Approach Pop Quiz.

[Clip4]

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

Not knowing where you are supposed to go because a controller forgot you and the frequency is congested sounds like an emergency requiring immediate action to me.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would think that anything after the "expect" is just information on what to expect, it is not an official clearance to fly the procedure, fly the hold or anything else, but just continue your last vector and altitude.

It is just like when vectored on to the final approach, Fly heading 080 at 3000, expect the ILS Runway 35R approach. Even though the controller is busy, You can not not just join the ILS approach, unless you have been "cleared" to join. I have flown through the approach waiting for ATC to clear me for the approach, (later figured out that they did not want me to join because of other traffic and just wanted me to continue on the cleared vector)

Sure hope there wasn't a mountain out there. That's one problem with just keep going in the same direction. If ATC is going to vector us through the final approach course, they should tell us.

Btw, AIM 5-3-8.c. only applies to holds. The OP had no holding information.

Well there ya go, even the OP doesn't agree with them.

People on the ground in towers vs people in the airplane with terrain, obstructions and other traffic. That's the problem with some of these questions.

 

[Velocity173]

Btw, AIM 5-3-8.c. only applies to holds. The OP had no holding information.

AIM 5-4-3.1(c) pertains to radar vectors to the final approach. The OP was not given vectors to final.

Well there ya go, even the OP doesn't agree with them.

Yeah, the OP didn’t have hold information because ATC didn’t plan on holding them. Whether it’s “proceed direct” or “cleared direct”, there isn’t any revised routing or clearance after GUNNR. While GUNNR isn’t a clearance limit, that doesn’t give the OP authority to proceed inbound on the approach either. So again, has ATC cleared you to LAL via GUMNR direct? Has ATC cleared you for the approach?

5-4-3 B (1) is “Approach Control” and the service that radar provides. It covers more than just vectors to final. I agree that particular paragraph pertains to vectoring an aircraft to final. Doesn’t matter though because the OP should never get to final anyway without an IAP clearance. In this case, the “full approach” starts at the IAF (GUNNR).

 

[bflynn]

I wonder how many people realize that every explanations given makes an assumption about lost comms without stating so. That is the crux of the problem.

Answer A sounds like the ridiculous answer on an FAA test. No, you don’t keep on flying forward. What if you never get a word in? Then you fly out of radio comms range? Keep on going and hope for better on the next orbit?

B could be an answer, but squawk 7600 if you are declaring lost comms. As PIC, you can decide, but what happens when control comes back and queries you directly.

My answer is C, hold at GUNNR. You haven’t really lost comms, you just haven’t been aggressive enough to jump in. How much does it take to say “12345, one mile GUNNR?”

 

[ahypnoz]

ATC should explain, but my guess is that they sometimes they get very busy, get distracted or just do not have enough time to explain themselves.

In my case, it was not a mountain, but another plane. I was slow and the other plane was a jet inbound on the same approach but was much faster. ATC ended up vectoring me in front and across his flight path, because he knew the jet would overtake me if he put on me on the same approach in front of the jet. He just let me go straight through.

I was practicing and the jet was not.

I think if I would have just joined the approach, with out being cleared to join, I would have done something unexpected and caused trouble.

 

[mscard88]

. If ATC is going to vector us through the final approach course, they should tell us.

They’re required to, at least back when I did it.

 

[Sundancer]

ATC guys - what is the least "disruptive" action? Least likely to take you by surprise and/or gack up seperation? I'm in the "hold at GUNNR" camp, thinking you know we haven't communicated, and you'll recognize my intent after 90 degrees of turn or less. . .?

 

[luvflyin]

Sure hope there wasn't a mountain out there. That's one problem with just keep going in the same direction. If ATC is going to vector us through the final approach course, they should tell us.


People on the ground in towers vs people in the airplane with terrain, obstructions and other traffic. That's the problem with some of these questions.

They are supposed to tell you.

5−9−3. VECTORS ACROSS FINAL APPROACH COURSE
Inform the aircraft whenever a vector will take it across the final approach course and state the reason for such action.
NOTE−
In the event you are unable to so inform the aircraft, the pilot is not expected to turn inbound on the final approach course unless approach clearance has been issued.
PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR (purpose).
EXAMPLE−
“EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR SPACING.”
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 5−9−2, Final Approach Course Interception.

 

[luvflyin]

ATC guys - what is the least "disruptive" action? Least likely to take you by surprise and/or gack up seperation? I'm in the "hold at GUNNR" camp, thinking you know we haven't communicated, and you'll recognize my intent after 90 degrees of turn or less. . .?

