Cleared on course vs direct

Kritchlow said:
I've always wondered this as well.

My standard response:
Can we just go direct XYZ? It has always worked.
Click to expand...
That's substantially the same as I do. My mInor variation is, I read back what I think I ought to do. For example, "proceed on course" may get "proceeding direct XYZ" as the read back. I figure if they want me to do something else, they'll tell me. Always worked as well.

Edit: I HATE PREDICTIVE SPELLJNG!
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
That's substantially the same as I do. My minute variation is, I read back what I think I ought to do. For example, "processed on course" may get "proceeding direct XYZ" as the read back. I figured if they want me to do something else, they'll tell me. Always worked as well.
Click to expand...
Thats a good way to do it. Get it "verified" in one transmission instead of starting a Questions and Answers session.
 
Reading this thread, I had something sort of similar happen to me flying back from KASH to KMPV this past Sunday. I generally like to fly an approach into home base, usually the RNAV 35. Approaching the LEB VOR, I gave ZBW a heads up that I wanted that approach. At that point I did not tell them which transition I wanted because they usually just tell me to ask the next controller (frequency change from 134.7 to 135.7 always occurs around LEB). This time he only told me I could expect that, however with no specific clearance I stayed on my filed route after LEB, which was the airway from LEB to the MPV VOR. After LEB came the frequency change, and when I checked in I told the new controller what I wanted and that I specifically wanted XIMKY as the IAF. She asked me if I was established on the Lebanon transition. Now the last time I flew that route I don't think there was a Lebanon transition, so I hadn't asked for that. I told her no, I haven't been cleared for that. Her response seemed odd to me: she just said I was cleared for the RNAV 35 approach, no specific transition given, not even an altitude to maintain until established. I read back the clearance and told her I was proceeding direct XIMKY, which elicited not even so much as a "roger".

I'm not sure whether the controller had given me an ambiguous instruction or whether that was perfectly okay in that situation. I'm pretty sure the airway and the route from LEB to XIMKY are within 4 nm of each other the whole way so it might not matter anyway, and I might have actually been established despite what I said.

I've attached a link to the approach plate for convenience.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1706/00522r35.pdf
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1706/00522r35.pdf
 
Yeah, she should have given you a clearance to XIMKY probably, as well as an altitude to maintain until established.
 
azure said:
Reading this thread, I had something sort of similar happen to me flying back from KASH to KMPV this past Sunday. I generally like to fly an approach into home base, usually the RNAV 35. Approaching the LEB VOR, I gave ZBW a heads up that I wanted that approach. At that point I did not tell them which transition I wanted because they usually just tell me to ask the next controller (frequency change from 134.7 to 135.7 always occurs around LEB). This time he only told me I could expect that, however with no specific clearance I stayed on my filed route after LEB, which was the airway from LEB to the MPV VOR. After LEB came the frequency change, and when I checked in I told the new controller what I wanted and that I specifically wanted XIMKY as the IAF. She asked me if I was established on the Lebanon transition. Now the last time I flew that route I don't think there was a Lebanon transition, so I hadn't asked for that. I told her no, I haven't been cleared for that. Her response seemed odd to me: she just said I was cleared for the RNAV 35 approach, no specific transition given, not even an altitude to maintain until established. I read back the clearance and told her I was proceeding direct XIMKY, which elicited not even so much as a "roger".

I'm not sure whether the controller had given me an ambiguous instruction or whether that was perfectly okay in that situation. I'm pretty sure the airway and the route from LEB to XIMKY are within 4 nm of each other the whole way so it might not matter anyway, and I might have actually been established despite what I said.

I've attached a link to the approach plate for convenience.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1706/00522r35.pdf
Click to expand...

I show a published route from LEB to XIMKY. If you're past LEB and at the assigned altitude, "cleared RNAV runway 35 approach."
 
Velocity173 said:
I show a published route from LEB to XIMKY. If you're past LEB and at the assigned altitude, "cleared RNAV runway 35 approach."
Click to expand...
Yep, that's the "Lebanon transition". Which I was not (or so I thought) established on at the time. (I was on the nearby airway, V151). If I was established, sure, "cleared RNAV 35 approach". But if not? That's my question.

