When to descend II

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF

Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."

On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."

Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers and
come on down?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Doug Carter]

On 2007-10-29, Dan Luke > wrote:
> You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF
>
> Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
> approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>
> On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>
> Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers and
> come on down?
>

Seems odd that Approach would tell you "cross ROYCE" since its not between you
and the runway.

[Peter R.]

On 10/29/2007 4:29:08 PM, "Dan Luke" wrote:

> Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared
> visual approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>
> On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>
> Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers
> and come on down?

Not enough information. Were you tracking the ILS when the visual approach
was issued? Or were you approaching the airport from another direction?

In any case, I would have asked approach for clarification before switching
over to tower if I were NOT tracking the ILS already.


--
Peter

[Bee[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF
>
> Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
> approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>
> On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>
> Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers and
> come on down?
>

I presume approach had vectored you onto the localizer previously or you
would not be able to identify ROYCE.

The instruction to cross ROYCE at or above two-thousand is an IFR
restriction with which you must comply because the visual approach isn't
authorized until passing ROYCE.

The tower's subsequent clearance to land has no affect on your IFR
altitude, and then visual clearance, issued by approach control. You
still have to cross ROYCE at, or above, 2,000 landing clearance
notwithstanding.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:29:12 -0500, "Dan Luke" >
wrote:

>You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.
>
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF
>
>Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
>approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>
>On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>
>Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers and
>come on down?

I've not flown in that area, but ATC may be wanting you to fly to Royce
before turning inbound because of traffic on approach to Rwy 12L. There are
some issues with intersecting flight paths that need to be avoided when
dealing with parallel runway operations.

Having said that, I would have assumed ATC wanted me to fly to ROYCE before
turning inbound, at or above two thousand; but I would request
clarification from the tower as to whether I could go straight in from my
present position, if that seemed a viable alternative.

Of course, if in VMC, you could cancel your IFR flight plan, mooting the
previous ATC clearance.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

An at or above altitude in a clearance like that almost always means
there will be traffic under you going into a different airport.




Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:29:12 -0500, "Dan Luke" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.
>>
>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF
>>
>>Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
>>approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>>
>>On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>>
>>Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers and
>>come on down?
>
>
> I've not flown in that area, but ATC may be wanting you to fly to Royce
> before turning inbound because of traffic on approach to Rwy 12L. There are
> some issues with intersecting flight paths that need to be avoided when
> dealing with parallel runway operations.
>
> Having said that, I would have assumed ATC wanted me to fly to ROYCE before
> turning inbound, at or above two thousand; but I would request
> clarification from the tower as to whether I could go straight in from my
> present position, if that seemed a viable alternative.
>
> Of course, if in VMC, you could cancel your IFR flight plan, mooting the
> previous ATC clearance.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bee[_2_]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> I've not flown in that area, but ATC may be wanting you to fly to Royce
> before turning inbound because of traffic on approach to Rwy 12L. There are
> some issues with intersecting flight paths that need to be avoided when
> dealing with parallel runway operations.

If it is a "maybe" in your mind, then it's best to comply.
>
> Having said that, I would have assumed ATC wanted me to fly to ROYCE before
> turning inbound, at or above two thousand; but I would request
> clarification from the tower as to whether I could go straight in from my
> present position, if that seemed a viable alternative.

No turn inbound required. He is presumably already on the localizer or
he couldn't identify ROYCE.
>
> Of course, if in VMC, you could cancel your IFR flight plan, mooting the
> previous ATC clearance.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Might not be the best airspace to be doing that without making sure you
won't be descending onto some other aircraft like Newps says.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:
> You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF
>
> Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
> approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>
> On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>
> Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers and
> come on down?
>

From 4SW of Royce...

I'd go to Royce as instructed, and begin my visual descent after
crossing Royce, making my right turn inbound, and visually identifying
the airport.

Crossing Royce @ 2000 doesn't make for an uncomfortable descent, and
it's not so far out of the way, so I don't think I'd bother to question
the clearance.

