clearance limit

Velocity173 said:
It's covered in the .65 and the AIM:

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.
Click to expand...
"That's all I'm saying!"
 
luvflyin said:
So what would you do? So far there's do the Approach. Go into holding at DOWDY which would involve joining the localizer and there's been go direct to the airport which would be the same as joining the localizer even if you didn't follow the needle to do it.
Click to expand...

Hold on the inbound course, the course that takes you to DOWDY, standard holding pattern - right turns, one minute legs. No approach clearance, do not approach. Do not join the localizer.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
It's covered in the .65 and the AIM:

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.
Click to expand...

Just like this. This is your textbook answer you are looking for.
 
Last edited:
GeorgeC said:
Sounds like a controller needs to write an article entitled What to Expect When You're Expecting.
Click to expand...
Or What to Expect When You Don't Get What You Were Expecting. :D

Interesting discussion. I was taught that if you're being vectored to the LOC and not told to join it, then if you reach the LOC you continue on and wait for further instruction (unless there is terrain or obstacles ahead, in which case you need to use your PIC authority). In this case you're not being vectored specifically to the LOC but have been told to proceed directly to a fix. I agree that the textbook answer in this case would be to hold, but I also agree that this may not be the safest thing to do, particularly if there is traffic behind you. Turning onto the LOC without clearance is potentially unsafe too. So, there doesn't seem to be a clearly best answer as long as you aren't truly NORDO, i.e. lost comm. In that case, I would squawk 7600 and shoot the approach. Otherwise, doing what you think is safest in view of everything you know about the situation, either holding or proceeding to your clearance limit (which is still the airport), and giving the controller a heads-up about your intentions, is probably the safest and most defensible thing you can do.
 
The topic of the thread is "clearance limit" and that is still the core question here. Under what circumstances do the textbooks actually tell you to enter an uncharted hold that you were not instructed to enter, prior to reaching your clearance limit?

There does seem to be a real gap in the rules here. You aren't supposed to fly an approach you haven't been cleared for, but you also aren't supposed to enter an arbitrary hold prior to reaching your clearance limit when you are in radio contact with ATC and they haven't told you to do so. In fact, is there even a rule that says you should ever hold even at your clearance limit without instructions to do so when you are in radio contact?

Either way, the gap is what to do when you have been given "direct to fix, expect the approach" but not given actual clearance to fly the approach.
 
iamtheari said:
The topic of the thread is "clearance limit" and that is still the core question here. Under what circumstances do the textbooks actually tell you to enter an uncharted hold that you were not instructed to enter, prior to reaching your clearance limit?

There does seem to be a real gap in the rules here. You aren't supposed to fly an approach you haven't been cleared for, but you also aren't supposed to enter an arbitrary hold prior to reaching your clearance limit when you are in radio contact with ATC and they haven't told you to do so. In fact, is there even a rule that says you should ever hold even at your clearance limit without instructions to do so when you are in radio contact?

Either way, the gap is what to do when you have been given "direct to fix, expect the approach" but not given actual clearance to fly the approach.
Click to expand...

Which suggests continue to your clearance limit, the airport, do not descend on the approach, and hold...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
iamtheari said:
The topic of the thread is "clearance limit" and that is still the core question here. Under what circumstances do the textbooks actually tell you to enter an uncharted hold that you were not instructed to enter, prior to reaching your clearance limit?

There does seem to be a real gap in the rules here. You aren't supposed to fly an approach you haven't been cleared for, but you also aren't supposed to enter an arbitrary hold prior to reaching your clearance limit when you are in radio contact with ATC and they haven't told you to do so. In fact, is there even a rule that says you should ever hold even at your clearance limit without instructions to do so when you are in radio contact?

Either way, the gap is what to do when you have been given "direct to fix, expect the approach" but not given actual clearance to fly the approach.
Click to expand...

AIM 5-4-3 C says the pilot is not expected to turn inbound on final unless an approach clearance is issued (not withstanding vectors to intercept). Also the note in the .65 that I attached addresses the hold without a clearance beyond a fix.

I agree, the whole clearance limit vs clearance to a fix seems clear as mud. In my opinion, any clearance to a fix on final requires either a new clearance limit, an approach clearance, holding instructions or a new route in order to proceed beyond that fix.
 
