Turning at the IAF....

Ron Levy said:
Suggest re-reading that paragraph more closely. That "appropriate" part you highlighted refers to breaking off the approach after you've been cleared for and started it, which you cannot do without a new/revised clearance or cancellation of IFR. It does not refer in any way to joining the approach.
Click to expand...

I'm quite confident that it means what it says.

Have you made any progress on support for your assertion?
 
roncachamp said:
I'm quite confident that it means what it says.
Click to expand...
That does not surprise me, but it doesn't change what the paragraph actually says. Of course, absent a letter signed by the Administrator addressed directly to you, I doubt I can shake that confidence, but I'll see what I can do next week.
 
Ron Levy said:
That does not surprise me, but it doesn't change what the paragraph actually says. Of course, absent a letter signed by the Administrator addressed directly to you, I doubt I can shake that confidence, but I'll see what I can do next week.
Click to expand...

I look forward to it. Meanwhile, do you intend to cite the paragraph of JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control that you believe supports your assertion that ATC cannot vector an aircraft to join an IAP past the IAF other than vectors to final?
 
roncachamp said:
I look forward to it. Meanwhile, do you intend to cite the paragraph of JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control that you believe supports your assertion that ATC cannot vector an aircraft to join an IAP past the IAF other than vectors to final?
Click to expand...
The only question is the meaning for pilots of the AIM paragraph I quoted. Frankly, it doesn't matter what ATC clears you for -- if you're not authorized to accept the clearance, it doesn't matter whether ATC is authorized to give it or not.
 
roncachamp said:
Which means there's nothing in the pilot pubs like the AIM and IPH that suggests ATC cannot vector aircraft to join an initial approach segment not aligned with the final approach course.
Click to expand...

To the contrary it is affirmed in TERPs and the IFH as I posted earlier. Aircraft are, for example, vectored to DME ARC initial segments all of the time. That is not addressed in the 1994 IAF ruling, which specifically was limited to non-radar operations.
 
Ron Levy said:
The only question is the meaning for pilots of the AIM paragraph I quoted. Frankly, it doesn't matter what ATC clears you for -- if you're not authorized to accept the clearance, it doesn't matter whether ATC is authorized to give it or not.
Click to expand...

Previously you said that ATC cannot vector an aircraft to join an IAP past the IAF other than vectors to final. Now it appears you're saying that ATC can do that, but a pilot cannot accept the clearance because the AIM does not authorize it. Is that correct? If so, then please cite the official FAA document that states pilots cannot accept a clearance that is not specifically authorized by the AIM.
 
aterpster said:
To the contrary it is affirmed in TERPs and the IFH as I posted earlier. Aircraft are, for example, vectored to DME ARC initial segments all of the time. That is not addressed in the 1994 IAF ruling, which specifically was limited to non-radar operations.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know.
 
Ron Levy said:
...except for this part in the AIM 5-4-7:
Yes, they can vector you onto a feeder route, but not to join past the IAF other than vectors to final. The only exception is noted elsewhere (direct-IF for GPS approaches).
Click to expand...
Ron, it seems to me that ATC's conception of VTF is actually Vectors to the intermediate segment that leads to the FAF, not the extended final approach segment. Based on that I'd have to say that unless there was some specific language to the effect that "the only" segment of an approach that ATC can legally vector you to would be the one terminating in the FAF.
 
popcorn.gif
 
Ron Levy said:
...except for this part in the AIM 5-4-7:
Yes, they can vector you onto a feeder route, but not to join past the IAF other than vectors to final. The only exception is noted elsewhere (direct-IF for GPS approaches).
Click to expand...

Then, there is 5-4-7b

b. When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with the minimum altitudes for IFR operations (14 CFR Section 91.177), maintain the last assigned altitude unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC, or until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. Notwithstanding this pilot responsibility, for aircraft operating on unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.