If things weren't busy, I'd probably just ask if I can head for the
numbers once I was on with the tower.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:47:51 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>No turn inbound required. He is presumably already on the localizer or
>he couldn't identify ROYCE.

Bee,

I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bee[_2_]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:47:51 -0700, Bee > wrote:
>
>
>>No turn inbound required. He is presumably already on the localizer or
>>he couldn't identify ROYCE.
>
>
> Bee,
>
> I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
> Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
localizer.

[Newps]

>
> He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
> localizer.

Non GPS airplane?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:58:38 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>He probably meant NW.

Perhaps, but I'd rather respond to the question asked than to the one I
made up. Also, if here were NW of ROYCE and on the localizer, he'd
probably omit the part of his question about "heading for the numbers"
since he'd already be heading in that direction.

>You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the localizer.

You can certainly navigate TO ROYCE without being established on the
localizer, however.


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

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
>> localizer.
>
>
> Non GPS airplane?

GPS isn't the issue. In fact there is also an RNAV (GPS) IAP to 12R
with the same FAF.

But, ATC couldn't issue the crossing restiction at ROYCE unless the
aircraft were on the approach at that time. A direct-to-the-FAF is not
allowed.

[John Godwin]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

> You can certainly navigate TO ROYCE without being established on
> the localizer, however.

Vectored, maybe but not navigating.

--

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bee" wrote:

>>
>> I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
>> Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?

>
> He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
> localizer.

No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
sight.

I'm doing this from memory of 6 mos. ago. I might be missing a detail, but
the approach and tower clearances are essentially correct.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Newps]

Bee wrote:


>
>
> GPS isn't the issue. In fact there is also an RNAV (GPS) IAP to 12R
> with the same FAF.
>
> But, ATC couldn't issue the crossing restiction at ROYCE unless the
> aircraft were on the approach at that time. A direct-to-the-FAF is not
> allowed.

I most certainly can issue that restriction without the aircraft being
on the approach. It's merely a fix, if I want an aircrasft to cross
over a fix at or above a certain altitude I'll do it.

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Bee wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> GPS isn't the issue. In fact there is also an RNAV (GPS) IAP to 12R
>> with the same FAF.
>>
>> But, ATC couldn't issue the crossing restiction at ROYCE unless the
>> aircraft were on the approach at that time. A direct-to-the-FAF is
>> not allowed.
>
>
> I most certainly can issue that restriction without the aircraft being
> on the approach. It's merely a fix, if I want an aircrasft to cross
> over a fix at or above a certain altitude I'll do it.

But, in essence you are clearing me direct-to-the-FAF. This is not an
en route fix or even an IAF or earlier. Only in limited circumstances
are you allowed to clear me direct to an RNAV IF. I certainly don't see
how you can make me cross a FAF unless you have correctly placed me on
the IAP.

[Bee[_2_]]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Bee" wrote:
>
>
>>>I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
>>>Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?
>
>
>>He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
>>localizer.
>
>
> No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
> sight.
>
> I'm doing this from memory of 6 mos. ago. I might be missing a detail, but
> the approach and tower clearances are essentially correct.
>

Yes, memory is a fleeting thing. ;-)

If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:37 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>If you were on vectors to the ILS,

But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Bee wrote:


>
> But, in essence you are clearing me direct-to-the-FAF.

Irrelevant. A fix is a fix. You're doing the visual approach. We in
the TRACON have determined that sending aircraft over a certain fix
makes separation easier. One problem with using an RNAV approach fix is
a lot of people won't be familair with it before hand. We normally use
a fix here on our ILS that substitutes for the OM and everybody is
familiar with it.



This is not an
> en route fix or even an IAF or earlier. Only in limited circumstances
> are you allowed to clear me direct to an RNAV IF. I certainly don't see
> how you can make me cross a FAF unless you have correctly placed me on
> the IAP.

You're doing to the visual approach, it's irrelevant what fix I send you
too. It could be a charted one or one I simply made up out of thin air.

[Newps]

Bee wrote:

>
> If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
> couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.