Sheesh.... if it's a controlled airport and you can't get a word in with approach, why 7600??
Wouldn't it make more sense to call the tower? They'll know if there's traffic in the way in front of you, and they can coordinate with tracon.
 
This isn't the first time this clearance limit thing has caused this confusion. It is the result of bad phraseology by controllers. I hear it a lot. "Cleared" is not the correct word in this situation. "Proceed" is.
PHRASEOLOGY−
DIRECT (name of NAVAID/waypoint/fix/airport)
NOTE−
A random impromptu routing is a direct course initiated by
ATC or requested by the pilot during flight. Aircraft are
cleared from their present position to a NAVAID, waypoint,
fix, or airport.
3. Point-to-Point
PHRASEOLOGY−
After (fix) proceed direct (fix)
NOTE−
A point-to-point route segment begins and ends with a
published NAVAID, waypoint, fix, or airport.

PHRASEOLOGY−
(Position with respect to course/fix along route), RESUME
OWN NAVIGATION, FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN
ABLE, PROCEED DIRECT (name of fix), RESUME (SID/
STAR/transition/procedure).

To many controllers are in love with the word "cleared." Now it is causing pilots to think about things like turning into a stream of traffic lined up behind them on the approach course. This ain't good. It has pilots thinking they should be applying procedures for what to do when they have been cleared short to a fix and haven't recieved clearance beyond it when they in fact have not been cleared short to a fix. This ain't good because it leads to thinking about turning back into a stream of traffic lined up behind them on the approach course. My recommendation is that everyone who gets "cleared direct" to respond with "is that my clearance limit, or do you just want me to proceed direct." If it happens enough, the word will get down to controllers from above to quit saying cleared when you mean proceed.
 
Velocity173 said:
AIM 5-4-3 C says the pilot is not expected to turn inbound on final unless an approach clearance is issued (not withstanding vectors to intercept). Also the note in the .65 that I attached addresses the hold without a clearance beyond a fix.

I agree, the whole clearance limit vs clearance to a fix seems clear as mud. In my opinion, any clearance to a fix on final requires either a new clearance limit, an approach clearance, holding instructions or a new route in order to proceed beyond that fix.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is no "AIM 5-4-3 C". You're referring to AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(c) which pertains to operations under radar vectors. I don't see any "mud" here, you're either lost comm or not. If not, you work it out on the radio. If lost comm, you make an approach upon reaching an IAF unless you were told to expect holding there in which case you delay descent (at the IAF) until your revised ETA. Any "mud" seems to me to be related to whether or not you're really "lost comm".

dtuuri
 
It's clear what one would do in the event of actual lost comms...join and fly the approach to the airport (which was the clearance limit).

It's clear what the controller's plan was...join the approach and fly to the airport.

It's clear that there was no clearance for or expectation of holding at the fix.

It seems pretty reasonable that continuing on the planned/expected route to the clearance lmit (the airport, not 2500 feet above it) would be a good course of action in the event of a zombie apocalypse or any other event without specific regulatory guidance.

And, as Kritchlow indicated in reality, you've probably already got that second comm tuned to tower freq...why not use it?
 
dtuuri said:
Actually, there is no "AIM 5-4-3 C". You're referring to AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(c) which pertains to operations under radar vectors. I don't see any "mud" here, you're either lost comm or not. If not, you work it out on the radio. If lost comm, you make an approach upon reaching an IAF unless you were told to expect holding there in which case you delay descent (at the IAF) until your revised ETA. Any "mud" seems to me to be related to whether or not you're really "lost comm".

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Agreed. And if you can't get a word in, you are lost comms. Or at least how do you know you're not? Squawk 7600 and proceed with the approach. Maybe he's not answering because he can't hear you.
 
dtuuri said:
Actually, there is no "AIM 5-4-3 C". You're referring to AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(c) which pertains to operations under radar vectors. I don't see any "mud" here, you're either lost comm or not. If not, you work it out on the radio. If lost comm, you make an approach upon reaching an IAF unless you were told to expect holding there in which case you delay descent (at the IAF) until your revised ETA. Any "mud" seems to me to be related to whether or not you're really "lost comm".

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Yes. 5-4-3 b.1.c.

