clearance limit

B

Ben E.

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
26
Display Name
Display name:
Ben E.
Last night I was flying in IMC under IFR with my CFII. Our clearance was KHPN ESJAY V623 SAX KCDW. After reaching ESJAY we were vectored for a bit and told to expect the LOC 22 into KCDW. Then ATC told us to maintain 2500 feet and fly direct DOWDY, which is an intermediate fix and the first fix on the localizer for the IAP. This is NYC airspace, so it gets pretty busy and sometimes you can't get a word in on frequency to ask the controller for your next clearance. We got very close to DOWDY without further clearance and the frequency was too busy to make a request. Luckily the controller cleared us for the approach right before we hit DOWDY, but I was concerned that we would not be cleared in time.

My question is what should we have done if we hit DOWDY without receiving further clearance? Are we supposed to treat DOWDY as the clearance limit and hold at DOWDY with a standard holding pattern based on the heading we approached DOWDY or do we assume that the controller wanted us to intercept the localizer? Keep in mind there is no published hold and we're at 2500 and the MSA for the area is 3000, so there may be obstructions in the area we would be holding and we can't see anything. I'm pretty sure holding is the book answer, but is this what you would have done in this situation?
 
Query the controller. Unless cleared for the approach, you can't proceed past the clearance limit and can't fly the approach. So all you can do is hold. You're OK at 2500, since the minimum altitude is 2400 and you were cleared to there.
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with Scott here. "Cleared direct DOWDY" does not amend your clearance limit. The phraseology for an amendment to a clearance limit is "Cleared to."

The phraseology "Cleared to" is used when holding instructions are issued because the intention is to specifically change your clearance limit to that holding fix. The phraseology "Cleared direct" or "Proceed direct" is used in conjunction with routing changes during all phases of IFR navigation.
 
I'm not holding--period. I'll attempt to break the comm log jam by contacting tower or even sqwaking 7600 but upon reaching the fix I'm turning inbound and flying the approach (all the while trying to get in contact with someone) using my emergency authority, but I ain't holding. My rationale is ATC is vectoring me for an approach so the intent is to clear me an place me on a published segment. IOW I'm essentially treating it as a comm out scenario.

Oh and Dowdy isn't your clearance limit--KCDW is, you just haven't been cleared for the approach which is not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
So, you can fly towards CDW, but you cannot descend at DOWDY, without further clearance?
So technically without any further instructions, you'd have to hold at KCDW? :)
 
Harold Rutila said:
The phraseology "Cleared to" is used when holding instructions are issued because the intention is to specifically change your clearance limit to that holding fix. The phraseology "Cleared direct" or "Proceed direct" is used in conjunction with routing changes during all phases of IFR navigation.
Click to expand...

tsts4 said:
Oh and Dowdy isn't your clearance limit--KCDW is, you just haven't been cleared for the approach which is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Here's where I thought things got blurry. In my limited IFR experience, every time I've been told "proceed direct" to a fix it's been a fix that was part of my original clearance so in effect I was able to skip a few fixes and take a more direct route. In this case DOWDY was not part of my original clearance unless you can say it was by implication since I was cleared to KCDW and DOWDY is part of one of the instrument procedures for KCDW. If I'm not required to hold at DOWDY because it's not a clearance limit, then what's the next fix on my clearance, SAX (which came after ESJAY, the last fix I crossed), the FAF, KCDW or something else?
 
Hell innit when it's for real in IMC and anything you are going to do is wrong for one reason or another. Skin, tin, ticket and make the best of it.
 
ATC can change your routing throughout the flight but this doesn't change your clearance limit unless they specifically say so.

So for me it would be FAAIR which is the FAF because I'm treating this scernaro as comm out and flying the approach. I'll deal with any ATC fallout after I'm safe on the ground and after I file my NASA report.
 
Since you were flying with a CFII, why didn't you ask him/her? Just curious.
 
Clearance limit is still the airport, as Harold said. A clearance of direct DOWDY, expect the LOC approach without an EFC means expect the LOC approach upon crossing DOWDY...no hold. If comms fail, you fly the approach. If you can't get a word in edgewise, you fly the approach and ident so hopefully the controller notices you.
 
Clark1961 said:
Hell innit when it's for real in IMC and anything you are going to do is wrong for one reason or another. Skin, tin, ticket and make the best of it.
Click to expand...
If anything in this scenario is a risk to skin or tin, you're doing something way wrong.
 
old cfi said:
Since you were flying with a CFII, why didn't you ask him/her? Just curious.
Click to expand...