Heading is not the limiting factor. Track is what the controller is
concerned with. If I could only give you a 30 degree intercept some
days you would never join.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:32:46 -0000, John Godwin >
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:
>
>> You can certainly navigate TO ROYCE without being established on
>> the localizer, however.
>
>Vectored, maybe but not navigating.

Why not navigating?

Even without a GPS, you should be able to navigate from 4mi SW of ROYCE to
ROYCE using VOR/LOC and DME (and situational awareness).

With a GPS, there is no problem.

Without a GPS, what you will lack is positive course guidance. But I don't
see where, in the definition of "navigation", that PCG is required.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bee[_2_]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:37 -0700, Bee > wrote:
>
>
>>If you were on vectors to the ILS,
>
>
> But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:

>

>
> You're doing to the visual approach, it's irrelevant what fix I send you
> too. It could be a charted one or one I simply made up out of thin air.

Okay, I get it. The IAP is not even in the plan. IFR to a fix, then
visual or, if unable, a new plan. Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at ROYCE
was to keep the pilot at MVA instead of for traffic? You think maybe so?

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Bee wrote:
>
>>
>> If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
>> couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.
>
>
> Heading is not the limiting factor. Track is what the controller is
> concerned with. If I could only give you a 30 degree intercept some
> days you would never join.

Oh, yes, I have seen that effect a few times.

[[email protected]]

> No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
> sight.

But if you were being vectored for the ILS, on the last vector to join
the localizer, then you were most likely on a 100 degree heading give
or take some wind, on a track to hit the localizer some 3 miles before
ROYCE. So I still doubt that you could have been SW of ROYCE.

My take on it is that since the controller had already planned on
clearing you for the ILS, or perhaps had already done so, your late
request for a visual didn't really change anything and so he intended
for you to continue on your heading to intercept the localizer, fly to
ROYCE and then descend to the runway.

This seems simple unless you left still more out of the story.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:29:07 -0700, Bee > wrote:

>It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.

I don't understand your point.

The approach clearance is frequently/usually/always given after a
fix/crossing restriction.

He was NOT on vectors for an ILS approach.

I do not believe that to proceed direct ROYCE, from 4 miles SW of ROYCE,
for an ILS approach would even meet the requirements for proper ATC
handling.

So he was cleared via ROYCE as part of setting him up for a Visual
Approach.

My guess is that the altitude restriction and course specification was
traffic related. Perhaps there was conflicting traffic for the parallel
runway.

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

[Bee[_2_]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:29:07 -0700, Bee > wrote:
>
>
>>It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.
>
>
> I don't understand your point.

Because you said:

"But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual."
>
> The approach clearance is frequently/usually/always given after a
> fix/crossing restriction.
>
> He was NOT on vectors for an ILS approach.
>
> I do not believe that to proceed direct ROYCE, from 4 miles SW of ROYCE,
> for an ILS approach would even meet the requirements for proper ATC
> handling.
>
> So he was cleared via ROYCE as part of setting him up for a Visual
> Approach.

Apparently so. Nonetheless, the visual approach was not authorized
until *after* crossing ROYCE at or above 2,000.
>
> My guess is that the altitude restriction and course specification was
> traffic related. Perhaps there was conflicting traffic for the parallel
> runway.

Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bee" wrote:

> Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at ROYCE was to keep the pilot at MVA instead
> of for traffic? You think maybe so?

I think it most likely was for sequencing or traffic. Hobby has a lot
helicopters and other GA of all sizes mixing with SW Airlines 737s.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote:

> My take on it is that since the controller had already planned on
> clearing you for the ILS, or perhaps had already done so, your late
> request for a visual didn't really change anything and so he intended
> for you to continue on your heading to intercept the localizer, fly to
> ROYCE and then descend to the runway.
>
> This seems simple unless you left still more out of the story.

I think that's close to right, but I think he had another reason for the
routing, probably traffic. There are an awful lot of helicopters at Hobby.