Maybe they're so close it doesn't make a difference? That's what I'm not sure of.
 
azure said:
Yep, that's the "Lebanon transition". Which I was not (or so I thought) established on at the time. (I was on the nearby airway, V151). If I was established, sure, "cleared RNAV 35 approach". But if not? That's my question.

Maybe they're so close it doesn't make a difference? That's what I'm not sure of.
Click to expand...

Oh, you were still on the airway and not taking the 352 to XIMKY? Well I suppose she thought a degree difference was good enough for govt work.:)

Yeah I think direct XIMKY, 5000 and then the clearance would have been the proper format.
 
azure said:
Yep, that's the "Lebanon transition". Which I was not (or so I thought) established on at the time. (I was on the nearby airway, V151). If I was established, sure, "cleared RNAV 35 approach". But if not? That's my question.

Maybe they're so close it doesn't make a difference? That's what I'm not sure of.
Click to expand...
It's close. LEB V151 MPV goes abeam XIMKY about 0.4 miles away. Controller would barely notice that. Doesn't make the clearance right though.
 
Yup, when clearing a pilot for an approach, an altitude to maintain until established is required. Maybe should have been "cleared direct XIMBY, maintain ____ (altitude) until establish, clear for _________ (whatever approach)."
 
Velocity173 said:
Oh, you were still on the airway and not taking the 352 to XIMKY? Well I suppose she thought a degree difference was good enough for govt work.:)

Yeah I think direct XIMKY, 5000 and then the clearance would have been the proper format.
Click to expand...
Yup. Like I told the controller when she asked, I hadn't been cleared for the transition so I was still on the airway. (In fact, I hadn't noticed that that transition existed, otherwise I would have asked the controller in the first sector for it.)

Maybe, as you say, she thought I was close enough for gov't work. Heh.
 
mscard88 said:
Yup, when clearing a pilot for an approach, an altitude to maintain until established is required. Maybe should have been "cleared direct XIMBY, maintain ____ (altitude) until establish, clear for _________ (whatever approach)."
Click to expand...
That's what I was expecting, but it was just cleared for the RNAV 35 approach. She didn't even include a route to an IAF, which is why I said I was going direct XIMKY. I thought it was odd that she didn't even acknowledge that.
 
azure said:
Maybe, as you say, she thought I was close enough for gov't work. Heh.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't make it right she didn't clear you properly. Accidents have happened in the past, that's why an altitude to maintain until a certain point/fix is required. Forget the flight but it was way back, maybe the 50s, an airliner was cleared for the approach and began a descent, right into the Blue Ridge mountains, somewhere up there. That accident is why controllers have to issue you an altitude to maintain.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Still doesn't make it right she didn't clear you properly. Accidents have happened in the past, that's why an altitude to maintain until a certain point/fix is required. Forget the flight but it was way back, maybe the 50s, an airliner was cleared for the approach and began a descent, right into the Blue Ridge mountains, somewhere up there.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't disagree. Thanks for confirming what I thought, that it wasn't a proper clearance. Under the circumstances, though, good day VFR conditions, I wasn't too worried.
 
azure said:
Oh, I don't disagree. Thanks for confirming what I thought, that it wasn't a proper clearance. Under the circumstances, though, good day VFR conditions, I wasn't too worried.
Click to expand...

No worries. That's why it's important to have an idea of the altitude of the rocks in the area. Controllers do screw up as I'm sure you know, and this controller in this instance didn't do her job properly.
 
mscard88 said:
Still doesn't make it right she didn't clear you properly. Accidents have happened in the past, that's why an altitude to maintain until a certain point/fix is required. Forget the flight but it was way back, maybe the 50s, an airliner was cleared for the approach and began a descent, right into the Blue Ridge mountains, somewhere up there. That accident is why controllers have to issue you an altitude to maintain.
Click to expand...
TWA514 into Dulles. 1974
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top