Apparently it isn't that clear because we have several differing opinions on the matter.
 
iamtheari said:
The topic of the thread is "clearance limit" and that is still the core question here. Under what circumstances do the textbooks actually tell you to enter an uncharted hold that you were not instructed to enter, prior to reaching your clearance limit?
Click to expand...
Donning my thinking cap here...one place to enter an uncharted hold is where a minimum crossing altitude exists, but that doesn't satisfy your "prior to reaching your clearance limit" requirement; "MCA" isn't the same as a "clearance limit".

OTOH, AIM 5-3-8.c. says: "If no holding pattern is charted and holding instructions have not been issued, the pilot should ask ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix. This procedure will eliminate the possibility of an aircraft entering a holding pattern other than that desired by ATC. If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.), then enter a standard pattern on the course on which the aircraft approached the fix and request further clearance as soon as possible." But there again, that doesn't satisfy your "to enter an uncharted hold that you were not instructed to enter" requirement; you only enter the standard hold after being told to hold there. So, I dunno how to answer your question.

iamtheari said:
There does seem to be a real gap in the rules here. You aren't supposed to fly an approach you haven't been cleared for...
Click to expand...
Where does it say that? I know controllers are supposed to clear you for an approach before you get to the IAF, but is that the same thing as you're saying? After all, your original clearance, unless revised enroute, was to the "destination airport".

iamtheari said:
...you also aren't supposed to enter an arbitrary hold prior to reaching your clearance limit when you are in radio contact with ATC and they haven't told you to do so.
Click to expand...
Oh no? You just continue beyond your limit? I don't think so.

iamtheari said:
In fact, is there even a rule that says you should ever hold even at your clearance limit without instructions to do so when you are in radio contact?
Click to expand...
See above quote from AIM.

iamtheari said:
Either way, the gap is what to do when you have been given "direct to fix, expect the approach" but not given actual clearance to fly the approach.
Click to expand...
No gap there. "Expect approach clearance" is a long-time dead concept thanks to Amendment 91.189, the "Lost Comm Amendment".

dtuuri
 
luvflyin said:
This isn't the first time this clearance limit thing has caused this confusion. It is the result of bad phraseology by controllers. I hear it a lot. "Cleared" is not the correct word in this situation. "Proceed" is.
PHRASEOLOGY−
DIRECT (name of NAVAID/waypoint/fix/airport)
NOTE−
A random impromptu routing is a direct course initiated by
ATC or requested by the pilot during flight. Aircraft are
cleared from their present position to a NAVAID, waypoint,
fix, or airport.
3. Point-to-Point
PHRASEOLOGY−
After (fix) proceed direct (fix)
NOTE−
A point-to-point route segment begins and ends with a
published NAVAID, waypoint, fix, or airport.

PHRASEOLOGY−
(Position with respect to course/fix along route), RESUME
OWN NAVIGATION, FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN
ABLE, PROCEED DIRECT (name of fix), RESUME (SID/
STAR/transition/procedure).

To many controllers are in love with the word "cleared." Now it is causing pilots to think about things like turning into a stream of traffic lined up behind them on the approach course. This ain't good. It has pilots thinking they should be applying procedures for what to do when they have been cleared short to a fix and haven't recieved clearance beyond it when they in fact have not been cleared short to a fix. This ain't good because it leads to thinking about turning back into a stream of traffic lined up behind them on the approach course. My recommendation is that everyone who gets "cleared direct" to respond with "is that my clearance limit, or do you just want me to proceed direct." If it happens enough, the word will get down to controllers from above to quit saying cleared when you mean proceed.
Click to expand...

The problem is, "Cleared direct" is used in the .65 is several areas including the OP's situation. It's used in route amendments, holding, approach clearances. It's all over the place. Then you have the confusion of "Cleared to" being a clearance limit but yet "Cleared direct" isn't???

I've always said the .65 needs to clean up the phraseology sections a bit to make things more...clear.
 
whattauser said:
Agreed. And if you can't get a word in, you are lost comms. Or at least how do you know you're not? Squawk 7600 and proceed with the approach. Maybe he's not answering because he can't hear you.
Click to expand...
A tip on getting a word in edgwise. When you need a clearance NOW, raise your voice a little and keep it short and to the point. This aint the time for "who they are, who you are, where you are and all that. The split second there is a break on the frequency you blurt out "Approach clearance for [ID]." You keep it short and simple and sounding different from normal transmissions. This catches the controllers attention, he gives you the clearance, he then wipes his brow and says "that guy just saved my azz."
 
