Leaving the Clearance Limit Scenario

hindsight2020 said:
I love it when the folks call others an idiot... <snip>
Click to expand...
Wow, hindsight2020, just wow. I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out what you're saying. Then I couldn't believe you believe what you believe. In the universe of "clearance limits" (note the quotation marks) there are holding fixes and destination airports. You hold at the former and culminate a standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP) at the latter. Capiche? It has nothing to do with GPS.

dtuuri
 
Clip4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's the professional opinion of the people who are most likely to complain to the FSDO if you do wacky stuff like overflying your destination, flying back to an IAF, and then flying an approach, all in busy airspace, and who are unlikely to complain if you do it how they want you to do it.

Sometimes safety and practicality have to take priority over following the letter of a regulation that doesn't make sense for the situation at hand.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
...The regs need updating, since now getting the destination airport as the clearance limit IS the NORM, with the advent of GPS....
Click to expand...
Getting the destination airport as the clearance limit was already the norm when I got my instrument rating in 1992, and that was long before GPS became common in civilian aviation. I suspect that widespread radar coverage had something to do with it.
 
In another thread, somebody claimed that a pilot got sanctioned for following the letter of the lost comm reg on a flight to Denver, but he wasn't able to provide enough information to look up the case decision. Does anyone else have the details?
 
Velocity173 said:
This will clear it up.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/olshock - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...
You rascal! That attorney, Pardo, was fired. His workload was distributed and another attorney answered differently in response to a question I had submitted to ATO which passed the buck to the Chief Counsel. It's obvious they haven't a clue even after consulting with other departments, but managed to say the term "clearance limit" means the same as the previous term "holding fix". All of this is documented on my website in the second link in my post earlier.

In the letter you cited, the actual question is not known. The Chief Counsel paraphrases the question in their own words and then answers their OWN question. In this case you don't have enough information, since the route is not known. In the event the clearance was to the KABC WAYPOINT as opposed to the KABC airport--the letter is correct and not in disagreement with anything they told me. More likely, though, Pardo didn't have a clue. Why anybody files to a VFR fix like an airport waypoint while IFR is beyond me.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
You rascal! That attorney, Pardo, was fired. His workload was distributed and another attorney answered differently in response to a question I had submitted to ATO which passed the buck to the Chief Counsel. It's obvious they haven't a clue even after consulting with other departments, but managed to say the term "clearance limit" means the same as the previous term "holding fix". All of this is documented on my website in the second link in my post earlier.

In the letter you cited, the actual question is not known. The Chief Counsel paraphrases the question in their own words and then answers their OWN question. In this case you don't have enough information, since the route is not known. In the event the clearance was to the KABC WAYPOINT as opposed to the KABC airport--the letter is correct and not in disagreement with anything they told me. More likely, though, Pardo didn't have a clue. Why anybody files to a VFR fix like an airport waypoint while IFR is beyond me.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, are you saying that the Chief Counsel's "paraphrase" was in the Olshock letter (this one) or the Desselles letter (the one this one references)?

I don't see any change of answer or paraphrasing going on in this one, and haven't had time to go hunt down the Desselles one. (And now I want to read your link as well...) That'll have to wait for later tonight, or another night.

This letter seems like it's at least internally consistent with itself.
 
Palmpilot said:
In another thread, somebody claimed that a pilot got sanctioned for following the letter of the lost comm reg on a flight to Denver, but he wasn't able to provide enough information to look up the case decision. Does anyone else have the details?
Click to expand...
That was never claimed. What was claimed is that the pilot got sanctioned for flying to his clearance limit while lost com. See the difference?
 
denverpilot said:
Just to be clear, are you saying that the Chief Counsel's "paraphrase" was in the Olshock letter (this one) or the Desselles letter (the one this one references)?

I don't see any change of answer or paraphrasing going on in this one, and haven't had time to go hunt down the Desselles one. (And now I want to read your link as well...) That'll have to wait for later tonight, or another night.

