Cleared to Land

Don Jones

Don Jones

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
855
Location
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Display Name
Display name:
DJones
One of my comm students called me the other day about an experience she had on a recent trip into El Paso. In-bound to the airport approach gave her instructions to "cleared visual approach runway 22, maintain 6000, contact tower on 118.3". She calls up the tower and they said "runway 22 clear to land". So she starts decending for the landing(she is on a right base), now about 2 miles out. Tower calls her up and asks her if she was given an altitude restriction to which she replied she had been. He spanked her a little, but it was a non-event. She calls them after landing on the phone on her own (wasn't asked to) and was told she should have maintained the assigned altitude until turning final, but it was no problem. She asked me what I would have done. I told her of course she should have asked about the altitude restriction, but hearing the "cleared to land" instruction I could see how it could be confusing and I might have done the same thing she did. What would you have done?
 
Last edited:
Not a CFI:

What's the TPA for El Paso? ( yeah, I know I can look it up! )
 
2 miles out, 6000' - 3958' = 2042' AGL, cleared to land, and expected to maintain that altitude? I'm with you, I'd have taken "cleared to land" as canceling the prior altitude restriction, though yes, she should have mentioned it on callup.

There is no reason I'm aware of that would have led her to believe turning to final would have canceled the restriction; either the "clear to land" would remove it or they would have to explicitly remove it. That's not to say that there aren't obstacles in the way, but then I would expect to be vectored further out and given an explicit "mantain 6000' until on final" or something similar.

Someone with more experience, if I'm wrong, please educate me.
 
I am accustomed to receiving altitude restrictions to a specific limit- example: coming into ADS, Approach will routinely advise, "Make left traffic runway one five, Maintain two thousand five hundred until abeam midfield downwind, contact tower..."; then, on callup, tower will almost always advise "descent pilot's discretion," but not always, because they may have departing traffic for me to fly over first.

Still, a landing clearance, unless you were violating minimum safe altitude, conveys permission to maneuver as appropriate to make a normal landing, and I am with Grant all the way in his interpretation.
 
SCCutler said:
Still, a landing clearance, unless you were violating minimum safe altitude, conveys permission to maneuver as appropriate to make a normal landing, and I am with Grant all the way in his interpretation.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was taught and my reasoning for telling her that I would have probably done exactly what she did. I too felt if they wanted her at 6000 until turning final the clearance should have been "cleared to land runway 22, maintain 6000 until turning on final"
In all reality she was probably still farther out than 2 miles although she claimed she was past Biggs Army Airfield which sits 1.5 north of El Paso. That is a pretty big slam dunk for ATC to give her. (even though she was in her Arrow and it drops like a rock when you pull the power back)
 
SCCutler said:
Still, a landing clearance, unless you were violating minimum safe altitude, conveys permission to maneuver as appropriate to make a normal landing, and I am with Grant all the way in his interpretation.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unless there were a "maintain until" instruction, the landing clearance cancels the earlier restriction.

Having said that, I also note that Biggs AFB may complicate the situation at ELP, especially if you're arriving from the north or west. But I believe the onus is on the tower controller who issued the landing clearance.
 
SCCutler said:
I...a landing clearance, unless you were violating minimum safe altitude, conveys permission to maneuver as appropriate to make a normal landing,
Click to expand...

That's my feeling as well. Plus if there was an altitude restriction, shouldn't the approach controller have conveyed that to the tower controller?
 
It does not sound like a logical procedure.
PirepApacheOpener.jpg


ApacheBob
 
wow bob, thats a humongous signature. i get the impression you like your apache?

to stop the threadjacking, i wouldve done as the Dons student did. Unless they specified a limit for the altitude hold.
 
Have to say if the only instruction I got from approach was to 'maintain' and then received a 'cleared to land' from tower. I too would have assumed the altitude restriction was over and I could start my decent.
 
Hi guys,

I posted this at studentpilot.com and those over there have a different take on what should have be done. Since I am only a PPL and don't know squat about IFR flying, their responses make alot of sense also. Just some food for thought as people each have different interpretations on what we would do in the same situation. I would have done what to Comm student did.

http://www.studentpilot.com/interact/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28700
 
Last edited:
I would have done exactly as she did.
Once given a cleared to land with NO restrictions, you should be cleared to land?
 
