Leaving the Clearance Limit Scenario

[JC150]

Here are my scenario based questions:

Scenario 1: You file from Origin to Destination via ABC Vor.
- Is your clearance limit the ABC Vor or Destination airport?

Scenario 2: You file from origin to destination DIRECT
- Is your clearance limit the destination since there is no route?

Scenario 3: You file from origin to origin round robin flying to the Abc VOR.
- Is your clearance limit ABC Vor or your origin?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Depends on the clearance you get. It will generally be "cleared to the xxxx airport via", which in all of your examples would be the airport.

 

[Clip4]

When you obtain your clearance, your clearance limit will be the destination or a fix as specified in the clearance. I.e. Cleared as filed you are cleared the entire route. If cleared to ABC you will also be issued an expect further clearance time.

 

[sourdough44]

I like to get to, or maintain VMC & head my own way, VFR to an airport. That is if I don't want to mess with the handheld radio.

 

[JC150]

It will generally be "cleared to the xxxx airport via", which in all of your examples would be the airport.

I was taught to file a fix from which an approach begins so if you were in a lost comms situation, you could just hit the IAF, hold until your ETA, then start the approach. But if your clearance limit is the airport, won't you have to fly over the filed IAF to your clearance limit (The Destination Airport), THEN fly to the IAF?

 

[mtuomi]

I was taught to file a fix from which an approach begins so if you were in a lost comms situation, you could just hit the IAF, hold until your ETA, then start the approach. But if your clearance limit is the airport, won't you have to fly over the filed IAF to your clearance limit (The Destination Airport), THEN fly to the IAF?

You were taught WHAT?

As in - you were actually told to file IFR only to a fix, not to a destination?

 

[JC150]

Sorry, i just re-read that, i see the confusion.

I was told to file from Origin to Destination, and the last fix in the route box put a fix from which an approach begins.

But if my clearance limit is the airport, that makes no difference if I put in a fix that happens to be an IAF or not correct? You can't just reach the IAF and start the descent from there, you'd have to fly over the airport first THEN proceed to the IAF correct?

 

[Clip4]

Sorry, i just re-read that, i see the confusion.

I was told to file from Origin to Destination, and the last fix in the route box put a fix from which an approach begins.

But if my clearance limit is the airport, that makes no difference if I put in a fix that happens to be an IAF or not correct? You can't just reach the IAF and start the descent from there, you'd have to fly over the airport first THEN proceed to the IAF correct?

(3) Leave clearance limit. (i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

 

[luvflyin]

Here are my scenario based questions:

Scenario 1: You file from Origin to Destination via ABC Vor.
- Is your clearance limit the ABC Vor or Destination airport?

Scenario 2: You file from origin to destination DIRECT
- Is your clearance limit the destination since there is no route?

Scenario 3: You file from origin to origin round robin flying to the Abc VOR.
- Is your clearance limit ABC Vor or your origin?

You don't have a clearance limit in any of those scenarios. You have filed, but you haven't received a clearance yet. Your clearance limit will be what ATC says right after they say "cleared to." In scenario 1 it may be "cleared to [airport] via ABC" or it may be "cleared to ABC" or you may get "cleared to [short]" short being some waypoint before ABC. If you are cleared short of destination you will get "expect further clearance via" instructions before getting to the clearance limit, or you may get holding instructions

 

[JC150]

Let's say you've been cleared to an airport, your clearance limit is the airport correct? Not the last fix you put in your filed flight plan route as this video and my CFII said?

Skip to 8:15 mark

In the video, he says the same thing my CFII taught me, that your clearance limit is the last thing you put in your flight plan route and by filing an IAF as the last fix in your route you can make your life easier.

What I'm trying to ask here: IS the video AND my CFII incorrect? You would still have to overfly the IAF, to the airport (clearance limit) then back to the IAF correct?

 

[dtuuri]

What I'm trying to ask here: IS the video AND my CFII incorrect? You would still have to overfly the IAF, to the airport (clearance limit) then back to the IAF correct?

