clearance limit

Ben E. said:
The controller said "direct DOWDY".

Keep in mind DOWDY was not part of my original clearance. So if this did not amend my clearance, I don't know what the next step in my clearance was.
Click to expand...
Look at DOWDY, it's part of the approach procedure: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1705/05275L22.PDF . You were originally filed over Sparta (SAX) to the airport, so this is an amendment.

Ben E. said:
Many on here would say the the airport (KCDW), but there's no logical reason to think that other than it was the closest fix in my original clearance to my current position. But why couldn't SAX be the next fix in my clearance since that was the next point after ESJAY, the last assigned fix that I crossed?
Click to expand...
You were told to "expect the LOC 22", and DOWDY is smack-dab in the middle of that. There would be no logical reason to head past the airport to Sparta.

Ben E. said:
This is the first time I have been told to go to a fix that wasn't part of my original clearance.
Click to expand...
That's life in the fast lane. ATC stands for: "Air Traffic Control-ALT-Delete!" ;)

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
The concept I'm talking about is the one where, under the old rules, you didn't descend until your EAC when NORDO. Iamtheari apparently thought there was a 'gap' because no rule today provides for what to do without an EAC. But the descent paragraph was deleted under the amendment, so that restriction is gone. I'm not saying ATC isn't charged with issuing an approach clearance anymore.
Click to expand...
Sorry that it appeared that way. That's not the gap I'm talking about. You are talking about the 7600 situation, where there is no gap in the rules. There are clear rules for exactly what ATC expects you to do if you lose two-way radio contact. I am talking about the gap in what you are supposed to do if ATC is just too busy to clear you for the approach in a timely manner and you are flying direct to a fix rather than on a vector. That is the OP's situation. As we have learned in this thread, there is no single clear answer and controllers give varying responses for what they expect the pilot to do. If you declare yourself out of radio contact and squawk 7600, then you know what to do and ATC knows what to expect from you. But I maintain that frequency congestion is not grounds to squawk 7600.
 
iamtheari said:
Sorry that it appeared that way. That's not the gap I'm talking about. You are talking about the 7600 situation, where there is no gap in the rules. There are clear rules for exactly what ATC expects you to do if you lose two-way radio contact. I am talking about the gap in what you are supposed to do if ATC is just too busy to clear you for the approach in a timely manner and you are flying direct to a fix rather than on a vector. That is the OP's situation. As we have learned in this thread, there is no single clear answer and controllers give varying responses for what they expect the pilot to do. If you declare yourself out of radio contact and squawk 7600, then you know what to do and ATC knows what to expect from you. But I maintain that frequency congestion is not grounds to squawk 7600.
Click to expand...


And unless there's a Chief Counsel letter citing frequency congestion as lost comm, the references I gave distinguish between the two.

"Expect" applies to two way loss of communications, we didn't have that here.
 
Velocity173 said:
And unless there's a Chief Counsel letter citing frequency congestion as lost comm, the references I gave distinguish between the two.

"Expect" applies to two way loss of communications, we didn't have that here.
Click to expand...
If the references you're referring to are the ones regarding radar vectors, we don't have that here either, and no clearance limit for holding, so continuing inbound would be the reasonable thing to do, IMO. I think there was a commuter pilot a few years ago who made a 180 at the IF at DEN? I don't remember if the Chief Counsel was involved in the case. Maybe somebody else here can cite the details..

dtuuri
 
luvflyin said:
Gotcha. Was "direct DOWDY" and "expect the LOC 22 in the same transmission?"
Click to expand...

No, the expect LOC 22 transmission was about 20 minutes earlier from a different controller right after we passed ESJAY.
 
dtuuri said:
If the references you're referring to are the ones regarding radar vectors, we don't have that here either, and no clearance limit for holding, so continuing inbound would be the reasonable thing to do, IMO. I think there was a commuter pilot a few years ago who made a 180 at the IF at DEN? I don't remember if the Chief Counsel was involved in the case. Maybe somebody else here can cite the details..

