Approach Pop Quiz.

You........

  • A.) Continue direct GUUNR then overfly it continuing with existing heading.

    Votes: 14 26.9%

  • B.) Continue direct GUUNR then proceed to ARSHW.

    Votes: 38 73.1%
  • Total voters
    52
TK211X

TK211X

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
325
Location
Tampa
Display Name
Display name:
Him
Location: KLAL

Scenario:

You are a C172 on missed approach instructions from RWY 09 ILS heading 360 @ 3000. You request the RNAV RWY 9 after switching from tower on the missed. The frequency is congested. You are 6NM north of KLAL @ 3000 when you get a new clearance:

"N-C172 turn left heading 270 direct GUUNR when able. Expect the full approach."

You are now 1.5NM from GUUNR with the approached loaded. The frequency is still congested.

You........

A.) Continue direct GUUNR then overfly it continuing with existing heading while you wait for a chance to query approach or receive next clearance.

B.) Continue direct GUUNR then proceed to ARSHW because you were told to expect the full approach.

-----------------------------------------------------

This was a real situation. I was with my CFI-I and he had me continue to ARSHW after GUUNR. When he got a chance he clicked in and announced we were (then at that point) 3.5 from ARSHW. The controller then cleared us for the RNAV 9 approach and then transferred us to tower. Had I been alone I would have continued past GUUNR on heading since I was not yet cleared for the approach and didn't remember that at the time the controller had said to expect the full approach. If it even would have made a difference. He told me; technically both options were correct.
 

Attachments

  • RNAV 9 LAL PDF.PDF
    273.5 KB · Views: 72
In the absence of clearance and loss of com you fly expected clearance
 
TK211X said:
Location: KLAL

Scenario:

You are a C172 on missed approach instructions from RWY 09 ILS heading 360 @ 3000. You request the RNAV RWY 9 after switching from tower on the missed. The frequency is congested. You are 6NM north of KLAL @ 3000 when you get a new clearance:

"N-C172 turn left heading 270 direct GUUNR when able. Expect the full approach."

You are now 1.5NM from GUUNR with the approached loaded. The frequency is still congested.

You........

A.) Continue direct GUUNR then overfly it continuing with existing heading while you wait for a chance to query approach or receive next clearance.

B.) Continue direct GUUNR then proceed to ARSHW because you were told to expect the full approach.

-----------------------------------------------------

This was a real situation. I was with my CFI-I and he had me continue to ARSHW after GUUNR. When he got a chance he clicked in and announced we were (then at that point) 3.5 from ARSHW. The controller then cleared us for the RNAV 9 approach and then transferred us to tower. Had I been alone I would have continued past GUUNR on heading since I was not yet cleared for the approach and didn't remember that at the time the controller had said to expect the full approach. If it even would have made a difference. He told me; technically both options were correct.
Click to expand...

Both options are not correct. The only thing that would come even close to justifying flying straight ahead after GUUNR would be the instruction in the AIM that says when being ‘vectored to’ a final approach course you don’t turn inbound on it until cleared to do so. AIM 5-4-3 b. 1. (b) and (c). But that’s not the case here.
 
luvflyin said:
Both options are not correct. The only thing that would come even close to justifying flying straight ahead after GUUNR would be the instruction in the AIM that says when being ‘vectored to’ a final approach course you don’t turn inbound on it until cleared to do so. AIM 5-4-3 b. 1. (b) and (c). But that’s not the case here.
Click to expand...
The question is “what would you do”?
 
Kritchlow said:
The question is “what would you do”?
Click to expand...

Answered. Post #3. Then I read the rest of scenario in the spoiler alert and responded to it. Congrats on the Series. To bad they did it on the road again. It would be a fun time to see em do it at home someday
 
luvflyin said:
Answered. Post #3. Then I read the rest of scenario in the spoiler alert and responded to it. Congrats on the Series. To bad they did it on the road again. It would be a fun time to see em do it at home someday
Click to expand...
Okay. This actually happens more than anyone aknowledges, especially in foreign lands.

Similar to lost radio where “most people” say they just expect you to start the approach, same principal applies here imo. Perhaps even more so.
 
GUUNR is the clearance limit so I would enter holding there until I could establish comm with approach. OP said freq conjested not comm lost.
 
Were you on an IFR clearance and were you IMC?
 
Yes.... You are cleared to Guuner. Hold, squeeze in the comm traffic and wait. Anything else is a deviation.
 
dtuuri said:
Oh? Then what's the EFC?
Click to expand...