No (EDIT: they are wrong) and no. Please refer to my tutorials on the subject:

http://www.avclicks.com/Flash2/Failure_to_communicate/index.html

http://www.avclicks.com/lost_comm/Lost_comm2/index.html
​

These type questions have really dropped off in the last few years. I hope my tutorials have been a good part of the reason. Many instructors have seemed to have not noticed when the lost comm rules changed in the mid '80s. There used to be a paragraph on when to descend, but they deleted it. ATC doesn't want NORDO planes gumming up the works unless there's a good reason, which is why they give holding instructions. Lacking an EFC, you can fly the approach when you get there unless you were given a hold and standing by for the EFC--then you descend at your revised ETA at the IAF. It makes sense--you don't want to run out of gas either.

dtuuri

 

[tspear]

In the video, he says the same thing my CFII taught me, that your clearance limit is the last thing you put in your flight plan route and by filing an IAF as the last fix in your route you can make your life easier.

What I'm trying to ask here: IS the video AND my CFII incorrect? You would still have to overfly the IAF, to the airport (clearance limit) then back to the IAF correct?

Why would you do that? And how do you know which approach will be used? What if winds change and the best approach is from another runway?

Tim

 

[dtuuri]

Why would you do that? And how do you know which approach will be used? What if winds change and the best approach is from another runway?

I can answer. You need to plan for an approach you can make in the event of lost comm. Other approaches might require two-way communications, as in vectors, or performance your plane can't make, as in missed approach or MEA. ATC protects all the IAFs, so that isn't the main consideration, it's so you can take care of yourself if you have to.

dtuuri

 

[JC150]

Ok, so I may not being doing the best job at describing my question here... let me try again

1) When you're cleared to an airport, the airport becomes your clearance limit, NOT the waypoint before the airport... correct?
2) So if the waypoint before the airport happens to be an IAF, what difference does it make? You still have to overfly the IAF to get to your clearance limit, THEN fly to an IAF, correct?

 

[noahfong]

In the video, he says the same thing my CFII taught me, that your clearance limit is the last thing you put in your flight plan route and by filing an IAF as the last fix in your route you can make your life easier.

What I'm trying to ask here: IS the video AND my CFII incorrect? You would still have to overfly the IAF, to the airport (clearance limit) then back to the IAF correct?

Holy smokes! If you are paying your CFII, you need to get your money back. (S)he taught you what?!?!

Yes, they are incorrect. (assuming they really teach that - I didn't view your video, though) Take the flight plan form... there is a box for origin and a box for destination. These are your starting point and ending points (usually airports, but not always, but let's say they are). Your clearance limit will be the destination airport - especially when it is read to you as, "cleared to the xyz airport...". Now for the routing box... this will NOT include the origin or destination. AND, the LAST waypoint in the route IS NOT the clearance limit. The DESTINATION is!

OK, not necessary, but let's say you want the IAF for the approach you hope to get to be the last point in the routing. That's fine. But, what you put in the destination box (and where you are cleared to) will be your clearance limit - not the last point in the routing. (If things work out the way you hope, then your clearance will be read to you as, "cleared to the xyz airport via ...dah-dah, abc, direct, ..."

xyz is the clearance limit.
abc is the IAF for the approach you want. But you may not always get it.

The "routing" does NOT include either the point of origin or the destination.

 

[noahfong]

Ok, so I may not being doing the best job at describing my question here... let me try again

2) So if the waypoint before the airport happens to be an IAF, what difference does it make? You still have to overfly the IAF to get to your clearance limit, THEN fly to an IAF, correct?

No! No! A thousand times, No! How do you conclude that? Whatever, the answer is No.

Seriously, if you are given an IAF as the last point before the clearance limit (airport), then you can expect to fly the approach initiated at that IAF. This approach gets you to the airport. This is what is meant by "direct".

So, in the scenario you describe, the route to the airport will get you to the IAF for an approach to the airport.

 

[JC150]

Noah, thanks for clearing up that the destination is the clearance limit. However, I struggle with your second post for this reason:

If the last fix on your route wasn't an IAF at the destination, you would have to overfly the field, proceed to an IAF, hold until ETA, then descend. This is because the airport (Clearance Limit) is NOT an IAF. It seems we established this.

So, lets say you did file that IAF and you're on your way there now - As Clip4 posted:

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

Even though you filed an IAF, the clearance limit doesn't change. Your destination is still your clearance limit, and your destination is not a fix from which an approach begins, correct? So according to that reg, you would "leave the clearance limit...upon arrival over the clearance limit and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins"

No! No! A thousand times, No! How do you conclude that? Whatever, the answer is No.

