Descending once cleared for approach

[spud3]

Jeehell,

IIRC, we were direct a vor at first, then cleared (or perhaps "route Kelon") to Kelon, all while in descent to FL 80. Cleared for app I think before we levelled at 80, perhaps after. We stayed level at 80 till at a point where the capt decided he wanted to descent. I advised atc we were leaving 80 for whatever the MSA was (dont have the chart right now). I think atc acknowledged, gave us the altm setting. No further altitudes or clearances given. Probably the next transmission was to contact tower at Kelon

[604guy]

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.

[BOAC]

Referring to my post #8, the phrase I have always used, whenever I have any doubt about such a descent or climb clearance (especially when treading carefully on unknown national sensitivities) is "Confirm unrestricted climb/descent?" - normally works a treat.

[Intruder]

A clearance for the approach is an instruction to follow the vertical profile of the approach without further ATC instruction. Descent to subsequent levels is implicit. Why should that implicit vertical profile not start at the IAF with the charted altitude there?

Another example: I'm being vectored for an ILS at 3000 ft, a level above the charted FAP altitude of 2400 ft. The controller says "closing the localiser from the left, cleared ILS approach runway xx". I intercept the localiser and the glideslope comes in 2 miles before the FAP. May I descend? By your reasoning, I'm not on a published segment of the approach yet, so don't I have to wait until I reach the FAP before descending?

First, I tried to find the cited approach on-line, but was unable, so I don't know what it looks like.

For many/most non-precision approaches, the IAF altitude is a "soft" (recommended) or an "at or above" altitude. If your cleared altitude is reasonable, even if above the minimum or recommended, you do not have any reason to descend below your cleared altitude. You may, however, need to configure the aircraft to obtain a steeper-than-normal descent profile from the IAF to the FAF. If it is a hard altitude, ATC has the responsibility to get you there.

In your example, you are being vectored to the localizer, which is a different situation. The FAF for an ILS is not always a fixed point, but is defined by Glideslope intercept after established on the localizer. if you intercept the localizer outside the nominal FAF depicted on the approach plate, you can descend on the Glideslope as long as you are within the service volume of the ILS. For example, look at the ILS to 06L at KLAX. Though the nominal FAF is at ALISN ([minimum] 1800' at 6.7 DME), there is a note that explicitly allows intercept of the GS as far out as NATHN ([soft] 3700' at 12.7 DME). ATC will often vector to intercept the localizer at some intermediate point/altitude, and you can intercept the GS if cleared for the approach.

[bookworm]

First, I tried to find the cited approach on-line, but was unable, so I don't know what it looks like.

IAPs for Vatry.

Arrivals and Departures for Vatry.

[italia458]

There is a difference between US and Canada on this one--the FAA TERPS says that the MSA is for "emergency use only", it is not an operational altitude. One reason, in the US the MSA is not surveyed for signal coverage, nor does it guarantee it. Also, from a US Terpster, the MSA is not resurveyed unless there is a change in the basic procedure, hence, there is a possibility that an unsurveyed may exist in the off-route areas.

That is one reason why US ATCOs give the approach clearance with specific altitude instructions. Well, one of the reasons, those ATC instructions all came from the TW 514 accident.

That is US only, other countries have other ways of applying the MSA.

GF

Thanks for the correction! I didn't realize that.

[Intruder]

IAPs for Vatry.

After looking at the approach plate, it is even more clear to me that if I was cleared for the approach and direct to the KELON IAF at 8000', I would continue to KELON at 8000' and use the depicted holding pattern at KELON for descent to 2500'. One turn in holding with the landing gear down should be plenty, with 5 NM to the FAF to intercept the GS at 2500'.

Using the MSA of 2100' would put you below the 2500' [soft] initial approach altitude, so that would NOT be a good option IMO.

[JeeHell]

Intruder,

I'm quite certain that the hold entry is not permitted above FL50.
On the charts, there is written Zp=5000ft which means that the maximum altitude for entry is at FL50, otherwise you might enter AWYs, TMAs, MIL's zones etc where you're not supposed to be.

Anyway, the way the ATC reacted after their self-granted descent shows that it was at least implicit in the first message. I'm not saying it was correct

And using the MSA to descend on an approach doesn't mean you have to get down to it, I believe Spud3 wanted to use it as a reference for terrain clearance only.

[Intruder]

That's the first time I've seen a French govt approach plate, so I had no idea what Zp is.

However, if ATC cleared the airplane to KELON at 8000, then that airspace should be clear of interfering traffic.

[galaxy flyer]

Intruder

Compared to our ATC standards quite a normal way of doing business in Europe. I was inbound to Rome-Ciampino last week, cleared direct to CMP (VOR or NDB, I cannot remember, but NOT on the plate as either an IAF or a fix to a NoPT transition. And about 2 miles abeam the final course), about 135 degrees off the inbound approach course, as we approach CMP, Rome says, "cleared approach". I sort of expected such silliness, it was VMC and I'd seen this before. HDG mode, a swift cut at the inbound VOR approach course, ask the F/O to 'extend the line' and select APPR. Spot the field and fly a visual.

Anyway, why do European controllers do this kind of stuff? The OP should have been given an altitude along with that direct to the IAF with the approach clearance. The altitude should have been one recognizable on the plate and compatible with the approach. But, Noooooooo............

