The exception for "cleared for approach" in Canada cited above is interesting, though I suspect it is used more in remote locations than as a routine procedure for airline operations into major airports.
This terminology is in common use for airports in controlled airspace (in The Great White North) including those used routinely by airlines. While some of the larger airports that are covered under a terminal airspace environment will tend to have flight crews led by the hand to ensure maximum efficiency it is not unheard of even in those environments to get a “cleared for an approach” type of clearance in the wee hours of the night when traffic is at a minimum.
In Canada we also have the “100nm safe altitude” noted on all published approach procedures that allows flight crews to start a descent at least to that level once receiving a “cleared for an approach” type of clearance without having to be on an airway, air route, transition or within the MSA pie.
The other type of clearance we get here that can lead to some confusion among some foreign flight crews is “cleared out of controlled airspace via an approach to X”.
As for someone saying in an earlier post that ATC is responsible for terrain separation while receiving vectors, yes that is technically correct but hopefully he/she does have an awareness of the minimum safe altitude for their current position and their position in the near future. While our ATC brethren are, like pilots, very driven to zero tolerance for error, like pilots are human and subject to human error. I know that I have seen that particular error twice in my 40 years “at the wheel”.
I admit to thread creep and now return you to your original thread.