In case you're wondering, that's how I concluded that...

But to what you said above

if you are given an IAF as the last point before the clearance limit (airport), then you can expect to fly the approach initiated at that IAF.

Unless ATC specifically states "expect", how can you legally expect that?

If you are cleared as filed 900 miles away and your comms go out 5 minutes after takeoff and it happens to be IMC the entire way, the way I interpret the reg, you have to fly the route to your clearance limit which we established is the airport, then "leave the clearance limit...upon arrival over the clearance limit and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins". So what gives me legal ground to "expect" the approach if ATC does not specifically state that?

 

[hindsight2020]

No! No! A thousand times, No! How do you conclude that? Whatever, the answer is No.

Seriously, if you are given an IAF as the last point before the clearance limit (airport), then you can expect to fly the approach initiated at that IAF. This approach gets you to the airport. This is what is meant by "direct".

So, in the scenario you describe, the route to the airport will get you to the IAF for an approach to the airport.

What @JC150 is saying and/or asking is that, while NORDO, with no other ATC opportunity to amend the clearance right after takeoff, and given your assertion that the clearance limit is the destination airport, he feels it's retarded to fly to the destination airport (via as filed) at altitude, to then have to track back to an IAF of his choice, especially to the one which he just overflew as part of his filed route, to add insult to injury.

I agree with both of you. The clearance limit may very well be the destination, but it's still retarded to have to fly all the way to the destination before backtracking in order to legally shoot an approach from an IAF; especially one you put in the flight plan the first place!

This is all mental masturbation anyways. Pilot in command authoritay. My work airplane starts complaining if I slow below .80 Mach above FL300 anyways, and at 230+gas above 1000# of gas I'm falling out the sky behind the power curve. With an endurance of 1+45 I'm already at min fuel if you're talking to me on a good day. I'm not taking no circuitous route to the field and back to some IAF I just overflew while NORDO. This is what you get out of me when you push me below 800# of gas....

 

[mtuomi]

Fire your CFII, right now.

 

[noahfong]

Ah...Sorry... I just absorbed the full context of your question. And it's a good question.

Here are my thoughts about it:

1) If I lose comms, I will get to an IAF as expected or as filed (4 things in "routing": assigned, vectored, expected, filed). I will certainly shoot the approach and land. (And I'll be darned if I will take off again just to get back to the IAF to do it over again - especially without comms). So, just by complying with the first item, routing, I will do my best to get onto the ground. And, yes, if I lose comms the minute I take off - if I choose routing to be reasonable - I believe it will be "expected". (I don't believe ATC will expect otherwise. I don't think I will continue the flight for 900 miles, however). For example, in my home airport - Hayward (KHWD), suppose I get to the IAF for the LOC-DME 28L. My airplane is /A, so I really cannot "navigate" to the airport without shooting the approach. To do an "reversal" and get back to the IAF is also questionable and I will certainly be "gumming up the works" (as dtuuri so eloquently said) in OAK, SJC and SFO airspace.

2) I think there is a strong case that "clearance limit" in the lost comms context does not mean an airport. I agree with what dtuuri implies when he mentions the existence of an associated EFC. It must mean something like a hold. For example, if you were given a hold before you lost comms, then comply with the EFC as stated.

3) This reg was written before GPS was popular. Without GPS, navigating to and from an airport (in the air) can be problematic, if not impossible. It can certainly add being lost on top of lost comms.

In other words, insanity to comply with the strictest interpretation. And, yes, I am comfortable telling that to a judge.

So, with my /A airplane, I will just proceed to the most suitable IAF/approach and land. If, having been given a hold, I will hold per EFC. And, like hindsight2020, when I fly for work (a scheduled -121 outfit), I can guarentee that we will not be backtracking in the air like that.

 

[Ravioli]

If I read "overfly the airport" one more time I'm gonna scream.

If an airport is your clearance limit than you will only overfly it if you go missed.

After you fire your CFII, please ask the new one to accurately define filed plan vs clearance. Clearances tend to have DPs and STARs. So, if for example you're going to KFTW http://airnav.com/airport/kftw from the KHOU you are likely to get something like these:

The ends of the clearances are pretty specifically putting you at a place that accomplishes your NORDO goal better than putting a specific fix in your route request (which may not be what you get) In these 9 it looks like DIRECT was requested once.