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to 5-4-3 b.1.(c). Not all off that section applies to radar vectors either. For instance (a) has nothing to do with vectors.

My reference is the note in 4-6-2 of the .65. It gives guidance to a clearance after a fix. Doesn't even mention that fix being a clearance limit but I think that's the intent. It also makes the distinction between two way lost commo and not being able to get holding instructions (frequency congestion) at a fix that has no published holding. Two different things.
 
Velocity173 said:
I'm not referring to 5-4-3 b.1.(c). Not all off that section applies to radar vectors either. For instance (a) has nothing to do with vectors.

My reference is the note in 4-6-2 of the .65. It gives guidance to a clearance after a fix. Doesn't even mention that fix being a clearance limit but I think that's the intent. It also makes the distinction between two way lost commo and not being able to get holding instructions (frequency congestion) at a fix that has no published holding. Two different things.
Click to expand...
Since when are pilots required to memorize the controller's handbook?

I think it has to be taken in the context of what pilots ARE supposed to know, and since there's nothing in Far or AIM that addresses where a pilot goes without clearance other than for lost comms, the reference you posted is for lost comms. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Since when are pilots required to memorize the controller's handbook?

I think it has to be taken in the context of what pilots ARE supposed to know, and since there's nothing in Far or AIM that addresses where a pilot goes without clearance other than for lost comms, the reference you posted is for lost comms. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise.
Click to expand...

They're not. That's why it (4-6-2) goes nicely with the AIM 5-3-8.

The references make a distinction between two way communication failure (lost comms) and unable (freq congestion) to receive a clearance or holding instructions beyond a fix.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
They're not. That's why it (4-2-6) goes nicely with the AIM 5-3-8.

They references make a distinction between two way communication failure (lost comms) and unable (freq congestion) to receive a clearance or holding instructions beyond a fix.
Click to expand...
Specifically what part of AIM 5-3-8 makes that distinction?
 
Velocity173 said:
I'm not referring to 5-4-3 b.1.(c). Not all off that section applies to radar vectors either. For instance (a) has nothing to do with vectors.
Click to expand...
True. If you look at (d), though, it says once established on final a pilot is expected to "complete the approach". DOWDY is a "fix" on final. The definition of "Established" (my emphasis) is:
ESTABLISHED−
To be stable or fixed on a route, route segment, altitude, heading, etc.
​
AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(d) goes on to say, "Therefore, once established on the final approach course, pilots must not deviate from it unless a clearance to do so is received from ATC."

Velocity173 said:
My reference is the note in 4-6-2 of the .65. It gives guidance to a clearance after a fix. Doesn't even mention that fix being a clearance limit but I think that's the intent. It also makes the distinction between two way lost commo and not being able to get holding instructions (frequency congestion) at a fix that has no published holding. Two different things.
Click to expand...
I'll defer to you, a controller, re: ATC requirements.

dtuuri
 
MauleSkinner said:
Specifically what part of AIM 5-3-8 makes that distinction?
Click to expand...

5-3-8 c. "If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.)..."

That isn't lost commo. That's addressed in the note further down.
 
Velocity173 said:
5-3-8 c. "If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.)..."

That isn't lost commo. That's addressed in the note further down.
Click to expand...
Except that he wasn't cleared to a fix other than the destination airport with delays expected. He was cleared to the airport via direct to a fix on the expected approach.
 
dtuuri said:
True. If you look at (d), though, it says once established on final a pilot is expected to "complete the approach". DOWDY is a "fix" on final. The definition of "Established" (my emphasis) is:
ESTABLISHED−
To be stable or fixed on a route, route segment, altitude, heading, etc.
​
AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(d) goes on to say, "Therefore, once established on the final approach course, pilots must not deviate from it unless a clearance to do so is received from ATC."


I'll defer to you, a controller, re: ATC requirements.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I don't do ATC anymore.