This letter seems like it's at least internally consistent with itself.
Click to expand...
In their answer to my letter I noticed how they don't quote verbatim. The indented area of the Olshock letter I must assume is the same--no quotes. This Pardo guy called me and said he was working on my letter then later somebody else, Jawed, answered. It was as though she never even read my questions. So, I pushed back and got a second less-convoluted answer. But it was apparent all this aviation jargon was new to her. She did her best trying to decipher information she got from the so-called experts at FAA, but still was confused here and there. I pushed back once more and was summarily dismissed. Even so, I got enough--the old "holding fix" is the new "clearance limit". No change. No holding patterns over the airport either. It ought to be flat out self-evident unless you're a new-hire attorney in the Chief Counsel's office. You have to hold at a clearance limit, but there's no holding patterns over airports.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
In their answer to my letter I noticed how they don't quote verbatim. The indented area of the Olshock letter I must assume is the same--no quotes. This Pardo guy called me and said he was working on my letter then later somebody else, Jawed, answered. It was as though she never even read my questions. So, I pushed back and got a second less-convoluted answer. But it was apparent all this aviation jargon was new to her. She did her best trying to decipher information she got from the so-called experts at FAA, but still was confused here and there. I pushed back once more and was summarily dismissed. Even so, I got enough--the old "holding fix" is the new "clearance limit". No change. No holding patterns over the airport either. It ought to be flat out self-evident unless you're a new-hire attorney in the Chief Counsel's office. You have to hold at a clearance limit, but there's no holding patterns over airports.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

This type of thing is very much why I *hate* that FAA allows its lawyers to essentially re-write regulations via these letters, which are both difficult to find, indexed nowhere, and certainly not printed in the back of any paper FAR/AIM nor referenced by one.

I get that they seem to absolutely HATE the NPRM process and try to avoid it -- well more than try, actively avoid it -- to fix wordings and things, but writing laws by "interpretation letter" is a really freaking bad idea.
 
Palmpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

THIS.

There is the academic answer which can be debated at nauseam and there is the real world answer.

During a TRACON tour and discussion with one of their top FAA safety supervisors this topic came up and what was expected. In the real world, if you loose coms in IMC with no other contact or info to tell them otherwise they are pretty much treating you as an emergency and clearing the airspace for you to get on the ground ASAP. They do not know what other emergency you may be dealing with in the cockpit, so regardless of this debate of clearance limit they are EXPECTING you to fly an approach and land ASAP at your destination regardless of ETA. No one is expected to be overflying an IAF only to go fly to some imaginary place then return to that IAF to shoot and approach...that is just asinine. Get on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
It's the professional opinion of the people who are most likely to complain to the FSDO if you do wacky stuff like overflying your destination, flying back to an IAF, and then flying an approach, all in busy airspace, and who are unlikely to complain if you do it how they want you to do it.

Sometimes safety and practicality have to take priority over following the letter of a regulation that doesn't make sense for the situation at hand.
Click to expand...

They are also the same bunch that will maintain zero responsibility if you violate a rule and something bad happens. Consider it an emergency and do what you want is not what is anticipated.
 
Shawn said:
THIS.

There is the academic answer which can be debated at nauseam and there is the real world answer.

During a TRACON tour and discussion with one of their top FAA safety supervisors this topic came up and what was expected. In the real world, if you loose coms in IMC with no other contact or info to tell them otherwise they are pretty much treating you as an emergency and clearing the airspace for you to get on the ground ASAP. They do not know what other emergency you may be dealing with in the cockpit, so regardless of this debate of clearance limit they are EXPECTING you to fly an approach and land ASAP at your destination regardless of ETA. No one is expected to be overflying an IAF only to go fly to some imaginary place then return to that IAF to shoot and approach...that is just asinine. Get on the ground.
Click to expand...

