Not cleared for the approach?

A

Anonymous

Guest
First 90% of the flight totally uneventful ATC wise. Picked up my clearance in the air, off I went on a mostly VMC above the clouds flight.

Then came time for decent. Talked with approach about which runway and gave my RNAV approach request and which waypoint I wanted to start with.

ATC came back with "cleared XXX (IAF) maintain 4000 until established on a published portion of the approach. Report inbound XXX (the next way point-IF/IAF).

AND I THINK she said in there cleared bla bla appraoch.....BUT I CANNOT rememeber.

I repeated all of that back and started to set up for the approach.

So I am flying the approach and a new controller starts. must be shift change

ATC: NXXXX do you have the weather
ME: Yes I have the weather and I will be turning inbound XXX now.
ATC: uhh i just sat down were you cleared for the approach?
me: ummm yes I was cleared and told to report inbound XXX

Shortly after I was VFR so I cancelled with her in the air.


SO my question is this. In the initial ATC exchange if I did not heard the magic words cleared for the approach but I got all of those other instructions am I good.

If not.... am I going to pilot jail? She didn't say anything after and I cancels IFR once I was out of the soup.
 
It sounds like the controller intended to clear you for the approach once you reported XXX (or did indeed clear you already) and the new controller just wasn't briefed very well during the shift change.
 
maintain 4000 until established on a published portion of the approach

I've never heard the phraseology above without there also being an approach clearance. It wouldn't make sense on its own.

That doesn't mean that the controller didn't make a mistake and leave out the clearance but it suggests that an approach clearance was intended.

So, how do you resolve the ambiguity?

These two examples are helpful in this, or similar, situations.

"[Callsign], Request approach clearance", or
"[Callsign], Confirm approach clearance"
Those two formats also work well for landing clearance. I've also used "[Callsign], Request further clearance" when reaching a clearance limit without a further clearance.

A controller change presents an increased threat of errors. When the second controller asked if you had been cleared, respond with "Affirmative", if you know, or "Request approach clearance" if you are unsure. That will remove any ambiguity.
 
ATC came back with "cleared XXX (IAF) maintain 4000 until established on a published portion of the approach. Report inbound XXX (the next way point-IF/IAF).

AND I THINK she said in there cleared bla bla approach.....BUT I CANNOT remember.

A clearance worded like this does not make sense unless it contained a clearance for the approach. "Maintain 4000 until established on a published portion of the approach" implies that a lower altitude is permitted after becoming established, but a lower altitude than the last assigned altitude is not permitted unless you are also cleared for the approach. It is important to listen for the magic words "Cleared .. Approach". The instruction from the controller is incomplete without an clearance for the approach. This is the guidance from the controller manual (FAA Order 7110.65Y, 4-8-1 Approach Clearance) that controllers are to follow:

b. For aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft is:
1. Established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure,
EXAMPLE−
The aircraft is established on a segment of a published route at 5,000 feet. “Cleared V-O-R Runway Three Four Approach.”

2. Assigned an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
EXAMPLE−
Aircraft 1 is cleared direct LEFTT. The MVA in the area is 3,000 feet, and the aircraft is at 4,000 feet. “Cross LEFTT at or above three thousand five hundred, cleared RNAV Runway One Eight Approach.”

You can't descend unless you were cleared for the approach and established on a published route or segment of the approach. If there is any question regarding your clearance, you need to clarify it with the controller.
 
I agree that "maintain X until established on a published portion of the approach" implies a clearance to fly the approach. How else would you get onto a published portion of it? Or does holding without an EFC time at the IAF qualify as a published portion of the approach?

That said, if a controller ever asks me whether I have a clearance, I think I'll just say "I'd feel better if you answered that one. Bugsmasher 23B requesting clearance."
 
If not cleared it would make sense and be normal phraseology for ATC to say, "maintain X until established....continue". That implies "not cleared" e.g in the radar environment someone is stil on the approach, much farther down.....

"As in Seneca 32755 descend maintain 8,000 fly heading 090 to intercept the localizer. 170 knots please. You are # 7 for the field". Common on ORD ILS 4R, it's a huge conga line.
 
Last edited:
A clearance worded like this does not make sense unless it contained a clearance for the approach.

not so John...happens to us here at OAK all the time... they don't clear more than one for the approach at a time, in case of lost comm. But they still don't want #2 descending into the hills on 10 mile final...
 
not so John...happens to us here at OAK all the time... they don't clear more than one for the approach at a time, in case of lost comm. But they still don't want #2 descending into the hills on 10 mile final...

Now you've confused me. Why would one descend IFR from an assigned altitude into the hills on 10 mile final, with or without an approach clearance?

I realize there are "more things on heaven and earth..." but, while I have definitely heard instructions to join the extended final approach course without a clearance, which means no descent from previously assigned altitude, I have never heard what is effectively a clearance to follow the approach both horizontally and vertically, without an approach clearance (even listening to Jerry W's 5,000 flights a year into OAK :D) . It would be good to find one of those on LiveATC and hear it.
 
not so John...happens to us here at OAK all the time... they don't clear more than one for the approach at a time, in case of lost comm. But they still don't want #2 descending into the hills on 10 mile final...