You request further clearance as soon as possible. The altitude of the aircraft at the clearance limit will be protected so that separation will be provided as required.
 
mscard88 said:
You request further clearance as soon as possible. The altitude of the aircraft at the clearance limit will be protected so that separation will be provided as required.
Click to expand...
Ok, then you DO have communications failure and you DON'T have a new clearance limit. When ATC assigns a new clearance limit they use the word "Limit" or the name of an airport. When they say "Direct to" it infers only a new routing, I don't care what some of you former controllers think. In this case ATC seems to be giving an expected routing in anticipation of communications failure due to frequency congestion.

I'm out.
 
dtuuri said:
Ok, then you DO have communications failure and you DON'T have a new clearance limit. When ATC assigns a new clearance limit they use the word "Limit" or the name of an airport. When they say "Direct to" it infers only a new routing, I don't care what some of you former controllers think. In this case ATC seems to be giving an expected routing in anticipation of communications failure due to frequency congestion.

I'm out.
Click to expand...

Whoaaaa....so ATC is anticipating a comm failure. Righttttt. All the years I controlled I never “expected a comm failure”.

1114BCAA-86C9-477F-BA2F-2981BE3A2B76.gif
 
Last edited:
The OP isn’t experiencing lost commo. They are experiencing 5-3-8 C (freq congestion). They haven’t been cleared for the approach so as in 5-4-3 (c), they definitely shouldn’t go past FLYIN. The limit they have been cleared to is GUNNR. The closest option that goes with that, would be a clearance limit with no clearance for an approach or holding instructions. In that case, I’d go with this:

Except in the event of a two-way communications failure, when a clearance beyond a fix has not been received, pilots are expected to hold as depicted on U.S. Government or commercially produced (meeting FAA requirements) low/high altitude en route and area or STAR charts. If no holding pattern is charted and holding instructions have not been issued, pilots should ask ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix. If a pilot is unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix, the pilot is expected to hold in a standard pattern on the course on which the aircraft approached the fix and request further clearance as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Oh? Then what's the EFC?
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter... ATC would have to provide more. If gunner was the cleared to fix, you hold till you can get in and clarify.
 
mscard88 said:
GUUNR is the clearance limit so I would enter holding there until I could establish comm with approach. OP said freq conjested not comm lost.
Click to expand...

I didn’t see anything that made GUUNR the Clearance Limit. Did they ever tell you that you were Cleared ‘To’ GUUNR @TK211X ?
 
luvflyin said:
I didn’t see anything that made GUUNR the Clearance Limit. Did they ever tell you that you were Cleared ‘To’ GUUNR @TK211X ?
Click to expand...

You don’t have to look at it as a clearance limit though. Look at it as a simple route amendment with no further clearance. The “expect” route means nothing without lost commo. The OP was told to proceed direct a fix with no further instructions. Absent lost commo, stay there until you get a clearance.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Ok, then you DO have communications failure and you DON'T have a new clearance limit. When ATC assigns a new clearance limit they use the word "Limit" or the name of an airport. When they say "Direct to" it infers only a new routing, I don't care what some of you former controllers think. In this case ATC seems to be giving an expected routing in anticipation of communications failure due to frequency congestion.

I'm out.
Click to expand...

Yup. Except that they don’t say “Limit.” The phrase “Cleared To” is what makes a Clearance Limit.
 
Thanks. After a short 22 years absence from aviating I am slowly but surely finding everything but a place to rent an aircraft so I can get my BFR and some x-country out of the way and start working on my instrument rating (again). A random search dropped me here.
 
luvflyin said:
Yup. Except that they don’t say “Limit.” The phrase “Cleared To” is what makes a Clearance Limit.
Click to expand...

I'm back. Will you please provide a reference for that? I've had more holding than I can remember and I don't EVER remember ATC not using the word LIMIT associated with the new clearance limit. In fact, they always emphasized it. On the other hand, I've often heard "Cleared to <insert fix name>" when they merely short cut a bend in the airway and didn't change the limit, which was usually still the destination airport.

Edit: In Order 7110.65X, Par 4-2-5.a.1.2., and 3. it says you need to say "rest of the route unchanged" after a "Direct to" clearance or provide the new routing. That doesn't sound like a clearance limit to me.

In the OP's situation, since the aircraft is on a missed approach, it's already been cleared to the airport and been given a revised routing with no mention of future holding, delay or EFC. If ATC and the aircraft can't communicate--it's "communication failure". The FARs don't refer to avionics failure, else why say "communications failure"? It doesn't matter if the earplug fell out--if you can't communicate, you have to go by the law. It's the safest course of action.
 