The OP isn't established inbound on the FAC. He was just given direct a fix with no further routing after that fix.

I've used this many times on approach but you have to give further instructions. "Piedmont 3186, proceed direct FUMMA, intercept the localizer/ track inbound, maintain 3,000. Awaiting previous traffic to cancel." By not specifying anything to do after that fix (4-6-2) and not using a route amendment (4-2-5) it leaves a confusing predicament for the pilot.

This isn't about worrying about the OP entering holding because of traffic to FOLLOW. Most likely, the clearance after DOWDY wasn't issued because of the traffic situation in FRONT of the OP. The controller was waiting for it to resolve before issuing the clearance. Therefore, its best (IMO) not to proceed after a fix unless expressly told to do so.
 
Velocity173 said:
Therefore, its best (IMO) not to proceed after a fix unless expressly told to do so.
Click to expand...
I'll leave it there, we disagree. However, if holding at DOWDY is your solution you better get in touch with that commuter pilot who got in trouble first. DOWTY is the end of the line as far as "routing" goes and the beginning of the SIAP in this particular case. Over and out. :)

dtuuri
 
Ben E. said:
No, the expect LOC 22 transmission was about 20 minutes earlier from a different controller right after we passed ESJAY.
Click to expand...
K. I was just curious. The time doesnt change anything. You didn't have any "holes" in your route. The airport remained your clearance "limit" throughout the whole scenario. Lost Com is often not black and white. Thats why AIM 6-4-1 a. exists. At the end of the day, from all I've read here, @noahfong 's advice in post #109 I think is some very good advice and what I would likely follow if things were piling up and I felt unsure what to do. It's most likely though I would have followed my own advice in #21, using what I said in #97. You and your instructor should have some good discussions about all this.
 
Velocity173 said:
4-6-2 (b). With the note that I attached earlier being the most applicable.
Click to expand...

Since when did the .65 become a pilot reference?

"This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it."

Unless you have a chief council opinion, none of this is applies to pilots, nor are they required to be familiar with it.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Since when did the .65 become a pilot reference?

"This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it."

Unless you have a chief council opinion, none of this is applies to pilots, nor are they required to be familiar with it.
Click to expand...

It isn't no will it ever be. I used the AIM reference to support my .65 reference.

I don't claim to be a CC either. That's why it's called a forum. The OP can take my opinion based on my experience and what I referenced or leave it.
 
Velocity173 said:
It isn't no will it ever be. I used the AIM reference to support my .65 reference.

I don't claim to be a CC either. That's why it's called a forum. The OP can take my opinion based on my experience and what I referenced or leave it.
Click to expand...
If you're misreading the .65 like you're misreading the AIM...
 
Velocity173 said:
"Expect" means very little. In this case, it's required by the controller to be issued for "approach information." It's just a standard transmission and not an approach clearance. You're given expect for altitude as well but that doesn't mean you go to it just because the controller is busy.
Click to expand...
I don't know whether this included in your definition of "very little," but the word "expect" has regulatory consequences in cases of lost comm (per 91.185).

Of course, there is a difference of opinion in this thread about whether not being able to get a word in edgewise constitutes lost comm, but if it happens when the aircraft is bearing down on an approach fix, there very well may be safety issues introduced that fit the FAA's definition of an emergency. Consequently, based on the "skin, tin, ticket" principle, I would think that the pilot would be justified in doing whatever he thinks is most likely to mitigate the safety risks.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't know whether this included in your definition of "very little," but the word "expect" has regulatory consequences in cases of lost comm (per 91.185).

Of course, there is a difference of opinion in this thread about whether not being able to get a word in edgewise constitutes lost comm, but if it happens when the aircraft is bearing down on an approach fix, there very well may be safety issues introduced that fit the FAA's definition of an emergency. Consequently, based on the "skin, tin, ticket" principle, I would think that the pilot would be justified in doing whatever he thinks is most likely to mitigate the safety risks.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of the lost comms relevance. In my opinion, the FAA doesn't look at frequency congestion as two way loss of communications.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't know whether this included in your definition of "very little," but the word "expect" has regulatory consequences in cases of lost comm (per 91.185).

