall be instructed to maintain VFR on initial
contact or as soon as possible thereafter.

NOTE-
This advisory is intended to remind the pilot that even though ATC is
providing IFR-type instructions, the pilot is responsible for compliance
with the applicable parts of the CFR governing VFR flight.

b. Missed Approaches.

1. Unless alternate instructions have been issued, IFR aircraft are
automatically authorized to execute the missed approach depicted for the
instrument approach being flown.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Missed Approach, Para 4-8-9.

2. VFR aircraft are not automatically authorized to execute the missed
approach procedure. This authorization must be specifically requested by the
pilot and approved by the controller. When a missed approach has been
approved, separation shall be provided throughout the missed approach.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Visual Separation, Para 7-2-1.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Peter R. wrote:
>>
>> I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."
>>
>> Being momentarily confused ...
>>
>
> What's confusing about "maintain 3000"?
>

Perhaps the fact that he was already restricted to 3000 until passing ELESE.


>>
>> I was initially confused because I still had 5 miles at 3,000 feet
>> before stepping down to the next altitude as part of the approach ...
>>
>
> Well then, there was no conflict, and no reason to be confused.
>

Since there was no conflict there was no reason for the 3000' restriction,
hence the confusion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
...
>
> What class of airspace were you in?
>

ELESE is in Class E airspace just outside the Syracuse Class C airspace.


>
> If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
> approach clearance to be 'book correct."
>

Where does the book require that?


>
> But maybe he decided ensuring separation was a higher priority task. Or
> has the view that if he told you to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to
> you you're no longer authorized descend on the approach (not saying it is;
> saying he thinks it should be -/ ) .
>

He was five miles outside ELESE and couldn't descend below 3000' until ELESE
anyway, so the altitude restriction was unnecessary unless the VFR aircraft
would be crossing the final approach course inside of ELESE.


>
> If Class D or E if either aircraft was VFR, he had no business issuing the
> restriction in the first place. Traffic? Yes, altitude restrictions? No
>

It's Class E but well within the outer area where Class C services are
provided to participating VFR traffic.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> >
> > This scenerio will (or should) only happen in a radar environment.
> >
>
> This scenario can happen only in a radar environment because IFR/VFR
> separation is not provided in a nonradar environment.

I have no experience with that. I related my experience that this happened
several times over the years flying into LAX where practice approaches and VFR
aircraft were not involved.

[Roy Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
> clarity, it is not required.

What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
clearance?

Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
example. I would think that any instruction which included an
altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
cases which I haven't thought of?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> KP (nospam@please) wrote:
>
>> What class of airspace were you in?
>
> Class E airspace making a GPS approach while VFR into a class C airport
> (we were still several miles outside the class C ring).
>
>> If Class B or C the answer is probably "Yes, he should have cancelled
>> approach clearance to be 'book correct." But maybe he decided ensuring
>> separation was a higher priority task. Or has the view that if he told
>> you
>> to maintain 3000 it should be obvious to you you're no longer authorized
>> descend on the approach (not saying it is; saying he thinks it should be
>> -/ ) .
>
> The other issue that prompted my confusion was the controller change.
> One controller cleared me, the next issued an altitude restriction. Was
> the second's altitude restriction due in part to the fact that he was
> not familiar with the GPS approach?
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00411RY15.PDF
>
> On the chart above, we were still outside of PAGER, approaching from the
> east, when this occurred.
>
> The approach required at least another 5 miles west at 3,000, then 12
> more southwest-bound at 3,000 before descending - with strong headwinds
> that day I had at least another thirteen minutes at 3,000 without the
> altitude restriction. The other VFR aircraft was 500 feet below us
> crossing our path at a 90 degree right to left direction and was well
> south of us a minute or so after the restriction.
>

This is getting flaky. The controller used 500' vertical separation so it
is logical to conclude that one of the concerned aircraft was VFR and the
other IFR. Since the other aircraft was below your altitude and in an area
where it's stated 2500' altitude appears to be below the minimum altitude
for IFR operations I assumed you were IFR and the other aircraft was VFR.
Do you know if the other aircraft was IFR or VFR? If he was IFR, do you
know if he was on another approach? If you were both VFR no separation was
required, just traffic advisories.