Last edited:
Michael Lloyd said:
Thanks. After a short 22 years absence from aviating I am slowly but surely finding everything but a place to rent an aircraft so I can get my BFR and some x-country out of the way and start working on my instrument rating (again). A random search dropped me here.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the terror dome!!! You were me a year ago!! Good luck in your journey!
 
dtuuri said:
I'm back. Will you please provide a reference for that? I've had more holding than I can remember and I don't EVER remember ATC not using the word LIMIT associated with the new clearance limit. In fact, they always emphasized it. On the other hand, I've often heard "Cleared to <insert fix name>" when they merely short cut a bend in the airway and didn't change the limit, which was usually still the destination airport.
Click to expand...

4-7-1 of the .65. They don’t use “limit” in the phraseology.

5818857A-B476-474F-9988-CE06D2B13342.jpeg
 
dtuuri said:
Exactly. Since the OP has never been given a new clearance limit (he's on a missed approach, so was cleared to the airport) he's still cleared to the airport.
Click to expand...

But via what routing? The OP is no longer on their original clearance to the clearance limit (LAL). The clearance limit doesn’t authorize clearance for the IAP. The controller informed the OP that he could “expect the full approach.” Well, that starts at GUNNR. To go past GUNNR the OP needs a clearance for the IAP.
 
Velocity173 said:
The clearance limit doesn’t authorize clearance for the IAP.
Click to expand...
Who says so? You're cleared to make an approach under lost comms if the limit is the airport. The handbook you quoted, IIRC, even used to say words to the effect that re-clearing to the airport upon receiving the hand off from center was redundant, but to say it anyway. From the pre-takeoff clearance onward the airport is the limit until changed. A re-route from one IAP to another with no mention of holding is not a change to the clearance limit.

Btw, I see only 20% of the respondents agree with the former controllers here. Since three of the four votes are most likely the controllers... who's the lone traitor?
 
TK211X said:
Location: KLAL

Scenario:

You are a C172 on missed approach instructions from RWY 09 ILS heading 360 @ 3000. You request the RNAV RWY 9 after switching from tower on the missed. The frequency is congested. You are 6NM north of KLAL @ 3000 when you get a new clearance:

"N-C172 turn left heading 270 direct GUUNR when able. Expect the full approach."

You are now 1.5NM from GUUNR with the approached loaded. The frequency is still congested.

You........

A.) Continue direct GUUNR then overfly it continuing with existing heading while you wait for a chance to query approach or receive next clearance.

B.) Continue direct GUUNR then proceed to ARSHW because you were told to expect the full approach.

-----------------------------------------------------

This was a real situation. I was with my CFI-I and he had me continue to ARSHW after GUUNR. When he got a chance he clicked in and announced we were (then at that point) 3.5 from ARSHW. The controller then cleared us for the RNAV 9 approach and then transferred us to tower. Had I been alone I would have continued past GUUNR on heading since I was not yet cleared for the approach and didn't remember that at the time the controller had said to expect the full approach. If it even would have made a difference. He told me; technically both options were correct.
Click to expand...

Similar thing happened to me, we were cleared to the IAF (Cirrus xyz, fly direct to xyz) but no further instructions. About a mile from the IAF , I told the controller I was a mile from the fix and he replied with a curt "continue". So we flew toward the next fix after crossing the IAF, then he came back and cleared us for the approach.
 
dtuuri said:
Who says so? You're cleared to make an approach under lost comms if the limit is the airport. The handbook you quoted, IIRC, even used to say words to the effect that re-clearing to the airport upon receiving the hand off from center was redundant, but to say it anyway. From the pre-takeoff clearance onward the airport is the limit until changed. A re-route from one IAP to another with no mention of holding is not a change to the clearance limit.

Btw, I see only 20% of the respondents agree with the former controllers here. Since three of the four votes are most likely the controllers... so who's the lone traitor?
Click to expand...
Out to lunch with that Dentist that always disagrees that Colgate is the best...
 
dtuuri said:
Who says so? You're cleared to make an approach under lost comms if the limit is the airport. The handbook you quoted, IIRC, even used to say words to the effect that re-clearing to the airport upon receiving the hand off from center was redundant, but to say it anyway. From the pre-takeoff clearance onward the airport is the limit until changed. A re-route from one IAP to another with no mention of holding is not a change to the clearance limit.

Btw, I see only 20% of the respondents agree with the former controllers here. Since three of the four votes are most likely the controllers... who's the lone traitor?
Click to expand...

This isn’t lost commo.
 
dtuuri said:
I'm back. Will you please provide a reference for that? I've had more holding than I can remember and I don't EVER remember ATC not using the word LIMIT associated with the new clearance limit. In fact, they always emphasized it. On the other hand, I've often heard "Cleared to <insert fix name>" when they merely short cut a bend in the airway and didn't change the limit, which was usually still the destination airport.