The vector I was on was a "right base" for the ILS, not the intercept vector.
I didn't request the visual, just called the field in sight; perhaps that's
splitting hairs.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Newps]

Bee wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>> You're doing to the visual approach, it's irrelevant what fix I send
>> you too. It could be a charted one or one I simply made up out of
>> thin air.
>
>
> Okay, I get it. The IAP is not even in the plan. IFR to a fix, then
> visual or, if unable, a new plan. Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at ROYCE
> was to keep the pilot at MVA instead of for traffic? You think maybe so?


MVA is irrelevant if you're getting a visual. Like I said earlier it
most likely aids separation from aircraft going to another airport.

[Newps]

Bee wrote:


>
>
> Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.


That is definitely not the case. He was at a good altitude prior to
this clearance. Aircraft reports airport. Controller says cleared for
the visual. MVA now irrelevant as separation from the ground/obstacles
is now pilots responsibility.

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Bee wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> You're doing to the visual approach, it's irrelevant what fix I send
>>> you too. It could be a charted one or one I simply made up out of
>>> thin air.
>>
>>
>>
>> Okay, I get it. The IAP is not even in the plan. IFR to a fix, then
>> visual or, if unable, a new plan. Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at
>> ROYCE was to keep the pilot at MVA instead of for traffic? You think
>> maybe so?
>
>
>
> MVA is irrelevant if you're getting a visual. Like I said earlier it
> most likely aids separation from aircraft going to another airport.

You don't have to abide by MVA as the minimum altitude prior to the fix
at which you clear me for a visual?

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Bee wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.
>
>
>
> That is definitely not the case. He was at a good altitude prior to
> this clearance. Aircraft reports airport. Controller says cleared for
> the visual. MVA now irrelevant as separation from the ground/obstacles
> is now pilots responsibility.

But, the clearance for the visual was for a future point in space; i.e.,
ROYCE, which was still to be crossed.

[pgbnh]

OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are switched to
the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The OP did receive
such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at the time)Does the
altitude restriction still hold?

I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in control
of my heading and altitude
"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.
>>
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF
>>
>> Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared
>> visual approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>>
>> On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>>
>> Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers
>> and come on down?
>>
>
> From 4SW of Royce...
>
> I'd go to Royce as instructed, and begin my visual descent after crossing
> Royce, making my right turn inbound, and visually identifying the airport.
>
> Crossing Royce @ 2000 doesn't make for an uncomfortable descent, and it's
> not so far out of the way, so I don't think I'd bother to question the
> clearance.
>
> If things weren't busy, I'd probably just ask if I can head for the
> numbers once I was on with the tower.
>

[Bee[_2_]]

pgbnh wrote:
> OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are switched to
> the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The OP did receive
> such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at the time)Does the
> altitude restriction still hold?
>
> I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in control
> of my heading and altitude

Not until you reach ROYCE and the visual approach clearance becomes
effective.

Just like reporting the OM to the tower when the weather is 200 and 1/2
and the tower says "Cleared to land."

[[email protected]]

Bee wrote:
> But, the clearance for the visual was for a future point in space; i.e.,
> ROYCE, which was still to be crossed.

Is this really the case? I hear clearances for visual approaches with
altitude restrictions all the time. Normally the restriction is not
based on a point in space (fix) but rather on a distance from the
airport (or VOR) or until crossing a radial of a VOR.

I've never heard of a "future" approach clearance.

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke wrote:
> The vector I was on was a "right base" for the ILS, not the intercept vector.

Sorry for being ****y about it, but it really would have helped to
have all the information in the original post. There has been a lot
of wasted discussion about what you really meant because you left out
key information.

First, you were being vectored for the ILS, thus the mention of the
FAF in your clearance for the visual.

Second, on a "right base" you were probably heading something like 40
degrees.

Now, I'm having to guess again: if you were really SW (not just W) and
the controller was planning on giving you the usual 30 degree
intercept to some 3 miles before ROYCE, you were probably at a minimum
5 miles from ROYCE, but likely closer to 10. In this case, it makes
less sense to continue to the localizer before turning final, although
that is always still an option, and, in my opinion, what the
controller wanted.