Of course, there is a difference of opinion in this thread about whether not being able to get a word in edgewise constitutes lost comm, but if it happens when the aircraft is bearing down on an approach fix, there very well may be safety issues introduced that fit the FAA's definition of an emergency. Consequently, based on the "skin, tin, ticket" principle, I would think that the pilot would be justified in doing whatever he thinks is most likely to mitigate the safety risks.
Click to expand...

I guess it boils down to if you believe loss of two-way radio communications is the loss of exchange of information or radios that don't work. One might expect the word equipment or radio in 91.185 if they wanted the section to only include that circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Yes, I'm aware of the lost comms relevance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I really should read the whole thread before replying.

In my opinion, the FAA doesn't look at frequency congestion as two way loss of communications.
Click to expand...

The differences of opinion on that point are why I brought up the possibility that an emergency may exist. Being in the soup without knowing the controller's expectations could easily qualify.
 
Palmpilot said:
The differences of opinion on that point are why I brought up the possibility that an emergency may exist. Being in the soup without knowing the controller's expectations could easily qualify.
Click to expand...
That's the bigger difference of opinion...whether or not the OP should have known the controller's expectations.
 
By the way, the chart linked earlier has now expired, so I'm trying to attach the PDF to facilitate referring to it after the link becomes broken. Unfortunately, I keep getting an error message.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That's the bigger difference of opinion...whether or not the OP should have known the controller's expectations.
Click to expand...
There's also the possibility that terrain may trump what the pilot thinks the controller expects. For example, when being vectored to the Salinas ILS, there are limits to how far I would continue on a vector that took me past the final approach course. (Fortunately, that's not a sector on which the frequency gets horribly busy.)

https://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/...267.970088343.1496173015-383616061.1477630795
 
Palmpilot said:
There's also the possibility that terrain may trump what the pilot thinks the controller expects. For example, when being vectored to the Salinas ILS, there are limits to how far I would continue on a vector that took me past the final approach course. (Fortunately, that's not a sector on which the frequency gets horribly busy.)

https://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/...267.970088343.1496173015-383616061.1477630795
Click to expand...
If the vector is "too far" past the localizer in that case, it's obviously not what the controller expects...situational awareness is important.

In the case of the OP, the clearance in question was direct to a fix on the approach he was told to expect, at the appropriate altitude for that fix. Not really an issue for terrain.
 
OP here, so it seems like the issues come down to:
* Is the inability to talk to ATC due to frequency congestion a lost comm situation?
* Did the instruction to proceed direct DOWDY, which was not part of the original clearance, constitute a clearance amendment resetting the clearance limit to DOWDY?

This is my analysis based strictly on the rules:

1) If you go with the assumption this is a lost comms situation but not a clearance amendment, then I should fly the LOC 22 since I was told to expect that approach.

2) If this is a lost comms situation and a clearance amendment, then technically I would have to fly to an IAF after reaching DOWDY and then do the approach.

3) If it is not a lost comms situation, rather a clearance amendment making DOWDY my new limit, then I must hold at DOWDY, making a standard pattern on the course I approached DOWDY until further instructed.

4) If it is not a lost comms situation and not a clearance amendment then I don't know what to do because I can't fly what the controller expects unless I'm cleared to do it. It's also unclear what the controller expects because, though I was told to expect the LOC 22 earlier, when the controller later told me to go to DOWDY without instructing me to join the localizer he may have been trying to see how the traffic situation unfolded to make sure it was okay for me to join the localizer, or there may have been some other reason he did not instruct me to join the localizer.

What do you guys think?
 
Think of it this way, you're told to expect a LOC when given vectors as well but you don't intercept until told to do so. If you're on a vector and they've forgotten about you, (freq congestion) you stay on that vector unless an emergency (terrain) exists.
 