I would never have expected him to hold at GUUNR. It was not his Clearance Limit. I would expect him to do what FAR 91.185 says he should do, proceed via the route he was told to expect. In 25 years of working Approach and Center I cannot recall anything in training, experience or anyone I ever worked with saying anything to the contrary

 

[dtuuri]

I would never have expected him to hold at GUUNR. It was not his Clearance Limit. I would expect him to do what FAR 91.185 says he should do, proceed via the route he was told to expect. In 25 years of working Approach and Center I cannot recall anything in training, experience or anyone I ever worked with saying anything to the contrary

Cha-ching!

 

[luvflyin]

Yeah, the OP didn’t have hold information because ATC didn’t plan on holding them. Whether it’s “proceed direct” or “cleared direct”, there isn’t any revised routing or clearance after GUNNR. While GUNNR isn’t a clearance limit, that doesn’t give the OP authority to proceed inbound on the approach either. So again, has ATC cleared you to LAL via GUMNR direct? Has ATC cleared you for the approach?

5-4-3 B (1) is “Approach Control” and the service that radar provides. It covers more than just vectors to final. I agree that particular paragraph pertains to vectoring an aircraft to final. Doesn’t matter though because the OP should never get to final anyway without an IAP clearance. In this case, the “full approach” starts at the IAF (GUNNR).

You brought up a good point that is what is causing the misinterpretations that lead to pilots think that CLEARED DIRECT means it’s a new Clearance Limit. That phrase should be removed from Phraseology and replaced with PROCEED DIRECT. If the OP had been given a heading to fly first and then go Direct, the correct phraseology would have been;

FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED DIRECT (name of fix),

 

[midlifeflyer]

They’re required to, at least back when I did it.

I know they are "supposed" to. A good reason they should.

 

[Velocity173]

I would never have expected him to hold at GUUNR. It was not his Clearance Limit. I would expect him to do what FAR 91.185 says he should do, proceed via the route he was told to expect. In 25 years of working Approach and Center I cannot recall anything in training, experience or anyone I ever worked with saying anything to the contrary

That’s because the situation isn’t specifically covered in regulation/ policy. The closest thing to the OP’s situation would be 4-6-2 in the .65 which does make a distinction between frequency congestion and lost commo. Even though they haven’t been “cleared to” IAW 4-6–2 they have been told “direct” a fix with no clearance beyond the fix. Direct a fix that isn’t in the missed approach procedure and isn’t in a previous clearance either. It would be like a controller modifying an enroute route, direct a fix off the route with no clearance beyond it. Literally leaves the pilot up in the air on where to go after.

If we’re going the lost commo route, where is the line drawn that freq congestion becomes lost commo? Say you were vectoring the OP for the ILS rwy 9 at LAL and didn’t have time to issue the clearance. He’s about to shoot through, would you expect the OP to sqk 7600, intercept the FAC and proceed inbound?

 

[aterpster]

Sure hope there wasn't a mountain out there. That's one problem with just keep going in the same direction. If ATC is going to vector us through the final approach course, they should tell us.


People on the ground in towers vs people in the airplane with terrain, obstructions and other traffic. That's the problem with some of these questions.

In this case he was in a TAA with a minimum instrument altitude of 2,700 feet out to 30 miles beyond GUUNR. That doesn't excuse the lousy handling by ATC but does provide a significant safety net. Understanding TAAs would have saved the B1900 cargo crew at Dillingham, Alaska.

 

[Grum.Man]

I would fly to the fix and hold on my current heading until told otherwise. You are not cleared for the approach until the words "cleared for the approach". Your first clearance does not carry over to your second chance. This is not a lost com procedure. Lastly this in the end was just a poor job of the controller. What I would have done with the congestion and while approaching the fix is hit the ident button on the transponder. This would have highlighted me to remind him without having to break into the train of radio traffic.

 

[luvflyin]

That’s because the situation isn’t specifically covered in regulation/ policy. The closest thing to the OP’s situation would be 4-6-2 in the .65 which does make a distinction between frequency congestion and lost commo. Even though they haven’t been “cleared to” IAW 4-6–2 they have been told “direct” a fix with no clearance beyond the fix. Direct a fix that isn’t in the missed approach procedure and isn’t in a previous clearance either. It would be like a controller modifying an enroute route, direct a fix off the route with no clearance beyond it. Literally leaves the pilot up in the air on where to go after.

If we’re going the lost commo route, where is the line drawn that freq congestion becomes lost commo? Say you were vectoring the OP for the ILS rwy 9 at LAL and didn’t have time to issue the clearance. He’s about to shoot through Would you expect the OP to sqk 7600, intercept the FAC and proceed inbound?

I was responding to Post #47 where the question was should you go into Holding at GUUNR. Yeah, when exactly do you decide that you are Lost Com has no definite answer. There is no defined cut off point like they haven't responded to you in say 30 seconds.

 

[dtuuri]

It would be like a controller modifying an enroute route, direct a fix off the route with no clearance beyond it. Literally leaves the pilot up in the air on where to go after.

