Originally Posted by
Vessbot
This, with emphasis on the part I bolded. Now I'm tempering the strength of my words due to any subtleties I'm not familiar with European procedures, but from what others have posted it seems that it's the same as FAA-land: that an approach clearance is a clearance to descend to the minimum altitude for any segment that you're established on. So the pilot in the situation was cleared to 2000 once established on the leg prior to the FAF, even though that wasn't explicitly said. So his choice to stay at 2500 was an inappropriate one that set him up for an unstabilized approach, and hopefully lead to an illuminating debrief.
... all assuming that the procedure is indeed the same as in the US.
If you are established on a segment:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...r-the-approach
Maybe the examiner left him at MVA and wanted to see if he would descend before established on a segment. BTW, back when that accident happened my military training was that "cleared for the approach" was clearance to initial approach altitude. That got changed.