Velocity173 said:
Then you have the confusion of "Cleared to" being a clearance limit but yet "Cleared direct" isn't???
Click to expand...
Shouldn't be any confusion as the distinction is clear. "Cleared to..." is a clearance limit, "cleared direct..." is not.

Another way these are used is when changing the clearance limit but not the routing.

Routing is AAA-BBB-CCC-DDD-EEE. Crossing over AAA you receive, "Cleared to DDD, hold as published, ..." That changes your CLEARANCE LIMIT but does not change your routing. You still have to fly over BBB and CCC on your way to the hold at DDD.
 
luvflyin said:
A tip on getting a word in edgwise. When you need a clearance NOW, raise your voice a little and keep it short and to the point. This aint the time for "who they are, who you are, where you are and all that. The split second there is a break on the frequency you blurt out "Approach clearance for [ID]." You keep it short and simple and sounding different from normal transmissions. This catches the controllers attention, he gives you the clearance, he then wipes his brow and says "that guy just saved my azz."
Click to expand...
BLOCKED!
 
luvflyin said:
A tip on getting a word in edgwise. When you need a clearance NOW, raise your voice a little and keep it short and to the point. This aint the time for "who they are, who you are, where you are and all that.
Click to expand...
Definitely! In fact, just say your callsign. That will get his attention and he will likely provide whatever it is you need without you having to ask.
 
An ident and 7600 don't require any frequency time.
 
Last edited:
whattauser said:
An identical and 7600 don't require any frequency time.
Click to expand...
Again.... 7600??? Are you guys for real??

You have a tower freq you are approaching as well as the last freq you were using. There are other resources available if unable to get a word in on your current freq.
 
Kritchlow said:
Again.... 7600??? Are you guys for real??

You have a tower freq you are approaching as well as the last freq you were using. There are other resources available if unable to get a word in on your current freq.
Click to expand...
If it is lost comm, yep
 
whattauser said:
Which may end up with the same effect. You can always revert to guard, if the Nazis aren't too busy.
Click to expand...
But that's my point... it's not the same effect. Guard is an option, but so is tower or last assigned.
It seems 7600 is full panick mode.
 
Kritchlow said:
But that's my point... it's not the same effect. Guard is an option, but so is tower or last assigned.
It seems 7600 is full panick mode.
Click to expand...
Maybe compromise and squawk 7700. Then maybe they'll talk to you!
 
7600 isn't panicking at all. Just enter it calmly. Wind your watch if you must.
 
Ben E. said:
Last night ... told to expect the LOC 22 into KCDW. Then ATC told us to maintain 2500 feet and fly direct DOWDY, ...
Click to expand...

First of all, the OP reported he was instructed to "fly direct". So, where does all this talk about being "cleared" (and changing the clearance) come from? It is a legitimate instruction and commonly given. AND... it does not change the clearance limit. The controller was helpful. (S)he told the OP what to expect so that he can look it up (or set it up)... then allows him to fly to a fix on the approach (which he will now recognize because he was given what to expect). I love it when controllers do that.

As to the OP's question, I would fly inbound to the airport upon reaching DOWDY but remain at 2500 feet. If still no instructions, I would fly the missed. After that, if I determined there was an honest comm failure, I would put myself back on the approach (I haven't looked at the approach so I'm just assuming there's a reasonable way to do that) because that is what is "expected" (remember that instruction of what to expect?). And, for the same reason, if I determined there was a comm failure before I got to DOWDY, I would fly the approach.