> I didn't request the visual, just called the field in sight; perhaps that's
> splitting hairs.

Yeah, I think its splitting hairs. Why would you call the field in
sight if you weren't requesting the visual?

In fact, I'd go one step further and say that the controller
understood your call of the field in sight as a request for a short
cut because you didn't want to go all the way to the FAF and shoot the
ILS. And he wasn't prepared to give you a short cut, thus the ROYCE
restriction.

However I'm not sure how "proper" that clearance was. It would have
made sense to tell you to make a 7 mile final, and even to cross 7 DME
at 2000 feet, but asking you to cross a fix that is no longer on your
route doesn't seem correct to me.

[Bee[_2_]]

wrote:

> Bee wrote:
>
>>But, the clearance for the visual was for a future point in space; i.e.,
>>ROYCE, which was still to be crossed.
>
>
> Is this really the case? I hear clearances for visual approaches with
> altitude restrictions all the time. Normally the restriction is not
> based on a point in space (fix) but rather on a distance from the
> airport (or VOR) or until crossing a radial of a VOR.
>
> I've never heard of a "future" approach clearance.
>

What the OP stated,

Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared
visual approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."

I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.

That happens all the time, "Cross ARNES at 10,000, cleared Runway 25L ILS."

[[email protected]]

Bee wrote:
> I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
> did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.

I still don't understand what it means for the approach clearance to
not be applicable. You can be given instructions with a clearance for
the visual, but that doesn't mean that you are not navigating visually
to the airport.

Such as, at OAK they frequently say "cross 6 DME at or above 2000
feet" and at SBA they tell folks to "remain off shore until turning
base." Those instructions don't delay the applicability of the
clearance for the visual approach, whatever that would mean.

If the controller doesn't intend on a visual to be "applicable" then
why would he issue the clearance? And if it weren't "applicable" then
would the OP still have been getting vectors until such time as the
clearance became "applicable"? I don't think so.

[Bee[_2_]]

wrote:
> Bee wrote:
>
>>I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
>>did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.
>
>
> I still don't understand what it means for the approach clearance to
> not be applicable. You can be given instructions with a clearance for
> the visual, but that doesn't mean that you are not navigating visually
> to the airport.
>
> Such as, at OAK they frequently say "cross 6 DME at or above 2000
> feet" and at SBA they tell folks to "remain off shore until turning
> base." Those instructions don't delay the applicability of the
> clearance for the visual approach, whatever that would mean.
>
> If the controller doesn't intend on a visual to be "applicable" then
> why would he issue the clearance? And if it weren't "applicable" then
> would the OP still have been getting vectors until such time as the
> clearance became "applicable"? I don't think so.
>

He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

So, is that a visual prior to ROYCE? If you choose to view it that way,
fine just so long as you cross exactly at ROYCE at, or above, 2,000.

If, at OAK, you can cross anywhere along the 6 DME at or above 2,000,
that indeed is a visual approach without a route restiction.

SBA example is pure visual with a noise abatement restriction.

;-)

[[email protected]]

Bee wrote:
> He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.

Yes, but without a route. He was on vectors, and as he clarified
since the first post, he was on a "right base" somewhere outside of
ROYCE when he got the clearance. So how was he to get to ROYCE?

Would it have been totally different had the controller said "turn
final 7 miles out, cross 7 DME at or above 2000, cleared for the
visual runway 12R"?

> So, is that a visual prior to ROYCE? If you choose to view it that way,
> fine just so long as you cross exactly at ROYCE at, or above, 2,000.

Yes this is how I see it (except that nothing is exact). I don't know
if this is a "proper" clearance or not, but I can't see what else you
would do given that the controller stopped giving vectors. You are on
your own in getting to ROYCE, by GPS direct, by 90 degree intercept of
the localizer and then flying to ROYCE or by flying towards Texas
Southern University and then turning final and descending. The pilot
has to make something up and not crash into anything. That's a visual
approach with an inconvenient restriction.