And, I again refer you to my Post #33 about initial approach segments.
 
gismo said:
Ron, it seems to me that ATC's conception of VTF is actually Vectors to the intermediate segment that leads to the FAF, not the extended final approach segment. Based on that I'd have to say that unless there was some specific language to the effect that "the only" segment of an approach that ATC can legally vector you to would be the one terminating in the FAF.
Click to expand...
That may be some controllers' conception, but unless the intermediate segment is on the final approach course, it is not authorized for controllers under the "vectors to final" section of 7110.65, as well as being prohibited for pilots by the AIM paragraph I cited.
 
aterpster said:
Then, there is 5-4-7b

b. When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with the minimum altitudes for IFR operations (14 CFR Section 91.177), maintain the last assigned altitude unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC, or until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. Notwithstanding this pilot responsibility, for aircraft operating on unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.

And, I again refer you to my Post #33 about initial approach segments.
Click to expand...
What paragraph of 7110.65 authorizes controllers to issue an approach clearance other than via the IAF, "vectors to final" per 7110.65 Section 5-9, or the "direct-IF" guidance for Advanced RNAV aircraft on a GPS-based approach? It just isn't there. However, I'll be asking AFS-400 for their view on this later this week.
 
Ron Levy said:
That may be some controllers' conception, but unless the intermediate segment is on the final approach course, it is not authorized for controllers under the "vectors to final" section of 7110.65, as well as being prohibited for pilots by the AIM paragraph I cited.
Click to expand...

That is just your conception, there exists no official FAA document that supports your assertion.
 
Ron Levy said:
What paragraph of 7110.65 authorizes controllers to issue an approach clearance other than via the IAF, "vectors to final" per 7110.65 Section 5-9, or the "direct-IF" guidance for Advanced RNAV aircraft on a GPS-based approach?
Click to expand...

4-8-1. APPROACH CLEARANCE

It just isn't there.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

However, I'll be asking AFS-400 for their view on this later this week.
Click to expand...

Have you considered asking someone with an ATC background?
 
Ron Levy said:
What paragraph of 7110.65 authorizes controllers to issue an approach clearance other than via the IAF, "vectors to final" per 7110.65 Section 5-9, or the "direct-IF" guidance for Advanced RNAV aircraft on a GPS-based approach? It just isn't there. However, I'll be asking AFS-400 for their view on this later this week.
Click to expand...

There is no one in AFS-400, or any of the branches within AFS-400, that has any current working expertise with air traffic procedures. The closest you will come is in AFS-410 where they sometimes do coordinate their operations concerns with the experts in ATO. OTHO, the experts in air traffic procedures at ATO lack direct expertise in terminal instrument criteria. That is why it is sometimes critical to get the two factions to sit down at the same table.

The Aeronautical Charting Forum is starting today in Arlington, VA. You should be there.:D It is open to the public.
 
aterpster said:
The Aeronautical Charting Forum is starting today in Arlington, VA. You should be there.:D It is open to the public.
Click to expand...

With apologies to Casablanca:
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that there's no coordination within the FAA!
(your violation, sir! Thank you)

Where is the forum, and how long does it last - I may visit tomorrow.
 
Ron Levy said:
That may be some controllers' conception, but unless the intermediate segment is on the final approach course, it is not authorized for controllers under the "vectors to final" section of 7110.65, as well as being prohibited for pilots by the AIM paragraph I cited.
Click to expand...

If the only place that prohibition is published is the AIM, that would appear to violate the Administrative Procedure Act, since there are no notices of proposed rulemaking involved in its publication.
§ 551. Definitions
For the purpose of this subchapter - ...

(4) ''rule'' means the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes the approval or prescription for the future of rates, wages, corporate or financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services or allowances therefore or of valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on any of the foregoing;

(5) ''rule making'' means agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule;...
​
§ 553. Rule making
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved -
(1) a military or foreign affairs function of the United States; or

(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.
​
(b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include -
(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings;

(2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and

(3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply -
(A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or

(B ) when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
​
(c) After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. When rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 of this title apply instead of this subsection.

(d) The required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except -
(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction;

(2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or

(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
​
(e) Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
​
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
If the only place that prohibition is published is the AIM, that would appear to violate the Administrative Procedure Act, since there are no notices of proposed rulemaking involved in its publication.
Click to expand...
If the only place that prohibition is published is the AIM, that would appear to be agency guidance on how the FAA would interpret 91.175 in an enforcement action. Interpretaive guidance with, ultimately the force of law, is very common in US adminsitarive law and has been upheld many time.