No it doesn't. The route is over with at the fix because that is the beginning of an SIAP. No 91.185 altitude rule would apply after that point, for example. Also, no need for saying "rest of the route unchanged", as in the "Note" I mentioned earlier.

Say you were vectoring the OP for the ILS rwy 9 at LAL and didn’t have time to issue the clearance. He’s about to shoot through, would you expect the OP to sqk 7600, intercept the FAC and proceed inbound?

Unless the pilot can read your mind, how's s/he supposed to know you didn't intend to drive through the course for traffic? If concerned, a pilot can simply ask you. If no response, apply 91.185.

Yeah, when exactly do you decide that you are Lost Com has no definite answer. There is no defined cut off point like they haven't responded to you in say 30 seconds.

You go lost comm when you can't communicate, for whatever reason. Say the airway changes to a higher MEA, but frequency congestion 1.5 miles from the fix is preventing a higher authorized altitude--apply 91.185.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In this case he was in a TAA with a minimum instrument altitude of 2,700 feet out to 30 miles beyond GUUNR. That doesn't excuse the lousy handling by ATC but does provide a significant safety net. Understanding TAAs would have saved the B1900 cargo crew at Dillingham, Alaska.

In this case, definitely. But as an SOP, motoring through a final approach course doesn't strike me as a good strategy.

 

[Velocity173]

No it doesn't. The route is over with at the fix because that is the beginning of an SIAP. No 91.185 altitude rule would apply after that point, for example. Also, no need for saying "rest of the route unchanged", as in the "Note" I mentioned earlier.


Unless the pilot can read your mind, how's s/he supposed to know you didn't intend to drive through the course for traffic? If concerned, a pilot can simply ask you. If no response, apply 91.185.


You go lost comm when you can't communicate, for whatever reason. Say the airway changes to a higher MEA, but frequency congestion 1.5 miles from the fix is preventing a higher authorized altitude--apply 91.185.

And again, this situation isn’t lost commo. No matter how you try and spin frequency congestion into lost commo, it’s not. The FAA specifically addresses the issue in holding at a clearance limit with freq congestion vs 91.185 procedures.

The pilot can’t read the controller’s mind, that’s why you stay on the vector, even if you weren’t told to expect vectors across final.

Listen, this situation isn’t black and white and unless you come up with a CC letter that specifically addresses it, it’s all interpretation. My feeling is, not that I’d ever put myself in the situation, if I couldn’t spit out an IAP clearance, the last place I want the aircraft is heading down final.

 

[dtuuri]

I'll leave it to others to decide if it's "spin". Here's the AIM section you cite. Notice that the OP was never given an expected delay or notification of an impending hold, so the comment on frequency congestion doesn't apply. Where it does apply to aircraft bound for a hold it only instructs which direction to turn and what course to hold on:

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.

c. ...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.​

 

[ahypnoz]

But once he passed GUUNR, without any further instructions, he is on the assumed vector to get to GUUNR.

If he was given direct to TUMPY instead of GUUNR, what should he do after that, hold at TUMPY? Turn towards ARSHW after TUMPY? Or continue past TUMPY on the vector that got him to TUMPY. That is where I am confused.

Note: GUUNR is not on the approach plate

As been earlier stated, communication was not lost, there was just no communication, that is the problem.

 

[dtuuri]

But once he passed GUUNR, without any further instructions, he is on the assumed vector to get to GUUNR.

If he was given direct to TUMPY instead of GUUNR, what should he do after that, hold at TUMPY? Turn towards ARSHW after TUMPY? Or continue past TUMPY on the vector that got him to TUMPY. That is where I am confused.

Note: GUUNR is not on the approach plate

As been earlier stated, communication was not lost, there was just no communication, that is the problem.

If communication is impossible, how is it not "lost"?

GUUNR is on the SIAP the OP provided, It's an IAF.

If he was given direct TUMPY and if it wasn't on the route as previously cleared, then ATC will include the routing afterward in the clearance. This has all been properly cited by me in earlier posts of the AIM and Controllers' Handbook.

Once past GUUNR (not often you see two 'U's together in a name, lol) the aircraft is on an SIAP, the enroute portion is over.

 

[bflynn]

What I'm hearing is that the AIM directs you to hold if you lack further clearance, but the generally used procedure is to go forward on the expected clearance even though you're not really in lost comms.

What do I know, I'm just a student...

 

[dtuuri]

What I'm hearing is that the AIM directs you to hold if you lack further clearance, but the generally used procedure is to go forward on the expected clearance even though you're not really in lost comms.

It's the controller who directs you to hold, the AIM tells you how if the controller didn't include those instructions.

 

[Larry in TN]

You brought up a good point that is what is causing the misinterpretations that lead to pilots think that CLEARED DIRECT means it’s a new Clearance Limit.