Someone said the instruction to "expect" does not mean much. A very unfortunate comment because part of the loss comms procedure (I think all IFR pilots are still supposed to follow) is, for routing, to fly what is assigned, vectored, EXPECTED, filed. That instruction declared what is expected. I think it meant a lot.
 
noahfong said:
As to the OP's question, I would fly inbound to the airport upon reaching DOWDY but remain at 2500 feet. If still no instructions, I would fly the missed.
Click to expand...
Why remain there? Although for a little while there's no harm and chances are you'll soon be cleared for the approach, I doubt ATC has anybody under you, since your minimum crossing altitude at the next fix is 2000'. Maintaining 2500' all the way to the MAP and then missing the approach would jam things up worse than simply shooting the approach while ATC plays 'catch-up'.

noahfong said:
After that, if I determined there was an honest comm failure, I would put myself back on the approach (I haven't looked at the approach so I'm just assuming there's a reasonable way to do that) because that is what is "expected" (remember that instruction of what to expect?). And, for the same reason, if I determined there was a comm failure before I got to DOWDY, I would fly the approach.
Click to expand...
Of course, after the MAP, there is no lost comm procedure in the regulations. You can meet the situation with 91.3 Authority (note caps!). Prior to the MAP, noticing lost comms means you shoot the approach upon arrival under 91.185.

noahfong said:
Someone said the instruction to "expect" does not mean much. A very unfortunate comment because part of the loss comms procedure (I think all IFR pilots are still supposed to follow) is, for routing, to fly what is assigned, vectored, EXPECTED, filed. That instruction declared what is expected. I think it meant a lot.
Click to expand...
I don't know who you're referring to who might have said that. I didn't. But if you mean my reference to EAC (expect approach clearance time) being done away with, that's not meant to denigrate "expected" clearances. It was meant to show there is no longer a requirement (and has not been for decades) to wait for an approach clearance time before commencing an approach. That was a requirement under the old lost comm rule, but was eliminated with the amendment I cited. These days, if you haven't been told to hold you just go on in, minding your lost comm route segment altitudes prior to the IAF, that is.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Why remain there? Although for a little while there's no harm and chances are you'll soon be cleared for the approach, I doubt ATC has anybody under you, since your minimum crossing altitude at the next fix is 2000'. Maintaining 2500' all the way to the MAP and then missing the approach would jam things up worse than simply shooting the approach while ATC plays 'catch-up'.
Click to expand...
Plus, if you descend on the approach and ATC sees you and thinks you are in the wrong, they'll make time to tell you to "say altitude" or possibly "low altitude alert."
 
whattauser said:
7600 isn't panicking at all. Just enter it calmly. Wind your watch if you must.
Click to expand...

All it does is set off beep alarms in the radar room, and your target "blooms" on the scope. But it definitely gets a controller's attention.
 
Squawking 7600 might give both pilot and ATC "a deal". The higher ups might find out about it. If everyone keeps their cool, doesnt lose tempers, would be ok in the end. Thing is, it's not supposed to happen. None of it.

If you just fly the approach and talk to tower, no "deal". IF it comes out ok (safe landing).

If it doesnt come out ok, the "deal" will be small potatoes. I mean compared to it not coming out ok(unsafe outcome ie crash). Small chance of it not coming out ok.

Take the option with the most chance of it coming out ok. Worry about the "deal" later.

Trouble is, there could concievably be a plane somewhere that you violate airspace with no matter what you do.

I wouldnt know what to do. I have been forgotten about, twice. Both times I proceeded on my present course but didnt descend or turn. Then ATC got to me, was apologetic and vectored me around. In both cases I would have been ok if I HAD descended or turned (one was a descent on the glideslople and the other was a turn to final approach course). So in those two cases either would have been ok.

Thing is, how do you tell which one is safer?

If they just forgot about you, continuing on the approach should be safe. If its that the approach is hosed because of a runway incident, towers gonna know. jeez this is complicated.

The squawking 7600 (and flying the approach) or holding or not descending will cover your ass at the deal, but who cares you want to do the safest thing no matter the deal.

I think it depends.......
 
Last edited:
noahfong said:
First of all, the OP reported he was instructed to "fly direct". So, where does all this talk about being "cleared" (and changing the clearance) come from? It is a legitimate instruction and commonly given. AND... it does not change the clearance limit. The controller was helpful. (S)he told the OP what to expect so that he can look it up (or set it up)... then allows him to fly to a fix on the approach (which he will now recognize because he was given what to expect). I love it when controllers do that.