Speed said:
I fly into ELP quite a bit, and approach has always said to maintain 6000 until on final, when on a visual. He may have said that, maybe not, maybe she missed it, maybe not. It's for traffic in the pattern at Biggs, is what I was told once after asking.

Alls well that ends well...
Click to expand...

I have always heard that too for IFR ops, but as many times as I have been in there VFR I have never had them give me that.
They told her on the phone it was for traffic at Biggs as well.
She swears neither controller said anything about maintaining 6000 until on final. She is a pretty sharp pilot too, so I believe her. She was VFR at the time just for the record.
 
Naruto said:
Hi guys,

I posted this at studentpilot.com and those over there have a different take on what should have be done.
Click to expand...
Isn't that like spamming? Besides, I've been banned for life. I can't read it! :D
 
KennyFlys said:
Isn't that like spamming? Besides, I've been banned for life. I can't read it! :D
Click to expand...

What do you mean spamming? This is to promote aviation discussion so we can all learn from others. If its considered spamming then I apologize but I thought others would benefit from a healthy discussion.
 
Last edited:
Naruto said:
What do you mean spamming? This is to promote aviation discussion so we can all learn from others. If its considered spamming then I apologize but I thought other would benefit from a healthy discussion.
Click to expand...
I'm purely teasing... Any resource that helps with an issue is good. But, I really was banned there. Ask me in a PM if curious. Tis ok... I like this board much, much better!
 
Don Jones said:
She swears neither controller said anything about maintaining 6000 until on final. She is a pretty sharp pilot too, so I believe her. She was VFR at the time just for the record.
Click to expand...

Don,

I'd suggest you ask them to pull the tapes. It would certainly provide a learning opportunity for all involved.

If she was VFR (not IFR and VMC) and the controller said "cleared visual approach," it sounds like he was confused to begin with. That right there is an IFR clearance.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Don,

I'd suggest you ask them to pull the tapes. It would certainly provide a learning opportunity for all involved.

If she was VFR (not IFR and VMC) and the controller said "cleared visual approach," it sounds like he was confused to begin with. That right there is an IFR clearance.
Click to expand...

It has probably been too long now to pull the tapes since it was the week before Christmas. I called her back and quizzed her hard about the "cleared visual approach" part and she is not positive about it now. That being said, I have personally had the controllers at ELP give me that coming in VFR so it is possible either way. I think they get so used to dealing with IFR flights that if the pilot is sharp with his radio skills they do it without thinking. They are human too. It didn't really have any effect on the "cleared to land" instruction without further instructions regarding the altitude restriction though. It has been a real learning experience for her as well as me. I guarantee next time she will ask about the altitude restriction. I will be in there a couple of times next week and you can bet I will ask as well if something similar happens.

Edit: Someone over at studentpilot.com posted this. Here is what the AIM has to say, hmmm. Learn something every day. I think it is interesting they felt the need to add the note to it. Must have been a lot of people who thought as most of us did. Now if we would just read the thing!!

5-5-2. Air Traffic Clearance​
a. Pilot.​
1. Acknowledges receipt and understanding of an ATC clearance.​
2. Reads back any hold short of runway instructions issued by ATC.​
3. Requests clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood or considered unacceptable from a safety standpoint.​
4. Promptly complies with an air traffic clearance upon receipt except as necessary to cope with an emergency. Advises ATC as soon as possible and obtains an amended clearance, if deviation is necessary.​
NOTE-
A clearance to land means that appropriate separation on the landing runway will be ensured. A landing clearance does not relieve the pilot from compliance with any previously issued altitude crossing restriction.​
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm 'only' a VFR pilot - since the AIM is being quoted, I'll have to find the part that says you must maintain a given altitude until final. (No, I'm not trying to be a smart-***.)

I'm sure I would have begun decending to pattern altitude as soon as I got the landing clearance, especially when I'm already on the base leg. I don't fly to fields where I'm given these kinds of altitude restrictions, so I'm sure I would have been caught off guard.

Being on an approx. 1 mile final 1200' above TPA seems a little excessive (as Grant pointed out).
 
