Leaving the Clearance Limit Scenario

[roncachamp]

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

So he's going to keep running the normal flow of traffic while a NORDO aircraft flies to the airport, then flies outbound to the IAF, then proceeds back to the airport via the approach, sequencing that aircraft into the normal flow? Damn! He is no doubt the greatest controller ever!

 

[roncachamp]

And how does the pilot inow that the controller hasn't declared an emergency for him?

He can't know. Does it matter?

 

[Palmpilot]

One thing that I believe is being overlooked in this discussion is that IFR RNAV capability is NOT universal. There are still a significant number of IFR rental aircraft that are only equipped to receive terrestrial navaids, and therefore may not be capable of flying direct from the last route waypoint to a point overhead the airport.

 

[Palmpilot]

"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.

Let us know when you find any actual enforcement actions like that.

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.

I don't have much trouble imagining the pilot successfully defending against an enforcement action by pointing out that, "In my judgment as PIC, prolonging the flight without communications in busy airspace would have been unsafe, and therefore I considered the situation to be an emergency requiring immediate action."

Note that the AIM section quoted above states,

"Whether two-way communications failure
constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances,
and in any event, it is a determination made
by the pilot." [emphasis added]
​

 

[mkosmo]

He can't know. Does it matter?

I've come to realize that a lot of folks think that the word "emergency" has to be communicated by somebody somewhere in order for it to be real and to allow them to exercise their emergency authority.

 

[tspear]

I thought the usual practice was to watch and see what the 7600 does and clear the airspace around IT??

You assume transponder still works.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

 

[roncachamp]

You assume transponder still works.

Why not? This discussion assumes the nav radios still work.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

So he's going to keep running the normal flow of traffic while a NORDO aircraft flies to the airport, then flies outbound to the IAF, then proceeds back to the airport via the approach, sequencing that aircraft into the normal flow? Damn! He is no doubt the greatest controller ever!

Destination and class C were two different airports. Of course there is likely a conflict at some point. I don't know all the details of if/how going to the airport first makes that easier on him. I do know that he told me it does.

 

[MauleSkinner]

He can't know. Does it matter?

That's what the means.

One thing that I believe is being overlooked in this discussion is that IFR RNAV capability is NOT universal. There are still a significant number of IFR rental aircraft that are only equipped to receive terrestrial navaids, and therefore may not be capable of flying direct from the last route waypoint to a point overhead the airport.

Dont file or accept a route that your airplane can't navigate. Problem solved.

 

[roncachamp]

Destination and class C were two different airports.

So what?

Of course there is likely a conflict at some point. I don't know all the details of if/how going to the airport first makes that easier on him.

It doesn't.

 

[luvflyin]

I havent read all this. Is someone still putting forth the proposition that because your clearance limit was the airport that you must literally fly over the airport before flying back out yonder to where some approach fixes are to begin an approach to let down and land???

 

[Palmpilot]

That's what the means.


Dont file or accept a route that your airplane can't navigate. Problem solved.

If pilots of non-RNAV-equipped aircraft started refusing all clearances that ended with direct to the airport, they would be refusing ALL clearances. Doesn't sound like much of a solution.

 

[Palmpilot]

I havent read all this. Is someone still putting forth the proposition that because your clearance limit was the airport that you must literally fly over the airport before flying back out yonder to where some approach fixes are to begin an approach to let down and land???

In the context of lost comm in IMC, yes, some people are insisting on exactly that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If pilots of non-RNAV-equipped aircraft started refusing all clearances that ended with direct to the airport, they would be refusing ALL clearances. Doesn't sound like much of a solution.

As long as the airport is within the service volume of the last nav aid in the clearance, direct to the airport is easy and legal, just like it's always been.

 

[denverpilot]

If pilots of non-RNAV-equipped aircraft started refusing all clearances that ended with direct to the airport, they would be refusing ALL clearances. Doesn't sound like much of a solution.

I refuse them when /U or /A all the time if I can't navigate there legally. The next words are always a heading for radar vectors. No big deal.

 

[Palmpilot]

I refuse them when /U or /A all the time if I can't navigate there legally. The next words are always a heading for radar vectors. No big deal.

Suppose you're sitting on the ground at your departure airport in a /A or /U aircraft, and the route clearance they give you says "direct" after the last fix before your destination airport. Do you refuse that clearance?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Suppose you're sitting there at your departure airport in a /A or /U aircraft, and the route clearance they give you says "direct" after the last fix before your destination airport. Do you refuse that clearance?

Can he navigate there legally? If not, what is the reason he can't?

 

[denverpilot]

Suppose you're sitting on the ground at your departure airport in a /A or /U aircraft, and the route clearance they give you says "direct" after the last fix before your destination airport. Do you refuse that clearance?