He says it's a blurry area and he would just join the localizer and try to pick up the clearance. We haven't had a chance to discuss the textbook answer yet. I'm not sure whether there is a definitive textbook answer.
 
tsts4 said:
I'm not holding--period. I'll attempt to break the comm log jam by contacting tower or even sqwaking 7600 but upon reaching the fix I'm turning inbound and flying the approach (all the while trying to get in contact with someone) using my emergency authority, but I ain't holding. My rationale is ATC is vectoring me for an approach so the intent is to clear me an place me on a published segment. IOW I'm essentially treating it as a comm out scenario.

Oh and Dowdy isn't your clearance limit--KCDW is, you just haven't been cleared for the approach which is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Absent Comm failure (Busy ATC isn't Comm failure) in this situation, you're on an approach and cleared to a fix, but NOT cleared for the approach. Getting your initial IFR clearance to KCDW doesn't sub for the approach clearance by the approach controller in the absence of Comm failure. There may be an aircraft on the approach ahead and you don't know the status of that aircraft. Best to query the controller before you get there, but barring that, you're stuck at DOWDY. It would be inadvisable to proceed past DOWDY at 2500 since the MSA is 3000 and there is no other safe altitude guidance E of DOWDY. Of course this is a situation that you need to do some interpretation of what's the safest course. Which is safer?
 
Actually it is not a blurry area. It makes no difference if you cannot communicate due to a stuck mike or a congested frequency. You have a two way radio communications failure. There is no requirement that your radio is failed.

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
 
QUOTE="Clip4, post: 2297719, member: 15898"]Actually it is not a blurry area. It makes no difference if you cannot communicate due to a stuck mike or a congested frequency. You have a two way radio communications failure. There is no requirement that your radio is failed.

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended on that(with ATC) estimated time en route.[/QUOTE]

I think the FAA might take exception with this liberal interpretation of communication failure. Communication failure is the loss of ability to communicate, not loss of convenience. You could use that reasoning to proceed into busy Class B or C airspace when the controller is too busy and then try to use "Comm failure" on that basis as well? Does a busy ATC frequency make you a NORDO aircraft. I think not. As opposed to a discussion board, I think in reality...in the airplane, this would be a little better reasoned and a little less John Wayne. The real question is, would it be safer to proceed down an active approach without being cleared, or take a brief pause until you get clearance for the approach.
 
You might just have to be obnoxious, break in constantly / continuously on the freq; the controller may be forgetting/overlooking you, or intended to give you a hold and forgot, or to hand you off and forgot. Humans am human. But between surprising him with an unexpected turn into a hold, or heading down the approach, I dunno. Hard to criticize you for going into the "hold", so my best guess is that's the way to go. Otherwise, maintain altitude and continue to the airport? That was your clearance limit, even though it doesn't get you on the approach and on the ground. Going 7600 is gonna make a big mess for everyone. The only hinky thing about the hold is what's going on with other traffic nearby.

I think/think I'd go into the hold, but I wasn't there. . .
 
SbestCFII said:
Absent Comm failure (Busy ATC isn't Comm failure) in this situation, you're on an approach and cleared to a fix, but NOT cleared for the approach. Getting your initial IFR clearance to KCDW doesn't sub for the approach clearance by the approach controller in the absence of Comm failure. There may be an aircraft on the approach ahead and you don't know the status of that aircraft. Best to query the controller before you get there, but barring that, you're stuck at DOWDY. It would be inadvisable to proceed past DOWDY at 2500 since the MSA is 3000 and there is no other safe altitude guidance E of DOWDY. Of course this is a situation that you need to do some interpretation of what's the safest course. Which is safer?
Click to expand...

Well we'll have to agree to disagree except for the query part which I'm going to continue to try to do even if I have to leave the freq and call the tower, if one is available. By clearing me to a published segment in my mind ATCs intent is clear so from a risk perspective it seems safest to me. As for a roll your own hold, I've never heard of such a thing as an IFR procedure and won't do it unless you've got a reference you can cite that I can read and study. YMMV......
 
Last edited:
Ben E. said:
He says it's a blurry area and he would just join the localizer and try to pick up the clearance. We haven't had a chance to discuss the textbook answer yet. I'm not sure whether there is a definitive textbook answer.
Click to expand...
Try AIM 6-4-1 for a textbook answer. Be sure and read a., then the rest. LOC22 is what you were told to expect. If I was coming up on DOWDY and unable to communicate I'd squawk 7600 and broadcast at the next break on the frequency that I was commencing the Approach. If no reply from Approach I'd go to Tower right away and tell them.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Try AIM 6-4-1 for a textbook answer. Be sure and read a., then the rest. LOC22 is what you were told to expect. If I was coming up on DOWDY and unable to communicate I'd squawk 7600 and broadcast at the next break on the frequency that I was commencing the Approach. If no reply from Approach I'd go to Tower right away and tell them.
Click to expand...

