Apparently you mean FAA AIM 5-4-6
Thanks for the quote.
But what about the rest of the world?

Thank you :)

So, no one can state the ICAO reference for what is an essential item to clarify...

"Cleared for the approach", when on a STAR and published approach implies we can descend inline with the constraints, without any specific instruction to descend?

Flying into a plethora of French and Spanish airports, some will say it, some won't. Depending on who, when, and where. What a wonderful situation in the year 2022.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....69c2be699f.jpg
ICAO published additional guide where they explain some unplumbed situations in radiocommunication.

When in Rome...
 

Do as the Romans do.

It's been that way for as long as I've been flying. (started 1978, recently legislated retirement)

Either wait until you pass a fix/point which allows you to descend procedurally afterwards, get a radar descent from the controller if available or if neither are possible then there is most likely a hold at the IAF for you to descend at.

It seemed like you did. If you're cleared 5000' and the ILS for RWY bla bla, then you maintain 5000' until the IAF for the ILS. You then descend in accordance with the procedure. that seems straight forward. it seemed you were asking if you can descend from 5000' prior to the IAF. The answer to that would be no. And if 5000 is too high for the IAF, ask for more descent.

ATC make mistakes too. By the nature and setup of their work, comm and instruction errors are rather rare. 98 out of a hundred, ATC get it right and pilots wrong.

The trouble is when we make mistakes due to insufficient awareness, all we remember is the insufficient part. Thus any later research tends to repeat the initial chain of logic and repeatedly justify the original action. A false perception is created as the analysis only repeated the error.

Short verison: Gut feeling is when ATC clear you for an approach and then shout about altitude, there's more to the story than being advertised.

Hint: ICAO NPA at post #24 => pilots tend to interpret clearance for approach as an immediate authorisation to descend to the published FAF/FAP altitude immediately, no matter where they are. Dead wrong.

Can you post RNAV STAR AMMOS 1E and RNP W RW30 plates? Thanks

I'm trying to post the plates
IMO, I think that the Controller in the case above should have said something like "you are cleared to descend with the procedure and Cleared RNP RWY 30" to avoid any ambiguity. As there clearly is a procedural join from Ammos all the way to the approach and runway.
There are also other times when it's far from as clear cut as above in terms of the procedure.

I need at least 8 posts

Before PPrune will allow me to post the plates

plates
 

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0489b64d09.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4d02368414.jpg

the usual disclaimer

+ ATC don't use Jeppesen

+ there's usually more to the AIP entry than the charts alone.

+ the (N)AIP graphical depiction / coding might (does!) differ from how air-nav data providers draw their charts, those underlines etc. Probably the AIP will follow certain edition of ICAO ANNEX 4, whereas the commercial publishers use their in-house standards. It is futile to point small differences (underlines missing) when the reason is both sources correctly depicing the same information by their own graphical language. Not always the case but mostly so.

Neither of the above affects the OP question, however the last thread got bit derailed across those lines.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4da2a7b3c2.png

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9a932baa25.png

All being said, my dismay towards the particular supplier grows wider again ....

Best as I can tell, both the AIP and Jeppesen plates depict the same thing for this arrival and approach. (Except for GEMDA/MESIL/BETYO branch of the arrival that's not depicted, but is not relevant here.)

In reference to the TLV clearance:

Fly into LAX couple times a month, for years. Always, from cruise level: “descent via the arrival, contact approach”. That gets me down to 12K’. First contact with approach:”cleared for the ILS”. Step down altitudes from 12K’ are on the Jepp for the approach, so follow those down to GS intercept at 1900’. All this is on a defined track, any headings will get me an altitude from ATC. In your example, you were cleared to the minimum altitude for the STAR, and subsequently cleared for the associated approach. You should have descended according to the descend profile of the approach plate. That is literally the definition of an approach clearance, :”follow the lateral and vertical path of the approach.”

In general, if ambiguity exists, ask for clarification. In the US, as stated, it will almost always be:”maintain XXX till established, cleared for the approach, if not on a published segment. As soon as you are established you are free to either descend to the published minimum altitude, or intercept the path from XXX.

To get back to your original question, I would always follow the minimum altitude of the segment I am on, so that could mean crossing the IAF at 3K’, but only if the segment prior to the IAF had a minimum altitude of 3K’. Or I could intercept at 5K’. In the US there’s no requirement or expectation either way.

As far as an ICAO reference, was an ATCO for a few years, ATP(L) JAA/FAA, 25 years, but no idea…..

Follow the lateral and vertical guidance as published on the charts. All the way down.