> If, at OAK, you can cross anywhere along the 6 DME at or above 2,000,
> that indeed is a visual approach without a route restiction.
>
> SBA example is pure visual with a noise abatement restriction.

Yes I know these aren't exactly the same, I was merely giving examples
of restrictions that don't cause the visual approach to be "not yet
applicable" as you stated before. I still think the "not applicable"
idea is wrong.

[Newps]

pgbnh wrote:

> OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are switched to
> the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The OP did receive
> such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at the time)Does the
> altitude restriction still hold?
>
> I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in control
> of my heading and altitude


You are correct.

[Newps]

Bee wrote:

> pgbnh wrote:
>
>> OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
>> switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
>> OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
>> the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?
>>
>> I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
>> control of my heading and altitude
>
>
> Not until you reach ROYCE and the visual approach clearance becomes
> effective.
>
> Just like reporting the OM to the tower when the weather is 200 and 1/2
> and the tower says "Cleared to land."



Reporting the marker to the tower is not necessary unless asked for.

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Bee wrote:
>
>> pgbnh wrote:
>>
>>> OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
>>> switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land.
>>> (The OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he
>>> was at the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?
>>>
>>> I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
>>> control of my heading and altitude
>>
>>
>>
>> Not until you reach ROYCE and the visual approach clearance becomes
>> effective.
>>
>> Just like reporting the OM to the tower when the weather is 200 and
>> 1/2 and the tower says "Cleared to land."
>
>
>
>
> Reporting the marker to the tower is not necessary unless asked for.

And, your point is?

[Bee[_2_]]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> pgbnh wrote:
>
>> OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
>> switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
>> OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
>> the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?
>>
>> I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
>> control of my heading and altitude
>
>
>
> You are correct.

So, it is now okay to descend into that traffic that you speculated
exists in your early post in this thread?

[pgbnh]

Yes, because the issuance of the 'Clear to land' indicates that the traffic
is no longer an issue. I forget the FAR numbers, but I believe my obligation
is to comply with the most recently received directions from ATC. Clear to
land means I am the decision maker on heading and altitude and previous
restrictions and directions no longer apply
"Bee" > wrote in message ...
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> pgbnh wrote:
>>
>>> OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
>>> switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
>>> OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
>>> the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?
>>>
>>> I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
>>> control of my heading and altitude
>>
>>
>>
>> You are correct.
>
> So, it is now okay to descend into that traffic that you speculated exists
> in your early post in this thread?

[Bee[_2_]]

At the least I would ask the tower if the ROYCE crossing restriction was
deleted.

pgbnh wrote:
> Yes, because the issuance of the 'Clear to land' indicates that the traffic
> is no longer an issue. I forget the FAR numbers, but I believe my obligation
> is to comply with the most recently received directions from ATC. Clear to
> land means I am the decision maker on heading and altitude and previous
> restrictions and directions no longer apply
> "Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>pgbnh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK, now how does this change if, prior to reaching ROYCE, we are
>>>>switched to the tower and Tower says Cessna 123, cleared to land. (The
>>>>OP did receive such a clearance, but it was not clear where he was at
>>>>the time)Does the altitude restriction still hold?
>>>>
>>>>I would say no, as, to me, 'Cleared to land' means that I am now in
>>>>control of my heading and altitude
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You are correct.
>>
>>So, it is now okay to descend into that traffic that you speculated exists
>>in your early post in this thread?
>
>
>

[Newps]

Not necessary, if the tower wants it they need to restate it.



Bee wrote:

> At the least I would ask the tower if the ROYCE crossing restriction was
> deleted.
>

[Bee[_2_]]

But, I don't know all those controller rules. Is that in the AIM anywhere?

If not, I would exercise my PIC option to seek clarification.

Newps wrote:
> Not necessary, if the tower wants it they need to restate it.
>
>
>
> Bee wrote:
>
>> At the least I would ask the tower if the ROYCE crossing restriction
>> was deleted.
>>

[Newps]

Bee wrote:
> But, I don't know all those controller rules. Is that in the AIM anywhere?
>
> If not, I would exercise my PIC option to seek clarification.