While I understand the maximum holding altitude, the difference in TAS between 5,000 and 8,000 cannot result in a spill-out of the airspace, even at maximum holding airspeed. And spilling out is better than a CFIT. Yes, the terrain here is likely forgiving, not always the case.

GF

OTOH, KTEB tower last month gave me traffic "over the Lincoln Tunnel". How is a pilot supposed to spot a tunnel from an airplane??

[Intruder]

I understand that it may be the normal way of doing business, but is it according to "the book"? IIRC, that's [part of] what the OP was asking.

I've also heard of the Italian "You know where you are? You know where you want to go? You cleared!" type of clearances. Under the right circumstances they are tolerable, but in hard IFR with a pilot who "hasn't been there before," it could be disaster...

So, I'm still waiting for the definitive French document that covers the situation...

[p51guy]

The 1970's TWA 727 Dulles crash into Round Hill, a high hill they flew into on the approach is when the US emphasized when cleared for the approach do not descend below any authorized arrival route altitude and if not on an arrival route maintain last assigned altitude until on an arrival segment even it means to the IAF.

[johns7022]

This reminds of going into Kelowna, CA years back...they cleared me for an approach, which has a holding pattern entry from the IAP..so I entered the procedure turn at last assinged alt, dropping into the IAP alt iin the hold, and did a full turn to get down onto the LOC...

So of course, I got ATC and planes asking me where I am constantly...in the procedure turn entry...out bound, in the turn, in bound...everyone is angry..

On the ground I asked 'what's up'....I guess as long as I was 'in protected airspace, I was suppose to decend in some kind of half ass entry at 5000 ft/mn and intercept the inbound course....

Either way I always assumed that a holding pattern procedure turn required a full circuit.....

I guess either way...what ever you do, it's better to be too high then too low....

[Intruder]

You only need to do the "full circuit" if time requires it. That defines the MAXIMUM protected airspace, not the required track. If you are cleared for the approach and can get down in a 360, then that's OK.

[JeeHell]

I guess you have no idea on how the protection zone of a hold is designed...
They have to take into account the different types of entries (direct, teardrop, etc), the wind drift, the accuracy of the hold fix (not the same if it's VOR, RDL-DME or RNAV based, and if it's in distance or time for the outbound leg length). Quite a lot of different factors.
And yes, the difference between FL50 and FL80 in terms of TAS may not be huge, but it still can make you go in another TMA. Where I work, it's a pain in the a** to locate holds because of that.

[Intruder]

The holding pattern at KELON is listed for 230 KIAS max at (according to your interpretation of Zp) 5000'. If cleared for the approach and needing to descend, it is likely that a pilot would extend some flaps and maybe the landing gear. So, a 180-200 KIAS hold is well within reason under the circumstances.

[BOAC]

Well, all really far too complicated! As I said in post #8, talk to ATC, point just west of KELON, dial in 2700' and arrange to be established on the STAR track inbound KELON just before it when you can then happily dial in 2500' and BINGO! No need for daring hold entries and 360s above hold level or whatever. KISS?

[InSoMnIaC]

I must say the most sense Anybody has made on this thread is Intruder.

Forget MSA's. Maintain 8000' until established over the IAF. if you need to descend before the IAF then request it from ATC.

I haven't seen the approach plate in question but from my experience in similar situations the controller clears you to an altitude that will allow you to conduct a Continuous Desecent Approach anyway. If they mess up and bring you high then ask for lower. simple as that.

[bookworm]

Well, all really far too complicated! As I said in post #8, talk to ATC, point just west of KELON, dial in 2700' and arrange to be established on the STAR track inbound KELON just before it when you can then happily dial in 2500' and BINGO! No need for daring hold entries and 360s above hold level or whatever. KISS?

That misses the point a bit, BOAC, as does the debate about the hold protection. There seems little doubt that aircraft should and usually do end up at KELON at about 2500 ft.

spud3 was given a direct routing when level or levelling at FL80, then given clearance for the approach.

If something similar happened under US rules, you would indeed "talk to ATC", and request descent, presumably more and more assertively as KELON approached.

If something similar happened under Canadian rules, you would follow the procedures that spud3 set out regarding descent, without the need to talk further to ATC.

The issue is whether under French rules (and more generally, other ICAO states' rules) the clearance for the approach either

a) is implicitly an instruction to descend (and if so, to what level?)

or

b) the clearance for the approach does not override the instruction to maintain FL80, and the controller should have issued an explicit descent instruction to get the aircraft down to 2500 ft at KELON.

Practically, with good comms with ATC, there was no problem. There rarely is when you have the chance to say to ATC "did you mean X or Y?" The clarification took place when spud3 reported leaving FL80 and the controller acknowledged, didn't correct. It gets more interesting if spud3's comms had failed after receiving the clearance!

[BOAC]

It gets more interesting if spud3's comms had failed after receiving the clearance!

- well, if you are going to chuck in an R/T failure as well now, then as you will no doubt know there would be an urgent thumbing of Jepp or other docs to locate the 'French' procedure. Different ballgame.

As far as I can see, what I ASSUME spud did was to descend to 2700' initially, and having declared this 'leaving' to ATC - who did not issue any further instruction - I reckon that ticked all the boxes - safe and efficient. Why on earth enter a hold above its maximum altitude?