 

[roncachamp]

Here are my scenario based questions:

Scenario 1: You file from Origin to Destination via ABC Vor.
- Is your clearance limit the ABC Vor or Destination airport?

Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

Scenario 2: You file from origin to destination DIRECT
- Is your clearance limit the destination since there is no route?

Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

Scenario 3: You file from origin to origin round robin flying to the Abc VOR.
- Is your clearance limit ABC Vor or your origin?

Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

 

[Ravioli]

Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".
Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".
Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

So, are you saying the clearance limit is ALWAYS what immediately follows "cleared to?"

 

[roncachamp]

I was told to file from Origin to Destination, and the last fix in the route box put a fix from which an approach begins.

Were you told why you should put a fix from which an approach begins as the last fix in the route box?

But if my clearance limit is the airport, that makes no difference if I put in a fix that happens to be an IAF or not correct?

Correct.

You can't just reach the IAF and start the descent from there, you'd have to fly over the airport first THEN proceed to the IAF correct?

I'd commence the approach of my choice upon reaching an IAF without any consideration of time or ETA.

 

[roncachamp]

In the video, he says the same thing my CFII taught me, that your clearance limit is the last thing you put in your flight plan route and by filing an IAF as the last fix in your route you can make your life easier.

What I'm trying to ask here: IS the video AND my CFII incorrect? You would still have to overfly the IAF, to the airport (clearance limit) then back to the IAF correct?

The video AND your CFII are incorrect.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If I read "overfly the airport" one more time I'm gonna scream.

If an airport is your clearance limit than you will only overfly it if you go missed.

Unfortunately the reg Is short one "if" statement...

For example, "If your clearance limit is the airport, LAND THE AIRPLANE, YA IDGIT!"

The real problem is that if taken the the reg is written, a NORDO pilot would get to the clearance limit, which is the airport (I've NEVER gotten "cleared to 3000 feet above the xyz airport"), then take off again, fly to the IAF, and then make a second landing.

 

[roncachamp]

2) I think there is a strong case that "clearance limit" in the lost comms context does not mean an airport. I agree with what dtuuri implies when he mentions the existence of an associated EFC. It must mean something like a hold. For example, if you were given a hold before you lost comms, then comply with the EFC as stated.

An EFC might be issued as part of holding instructions. Those holding instructions will begin with "cleared to PHIXX, hold...", your clearance limit just changed, it's now PHIXX because your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

 

[roncachamp]

So, are you saying the clearance limit is ALWAYS what immediately follows "cleared to?"

Yes. If there's ever any uncertainty as to the clearance limit it can always be determined by finding the phrase "cleared to" in the IFR clearance. The clearance limit follows immediately.

 

[Clip4]

No and no. Please refer to my tutorials on the subject:

http://www.avclicks.com/Flash2/Failure_to_communicate/index.html

http://www.avclicks.com/lost_comm/Lost_comm2/index.html
​

These type questions have really dropped off in the last few years. I hope my tutorials have been a good part of the reason. Many instructors have seemed to have not noticed when the lost comm rules changed in the mid '80s. There used to be a paragraph on when to descend, but they deleted it. ATC doesn't want NORDO planes gumming up the works unless there's a good reason, which is why they give holding instructions. Lacking an EFC, you can fly the approach when you get there unless you were given a hold and standing by for the EFC--then you descend at your revised ETA at the IAF. It makes sense--you don't want to run out of gas either.

dtuuri

It is really to bad they changed the reg, but it was probably an ICAO thing. . With TAA and large depicted holds, filing to a IAF, descending in the hold and completing an approach is more logical now then it was in the 80s.

 

[roncachamp]

Actually the video is not incorrect, but they do a poor job of explaining.

The video is incorrect.

 

[Clip4]

The video is incorrect.

Yea, I watched it again then deleted the post. I thought they were poorly describing EFC originally.

 

[luvflyin]

Ok, so I may not being doing the best job at describing my question here... let me try again

1) When you're cleared to an airport, the airport becomes your clearance limit, NOT the waypoint before the airport... correct?
2) So if the waypoint before the airport happens to be an IAF, what difference does it make? You still have to overfly the IAF to get to your clearance limit, THEN fly to an IAF, correct?