By all means ask if you're unsure. But it's still not necessary. Just
like an approach clearance cancels a speed restriction unless restated
or a descend and maintain clearance cancels a pilot discretion descent.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're 4 miles SW of ROYCE.
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00198IL12R.PDF
>
> Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared
> visual approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>
> On initial contact, Tower says "Cessna '1GS, runwy 12R, cleared to land."
>
> Do you still have to cross ROYCE at 2,000 or can you head for the numbers
> and come on down?
>

Head for the numbers and come on down.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you are going to fly the ILS, yes.
> If you are going to request a visual approach, no.
>

Visual approach clearance has been issued.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Not enough information. Were you tracking the ILS when the visual approach
> was issued? Or were you approaching the airport from another direction?
>

The position was given as 4 miles southwest of ROYCE.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> I presume approach had vectored you onto the localizer previously or you
> would not be able to identify ROYCE.
>

The position was given as four miles southwest of ROYCE.


>
> The instruction to cross ROYCE at or above two-thousand is an IFR
> restriction with which you must comply because the visual approach isn't
> authorized until passing ROYCE.
>

The visual approach is authorized the instant it's issued.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've not flown in that area, but ATC may be wanting you to fly to Royce
> before turning inbound because of traffic on approach to Rwy 12L. There
> are
> some issues with intersecting flight paths that need to be avoided when
> dealing with parallel runway operations.
>

If ATC wants him over ROYCE they must issue routing over ROYCE or vector him
to that point and withold visual approach clearance until he's over ROYCE or
past it.


>
> Of course, if in VMC, you could cancel your IFR flight plan, mooting the
> previous ATC clearance.
>

Well, he can cancel, but that may not do a lot for him. It's Class B
airspace so separation is still an issue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> An at or above altitude in a clearance like that almost always means there
> will be traffic under you going into a different airport.
>

Hard to fit another airplane between traffic at 2000 MSL and towers over
1000 MSL.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> No turn inbound required. He is presumably already on the localizer or he
> couldn't identify ROYCE.
>

No presumption required, it was given that he's four miles southwest of
ROYCE.


>
> Might not be the best airspace to be doing that without making sure you
> won't be descending onto some other aircraft like Newps says.
>

There's no room for traffic below.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> But, in essence you are clearing me direct-to-the-FAF. This is not an en
> route fix or even an IAF or earlier. Only in limited circumstances are
> you allowed to clear me direct to an RNAV IF. I certainly don't see how
> you can make me cross a FAF unless you have correctly placed me on the
> IAP.
>

It's easy. "Cessna 1GS, proceed direct ROYCE, expect visual approach runway
12R."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> Okay, I get it. The IAP is not even in the plan. IFR to a fix, then
> visual or, if unable, a new plan. Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at ROYCE
> was to keep the pilot at MVA instead of for traffic? You think maybe so?
>

The MVA is irrelevant once cleared for the visual approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> You don't have to abide by MVA as the minimum altitude prior to the fix at
> which you clear me for a visual?
>

Not once the approach clearance is issued.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> He probably meant NW.

I don't think so. If he was northwest of ROYCE on the localizer the part of
his question about heading for the numbers once the visual approach
clearance is issued becomes moot.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Vectored, maybe but not navigating.
>

Navigating. Think GPS.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
> couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.
>

A 330 heading to join the localizer inbound would make an intercept angle of
about 160 degrees. That'd be a cute one.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.
>

No it wasn't. It was, "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand,
cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7.", issue when the aircraft
was four miles southwest of ROYCE.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Apparently so. Nonetheless, the visual approach was not authorized until
> *after* crossing ROYCE at or above 2,000.
>

Incorrect. No such restriction was issued. The clearance was effective the
instant it was issued.