Probably. It certainly wouldn't be what I filed, if IMC, because I'd need an IAF or transition route to get there.

If severe clear VMC, I'd probably accept it because we all know it's going to be vectors to final and a visual anyway, or I'll just look out the window or cancel IFR, so it's not worth the battle.

Can he navigate there legally? If not, what is the reason he can't?

Usually because they've removed most of the transition routes from enroute to approaches unwittingly when they redesign plates and add the GPS plates at many GA airports. I say "unwittingly" because I've emailed the plate folks a few times and asked as I see them disappear...

They've started to forget that the airway system is a SYSTEM and you need a way from enroute to terminal in a non-GPS-direct world.

Often a new plate cycle comes out with a transition route re-added.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Usually because they've removed most of the transition routes from enroute to approaches unwittingly when they redesign plates and add the GPS plates at many GA airports.

Unfortunately @Palmpilot 's question didn't give enough information..."the last fix before your destination airport" could be a fix from which you could navigate direct to the airport. That's the reason I asked the question.

 

[tspear]

I havent read all this. Is someone still putting forth the proposition that because your clearance limit was the airport that you must literally fly over the airport before flying back out yonder to where some approach fixes are to begin an approach to let down and land???

That is the reg. It also is what multiple controllers have said they expect.
It also matches what I was taught, and applies to almost everywhere in the USA (e.g. not the SFRA)

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Unfortunately @Palmpilot 's question didn't give enough information..."the last fix before your destination airport" could be a fix from which you could navigate direct to the airport.

Correct. I was just going off of what I assume he was intending with that last "Direct".

Plus... if it's really IMC, and I'm really Lost Comm, and I really need to find that airport... the iPad, Iphone, a made up VOR radial looking at terrain and obstacles on the sectional, ADF if we still had it on board, whatever works... just don't hit nuthin' and don't run out of gas doing whatever you're going to do.

But you shouldn't have painted yourself into the corner to begin with. Coloring with that crayon starts the chain by accepting something you can't navigate to. It'd just be dumb to do so. "Unable" still works in the land of Direct.

 

[Palmpilot]

That is the reg. It also is what multiple controllers have said they expect.

It's also the opposite of what multiple controllers have said they expect.

 

[hindsight2020]

I havent read all this. Is someone still putting forth the proposition that because your clearance limit was the airport that you must literally fly over the airport before flying back out yonder to where some approach fixes are to begin an approach to let down and land???

Please do share your insight, you seem confident you know the answer.

 

[JC150]

That is the reg. It also is what multiple controllers have said they expect.
It also matches what I was taught, and applies to almost everywhere in the USA (e.g. not the SFRA)

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

This is what I was taught in my ground school and by my CFII as well hence why I brought my question here. Because the airport is in fact the clearance limit, and you must leave from the clearance limit to a fix from which an approach begins. Otherwise ATC has no clue what you're doing when you're doing it on your own...

But from other people's points here, it sounds like this reg should probably be re-written and I agree it makes more sense to just fly to an IAF and go in versus flying over the clearance limit as per the reg. Just my opinion

 

[Clip4]

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.

The reg is written so pilot takes a standard action and the controller can expect what the pilot is going do.

 

[genna]

in case of "Cleared to YYYY via Direct" with departure being XXXX airport. Wouldn't XXXX be the "last fix before destination airport" ? Couldn't one then make the case(assuming the timing is ok) that the pilot have met the ("clearance limit" regulation) and can now simply go to IAF(starting descent when appropriate)?

 

[Clip4]

So what bad thing might happen if a pilot does break FAR 91.185 and does something unexpected?

Fly into another aircraft. All areas do not have radar.

 

[roncachamp]

That is the reg. It also is what multiple controllers have said they expect.
It also matches what I was taught, and applies to almost everywhere in the USA (e.g. not the SFRA)

What multiple controllers? I believe it's been related in this thread of one controller taking that position.

 

[roncachamp]

The reg is written so pilot takes a standard action and the controller can expect what the pilot is going do.

Controllers are told to expect a pilot may elect to exercise his emergency authority in this situation.

 

[JC150]

Let's say you're flying from KLAX to KORD and your clearance limit from ATC is DVV VOR (Mile High VOR in Denver). Enroute, you lose comms, you're in IMC, and you reach your clearance limit (DVV).

Are you supposed to look up if DVV is an initial approach fix for some airport below that you have no idea about per rule 1B? Heck you may not even know what the weather is below or if you can even get in.

Or are you supposed to leave DVV and fly direct to an IAF at your filed destination (KORD) as per 2B?

