Approach Pop Quiz.

You........

  • A.) Continue direct GUUNR then overfly it continuing with existing heading.

    Votes: 14 26.9%
  • B.) Continue direct GUUNR then proceed to ARSHW.

    Votes: 38 73.1%

  • Total voters
    52
If he's Cleared To GUUNR, that's the clearance limit. No EFC or holding instructions is sloppy controller work. AIM 5-3-8 a., b., and c., d. and e. tell you what you are supposed to do about that.

In particular, c.

5-3-8 c) If no holding pattern is charted and holding instructions have not been issued, the pilot should ask ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix. This procedure will eliminate the possibility of an aircraft entering a holding pattern other than that desired by ATC. If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.), then enter a standard pattern on the course on which the aircraft approached the fix and request further clearance as soon as possible. In this event, the altitude/flight level of the aircraft at the clearance limit will be protected so that separation will be provided as required.​
 
Not always. Both airports in this incident were uncontrolled. Confusion over Clearance Limit had nothing to do with it of course, he just got lost. Love this story how he went back to play along

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/25/Wrong-Way-Ferguson-returns-to-Buffalo/1905364881600/
Of course, I was just kidding you. We aren't disagreeing about why they mention the destination clearance limit, redundantly, in the approach clearance. My point was that they don't single out non-towered destinations as the only destinations where the original airport clearance mentioned at departure is applicable. It applies to the towered airports too. It's just that approach control isn't the final contact for a flight to towers. Approach hands off to tower which should end any possible confusion about the destination. In the event of lost comms, neither kind of airport requires a clearance. Or holding, unless holding at a new clearance limit short of the destination is received. There, I hope that's better.
 
Last edited:
In particular, c.

5-3-8 c) ...If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix ...
WHAT FIX? If you don't hear "Clearance limit" or "Expect to hold" somewhere--as far as I and most other pilots are concerned there's no hold requirement. This thread is the only place I've ever heard or seen in print that "Cleared to" in the absence of holding instructions means a new clearance limit. And I've been around for a long time.:)
 
WHAT FIX?

GUNNR is the Initial Approach Fix. That fix.

I still have not heard an explanation for ignoring the procedure in the AIM. It explicitly says “ if no hold has been assigned and there is frequency congestion”. Isn’t that the exact situation the OP posted?

I understand that everyone has said “awww, just start the approach”. It seems like that is the custom, but it is not the recommended procedure.

Is this a special circumstance where everyone just agrees to ignore the AIM?
 
GUNNR is the Initial Approach Fix. That fix.

I still have not heard an explanation for ignoring the procedure in the AIM. It explicitly says “ if no hold has been assigned and there is frequency congestion”. Isn’t that the exact situation the OP posted?
Well, I'll give it one last try, then I'm going to McDonalds. It does not say what you wrote, it says "If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix..." That means direction of turns and bearing from the fix. Lacking that, then follow the guidance they're giving.

I understand that everyone has said “awww, just start the approach”. It seems like that is the custom, but it is not the recommended procedure.

Is this a special circumstance where everyone just agrees to ignore the AIM?
Absolutely not. You just need somebody to clarify things you don't understand. Think about it this way, why would a pilot be "unable to obtain holding instructions" as though holding is their desire? Show me a pilot who yearns to hold.
 
GUNNR is the Initial Approach Fix. That fix.

I still have not heard an explanation for ignoring the procedure in the AIM. It explicitly says “ if no hold has been assigned and there is frequency congestion”. Isn’t that the exact situation the OP posted?

I understand that everyone has said “awww, just start the approach”. It seems like that is the custom, but it is not the recommended procedure.

Is this a special circumstance where everyone just agrees to ignore the AIM?

Dude just give up. He isn’t going to admit he is wrong. He totally side stepped my scenario when he realized he wouldn’t just climb due to frequency congestion. He even had this same debate with the FAA and came to the conclusion on his blog that they were wrong. Haha.
 
Last edited:
Dude just give up. He isn’t going to admit he is wrong. He totally side stepped my scenario when he realized he wouldn’t just climb due to frequency congestion. He even had this same debate with the FAA and came to the conclusion on his blog that they were wrong. Haha.
There's so much wrong here I don't know where to start.

"He totally side stepped my scenario when he realized he wouldn’t just climb due to frequency congestion."​

I answered that I would and I have. Even told you where and how. Even said the AIM tells you to wait at least one minute if you're enroute and call FSS.