I don't usually post in these threads because there are members of PoA that are far better at the book answers than I am, but the OP threw out a scenario that's not uncommon at all. In fact, I found myself in this exact situation at ATL last week. We're cleared direct to SEJAY and down to 5000'. SEJAY is a fix on the ILS to 27L. Approach then got distracted. Probably with Delta asking for wind checks, or Delta yelling at or being a complete douche to someone, or Delta berating someone on guard but on the wrong radio. Who the hell knows. So we're coming up on SEJAY at 210 knots and don't have an approach clearance. Lemme tell you what I'm *not* going to do. Enter a f***ing holding pattern at SEJAY. I mean, if we were playing some game in the cockpit where the goal was to make ATL TRACON say "WHAT THE **** ARE THOSE GUYS DOING!!!???" as loud as humanly possible, then maybe a holding pattern would be the answer. But I'm not a big fan of paperwork, as it will cut into my time available to drink beer at the Westin.

So yeah, I think I'd play it just like luvflyin says. :)
 
SbestCFII said:
QUOTE="Clip4, post: 2297719, member: 15898"]Actually it is not a blurry area. It makes no difference if you cannot communicate due to a stuck mike or a congested frequency. You have a two way radio communications failure. There is no requirement that your radio is failed.

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended on that(with ATC) estimated time en route.
Click to expand...

I think the FAA might take exception with this liberal interpretation of communication failure. Communication failure is the loss of ability to communicate, not loss of convenience. You could use that reasoning to proceed into busy Class B or C airspace when the controller is too busy and then try to use "Comm failure" on that basis as well? Does a busy ATC frequency make you a NORDO aircraft. I think not. As opposed to a discussion board, I think in reality...in the airplane, this would be a little better reasoned and a little less John Wayne. The real question is, would it be safer to proceed down an active approach without being cleared, or take a brief pause until you get clearance for the approach.[/QUOTE]

I agree that getting on the freq is the best solution, but the controller at this point is expecting to release you for the approach. If he anticipated a need to hold, he would have assigned a hold and given a EFC.

So if you are unable to get the clearance arriving at the IM and think the best answer is to hold at an IM until you get a clearance, then you should do that, but being unable to communicate at a critical phase of flight is a communications failure.
 
Last edited:
kayoh190 said:
I don't usually post in these threads because there are members of PoA that are far better at the book answers than I am, but the OP threw out a scenario that's not uncommon at all. In fact, I found myself in this exact situation at ATL last week. We're cleared direct to SEJAY and down to 5000'. SEJAY is a fix on the ILS to 27L. Approach then got distracted. Probably with Delta asking for wind checks, or Delta yelling at or being a complete douche to someone, or Delta berating someone on guard but on the wrong radio. Who the hell knows. So we're coming up on SEJAY at 210 knots and don't have an approach clearance. Lemme tell you what I'm *not* going to do. Enter a f***ing holding pattern at SEJAY. I mean, if we were playing some game in the cockpit where the goal was to make ATL TRACON say "WHAT THE **** ARE THOSE GUYS DOING!!!???" as loud as humanly possible, then maybe a holding pattern would be the answer. But I'm not a big fan of paperwork, as it will cut into my time available to drink beer at the Westin.

So yeah, I think I'd play it just like luvflyin says. :)
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, was this Saturday morning by any chance? There was a Delta that matches your description then on guard...
 
This thread begs for additions from Ron Levy and R&W. But, unfortunately,.....
 
mtuomi said:
Out of curiosity, was this Saturday morning by any chance? There was a Delta that matches your description then on guard...
Click to expand...

Nah - it was Thursday sometime. Not sure it was even Delta's fault - I just like giving them crap for being so uptight. :p
 
kayoh190 said:
Nah - it was Thursday sometime. Not sure it was even Delta's fault - I just like giving them crap for being so uptight. :p
Click to expand...