Just curious which rule this scenario falls under

Lost Comm Rules:

1) Clearance Limit is a fix from which an approach begins:

1A) You HAVE an EFC - descend and approach as close to EFC
1B) You DO NOT have an EFC - descend and approach as close to ETA

2) Clearance Limit is NOT a fix from which an approach begins:

2A) You HAVE an EFC - leave clearance limit at EFC, fly to a fix where an approach begins, hold until ETA and start approach
2B) You DO NOT have an EFC - leave clearance limit right away, fly to a fix where an approach begins, hold until ETA and start approach

 

[roncachamp]

Fly into another aircraft. All areas do not have radar.

If controllers can count on pilots adhering to their expectations, running operations as normal with a NORDO aircraft should work equally well in radar and nonradar environments.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Let's say you're flying from KLAX to KORD and your clearance limit from ATC is DVV VOR (Mile High VOR in Denver). Enroute, you lose comms, you're in IMC, and you reach your clearance limit (DVV).

Are you supposed to look up if DVV is an initial approach fix for some airport below that you have no idea about per rule 1B? Heck you may not even know what the weather is below or if you can even get in.

Or are you supposed to leave DVV and fly direct to an IAF at your filed destination (KORD) as per 2B?

Just curious which rule this scenario falls under

Lost Comm Rules:

1) Clearance Limit is a fix from which an approach begins:

1A) You HAVE an EFC - descend and approach as close to EFC
1B) You DO NOT have an EFC - descend and approach as close to ETA

2) Clearance Limit is NOT a fix from which an approach begins:

2A) You HAVE an EFC - leave clearance limit at EFC, fly to a fix where an approach begins, hold until ETA and start approach
2B) You DO NOT have an EFC - leave clearance limit right away, fly to a fix where an approach begins, hold until ETA and start approach

Nothing in there says fly DIRECT to the fix from which the approach starts.

Adding words is how people get this so confused.

 

[JC150]

Nothing in there says fly DIRECT to the fix from which the approach starts.

Adding words is how people get this so confused.

It says:
upon arrival over the clearance limit, proceed to a fix from which an approach begins

It doesn't say direct, but why would you do anything else unless it were for weather or something?

 

[JC150]

And the question I was asking is once arrival over the DVV clearance limit, do you see if the DVV is an IAF for some random airport below? Or do you continue to your destination?

Rule 1B or 2B?

 

[Palmpilot]

Controllers are told to expect a pilot may elect to exercise his emergency authority in this situation.

And pilots are told that too (in the AIM passage quoted previously).

 

[roncachamp]

Let's say you're flying from KLAX to KORD and your clearance limit from ATC is DVV VOR (Mile High VOR in Denver). Enroute, you lose comms, you're in IMC, and you reach your clearance limit (DVV).

Are you supposed to look up if DVV is an initial approach fix for some airport below that you have no idea about per rule 1B?

No.

Or are you supposed to leave DVV and fly direct to an IAF at your filed destination (KORD) as per 2B?

You're supposed to leave DVV and proceed to your destination via your last assigned route.

Just curious which rule this scenario falls under

It will probably fall under FAR 91.185(b) at some point between DVV and KORD

 

[JC150]

No.



You're supposed to leave DVV and proceed to your destination via your last assigned route.



It will probably fall under FAR 91.185(b) at some point between DVV and KORD

What last assigned route? Lets say in LAX they couldn't give you your clearance to ORD, so instead they give you a clearance to DVV
"N123AB cleared to Mile High VOR via direct, climb and maintain 17,000, squawk 2125"

So you get to DVV, now what? I understand .185(b), but for discussion sakes, there's no VMC the entire way

 

[MauleSkinner]

It says:
upon arrival over the clearance limit, proceed to a fix from which an approach begins

It doesn't say direct, but why would you do anything else unless it were for weather or something?

Maybe if you have an expected route after the hold, and especially if you don't have the capability of navigating direct.

 

[Palmpilot]

What last assigned route? Lets say in LAX they couldn't give you your clearance to ORD, so instead they give you a clearance to DVV
"N123AB cleared to Mile High VOR via direct, climb and maintain 17,000, squawk 2125"

So you get to DVV, now what? I understand .185(b), but for discussion sakes, there's no VMC the entire way

I would not accept a clearance like that without an expect further clearance (EFC) time. I think you would then be required to enter a standard holding pattern at your clearance limit until your EFC time arrived.

 

[JC150]

I would not accept a clearance like that without an expect further clearance time.

Okay, so lets say they give you an EFC then. Then this scenario would fall under rule 1A or 2A

1A) You HAVE an EFC - descend and approach as close to EFC
2A) You HAVE an EFC - leave clearance limit at EFC, fly to a fix where an approach begins, hold until ETA and start approach

Which rule does the scenario fall under now?

1A, hypothetically DVV is an IAF at some airport below, you'd hold until EFC, then start the approach for an airport you have no clue what the weather is
2A, you're not supposed to do 1A in this scenario so you hold until EFC, the fly to a fix where an approach begins at ORD, hold until your ETA, then start your approach. Right?