Then let the controllers lobby the FAA to put all that useful information in the regs and AIM.
 
Clip4 said:
Then let the controllers lobby the FAA to put all that useful information in the regs and AIM.
Click to expand...

They acknowledged what the rules say but in the same breath said no controller in his right mind would bust a pilot for not holding and proceeding to the airport...and would rather you get on the ground cuz they have to keep that airspace CLEAR for you.
 
Clip4 said:
They are also the same bunch that will maintain zero responsibility if you violate a rule and something bad happens. Consider it an emergency and do what you want is not what is anticipated.
Click to expand...
Anticipated by whom?
 
Clip4 said:
Then let the controllers lobby the FAA to put all that useful information in the regs and AIM.
Click to expand...

Why would controllers give a crap about rules we have to follow? They only care about the 7110.

If our rules make us do something they weren't expecting, they'll either write it up as a "possible pilot deviation" and let the FSDO handle it, or they won't.
 
Clark1961 said:
Fair enough. When you read all the regs perhaps you will see.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I paraphrased it inaccurately. The actual claim is even better, because it's more directly relevant to this thread.
 
Palmpilot said:
Sorry if I paraphrased it inaccurately. The actual claim is even better, because it's more directly relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...
Well then you will have to post the claim.
 
Palmpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was told by a supervisor at the local class C that he absolutely expected the pilot to fly to the airport (because it was the clearance limit), then fly outbound to the IAF, and then proceed back to the airport via the approach. He indicated that he would be unhappy if anything else happened.
 
\__[Ô]__/ said:
I was told by a supervisor at the local class C that he absolutely expected the pilot to fly to the airport (because it was the clearance limit), then fly outbound to the IAF, and then proceed back to the airport via the approach. He indicated that he would be unhappy if anything else happened.
Click to expand...
Then let him cry in his beer, and then learn something about aviation. . .geez, what a maroon! Real world happenstance, you lose comms, you do the logical thing (shoot the approach), and he becomes "unhappy"? You exercised your PIC authority in an "emergency". I'm trying to imagine the FAA backing the supervisor and coming at you. . .possible, I guess. It'd sound pretty stupid in a NTSB hearing.
 
Sundancer said:
Then let him cry in his beer, and then learn something about aviation. . .geez, what a maroon! Real world happenstance, you lose comms, you do the logical thing (shoot the approach), and he becomes "unhappy"? You exercised your PIC authority in an "emergency". I'm trying to imagine the FAA backing the supervisor and coming at you. . .possible, I guess. It'd sound pretty stupid in a NTSB hearing.
Click to expand...

I'm with ya, but from a devil's advocate perspective, that controller is following our own regs better than we are. The clearance limit is the airport, in the common scenario of being given "cleared to destination_airport, as filed". Why doesn't the FAA just get off their rent-seeking @sses and clarify it? Why play I've got a secret with this situation.

Seldom are you given something other than the destination airport these days, as the clearance limit. Let's cut to the chase here: The lost comm regs are written for the presumption that the last point in the route section of the flight plan is your clearance limit. That's why the video, and the OPs CFII continue to parrot it. It's the baked-in assumption from back in the day. That's also how we still behave today in working life, as you, I and others continue to point out.

Can you imagine, getting on one of those retarded STARs into the DFW area, all of which end on a damn "thence... expect radar vectors", and you lose comms in the middle of the conga line. You proceed to hit the last point of the STAR and instead of going for an IAF on an ILS or RNAV approach with the runway direction in use, you decide to follow the regs and make a bee line for the center of mass of the aerodrome at your lowest STAR crossing altitude, and THEN proceed to back track to the IAF you otherwise would have gone for in the first place? You'd be right, but holy shiiat what a mess that would be.

This needs clarification from the FAA, because as of right now, we're all acting in non-compliance with the reg as written, even though we're doing it in the interest of safety of flight. Of course, we can exercise emergency authority and get a pass on it, but we're still doing it wrong according to the regs. WTF FAA...
 