(Time for Ron to mention Merrill)
 
midlifeflyer said:
If the only place that prohibition is published is the AIM, that would appear to be agency guidance on how the FAA would interpret 91.175 in an enforcement action. Interpretaive guidance with, ultimately the force of law, is very common in US adminsitarive law and has been upheld many time.

(Time for Ron to mention Merrill)
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like the courts are ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act. :(

Of course in this case, the thread has established that the guidance is not clear cut. AIM 5-4-7e is alleged to prohibit the practice unless it's a new or revised clearance, while AIM 5-4-7b, the IFH excerpt quoted in post #33, TERPS paragraph 230, and section 4-8-1b1 of FAA Order 7110.65 are not consistent with the alleged prohibition. If I were the judge, these inconsistencies would be enough to get me to throw out any proposed sanctions for accepting such a clearance. And so far, no one seems to have heard of any FAA prosecutions based on accepting a clearance like this in a radar environment (which is the scenario under discussion starting with post #24), in spite of such clearances being iisued for many years.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily - did you miss this part of your quote above:

==============================
Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply - (A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or
==============================

You won't hear about FAA prosecutions for most violations unless it causes a problem in the system. ATC clears direct, pilot uses abacus and divining rod and manages to get there without incident or causing a separation problem. Who's going to report it?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not necessarily - did you miss this part of your quote above:

==============================
Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply - (A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or
==============================
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out whether the AIM qualifies as interpretive rules. I've noticed interpretive rules being published in the Federal Register (for example, http://www.avweb.com/other/faa9914.pdf), but I don't know whether that's a requirement.

I did find this in a legal dictionary:
"interpretive rule
: a rule issued by an administrative agency that only clarifies or explains existing laws or regulations
(called also interpretative rule)
(compare legislative rule)
Note: An interpretive rule does not have to meet the requirements set out in the Administrative Procedure Act for notice to the public and opportunity for comment that apply to legislative rules. An interpretive rule does not have the force of law." [emphasis added]
​
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/sc...com&topic=b6/b6cbe69d464d0996386591a8ab1981c0


From an article on interpretive rules:
"...the major criterion that distinguishes an interpretative rule from the other rules is an agency’s incapability to enforce the rule."
​
http://administrativelaw.uslegal.com/administrative-agency-rulemaking/interpretative-rules/

You won't hear about FAA prosecutions for most violations unless it causes a problem in the system. ATC clears direct, pilot uses abacus and divining rod and manages to get there without incident or causing a separation problem. Who's going to report it?
Click to expand...

I thought this discussion was about vectors to approach course segments, not direct clearances. I do agree, however, that ATC is unlikely to request an enforcement action against a pilot who successfully flies a clearance as issued.
 
Palmpilot said:
I

I thought this discussion was about vectors to approach course segments, not direct clearances. I do agree, however, that ATC is unlikely to request an enforcement action against a pilot who successfully flies a clearance as issued.
Click to expand...

Let's take this one a step further. Whenever ATC vectors you to a position on their MVA chart that causes you to violate 91.177(a)(2) no one comes after you.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm trying to figure out whether the AIM qualifies as interpretive rules. I've noticed interpretive rules being published in the Federal Register (for example, http://www.avweb.com/other/faa9914.pdf), but I don't know whether that's a requirement.

I did find this in a legal dictionary:
Click to expand...
All true. But all subject to a bunch of other rules and legal principles, the primary one of which is that the courts will generally give deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless they are completely out of whack with the underlying regulation or legislation.

"Out of whack" essentially means that, unless the regulation or statute directly and unambiguously addresses the precise question being asked, the courts will defer to an agency's interpretation so long as it's a reasonable choice - not whether your or I like it, but whether it's a reasonable choice given the statutory or regulator language and the underlying policies involved.

Since you seem interested in the topic, try Googling "Chevron deference" - the term comes from the name of a 1984 US Supreme Court case that is considered the leading case in the field and the one that all later ones cite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top