"He even had this same debate with the FAA and came to the conclusion on his blog that they were wrong."
You're speaking of this: http://www.avclicks.com/lost_comm/Lost_comm2/index.html slide show. In there are three questions I submitted to the AIr Traffic Organization (ATO) regarding the "Lost Comm Amendment 91-189" which ATO was responsible for obtaining, circa 1987, but which seemed to be lost upon pilots, since for decades they were still being trained in pre-Amendment 91-189 ways.

Rather than answer my questions, they punted to the Office of Chief Counsel, a bunch of non-pilots who assigned a newly hired lawyer the task of responding. After not addressing my questions, at all, in her first response, she tried again and admitted that "If during the flight the aircraft loses radio communication, the clearance limit of the aircraft is the destination airport." Exactly what I'm saying.

She should have quit right there. Instead she went on to say "If an aircraft arrives early at its clearance limit, the pilot should proceed as specified in 91.185(c)(3)." Well, that's not quite right when the clearance limit is the destination airport because you're on the ground. It's only right if you've been assigned a holding fix short of the destination. So I said she misspoke, which she did.

In any case, this was not the same debate I'm having with you. It was about holding over the destination airport, which is not an approved holding location when you're "Cleared direct", like many pilots seemed to think they should do and, incorrectly, wait until ETA.

 
Last edited:
Per my most recent recurrent in 121 with an FAA observer in the back of the sim, when given direct a fix that becomes your new clearance limit.
 
Per my most recent recurrent in 121 with an FAA observer in the back of the sim, when given direct a fix that becomes your new clearance limit.
It could be a fix on your previously assigned route and the controller isn't obliged to say "Rest of the route unchanged", as per Order 7110.65X, Par 4-2-5.a.1.2., and 3. and the "Note" below. So, I'd say you didn't understand what he was saying.
 
Location: KLAL

Scenario:

You are a C172 on missed approach instructions from RWY 09 ILS heading 360 @ 3000. You request the RNAV RWY 9 after switching from tower on the missed. The frequency is congested. You are 6NM north of KLAL @ 3000 when you get a new clearance:

"N-C172 turn left heading 270 direct GUUNR when able. Expect the full approach."

You are now 1.5NM from GUUNR with the approached loaded. The frequency is still congested.

You........

A.) Continue direct GUUNR then overfly it continuing with existing heading while you wait for a chance to query approach or receive next clearance.

B.) Continue direct GUUNR then proceed to ARSHW because you were told to expect the full approach.

-----------------------------------------------------

This was a real situation. I was with my CFI-I and he had me continue to ARSHW after GUUNR. When he got a chance he clicked in and announced we were (then at that point) 3.5 from ARSHW. The controller then cleared us for the RNAV 9 approach and then transferred us to tower. Had I been alone I would have continued past GUUNR on heading since I was not yet cleared for the approach and didn't remember that at the time the controller had said to expect the full approach. If it even would have made a difference. He told me; technically both options were correct.

I think I would have done exactly as your instructor had you do in this scenario. You were told to expect the full approach so that is what the controller would expect you to do if calls are missed. One tool in the quiver in this situation that my instructor has drilled into my head to use is to slow down. I'm training in an SR 20 in which at this point of getting to an approach we are probably slowed to 120 knots. When things start getting uncertain you can just pull back the power and slow to 100 to give yourself more time. I'm sure there are similar settings in a 172 although I get things happens slower to start with.
 
It could be a fix on your previously assigned route and the controller isn't obliged to say "Rest of the route unchanged", as per Order 7110.65X, Par 4-2-5.a.1.2., and 3. and the "Note" below. So, I'd say you didn't understand what he was saying.

What are you saying I didn't understand? When you are CLEARED direct to a fix, that becomes your new clearance limit. Rest of route is immaterial, which coincidentally is why its not required to say it.

If you look back at my previous post, asking the OP what was the exact verbiage used then there are only two possibilities here. The OP got incomplete instructions or he should have held at GUUNR.

All this other gobbledygook is poppy cock.

Pilots - making simple stuff hard since 1913.©
 
When you are CLEARED direct to a fix, that becomes your new clearance limit.
Then show luvflyin the reference. He's a retired controller who instructed at the FAA's controller school and even he can't find it.

As for your other questions/comments, I don't have any idea what you don't understand other than that. My money's on the FAA sim examiner knowing more than you, but maybe not. He or she was probably saying something else you took for "Cleared to" means a new clearance limit.

I would agree that in the absence of a previously assigned route that the fix is located on that an off-route fix would certainly raise some questions about what to do after you get there. Because if you don't get it sorted out before you get there and you lose comms--nobody has a clue what you will do.
 