\__[Ô]__/ said:
I was told by a supervisor at the local class C that he absolutely expected the pilot to fly to the airport (because it was the clearance limit), then fly outbound to the IAF, and then proceed back to the airport via the approach. He indicated that he would be unhappy if anything else happened.
Click to expand...
Well, now I can say that I've heard of one, but he's greatly in the minority, from what I've seen.
 
hindsight2020 said:
...Why doesn't the FAA just get off their rent-seeking @sses and clarify it? Why play I've got a secret with this situation....
Click to expand...
Amen to that!

...The lost comm regs are written for the presumption that the last point in the route section of the flight plan is your clearance limit....
Click to expand...
However, the lost comm regs don't actually say that.
 
I think the real problem here is as the reliability of tech (and traffic levels) goes up, FAA (and lots of other places) are losing the organization's memory that their entire system was once built to handle outages correctly.

The airway system and non-radar reporting points and lost Comm procedures all came from a time when not having Comm and radar were a much more common occurrence.

Nowadays you listen to the recordings in busy airspace when the scopes go dark and the lack of "a plan" and heavy frustration is really obvious in the controllers' voices as they talk to pilots through low power backup radios running on battery power...

Like the recordings of Miami TRACON losing all their visibility that are floating around YouTube and whatnot. Just a total "crap" moment for everyone.

The "system" doesn't quite work for "Direct to airport" routings, no matter how many times FAA people have touted "Free Flight" and other catchy phrases for "Fly wherever you like" over the decades.

The more I realize that the old system is broken now, the more I think I just want to get the aircraft on the ground if lost Comm IFR than anything. The longer I'm in their airspace where THEY don't even seem to know what they want for a plan, the less chance I'm going to become a bug splat on the windshield of some other aircraft that's still "participating" in the brave new ADS-B world of lower understanding and use of Primary Radar returns and the like.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
Then let him cry in his beer, and then learn something about aviation. . .geez, what a maroon! Real world happenstance, you lose comms, you do the logical thing (shoot the approach), and he becomes "unhappy"? You exercised your PIC authority in an "emergency". I'm trying to imagine the FAA backing the supervisor and coming at you. . .possible, I guess. It'd sound pretty stupid in a NTSB hearing.
Click to expand...

"Pilot failed to follow regulations and instead deviated into the approach path of an international airport. As a result all inbound traffic was diverted in order to maintain separation."

Sounds like a pretty compelling pilot deviation to me. As far as an NTSB hearing: I think a plane deviating from its clearance and flying into the approach path of multiple airline flights would indeed sound stupid.

I don't have much trouble imagining the FAA backing the supervisor because:
a) the specific, actual, flight i talked to the tower/TRACON supervisors (2) about put me at the same position and altitude as arrivals into the class C airport, and
b) one of the local FAA ASIs was a CFI before he became an ASI. He did my CFII training and made a point of noting that the regs require flying to the clearance limit (in this case, the airport) first. So I know he knows what the pilot is expected to do and expects pilots to do it.
 
Last edited:
\__[Ô]__/ said:
I was told by a supervisor at the local class C that he absolutely expected the pilot to fly to the airport (because it was the clearance limit), then fly outbound to the IAF, and then proceed back to the airport via the approach. He indicated that he would be unhappy if anything else happened.
Click to expand...

Did he happen to say why that would bring him unhappiness?
 
roncachamp said:
Did he happen to say why that would bring him unhappiness?
Click to expand...