[Peter R.]

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

> If you were both VFR no separation was required, just traffic advisories.

We were both VFR.

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
...
>
> VFR aircraft making practice approaches are supposed to be provided
> standard IFR separation from the time clearance is issued until the MAP.
>

Only if the aircraft is a heavy or a Boeing 757.


>
> However, sometimes full IFR separation not worth the effort so there are
> provisions to let VFR aircraft do the approaches pure VFR with no
> separation provided. The phraseology for that is "Practice approach
> approved..." See FAAO 7110.65 4-8-11a(3)

Actually, it's the other way around. VFR aircraft practicing approaches are
provided separation where procedures are established for it. Where no
procedures have been established no separation is provided.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
>
>> A little more information would be helpful. From your description it
>> appears you were enroute to ELESE from PAGER, is that correct? Do you
>> know
>> if the VFR aircraft was also inbound to SYR?
>
> Here's the chart, Steven:
>
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0412/00411RY15.PDF
>
> I was actually 5 miles east of PAGER, heading west towards that
> waypoint. The other VFR aircraft was southbound direct to SYR airport
> and crossing at 500 feet below us.
>
> In hindsight and with the help of the more respectable answers
> previously, I see now that there really was no reason for me to get
> concerned about the altitude restriction, especially given the fact that
> I still had 13 more minutes there. Make no mistake that I had no
> problem adhering to the instruction, but I was simply curious about the
> wording in which it was given.
>

It appears there was also no need for the altitude restriction at all. The
procedure didn't allow a descent below 3000' until ELESE anyway, so the
restriction was superfluous even if you had been IFR. Since you were both
VFR there was no need for the restriction since no VFR/VFR separation is
provided in that airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>> While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
>> clarity, it is not required.
>
> What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
> an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
> clearance?
>
> Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
> example. I would think that any instruction which included an
> altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
> cases which I haven't thought of?
>

Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say an
aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
complete it's approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:
>
>> If you were both VFR no separation was required, just traffic
>> advisories.
>
> We were both VFR.
>

Then the controller erred when he told you to maintain 3000.

[Roy Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>> While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
>>> clarity, it is not required.
>>
>> What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
>> an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
>> clearance?
>>
>> Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
>> example. I would think that any instruction which included an
>> altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
>> cases which I haven't thought of?
>>
>
>Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
>wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say an
>aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
>"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
>aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
>approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
>available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
>complete it's approach.

But, how do I tell, just from what the controller says, if it will
prevent the completion of the approach or not? It seems reasonable in
the scenario under discussion, that "cross PAGAR at or above 4000"
should not be a problem. But what about "Cross ELESE at or above
4000", or "Cross NADSY at or above 4000", or "Cross PAGER at or above
15,000"? Do any of those imply "cancel previous approach clearance?"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>
>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>>> While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
>>>> clarity, it is not required.
>>>
>>> What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
>>> an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
>>> clearance?
>>>
>>> Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
>>> example. I would think that any instruction which included an
>>> altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
>>> cases which I haven't thought of?
>>>
>>
>>Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
>>wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say
>>an
>>aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
>>"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
>>aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
>>approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
>>available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
>>complete it's approach.
>
> But, how do I tell, just from what the controller says, if it will
> prevent the completion of the approach or not? It seems reasonable in
> the scenario under discussion, that "cross PAGAR at or above 4000"
> should not be a problem. But what about "Cross ELESE at or above
> 4000", or "Cross NADSY at or above 4000", or "Cross PAGER at or above
> 15,000"? Do any of those imply "cancel previous approach clearance?"
>

You use your knowledge and experience as a pilot.