As to the OP's question, I would fly inbound to the airport upon reaching DOWDY but remain at 2500 feet. If still no instructions, I would fly the missed. After that, if I determined there was an honest comm failure, I would put myself back on the approach (I haven't looked at the approach so I'm just assuming there's a reasonable way to do that) because that is what is "expected" (remember that instruction of what to expect?). And, for the same reason, if I determined there was a comm failure before I got to DOWDY, I would fly the approach.

Someone said the instruction to "expect" does not mean much. A very unfortunate comment because part of the loss comms procedure (I think all IFR pilots are still supposed to follow) is, for routing, to fly what is assigned, vectored, EXPECTED, filed. That instruction declared what is expected. I think it meant a lot.
Click to expand...
The OP did say that. I keyed off on "cleared direct" in post #6. @Ben E. are you still here? What exactly did they say? Flying to the MAP, executing the Missed Approach and coming up with another plan from there is a reasonable action. Good chance you'll get a word in edgewise pretty quick and get your clearance before having to go Missed. Still plenty of time to to get down if you're hung at 2500 a little ways past DOWDY.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
The OP did say that. I keyed off on "cleared direct" in post #6. @Ben E. are you still here? What exactly did they say? Flying to the MAP, executing the Missed Approach and coming up with another plan from there is a reasonable action. Good chance you'll get a word in edgewise pretty quick and get your clearance before having to go Missed. Still plenty of time to to get down if your hung at 2500 a little ways past DOWDY.
Click to expand...

The controller said "direct DOWDY".

Keep in mind DOWDY was not part of my original clearance. So if this did not amend my clearance, I don't know what the next step in my clearance was. Many on here would say the the airport (KCDW), but there's no logical reason to think that other than it was the closest fix in my original clearance to my current position. But why couldn't SAX be the next fix in my clearance since that was the next point after ESJAY, the last assigned fix that I crossed?

This is the first time I have been told to go to a fix that wasn't part of my original clearance. If I would have been told "proceed direct SAX, resume own navigation" after taking off from KHPN then there would be no ambiguity. But this is different.
 
Ben E. said:
The controller said "direct DOWDY".

Keep in mind DOWDY was not part of my original clearance. So if this did not amend my clearance, I don't know what the next step in my clearance was.
Click to expand...
The next step in your clearance was merely to expect the localizer approach, with an approach clearance to follow. You could also plan further instructions prior to reaching GOWDY, since you weren't issued any kind of hold or EFC.
 
dtuuri said:
No gap there. "Expect approach clearance" is a long-time dead concept thanks to Amendment 91.189, the "Lost Comm Amendment".

dtuuri
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say the "concept" is dead. What changed is the term EAC was done away with and EFC was used when holding at fixes on Approach charts. The problem being addressed was that "the rules" said when holding aircraft at those fixes, EAC's were to be issued. Often though, there was no intent for the aircraft to begin the approach from the fix they were holding. Often the next plan was to move them to the next "stack." You didn't want them descending to the approach altitude if going NORDO and driving through the next stack up the road. It was common that controllers would give EFC's in these cases instead of EAC's even though it was technically "wrong." Doing away with EAC and using EFC for everything, including the fix from which the descent and approach would begin cleaned things up.
 
Ben E. said:
The controller said "direct DOWDY".

Keep in mind DOWDY was not part of my original clearance. So if this did not amend my clearance, I don't know what the next step in my clearance was. Many on here would say the the airport (KCDW), but there's no logical reason to think that other than it was the closest fix in my original clearance to my current position. But why couldn't SAX be the next fix in my clearance since that was the next point after ESJAY, the last assigned fix that I crossed?

This is the first time I have been told to go to a fix that wasn't part of my original clearance. If I would have been told "proceed direct SAX, resume own navigation" after taking off from KHPN then there would be no ambiguity. But this is different.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Was "direct DOWDY" and "expect the LOC 22 in the same transmission?"
 
luvflyin said:
I wouldn't say the "concept" is dead. What changed is the term EAC was done away with and EFC was used when holding at fixes on Approach charts.
Click to expand...
The concept I'm talking about is the one where, under the old rules, you didn't descend until your EAC when NORDO. Iamtheari apparently thought there was a 'gap' because no rule today provides for what to do without an EAC. But the descent paragraph was deleted under the amendment, so that restriction is gone. I'm not saying ATC isn't charged with issuing an approach clearance anymore.

dtuuri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top