First of all - pilots are not required to know the .65

Secondly the word itself defines itself. It is a clearance to do something but since you seem to be purposely obtuse and dense... from the PCG -

AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE− An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace
CLEARANCE LIMIT− The fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is cleared when issued an air traffic clearance.

If you are given "cleared direct FIX(,point or location...) expect full approach" then that is exactly and only what it means you are CLEARED to that fix. An expect is not a CLEARANCE.

You've purposely avoided answering simple direct questions and continually move the goalposts to try to rationalize your being right.

You're wrong. Get over it.

Pilots - making simple stuff hard since 1913©
 
I'm well aware of all you copied and pasted. I backed up my posts with references. I have not resorted to insults. G'bye.
 
First of all - pilots are not required to know the .65

Secondly the word itself defines itself. It is a clearance to do something but since you seem to be purposely obtuse and dense... from the PCG -

AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE− An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace
CLEARANCE LIMIT− The fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is cleared when issued an air traffic clearance.

If you are given "cleared direct FIX(,point or location...) expect full approach" then that is exactly and only what it means you are CLEARED to that fix. An expect is not a CLEARANCE.

You've purposely avoided answering simple direct questions and continually move the goalposts to try to rationalize your being right.

You're wrong. Get over it.

Pilots - making simple stuff hard since 1913©

CLEARED DIRECT and CLEARED TO are not the same. You could be on a route that is AAA BBB CCC DDD KEEE. When you got that clearance you would have been Cleared To KEEE. If some where between AAA and BBB the controller decides to give you a short cut and says Cleared Direct DDD, DDD does not become your Clearance Limit. If he says Cleared To DDD via present position direct, then it is your new Clearance Limit.
 
Lets talk real world. The pilot did not lose coms it is just frequency congestion. We know it is busy there so if the pilot enters a hold what happens when they turn back inbound from the hold, into the airplane that was behind them? The controller knows where the pilot is and has told them what to expect. If the controller wanted them to do something different the controller would tell them instead of talking to the other airplanes.

I would continue but not start the descent part of the approach until I talked to the controller.
 
Well, I'll give it one last try, then I'm going to McDonalds. It does not say what you wrote, it says "If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix..."


The AIM says exactly what I said because I quoted it.

The AIM says that if you don't have instructions to hold, but you reach the last point you have been authorized to fly to and cannot get further authorization because of a temporary measure, such as frequency congestion, then you enter a pattern to hold at that point along your last heading.

5-3-8 c) If no holding pattern is charted and holding instructions have not been issued, the pilot should ask ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix. This procedure will eliminate the possibility of an aircraft entering a holding pattern other than that desired by ATC. If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.), then enter a standard pattern on the course on which the aircraft approached the fix and request further clearance as soon as possible. In this event, the altitude/flight level of the aircraft at the clearance limit will be protected so that separation will be provided as required.



You just need somebody to clarify things you don't understand.

But that isn't really my question and you didn't address it.

Hope you enjoyed McDonalds.
 
The AIM says exactly what I said because I quoted it.
No, you said this:

It explicitly says “ if no hold has been assigned and there is frequency congestion”.

The AIM actually says this, which isn't the same:

5−3−8. Holding
a. Whenever an aircraft is cleared to a fix other
than the destination airport and delay is expected, it
is the responsibility of ATC to issue complete holding
instructions (unless the pattern is charted)
, an EFC
time and best estimate of any additional en route/terminal delay.
NOTE−
Only those holding patterns depicted on U.S. government
or commercially produced (meeting FAA requirements)
low/high altitude en route, and area or STAR charts should
be used.
b. If the holding pattern is charted and the
controller doesn’t issue complete holding instruc-
tions, the pilot is expected to hold as depicted on the
appropriate chart. When the pattern is charted on the
assigned procedure or route being flown, ATC may
omit all holding instructions except the charted holding
direction and the statement AS PUBLISHED;
for example, HOLD EAST AS PUBLISHED.
ATC must always issue complete holding instructions
when pilots request them.