?? What in this scenario would lead a pilot to descend into the hills? Not having more than one airplane cleared at a time only makes sense if there is not Radar coverage to the ground there. I don’t think that is the case at OAK. This not more than one airplane at a time having an Approach Clearance would lead to airplanes inside the FAF still waiting for their Clearance. Or they are running final there with like 10 mile intervals. I’m having trouble believing that.
 
Last edited:
If not cleared it would make sense and be normal phraseology for ATC to say, "maintain X until established....continue". That implies "not cleared" e.g in the radar environment someone is stil on the approach, much farther down.....

"As in Seneca 32755 descend maintain 8,000 fly heading 090 to intercept the localizer. 170 knots please. You are # 7 for the field". Common on ORD ILS 4R, it's a huge conga line.

Are you saying that once intercepting the Localizer in this situation that the pilot would begin descending via either the Glideslope or step down fixes without having been given an Approach Clearance or some specific altitude assignment.
 
Are you saying that once intercepting the Localizer in this situation that the pilot would begin descending via either the Glideslope or step down fixes without having been given an Approach Clearance or some specific altitude assignment.
yes. When you are 20 + miles from the IAF that means you have 7 going down the GS with 3 mile spacing...
 
yes. When you are 20 + miles from the IAF that means you have 7 going down the GS with 3 mile spacing...

Not talking about spacing. I get that many airplanes can be on their way inbound WITH APPROACH CLEARANCES. This is about beginning a descent out of last assigned altitude WITHOUT CLEARANCE.
 
Hmmmmmm...

Bb7kfQ2IgAElpKc.jpg


"no sir, I don't like it."

If I read this right, you answered that you were previously cleared for an approach when you were actually unsure. You sound like you weren't behind the plane, and had good situational awareness about your approach -- so why do that? It gains you nothing. You could have answered "negative" or "uhhh... not sure" to get the clarification you deserved, and nothing skips a beat.

I think this is the mistake that gets you sent to pilot jail (social media edition, I doubt you'd get burned for what is clearly a misunderstanding at worst) I don't like ambiguity in the IFR system. It's your tookus on the line after all. ATC is not going to clown you for asking or clarifying or playing dumb -- honesty can only give them the fullest and complete-est information with which to help you out.

$0.02.
 
.....I've also used "[Callsign], Request further clearance" when reaching a clearance limit without a further clearance.....

You should be doing this long before reaching the Clearance Limit. Controller procedures require them to either issue Clearance beyond the limit or issue Holding instructions 5 minutes before reaching it. If you haven’t been cleared beyond you are supposed begin reduction to Holding speed 3 minutes before the Clearance Limit. See AIM 4-4-3 e.
 
Hmmmmmm...
...If I read this right, you answered that you were previously cleared for an approach when you were actually unsure. You sound like you weren't behind the plane, and had good situational awareness about your approach -- so why do that? It gains you nothing. You could have answered "negative" or "uhhh... not sure" to get the clarification you deserved, and nothing skips a beat.

I think this is the mistake that gets you sent to pilot jail (social media edition, I doubt you'd get burned for what is clearly a misunderstanding at worst) I don't like ambiguity in the IFR system. It's your tookus on the line after all. ATC is not going to clown you for asking or clarifying or playing dumb -- honesty can only give them the fullest and complete-est information with which to help you out.

$0.02.
I agree with this. (Except the social-media jail part. ;))
 
Reviewing the thread, I'm surprised I didn't see this as a potential answer, or at least a follow-up question:
ATC came back with "cleared XXX (IAF) maintain 4000 until established on a published portion of the approach. Report inbound XXX (the next way point-IF/IAF).

AND I THINK she said in there cleared bla bla appraoch.....BUT I CANNOT rememeber.

I repeated all of that back and started to set up for the approach.

Did you include "cleared for the approach" in some form in your readback? Might have been simply "cleared for the approach" you thought was said (not a 100% solution), or "confirm cleared for the approach," if you weren't sure.
 
ATC came back with "cleared XXX (IAF) maintain 4000 until established on a published portion of the approach. Report inbound XXX (the next way point-IF/IAF).
...
SO my question is this. In the initial ATC exchange if I did not heard the magic words cleared for the approach but I got all of those other instructions am I good.
Yes, you're good:
  1. Assuming your original clearance to the destination airport was unrevised with a clearance limit and EFC.
  2. You report XXX as requested, where you'll be cleared if in fact you weren't already.
 
You should be doing this long before reaching the Clearance Limit. Controller procedures require them to either issue Clearance beyond the limit or issue Holding instructions 5 minutes before reaching it. If you haven’t been cleared beyond you are supposed begin reduction to Holding speed 3 minutes before the Clearance Limit. See AIM 4-4-3 e.
The distance involved in "reaching" varies based on the context. Sometimes it even happens at a taxiway, like A15, at ORD.
 
If it's a Bravo airport you're supposed to say, "I've talking to you for an hour" and then, "so clear me".

[Not a serious answer. Dmspilot is probably correct]

I think the wife has to approve it first...
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top