>
> Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.
>

MVA is irrelevant once the visual approach clearance is issued.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message
...
>
> But, the clearance for the visual was for a future point in space; i.e.,
> ROYCE, which was still to be crossed.
>

Incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> What the OP stated,
>
> Approach says "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared
> visual approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7."
>
> I didn't say "future approach clearance." I said the present clearance
> did not make the visual applicable until a future point in space.
>

And you're wrong each time you say it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.
>

Nothing on the OP's message required the aircraft to cross ROYCE.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> Not until you reach ROYCE and the visual approach clearance becomes
> effective.
>

The visual approach clearance was effective the instant it was issued.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bee" > wrote in message ...
>
> So, it is now okay to descend into that traffic that you speculated exists
> in your early post in this thread?
>

Traffic wasn't an issue.

If the controller is using vertical separation between the OP's aircraft and
traffic beneath him that lower traffic would also require an altitude
restriction that insured separation. The minimum separation is 1000' if the
lower aircraft is IFR and 500' if it's VFR, but the altitude restriction
cannot be lower than the MVA. Look at the approach plate, there is a 593
MSL tower about four miles southwest of ROYCE, the MVA can't be lower than
1600 MSL within three miles of that tower, and it's probably higher. Do the
math.

[John Clonts]

On Nov 9, 8:20 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Bee" > wrote in ...
>
> > He was cleared to ROYCE with an altitude.
>
> Nothing on the OP's message required the aircraft to cross ROYCE.

So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?

What would you do and/or say if you got exactly that clearance?
("Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7." )

Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?
>

Could be either, but it's definitely one of them.


>
> What would you do and/or say if you got exactly that clearance?
> ("Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand, cleared visual
> approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7." )
>

I'd respond, "Unable". You can't pin an aircraft down to a specific route
on a visual approach, he's got to remain clear of clouds so you've got to
allow him to maneuver as needed. If the controller needed the aircraft over
ROYCE he should stick to the ILS approach. Why the controller issued the
altitude restriction is a mystery.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>>
>> So do you think it was a malformed clearance, or the OP misheard it?
>>
>
> Could be either, but it's definitely one of them.

I think I have probably mis-remembered it.

Upon reflection, I believe I was most likely already on the localizer, not SW
of ROYCE.

However, my memory is clear about being given the visual with the crossing
restriction, then being immediately cleared to land.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think I have probably mis-remembered it.
>
> Upon reflection, I believe I was most likely already on the localizer, not
> SW of ROYCE.
>
> However, my memory is clear about being given the visual with the crossing
> restriction, then being immediately cleared to land.
>

The clearance issued doesn't make sense. If the controller really needs you
over ROYCE he shouldn't issue a visual approach clearance. On a visual
approach you must remain clear of clouds and maneuvering to avoid them could
take you away from ROYCE. A visual doesn't save time when it's issued to an
aircraft on the localizer and may take longer than the IAP if cloud
avoidance is needed. The altitude restriction doesn't make any sense at
all. Terrain/obstacle avoidance is the pilot's responsibility on a visual
so it can't be for that and there isn't enough room below at 2000 MSL for
any other traffic so it can't be for separation.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> The clearance issued doesn't make sense. If the controller really needs
> you over ROYCE he shouldn't issue a visual approach clearance. On a visual
> approach you must remain clear of clouds and maneuvering to avoid them
> could take you away from ROYCE. A visual doesn't save time when it's
> issued to an aircraft on the localizer and may take longer than the IAP if
> cloud avoidance is needed. The altitude restriction doesn't make any sense
> at all. Terrain/obstacle avoidance is the pilot's responsibility on a
> visual so it can't be for that and there isn't enough room below at 2000
> MSL for any other traffic so it can't be for separation.

Hmm. Evidently memory has failed me on some essential detail (altitude,
perhaps?).

In my experience, the Houston Approach controllers are not in the habit of
issuing screwy clearances. It must be me.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Patrick]

On Nov 9, 9:10 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Bee" > wrote in ...
>
> > If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
> > couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.
>
> A 330 heading to join the localizer inbound would make an intercept angle of
> about 160 degrees. That'd be a cute one.

150 degrees...