1) Yes

2). Yes and No. You will fly over the IAF to get to your clearance limit, the airport. You will also fly over the FAF an maybe some IF's. Then if all goes well right past the MAP and onto the runway.

 

[Palmpilot]

My favorite part of the AIM (from 6-4-1a):

"It is virtually impossible to provide regulations
and procedures applicable to all possible situations
associated with two-way radio communications
failure. During two-way radio communications
failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in
the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good
judgment in whatever action they elect to take."​

The regulation is out-of-touch with reality, because it doesn't adequately address the most common situation, in which the destination airport is the clearance limit. I don't think I've ever seen a controller write that a pilot in a lost comm situation should overfly the airport and then fly to an IAF and fly an approach.

 

[dtuuri]

The regulation is out-of-touch with reality, because it doesn't adequately address the most common situation, in which the destination airport is the clearance limit. I don't think I've ever seen a controller write that a pilot in a lost comm situation should overfly the airport and then fly to an IAF and fly an approach.

The rule change that dropped the descent paragraph, ie., where you were supposed to hold until your ETA even if you didn't have holding instructions, also changed the words "Holding fix" to "Clearance limit". The Chief Counsel says "clearance limit" still means the same thing.

dtuuri

 

[hindsight2020]

I love it when the folks call others an idiot, then proceed to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Folks, the regs are written poorly, and by the strictest reading of the reg, you are not supposed to descend on your own willy nilly to the airport after the last point you filed on the route section. Clearance limit doesn't take a different quality just because it's the intended destination airport. It's still the clearance limit, and you're supposed to treat it the same way as if the clearance limit you had been given was a waypoint in the NAS. Otherwise what you're doing is contradicting yourself, by behaving in a way that assigns the last point in the route box the qualities of a clearance limit fix. Aka Talking out both sides of your mouth, when it comes to the OPs question #1.

The regulation is out-of-touch with reality, because it doesn't adequately address the most common situation, in which the destination airport is the clearance limit. I don't think I've ever seen a controller write that a pilot in a lost comm situation should overfly the airport and then fly to an IAF and fly an approach.

Agreed, but the regs don't say the clearance limit takes a different quality and condition when it's the destination airport. If you're expected to fly to, hold (if applicable) and/or depart from the clearance limit fix at the highest of the M-E-A altitudes at the appropriate time, then by the reg you gotta do the same thing with the destination airport if it's the clearance limit.

 

[roncachamp]

The rule change that dropped the descent paragraph, ie., where you were supposed to hold until your ETA even if you didn't have holding instructions, also changed the words "Holding fix" to "Clearance limit". The Chief Counsel says "clearance limit" still means the same thing.

An IFR clearance always has a clearance limit. When holding instructions are issued the clearance limit is the holding fix.

 

[dtuuri]

An IFR clearance always has a clearance limit. When holding instructions are issued the clearance limit is the holding fix.

We are in total agreement. So, what's your point? Mine was the regs used to say "leave holding fix" and now it says "leave clearance limit" instead. It means the same either way, no change in the intent. For some reason, newbie pilots can't figr it oot.

dtuuri

 

[roncachamp]

We are in total agreement. So, what's your point?

Clarity.

 

[Clip4]

My favorite part of the AIM (from 6-4-1a):

"It is virtually impossible to provide regulations
and procedures applicable to all possible situations
associated with two-way radio communications
failure. During two-way radio communications
failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in
the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good
judgment in whatever action they elect to take."​

The regulation is out-of-touch with reality, because it doesn't adequately address the most common situation, in which the destination airport is the clearance limit. I don't think I've ever seen a controller write that a pilot in a lost comm situation should overfly the airport and then fly te o an IAF and fly an approach.

If controllers want a different procedure or reg concerning lost communications, they have the ability to make the case with the FAA for a change What ever they chose to write online or a magazine is just personal opinion.

 

[roncachamp]

If controllers want a different procedure or reg concerning lost communications, they have the ability to make the case with the FAA for a change What ever they chose to write online or a magazine is just personal opinion.

I don't think a different regulation would cause ATC to handle the situation any differently.