Edit: In Order 7110.65X, Par 4-2-5.a.1.2., and 3. it says you need to say "rest of the route unchanged" after a "Direct to" clearance or provide the new routing. That doesn't sound like a clearance limit to me.

In the OP's situation, since the aircraft is on a missed approach, it's already been cleared to the airport and been given a revised routing with no mention of future holding, delay or EFC. If ATC and the aircraft can't communicate--it's "communication failure". The FARs don't refer to avionics failure, else why say "communications failure"? It doesn't matter if the earplug fell out--if you can't communicate, you have to go by the law. It's the safest course of action.
Click to expand...

It says CLEARED DIRECT. It does not say CLEARED TO.

4−2−5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE
AMENDMENTS
a. Amend route of flight in a previously issued
clearance by one of the following:
1. State which portion of the route is being
amended and then state the amendment.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CHANGE (portion of route) TO READ (new portion of
route).
2. State the amendment to the route and then
state that the rest of the route is unchanged.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Amendment to route), REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED.
3. Issue a clearance “direct” to a point on the
previously issued route.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED DIRECT (fix,waypoint).
Or
CLEARED DIRECT (destination) AIRPORT.

Here is where you see CLEARED TO

4−2−1. CLEARANCE ITEMS
Issue the following clearance items, as appropriate, in
the order listed below:
a. Aircraft identification.
b. Clearance limit.
1. When the clearance limit is an airport, the
word “airport” must follow the airport name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT.
2. When the clearance limit is a NAVAID, and
the NAVAID type is known, the type of NAVAID
must follow the NAVAID name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (NAVAID name and type).
 
luvflyin said:
It says CLEARED DIRECT. It does not say CLEARED TO.

4−2−5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE
AMENDMENTS
a. Amend route of flight in a previously issued
clearance by one of the following:
1. State which portion of the route is being
amended and then state the amendment.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CHANGE (portion of route) TO READ (new portion of
route).
2. State the amendment to the route and then
state that the rest of the route is unchanged.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Amendment to route), REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED.
3. Issue a clearance “direct” to a point on the
previously issued route.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED DIRECT (fix,waypoint).
Or
CLEARED DIRECT (destination) AIRPORT.

Here is where you see CLEARED TO

4−2−1. CLEARANCE ITEMS
Issue the following clearance items, as appropriate, in
the order listed below:
a. Aircraft identification.
b. Clearance limit.
1. When the clearance limit is an airport, the
word “airport” must follow the airport name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT.
2. When the clearance limit is a NAVAID, and
the NAVAID type is known, the type of NAVAID
must follow the NAVAID name.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (NAVAID name and type).
Click to expand...
You didn't read the note (my emphasis).

NOTE
−
Clearances authorizing “direct” to a point on a previously
issued route do not require the phrase “rest of route unchanged.”
However, it must be understood where the previously cleared route is
resumed. When necessary, “rest of route unchanged” may be used to clarify routing.
Click to expand...
 
dtuuri said:
Exactly. Since the OP has never been given a new clearance limit (he's on a missed approach, so was cleared to the airport) he's still cleared to the airport.
Click to expand...

Yup. Unless he left something out, his Clearance Limit never changed.
 
PaulS said:
Similar thing happened to me, we were cleared to the IAF (Cirrus xyz, fly direct to xyz) but no further instructions. About a mile from the IAF , I told the controller I was a mile from the fix and he replied with a curt "continue". So we flew toward the next fix after crossing the IAF, then he came back and cleared us for the approach.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to me last week.
 
I would think that anything after the "expect" is just information on what to expect, it is not an official clearance to fly the procedure, fly the hold or anything else, but just continue your last vector and altitude.

It is just like when vectored on to the final approach, Fly heading 080 at 3000, expect the ILS Runway 35R approach. Even though the controller is busy, You can not not just join the ILS approach, unless you have been "cleared" to join. I have flown through the approach waiting for ATC to clear me for the approach, (later figured out that they did not want me to join because of other traffic and just wanted me to continue on the cleared vector)
 
Velocity173 said:
The OP isn’t experiencing lost commo. They are experiencing 5-3-8 C (freq congestion). They haven’t been cleared for the approach so as in 5-4-3 (c), they definitely shouldn’t go past FLYIN.
Click to expand...
Btw, AIM 5-3-8.c. only applies to holds. The OP had no holding information.

AIM 5-4-3.1(c) pertains to radar vectors to the final approach. The OP was not given vectors to final.
midlifeflyer said:
Not necessarily. Neither answer is "hold at GUUNR."
Click to expand...
Well there ya go, even the OP doesn't agree with them. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top