It's due to the nearly universal availability of radar coverage in the CONUS negating the need to change an IFR flight's clearance limit quite rare.

 

[Palmpilot]

So when would one fly the "expect" leg of the instruction? Is that only applicable with lost comm? The OP's CFII had him go ahead and fly the "expect" leg, and it sounds like ATC did not have a problem with that in this case.

 

[dtuuri]

So when would one fly the "expect" leg of the instruction? Is that only applicable with lost comm? The OP's CFII had him go ahead and fly the "expect" leg, and it sounds like ATC did not have a problem with that in this case.

I would answer with another question, "When would one change altitude or leave a clearance limit without permission?"

 

[aterpster]

They are supposed to tell you.

5−9−3. VECTORS ACROSS FINAL APPROACH COURSE
Inform the aircraft whenever a vector will take it across the final approach course and state the reason for such action.
NOTE−
In the event you are unable to so inform the aircraft, the pilot is not expected to turn inbound on the final approach course unless approach clearance has been issued.
PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR (purpose).
EXAMPLE−
“EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR SPACING.”
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 5−9−2, Final Approach Course Interception.

He wasn't being vector nor was it the final approach course. It was direct to an IAF and "expect the full approach." The full approach is this case would be GUUNR-ARSHW (NoPT)-FLYEN-final approach segment.

 

[luvflyin]

He wasn't being vector nor was it the final approach course. It was direct to an IAF and "expect the full approach." The full approach is this case would be GUUNR-ARSHW (NoPT)-FLYEN-final approach segment.

Yeah. The final approach course didn’t enter into the OP’s scenario. I was just responding to the final approach course reference in post #42

 

[Grum.Man]

This isn't as difficult as people are making out to be. You shouldn't fly an approach unless cleared. You aren't lost comms unless you are squaking 7600. If you in fact lost comms squaked 7600 then you would fly the approach as it was expected as you would be given priority over other aircraft on the approach.

 

[Grum.Man]

The only real question I see is whether you should have flown straight until further clearance or held at the cleared to fix.

 

[Grum.Man]

For the record I had a very similar situation happen to me once. Coming into 8A7 from the North West cleared direct Zempo (IAF). Didn't receive any further clearance from ATC as I was approaching. Fortunately I was able to make contact and was told to continue present heading and I would be vectored back for the approach as she had another airplane on an approach to a neighboring airport. So unless you hear the words cleared for the approach, you should not fly the approach. If you truly lose communication you should squawk 7600 so that they know as now you will be considered an emergency and any conflicting traffic will be vectored clear of you. Just be prepared to file a written report if requested to do so.

 

[dtuuri]

This isn't as difficult as people are making out to be. You shouldn't fly an approach unless cleared. You aren't lost comms unless you are squaking 7600. If you in fact lost comms squaked 7600 then you would fly the approach as it was expected as you would be given priority over other aircraft on the approach.

The only real question I see is whether you should have flown straight until further clearance or held at the cleared to fix.

You should go to work for the FAA where you can get your misconceptions printed in training manuals, like crossing over midfield at pattern altitude into the downwind and you can advise the Chief Counsel on when to leave a clearance limit when the limit is the destination airport.

 

[mscard88]

Now you’re saying midfield crosswind for downwind is wrong?

 

[dtuuri]

For the record I had a very similar situation happen to me once. Coming into 8A7 from the North West cleared direct Zempo (IAF). Didn't receive any further clearance from ATC as I was approaching. Fortunately I was able to make contact and was told to continue present heading...

That was NOT a similar situation.

 

[dtuuri]

Now you’re saying midfield crosswind for downwind is wrong?

No, it WAS wrong, but a misguided FAA manual has made it "right". Let's not chase this rabbit, please.

 

[Velocity173]

Now you’re saying midfield crosswind for downwind is wrong?

So are overheads!

 

[dtuuri]

So are overheads!

Unless one has been "established", yes. You finally said something I can agree with. Got to go now.

 

[Palmpilot]

I would answer with another question, "When would one change altitude or leave a clearance limit without permission?"

What I'm trying to find is, "What was the controller giving the OP permission to do?"

 

[luvflyin]

For the record I had a very similar situation happen to me once. Coming into 8A7 from the North West cleared direct Zempo (IAF). Didn't receive any further clearance from ATC as I was approaching. Fortunately I was able to make contact and was told to continue present heading and I would be vectored back for the approach as she had another airplane on an approach to a neighboring airport. So unless you hear the words cleared for the approach, you should not fly the approach. If you truly lose communication you should squawk 7600 so that they know as now you will be considered an emergency and any conflicting traffic will be vectored clear of you. Just be prepared to file a written report if requested to do so.

Had you been “Cleared To” ZEMPO, making it your Clearance Limit? Or was the last time you heard “Cleared TO” been the airport?