Don Jones said:
NOTE-
A clearance to land means that appropriate separation on the landing runway will be ensured. A landing clearance does not relieve the pilot from compliance with any previously issued altitude crossing restriction.​
Click to expand...

But there was no altitude crossing restriction assuming the verbiage you posted was accurate. Also a visual approach clearance by itself is supposed to allow descent at the pilot's discretion. IMO the approach controller messed up and should have been more specific (e.g. "maintain 6000 until turning final). Just plain "maintain 6000" coupled with a visual clearance is ambiguous and somewhat contradictory. The landing clearance just added to the confusion. If I ever got a "cleared visual approach, maintain 6000." from ATC I would ask for clarification on the spot.
 
lancefisher said:
But there was no altitude crossing restriction
Click to expand...

Good catch, it didn't dawn on me it was talking about IFR ops. Here is what the pilot controller glossary has to say about cleared to land.

CLEARED TO LAND− ATC authorization for an
aircraft to land. It is predicated on known traffic and
known physical airport conditions.

The way I see it everyone involved was wrong:

1) The approach controller should have been more specific about the altitude restriction
2) The tower controller should have included it in the clearance to land
3) The pilot should have asked!!!

The whole thing comes down to when in doubt, ASK!!!
 
Last edited:
I agree with Don. The AIM section cited above pretty well covers this, and it happens a lot arriving at FRG. If given an altitude restriction by the TRACON, I always include it in my call to tower so there's no question.
 
I know I am beating a dead horse here, but I found another version of the landing clearance quote in Order 7110.65R of the Air Traffic Controller Publications. It says the same thing about the clearance to land without the "altitude crossing restriction" part. My question now is how are we supposed to know this? Where is it written in our common reference materials? Everything else I have found is talking about IFR flights. I may be looking for something for which, as many things are with the FAA, there is no clear cut reference


3-10-5. LANDING CLEARANCE​
a. Issue landing clearance. Restate the landing runway whenever more than one runway is active, or an instrument approach is being conducted to a closed runway.​
PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED TO LAND,
or
RUNWAY (designator) CLEARED TO LAND.​
b. "USN NOT APPLICABLE." Inform the closest aircraft that is cleared to land, touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or unrestricted low approaches when there is traffic holding on the same runway.​
EXAMPLE-
"Delta One, cleared to land. Traffic holding in position."
or
"Delta One, runway one eight, cleared to land. Traffic holding in position."​
c. USA/USN. Issue surface wind when clearing an aircraft to land, touch-and-go, stop-and-go, low approach, or the option. Restate the landing runway whenever there is a possibility of a conflict with another aircraft which is using or is planning to use another runway.​
PHRASEOLOGY-
WIND (surface wind direction and velocity), CLEARED TO LAND,
or
WIND (surface wind direction and velocity), RUNWAY (designator) CLEARED TO LAND.​
NOTE-
A clearance to land means that appropriate separation on the landing runway will be ensured. A landing clearance does not relieve the pilot from compliance with any previously issued restriction.​
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
wow bob, thats a humongous signature. i get the impression you like your apache?

to stop the threadjacking, i wouldve done as the Dons student did. Unless they specified a limit for the altitude hold.
Click to expand...

It's true. I'm compensating for something.:rolleyes:

Meanwhile, it can be hard to land at 2000' agl.:D
ApacheBob
 
Don Jones said:
I know I am beating a dead horse here, but I found another version of the landing clearance quote in Order 7110.65R of the Air Traffic Controller Publications. It says the same thing about the clearance to land without the "altitude crossing restriction" part. My question now is how are we supposed to know this? Where is it written in our common reference materials? Everything else I have found is talking about IFR flights.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in Section 5-5-2a which limits its applicability to IFR flights, so instructors should be teaching these items to PPL trainees. However, ASA's recommended list of AIM sections to study for PPL does not include that section -- I'll shoot them an email and see what they say.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree with Don. The AIM section cited above pretty well covers this, and it happens a lot arriving at FRG. If given an altitude restriction by the TRACON, I always include it in my call to tower so there's no question.
Click to expand...

First, I haven't been on this board in a while, so hi, everyone.