Ok, just sounded like Saturday near ATL when a Delta guy was giving someone crap about being on guard, and that guy just said "Atlanta Tracon told me to call them on guard, back off dude" :)
 
kayoh190 said:
I don't usually post in these threads because there are members of PoA that are far better at the book answers than I am, but the OP threw out a scenario that's not uncommon at all. In fact, I found myself in this exact situation at ATL last week. We're cleared direct to SEJAY and down to 5000'. SEJAY is a fix on the ILS to 27L. Approach then got distracted. Probably with Delta asking for wind checks, or Delta yelling at or being a complete douche to someone, or Delta berating someone on guard but on the wrong radio. Who the hell knows. So we're coming up on SEJAY at 210 knots and don't have an approach clearance. Lemme tell you what I'm *not* going to do. Enter a f***ing holding pattern at SEJAY. I mean, if we were playing some game in the cockpit where the goal was to make ATL TRACON say "WHAT THE **** ARE THOSE GUYS DOING!!!???" as loud as humanly possible, then maybe a holding pattern would be the answer. But I'm not a big fan of paperwork, as it will cut into my time available to drink beer at the Westin.

So yeah, I think I'd play it just like luvflyin says. :)
Click to expand...
LMAO. Controllers have been know to shout "Crazy Ivan" when something like that happens
 
There is no book answer. You don't have a communications failure, you don't have approach clearance.

All you can do is proceed how you think the controller intends for you to proceed based on the context of the clearances you have received and what you are hearing on the radio.

Chances are the controller is going to call you just in time to prevent a problem. He knows where you are, and where everyone else is, and is prioritizing his time to the most immediate needs. As you approach that fix you will move up his priority list. What doesn't help is you keying up and blocking his transmissions, multiple times, trying to get clarification. If there's a pause, get in and ask for further clearance. If it's non-stop transmissions, give him time to give the clearance.
 
Larry in TN said:
There is no book answer. You don't have a communications failure, you don't have approach clearance.

All you can do is proceed how you think the controller intends for you to proceed based on the context of the clearances you have received and what you are hearing on the radio.

Chances are the controller is going to call you just in time to prevent a problem. He knows where you are, and where everyone else is, and is prioritizing his time to the most immediate needs. As you approach that fix you will move up his priority list. What doesn't help is you keying up and blocking his transmissions, multiple times, trying to get clarification. If there's a pause, get in and ask for further clearance. If it's non-stop transmissions, give him time to give the clearance.
Click to expand...
You are onto something.
This is not a text-book problem. This is in-between.
I queried several controllers and was very surprised to hear not only different answers but also personal preferences.

Which leads me to ask: is there no FAA interpretation letter on this problem so far? (I am not good at Googling such stuff, I'll have somebody here do it for me :) )
 
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.
 
BigBadLou said:
I queried several controllers and was very surprised to hear not only different answers but also personal preferences.
Click to expand...
Why would this surprise you? Controllers are just like pilots...they don't have a command of every obscure corner of operations.
 
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...
Got a specific AIM reference for that?
 
Ben E. said:
Last night I was flying in IMC under IFR with my CFII. Our clearance was KHPN ESJAY V623 SAX KCDW. After reaching ESJAY we were vectored for a bit and told to expect the LOC 22 into KCDW. Then ATC told us to maintain 2500 feet and fly direct DOWDY, which is an intermediate fix and the first fix on the localizer for the IAP. This is NYC airspace, so it gets pretty busy and sometimes you can't get a word in on frequency to ask the controller for your next clearance. We got very close to DOWDY without further clearance and the frequency was too busy to make a request. Luckily the controller cleared us for the approach right before we hit DOWDY, but I was concerned that we would not be cleared in time.

My question is what should we have done if we hit DOWDY without receiving further clearance? Are we supposed to treat DOWDY as the clearance limit and hold at DOWDY with a standard holding pattern based on the heading we approached DOWDY or do we assume that the controller wanted us to intercept the localizer? Keep in mind there is no published hold and we're at 2500 and the MSA for the area is 3000, so there may be obstructions in the area we would be holding and we can't see anything. I'm pretty sure holding is the book answer, but is this what you would have done in this situation?
Click to expand...

Yay, KHPN and KCDW are where I did my initial training!!
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why would this surprise you? Controllers are just like pilots...they don't have a command of every obscure corner of operations.
Click to expand...

If they were tower controllers with no approach background, odds are they won't know it.
 
Was this issue this past Tuesday the 23rd? We took off from CDW about 2 PM on 28, but VFR. The controllers were very busy at the time. They even called my tail number to confirm they had not forgotten me.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
flyingron said:
Which gets us back to the initial question. Being told to proceed to a fix is a route amendment, not an imposition of a clearance limit.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's poor phraseology by not saying "cleared to" but I'd still call it a clearance limit. The controller didn't issue a revised route after DOWDY. The controller also told the OP what approach to expect. There has been no clearance for the approach beyond DOWDY. In the absence of a clearance, he should hold at DOWDY on the intercept side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top