Yes. He said it would disrupt the flow of traffic into the main airport.

edit: perhaps his opinion was specific to the case where not flying to the airport first would disrupt traffic. I didn't ask.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Did he happen to say why that would bring him unhappiness?
Click to expand...
Because other behavior is unexpected. You are cleared to a specific fix. They generally know where that is and clear the space around it.
Think about lost comms. The idea is to dc minimize the unknown. If you start descent at an IAF and the limit was the airport you are breaking the regs and not doing what was expected.
The regs are fine. Generally pilots and controllers have not adjusted and forgot how it all works.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Because other behavior is unexpected. You are cleared to a specific fix. They generally know where that is and clear the space around it.
Click to expand...
I thought the usual practice was to watch and see what the 7600 does and clear the airspace around IT?? :dunno:
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm with ya, but from a devil's advocate perspective, that controller is following our own regs better than we are. The clearance limit is the airport, in the common scenario of being given "cleared to destination_airport, as filed". Why doesn't the FAA just get off their rent-seeking @sses and clarify it? Why play I've got a secret with this situation.
Click to expand...

The FARs are not for controllers to follow, they're for pilots. Controllers are to follow Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. The folks who wrote that weighty tome put controller actions in Chapter 10 Emergencies for good reason. Paragraph 10−4−4 COMMUNICATIONS FAILURE tells controllers:

NOTE−
1. When an IFR aircraft experiences two-way radio
communications failure, air traffic control is based on
anticipated pilot actions. Pilot procedures and recom−
mended practices are set forth in the AIM, CFRs, and
pertinent military regulations.

If a controller follows that reference to the AIM he'll find this:

Chapter 6. Emergency Procedures

Section 4. Two-way Radio Communications Failure

6−4−1. Two-way Radio Communications
Failure

a. 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.
Should the situation so dictate they should not be
reluctant to use the emergency action contained in
14 CFR Section 91.3(b).

b. Whether two-way communications failure
constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances,
and in any event, it is a determination made
by the pilot. 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) authorizes a
pilot to deviate from any rule in Subparts A and B to
the extent required to meet an emergency.

c. In the event of two-way radio communications
failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that
the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR
Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two-way
communications failure should (unless emergency
authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR
Section 91.185 quoted below:

[snipped]

So, under what conditions can a controller be certain a pilot is complying with FAR 91.185 and not exercising emergency authority in accordance with FAR 91.3?
 
roncachamp said:
The FARs are not for controllers to follow, they're for pilots. Controllers are to follow Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. The folks who wrote that weighty tome put controller actions in Chapter 10 Emergencies for good reason. Paragraph 10−4−4 COMMUNICATIONS FAILURE tells controllers:

NOTE−
1. When an IFR aircraft experiences two-way radio
communications failure, air traffic control is based on
anticipated pilot actions. Pilot procedures and recom−
mended practices are set forth in the AIM, CFRs, and
pertinent military regulations.

If a controller follows that reference to the AIM he'll find this:

Chapter 6. Emergency Procedures

Section 4. Two-way Radio Communications Failure

6−4−1. Two-way Radio Communications
Failure

a. 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.
Should the situation so dictate they should not be
reluctant to use the emergency action contained in
14 CFR Section 91.3(b).

b. Whether two-way communications failure
constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances,
and in any event, it is a determination made
by the pilot. 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) authorizes a
pilot to deviate from any rule in Subparts A and B to
the extent required to meet an emergency.

c. In the event of two-way radio communications
failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that
the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR
Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two-way
communications failure should (unless emergency
authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR
Section 91.185 quoted below:

[snipped]

So, under what conditions can a controller be certain a pilot is complying with FAR 91.185 and not exercising emergency authority in accordance with FAR 91.3?
Click to expand...
And how does the pilot inow that the controller hasn't declared an emergency for him? ;)
 
tspear said:
Because other behavior is unexpected. You are cleared to a specific fix. They generally know where that is and clear the space around it.
Think about lost comms. The idea is to dc minimize the unknown. If you start descent at an IAF and the limit was the airport you are breaking the regs and not doing what was expected.
The regs are fine. Generally pilots and controllers have not adjusted and forgot how it all works.
Click to expand...

So what bad thing might happen if a pilot does break FAR 91.185 and does something unexpected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top