roncachamp
Final Approach
The AIM tells pilots the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is at the discretion of ATC.
Holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn
- Thread starter mxalix258
- Start date
The AIM tells pilots the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is at the discretion of ATC.
roncachamp
Final Approach
That "rule" is found in a document that also states the information it contains is not regulatory, but may be required by other federal publications or regulations. The problem is the "rule" is not consistent with the FARs.
And if the controller forgets to include that different course of action there may be issues with traffic behind you, so always question an approach clearance that would have you flying an unneeded maneuver.
roncachamp
Final Approach
And if so cleared the FAA, via the opinion of the Office of the Chief Counsel expressed in the recent Karas letter, wants pilots to do what the controller says unless an emergency exists.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
100% agreement from me. Seems obvious, doesn't it?
Last edited:
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
As you have been quick to state many times:
1. The AIM isn't regulatory
2. The AIM is often wrong.
Having said that any such cite presumes the controller is acting in accordance with the 7110.65 or related directives. We know that is not always the case.
roncachamp
Final Approach
True.
I don't know about "often", I'd go with "sometimes".
Yes, but the FAA, via the opinion of the Office of the Chief Counsel expressed in the recent Karas letter, wants pilots to do what the controller says even when the controller is not acting in accordance with the 7110.65 or related directives, unless an emergency exists.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Uhhh, no. What about an off-airway arrival where the descent gradient is unknown (not TERPed) as it would be on an airway arrival? Does 'Karas' imbue ATC with clairvoyance too? Methinks they just want prudence to prevail: Make the pilot comply first, ask questions later.
dtuuri
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Wasn't the Karas letter about instructions, not clearances?
roncachamp
Final Approach
The only exception was for an emergency.
Nope.
Right. So adhere to the clearance by not flying the procedure turn and ask questions after landing. If you do land.
I'm with ya on this. I think requiring pilots to follow instructions/clearances that controllers aren't authorized to issue or that would require the pilot to violate another regulation is a bad idea. Nevertheless, an emergency was the only exception in the letter.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Mr. Bury stated early in the letter; "Section 91.123 deals with compliance with ATC clearances and instructions." He didn't use the word "clearance" anywhere else but nothing in the rest of the letter suggested that what was true of instructions was not also true of clearances.
nosehair
Cleared for Takeoff
VOR to VOR. Straight line simplicity. Take-off from Airport A 50 mi west of Airport B. Track 090 to VOR B 5 miles west of Airport B with 090 radial to runway 9. Fly MEA 2000' which is also PT altitude. Arrive At IAF on track on altitude prepared for final descent. If Pilot determines no course reversal is required because of position, condition, etc. etc., no possible "careless/reckless" operation, etc., a "course reversal" would not be necessary.
Just simply "doing it because it is charted" goes against the entire concept of using your noodle to fly the airplane efficiently.
Of course, of course, all is as it should be. You know 100% that the course reversal is not needed. You are not "rushing thru" an unfamiliar approach.
The "course reversal" can be a maneuver to take the time to be sure you are where you think you are. Not talking about applying this to any and every approach, only where you, as PIC, can be 100% sure that you are ready for the final descent to landing.
Aaand, of course, where any uncertainty exists, communicate with the controller if you think it may effect his traffic flow.
In the final analysis, what would an FAA inspector use to violate a pilot who chose not to execute a PT when non was needed, and no situation occurred as a result of not doing the PT? What regulation would be violated?
roncachamp
Final Approach
I meant a real-world example, not a hypothetical.
No regulation would be violated. How would the inspector even learn of this "transgression"?
I've cleared many aircraft for approaches in this situation, deliberately not including the "straight-in" when traffic was not a factor. None of them flew a course reversal, very few questioned whether or not they should proceed straight-in. None of them were violated.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Anxiously awaiting the first LiveATC recording of a pilot declaring an emergency because the controller gave them an instruction they're not authorized to give. 
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Pilots can refuse clearances. Anyone who tried to make a legal case they cannot would lose that one big time.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Pilot's can simply refuse clearances in all cases? Refusal is not limited to emergencies as is the case with instructions? What differentiates a clearance from an instruction?
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
I didn't say in all cases.
Few things pertaining to ATC are either black or white. But, you know that.
I'm not going to entertain you by explaining the difference between a clearance and an instruction.
roncachamp
Final Approach
In what cases can pilots refuse clearances?
I don't want to be entertained, I seek enlightenment!
There may be a few others still reading these messages. Please explain the difference so that they may also be enlightened.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Clearance to higher or lower altitude en route that would be unacceptable.
Re-route that creates a weather hazard.
To name a couple.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Why is that a clearance and not an instruction? It would be issued as, "climb and maintain niner thousand" or "descend and maintain four thousand". Structurally, that doesn't seem different than an instruction such as, "turn left heading two five zero".
Clip4
Final Approach
If IFR, why isn't any instruction an amended clearance?