c. If no holding pattern is charted and holding
instructions have not been issued, the pilot should ask
ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix.
This procedure will eliminate the possibility of an
aircraft entering a holding pattern other than that
desired by ATC. If unable to obtain holding
instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to
frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.), then
enter a standard pattern on the course on which the
aircraft approached the fix and request further
clearance as soon as possible.
In this event, the
altitude/flight level of the aircraft at the clearance
limit will be protected so that separation will be
provided as required.
d. When an aircraft is 3 minutes or less from a
clearance limit and a clearance beyond the fix has not
been received, the pilot is expected to start a speed
reduction so that the aircraft will cross the fix,
initially, at or below the maximum holding airspeed.
e. When no delay is expected, the controller
should issue a clearance beyond the fix as soon as
possible and, whenever possible, at least 5 minutes
before the aircraft reaches the clearance limit.
f. Pilots should report to ATC the time and
altitude/flight level at which the aircraft reaches the
clearance limit and report leaving the clearance limit.
NOTE−
In the event of two-way communications failure, pilots are
required to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185.​

First, ATC has to give you a clearance limit before this paragraph even applies. Once you know, by whatever verbiage they convey their intent to hold you, this section kicks in as to "how" to hold, i.e., your "holding instructions". It does not mean "if no hold has been assigned", it means "if no 'holding instructions' have been assigned", that is, which direction from the fix, etc.

The AIM says that if you don't have instructions to hold, but you reach the last point you have been authorized to fly to and cannot get further authorization because of a temporary measure, such as frequency congestion, then you enter a pattern to hold at that point along your last heading.
This is somewhat correct. You hold on the arrival course at the fix, not the "heading". Also, if you "don't have instructions to hold", you won't have a "last point you have been authorized to fly to" as per above. A "clearance limit" means "holding fix".

Hope you enjoyed McDonalds.
There was a long line of cars stacked up in a holding pattern, so I went to my alternate: Burger King.:)
 
Last edited:
First, ATC has to give you a clearance limit ...

You are flying to a fix by ATC instruction. You have a clearance and therefore have a limit to that clearance whether the words "clearance limit" were used or not. The original clearance limit of the airport expired with the missed approach, ATC is not preserving all routes to the airport exclusively for you while you go missed. There was no clearance onto the RNAV approach. Therefore the limit of the current clearance must be GUNNR.

BTW, you keep saying that you have to be issued a hold to get into 5-3-8, but section c. states...and I emphasized it in a previous post..."If no holding pattern is charted and holding
instructions have not been issued...
", so clearly you can get down into 5-3-8 when you don't have a hold already.

My takeaway is that the AIM is not very useful in this situation since it is telling you to do something that would cause more confusion than it would solve. ATC put the OP in an ambiguous situation and there is no way to know whether holding at GUNNR would cause problems with traffic behind or whether turning onto the approach would cause problems with traffic ahead, possibly entering at another IAF. But most of the parties involved expect the pilot to fly the "expected" and to get a word in as soon as possible. The AIM isn't regulatory.
 
You are flying to a fix by ATC instruction. You have a clearance and therefore have a limit to that clearance whether the words "clearance limit" were used or not. The original clearance limit of the airport expired with the missed approach, ATC is not preserving all routes to the airport exclusively for you while you go missed. There was no clearance onto the RNAV approach. Therefore the limit of the current clearance must be GUNNR.

BTW, you keep saying that you have to be issued a hold to get into 5-3-8, but section c. states...and I emphasized it in a previous post..."If no holding pattern is charted and holding
instructions have not been issued...
", so clearly you can get down into 5-3-8 when you don't have a hold already.

My takeaway is that the AIM is not very useful in this situation since it is telling you to do something that would cause more confusion than it would solve. ATC put the OP in an ambiguous situation and there is no way to know whether holding at GUNNR would cause problems with traffic behind or whether turning onto the approach would cause problems with traffic ahead, possibly entering at another IAF. But most of the parties involved expect the pilot to fly the "expected" and to get a word in as soon as possible. The AIM isn't regulatory.

I'm just a wanna-be instrument student, but this take seems insightful and makes the most sense to me.

Any major disagreements?
 
Last edited:
"Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler asserted, "The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more reasonable spelling. 'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William Safire held an opposite opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be followed." "Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped from favor and for centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in dictionaries. That changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published showing "judgement" as an equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more popular in the U.S., whereas both spellings make a good showing in Britain."​

Fowler died in 1933. Besides, he was English.

Safire died in 2009 and he was American!
 
"Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler asserted, "The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more reasonable spelling. 'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William Safire held an opposite opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be followed." "Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped from favor and for centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in dictionaries. That changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published showing "judgement" as an equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more popular in the U.S., whereas both spellings make a good showing in Britain."​

Fowler died in 1933. Besides, he was English.

Safire died in 2009 and he was American!
In my horror days of being in public accounting pre-airline days, I worked for one of national accounting firms. They had directives for everything. "Judgement" was their choice. I had always heard "judgment" before I went with them.
 
Back
Top