Yeah but a vector is explicitly different...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Velocity173 said:
How so? You still haven't been given clearance to proceed inbound on the approach.
Click to expand...

A vector doesn't have an end. It's just an arrow unless they say "join the localizer etc". Without further instruction a vector just keeps going.

A waypoint is a point in space that you either stop and hold at or have to decide how to proceed. You know when you run out of instruction and have to make a choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
2) If this is a lost comms situation and a clearance amendment, then technically I would have to fly to an IAF after reaching DOWDY and then do the approach.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in the regs that specifies going to an IAF...it merely says "from where an approach begins". Dowdy qualifies, IMO.

4) If it is not a lost comms situation and not a clearance amendment then I don't know what to do because I can't fly what the controller expects unless I'm cleared to do it. It's also unclear what the controller expects because, though I was told to expect the LOC 22 earlier, when the controller later told me to go to DOWDY without instructing me to join the localizer he may have been trying to see how the traffic situation unfolded to make sure it was okay for me to join the localizer, or there may have been some other reason he did not instruct me to join the localizer.
Click to expand...
He may or may not be waiting to see how things unfold, but he specifically did not tell you to expect anything else, from which you know that your "expected" is still valid. If there was a traffic issue on the approach, there is almost certainly a traffic issue by the time you get to the approach, unless you've got 60 or 80 knots closure on the aircraft ahead.

By the time you get into the terminal area, you should at least have an idea who's ahead of you, who's behind you, by how far, and what the relative speeds are. None of the stuff you posted should surprise you.

As PIC, you make decisions all the time. Some of them are cut and dried, some of them require detailed knowlege, and some of them require situational awareness and judgment. You get to live or die with the decisions you make, and in the end, YOU are the one making them. Choose wisely, as they say.
 
Last edited:
gsengle said:
A vector doesn't have an end. It's just an arrow unless they say "join the localizer etc". Without further instruction a vector just keeps going.

A waypoint is a point in space that you either stop and hold at or have to decide how to proceed. You know when you run out of instruction and have to make a choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, and the OP wasn't told how to proceed.

If it's a route amendment it must have the route specified after the fix. If it's a clearance to a fix, then it must either have a clearance for the approach or further route instructions. The references I gave make a distinction between lost comms and frequency congestion as well.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yes, and the OP wasn't told how to proceed.

If it's a route amendment it must have the route specified after the fix. If it's a clearance to a fix, then it must either have a clearance for the approach or further route instructions. If it's lost comm, then the OP could go to the airport but the references I have given make a distinction between lost comm and frequency congestion.
Click to expand...

He had been told by the previous controller to expect the approach. But on a vector I'd overfly the localizer if not told cleared for the approach. However if sent direct to a point on the approach there is no way to 'keep going' other than hold or the approach path...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wasn't supporting or refuting. Just saying why a vector is a different thing. Since you asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I wasn't supporting or refuting. Just saying why a vector is a different thing. Since you asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I understand but as I've said before, I believe to OP was given clearance to a fix with nothing after that. 4-6-2 in the .65 and 5-8-4 C of the AIM describe this scenario as best of any other reference. That's all I'm saying on the matter.
 
Velocity173 said:
I understand but as I've said before, I believe to OP was given clearance to a fix with nothing after that. 4-6-2 in the .65 and 5-8-4 C of the AIM describe this scenario as best of any other reference. That's all I'm saying on the matter.
Click to expand...

And I was saying that a vector (which doesn't appear in this scenario) was a different situation, and you appeared to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Velocity173 said:
I understand but as I've said before, I believe to OP was given clearance to a fix with nothing after that. 4-6-2 in the .65 and 5-8-4 C of the AIM describe this scenario as best of any other reference. That's all I'm saying on the matter.
Click to expand...
As the OP said before, he had an expected clearance beyond the fix. He just didn't understand that. Your references DONT address that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top