Last edited:
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not sure why you put me in that group. Don't know about anyone else but a cursory look at the thread of my comments pretty much shows that I'm assuming compliance with such things as minimum altitudes and that the altitude upon reaching the fix is appropriate to continue in. IOW, you are arriving at a FAF with a minimum altitude of 3200' at 3200' or at an acceptably higher altitude that is authorized by minimum IFR altitude rules. If you want to argue the point of "acceptably higher altitude" you'll have to argue that one with the FAA since that true of any approach altitude that does not state a maximum.
Make too many changes in the basic proposition and it will, of course seem ludicrous. But that's true of operations we can all agree about.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Doubtful.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Pilot-Controller Glossary:
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. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft may not deviate from the provisions of a visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic clearance except in an emergency or unless an amended clearance has been obtained. Additionally, the pilot may request a different clearance from that which has been issued by air traffic control (ATC) if information available to the pilot makes another course of action more practicable or if aircraft equipment limitations or company procedures forbid compliance with the clearance issued. Pilots may also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood, or considered unacceptable because of safety of flight. Controllers should, in such instances and to the extent of operational practicality and safety, honor the pilot's request. 14 CFR Part 91.3(a) states: “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” THE PILOT IS RESPONSIBLE TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE if ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy.
ATC INSTRUCTIONS- Directives issued by air traffic control for the purpose of requiring a pilot to take specific actions; e.g., “Turn left heading two five zero,” “Go around,” “Clear the runway.”
roncachamp
Final Approach
Your response does not answer the question.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I put you in that group because John didn't offer any caveats such as a radar environment and you agreed 100%. But now that you made it clear where you stand re: minimum altitudes at the FAF and your belief any altitude, no matter how high, is "legal" and therefore "acceptable" because only a minimum is charted I must change my reasoning. I think there is some maximum limit ATC must observe before issuing an approach clearance, but it's not known for off-airway random routes in a non-radar environment. My good buddy roncachamp can probably explain it better than I.
(EDIT: That was not too well stated last night. I think I was trying to say that, under vectoring, ATC has to meet reasonable descent gradient requirements before issuing an approach clearance, including one with a "straight-in". Non-radar, they aren't in a position to sanctify a straight-in other than in accordance with TERPS.)
Here's an article that mentions my home airport when I got my instrument rating and 'double I', Painesville Concord Airpark in Ohio. Note that arrivals on airways, but not between them, are ok for straight-in approaches. There was at the time of the article no criteria for allowing such. Maybe times have changed.
If the author could be found, maybe he'd know.dtuuri
Last edited:
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Of course it does. You are (oh surprise!!) just being abrasive and argumentative.
Unbeliever
Pre-takeoff checklist
You do realize it ammends your "bible", the 7110.65U. Did you just just declare publicly that you intend to commit insubordination against your employer?
Edit to add: Why are you so adamant about not saying 3 words: "Cleared Straight In"? It eliminates all ambiguity and the pilot will do what you expect because with those 3 words, both the pilot side and the controller side are on the same page.
--Carlos V.
Last edited:
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Since my autopilot doesn't have the ability to automatically sequence from heading mode to nav tracking mode but with GPSS it can sequence from a direct to leg to the rest of the approach there's a definite advantage to me in a clearance to a fix on the approach vs a heading for intercept.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
If the FAA's definitions of the terms don't answer the question, then an authoritative answer to the question probably does not exist.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Time some idiot asked the Chief Counsel. 
roncachamp
Final Approach
I have no bible or employer.
When other traffic's not a factor? Why deny a pilot a maneuver he may wish to fly?
roncachamp
Final Approach
It doesn't and I'm quite confident that you know it doesn't.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Of course you do. The advantage of my position is that I don't have to change my reasoning based on someone else's response (other than, of course, my earlier unanswered question about how the same altitude over the FAF is different depending on whether you are going straight in before or after a PT; shown a problem with it, I'd be happy to change my view of the practical reality)
And you are misreading my comment about altitude. It's not that "any" altitude is acceptable, just that the same considerations that apply to the pilot's choice of altitude at the FAF/GSI apply whether after a PT or on a straight-in.
(see what I mean about not having to change reasoning?)
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
It's perfectly clear to me. The two passages are quite distinct. I guess they don't teach this stuff in controller's school.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I'm pretty sure your understanding isn't taught in any school.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I needed to change my reasoning... for why I grouped you with John, nothing else.
I made an edit to last night's post which I myself had trouble understanding this morning. Note to self: Don't post while distracted mixing up a second gin and tonic.I agree with you there are times when a procedure seems too inflexible, but that's most likely the fault of bad design which can be fixed by an amendment. If pilots, though, or ATC can simply negate TERPS at will, do we really want that? Maybe you really don't need an intermediate segment, but the next guy really does, but doesn't know it. Should ATC let them both go straight in the same? Some airplanes (I know, I know) don't have DME information, so passage is the clue to slow down and get ready to configure for the approach. Not all are cut from the same cloth.
dtuuri
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
I have a similar rule
John Collins
En-Route
Are you retired? If not, will you explain the quoted portion of your response?
roncachamp
Final Approach
An FAA air traffic controller hired after May 15, 1971, cannot work beyond the last day of the month in which he reaches 56 years of age. I reached that milestone last month and worked my last shift on May 31st.
Last edited:
John Collins
En-Route
Congratulations.