[Roy Smith]

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>>>> While "cancel previous approach clearance" is probably a good idea for
>>>>> clarity, it is not required.
>>>>
>>>> What instructions/clearances can ATC issue to a flight after issuing
>>>> an approach clearance which wouldn't automatically cancel the approach
>>>> clearance?
>>>>
>>>> Some instructions obviously don't: "Contact tower 123.45", for
>>>> example. I would think that any instruction which included an
>>>> altitude restriction, or a heading/route to fly, would. Any other
>>>> cases which I haven't thought of?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Speed restrictions. An altitude restriction can also be issued that
>>>wouldn't prevent the completion of the approach. For example, let's say
>>>an
>>>aircraft was issued clearance for the approach under discussion here with
>>>"cross PAGER at or above 3000, cleared RNAV RWY 15 approach." Then a VFR
>>>aircraft east of PAGER requests an IFR popup, so the aircraft on the
>>>approach is instructed to cross PAGER at or above 4000. 3000 feet is now
>>>available for the popup clearance, and the arrival aircraft can still
>>>complete it's approach.
>>
>> But, how do I tell, just from what the controller says, if it will
>> prevent the completion of the approach or not? It seems reasonable in
>> the scenario under discussion, that "cross PAGAR at or above 4000"
>> should not be a problem. But what about "Cross ELESE at or above
>> 4000", or "Cross NADSY at or above 4000", or "Cross PAGER at or above
>> 15,000"? Do any of those imply "cancel previous approach clearance?"
>>
>
>You use your knowledge and experience as a pilot.
>
>


My knowledge and experience as a pilot can tell me whether *I* think I
can safely complete the approach or not. They cannot tell me whether
my clearance to do so has been revoked.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> My knowledge and experience as a pilot can tell me whether *I* think I
> can safely complete the approach or not. They cannot tell me whether
> my clearance to do so has been revoked.
>

This isn't that hard. If you can comply with the restriction and still
complete the approach your clearance hasn't been revoked. That should be
obvious to you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:20:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>

....Nothing which appears below. Please use a bit more care with what you
snip when replying to a message.



>>> But, how do I tell, just from what the controller says, if it will
>>> prevent the completion of the approach or not? It seems reasonable in
>>> the scenario under discussion, that "cross PAGAR at or above 4000"
>>> should not be a problem. But what about "Cross ELESE at or above
>>> 4000", or "Cross NADSY at or above 4000", or "Cross PAGER at or above
>>> 15,000"? Do any of those imply "cancel previous approach clearance?
>
>
> How about just asking the controller?

[Chip Jones]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Today I was practicing a GPS approach and had been cleared for the
> approach with the normal, "Cessna XXX, cross ELESE at 3,000, cleared
> GPS 15 approach."
>
> A minute or so later the controllers switched positions and another one
> took over that slice of airspace.
>
> The new one came on frequency and called my aircraft with, "Cessna XXX,
> traffic one o'clock, 2,500 and two miles, southbound" (the traffic was
> was crossing my path right to left underneath me).
>
> I replied, "Negative traffic" to which he responded, "Maintain 3,000."
>
> Being momentarily confused, I called to clarify the altitude
> restriction. The controller responded rather tersely that he wanted me
> at 3,000 for traffic avoidance.
>
> Should the controller have canceled my approach clearance first, then
> issued the altitude restriction?

The controller should have complied with the phraseology requirements of
FAAO 7110.65P Chapter 4-5-7 (Posted below):



f. When the "pilot's discretion" portion of a climb/descent clearance is
being canceled by assigning a new altitude, inform the pilot that the new
altitude is an "amended altitude."

EXAMPLE-
"American Eighty Three, amend altitude, descend and maintain Flight Level
two six zero."

NOTE-
American Eighty Three, at FL 280, has been cleared to descend at pilot's
discretion to FL 240. Subsequently, the altitude assignment is changed to FL
260. Therefore, pilot's discretion is no longer authorized.



Your approach clearance involved a pilot's discretion descent when you were
cleared to cross ELESE at 3000 and cleared for approach. Subsequently, ATC
ammended your altitude assignment, thus cancelling your PD descent (and also
your approach clearance). Whether or not ATC actually had legitimate
traffic for you (airspace class and traffic rules VFR/IFR), in this case you
still received an ammended altitude clearance. If the controller had simply
complied with his own language requirements, you would likely have been
much clearer on the situation. You could have replied "Cessna XXX,
maintaining 3000, standing by for the GPS approach clearance" or something
like that.



Chip, ZTL