Second, I don't disagree with you that the section of the AIM quoted covers this situation, but how does turning final automatically relieve you of the altitude restriction as the controller seems to be implying (assuming the original post is correct, seeing as how it's second hand)?
 
msmspilot said:
First, I haven't been on this board in a while, so hi, everyone.
Click to expand...
Welcome back.
Second, I don't disagree with you that the section of the AIM quoted covers this situation, but how does turning final automatically relieve you of the altitude restriction as the controller seems to be implying (assuming the original post is correct, seeing as how it's second hand)?
Click to expand...
It doesn't, and if the controller is saying that, the controller is wrong. When an unconditional altitude restriction (as originally described -- "Maintain 6000.") is given, that altitude restriction remains in effect until specifically withdrawn.
 
... how does turning final automatically relieve you of the altitude restriction...?
Click to expand...
Well, somebody above posted:
...I fly into ELP quite a bit, and approach has always said to maintain 6000 until on final, when on a visual....
Click to expand...
So if the approach controller says "maintain 6000 until final", then turning final would seem to relieve you of the altitude restriction.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Well, somebody above posted:
So if the approach controller says "maintain 6000 until final", then turning final would seem to relieve you of the altitude restriction.
-harry
Click to expand...
And this is precisely why the tapes would be helpful.
 
Ron Levy said:
Welcome back.
It doesn't, and if the controller is saying that, the controller is wrong. When an unconditional altitude restriction (as originally described -- "Maintain 6000.") is given, that altitude restriction remains in effect until specifically withdrawn.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that makes sense.

mantakos said:
Well, somebody above posted:
So if the approach controller says "maintain 6000 until final", then turning final would seem to relieve you of the altitude restriction.
-harry
Click to expand...

Yes, that would. But that's not what was originally stated, so I was a little confrused.

gprellwitz said:
And this is precisely why the tapes would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Exactly :)
 
I'd love to know how you're supposed to land while maintaining 6,000.

In the absence of someone telling me when my restriction ends (i.e. tells me to maintain XX until XX) I'd do what I normally do to land given a clearance.
 
Don Jones said:
NOTE-
A clearance to land means that appropriate separation on the landing runway will be ensured. A landing clearance does not relieve the pilot from compliance with any previously issued restriction.​
Click to expand...

Wow, I would have lost that bet. I thought that "cleared to land" lifted any previous restrictions. Thanks for pointing this out.
 
I think that when TRACON said "cleared for the visual approach, maintain 6,000" when I was that close to the airport I would have asked for clarification as in "Sir, I can fly a visual approach or I can maintain 6,000, which do you want?"

Jay
 
N7702Y said:
I think that when TRACON said "cleared for the visual approach, maintain 6,000" when I was that close to the airport I would have asked for clarification as in "Sir, I can fly a visual approach or I can maintain 6,000, which do you want?"
Click to expand...
"Clearance cancelled - aircraft calling center, remain clear class bravo"
 
gkainz said:
"Clearance cancelled - aircraft calling center, remain clear class bravo"
Click to expand...
I don't think ATC is authorized to tell an aircraft operating on an IFR clearance to "remain clear of class bravo." They can cancel the visual approach clearance, but they would then have to provide an alternate clearance to the destination or else a hold with an expected further routing.
 
Controllers do occasionally issue an incorrect or at least unclear clearance. Not as often as pilots mess up a perfectly clear instruction mind you, but it does happen.

A few years ago I was inbound to Watts-Woodland (O41) IFR in a turbine airplane. As we were crossing SPERS intersection at 3,000 the Travis AFB controller handling us said "...cleared for the VOR GPS A approach to Watts Woodland, maintain 3,000". (see the approach: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/06353VGA.PDF)

I'll admit, I just sat there for a second. I was doing 130 knots (normal approach speed in that airplane), now only 10 miles from the runway, and I needed to start down.

So, I used the same line I quoted above, "Travis, N**** can maintain 3,000 or we can fly the approach, which do you want?"

The controller came back with "maintain 3,000, cleared..." then HE stopped. At that point a controller with a deeper voice and more confident tone came on and said "N****, cleared for the approach".

By that point I was too close to the airport to fly the approach safely, so I said so, and so we were vectored around for another try, which went smoothly.

I think the learning here for all of us is that when you receive a clearance that seems to be conflicting or is in any way unclear, immediately ask for clarification.

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top