Cleared - Straight in - another question

[bbchien]

The ATO is awful at standardization. I think that is because individual controllers are sufficiently valuable, that they figure unless there is a complaint, accident or incident, they should leave well enough alone. Thus the slam dunks at the SOCAL airports, the "I didn't ask you to do the turn in the hold!" etc. etc.

 

[aterpster]

The controller was not following the most current guidance in 7110.65 if the pilot was cleared straight in on this approach.

It states:

John,

It's even worse than that. The controller asked the pilot whether he wanted straight-in or the HILPT.

 

[Palmpilot]

John,

It's even worse than that. The controller asked the pilot whether he wanted straight-in or the HILPT.

And 70% of poll respondents said they would fly the approach straight-in, and either circle to land or go missed if they were still too high when they got to the airport (answers 2 and 3).

 

[Velocity173]

And 70% of poll respondents said they would fly the approach straight-in, and either circle to land or go missed if they were still too high when they got to the airport (answers 2 and 3).

That's because the question wasn't about what ATC is authorized to issue. That's a .65 rule not a FAR/AIM rule. If the controller issues a straight in and it complies with the performance of my aircraft, so be it. I'm going in.

 

[Captain]

The poll is flawed. The choices reflect how to fly an IP and the clearance given in the OP was a visual approach. That makes all choices moot except choice 3 assuming your lined up with the runway.

 

[Velocity173]

The poll is flawed. The choices reflect how to fly an IP and the clearance given in the OP was a visual approach. That makes all choices moot except choice 3 assuming your lined up with the runway.

I was under the impression we were cleared for the GPS 31 straight in??? We were given the restriction to cross KACBY at 5,000 ft. If it was a visual then there would be no need for the restriction. After reporting runway in sight and clearance for the VA it's up to us to select an appropriate altitude inbound.

Wording in the question isn't the best. At any rate I didn't vote but I would have done a straight in for either the IAP or the visual.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's because the question wasn't about what ATC is authorized to issue. That's a .65 rule not a FAR/AIM rule. If the controller issues a straight in and it complies with the performance of my aircraft, so be it. I'm going in.

His point may be that the pilots answering were perfectly happy accepting an approach clearance that was bound (or at least "highly" likely to) leave them too high for a normal approach to landing without a second thought. That's not an ATC problem.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't recall being instructed or studying the definition of what a visual approach actually is.

Then whoever trained you was remiss in their responsibility as an instructor. From 61.65:

(b) Aeronautical knowledge. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor or accomplished a home-study course on the following aeronautical knowledge areas that apply to the instrument rating sought:

• 
  (1) Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that apply to flight operations under IFR;
  (2) Appropriate information that applies to flight operations under IFR in the "Aeronautical Information Manual;"
• (3) Air traffic control system and procedures for instrument flight operations;

On a visual approach, can one go missed and the airspace be protected the same? Say there was a fog bank and clouds at the end of the DER and something goes wrong needing a go around?

No. As it says in the AIM, once cleared for the visual, you have no missed approach option, and if you cannot land, it is your responsibility to remain clear of clouds until a new or amended clearance is obtained. See AIM Section 5-4-23.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was under the impression we were cleared for the GPS 31 straight in???

The OP never said they were "cleared straight-in" for the approach, just that they intended to make a straight-in landing, which is another thing entirely -- a difference about which the OP seemed unaware.

 

[Velocity173]

The OP never said they were "cleared straight-in" for the approach, just that they intended to make a straight-in landing, which is another thing entirely -- a difference about which the OP seemed unaware.

No but I thought the thread was whether to excecute the PT or proceed straight in. That would be a clearance for a straight in approach by definition. A straight in landing isn't important in this case because ATC could careless if he goes straight in or circles. Non towered. No instructions issued on their behalf.

With the way the question is worded its hard to tell what approach we've been cleared for. As Captain said above it almost sounds like we've been cleared for the visual???

 

[Palmpilot]

That's because the question wasn't about what ATC is authorized to issue. That's a .65 rule not a FAR/AIM rule. If the controller issues a straight in and it complies with the performance of my aircraft, so be it. I'm going in.

I see your point. I calculate about 600 feet per nautical mile to get down to the TDZE from the 5500 that the controller assigned, which does not seem particularly challenging.

On the other hand, if the scenario had been IMC, I would want the HILPT, because I find doing math while airborne to be quite distracting.

 

[Palmpilot]

The OP never said they were "cleared straight-in" for the approach, just that they intended to make a straight-in landing, which is another thing entirely -- a difference about which the OP seemed unaware.

From post #1:

"ATC says 5500 ft is a low as he can get you, clears you for straight-in, cross KACBY at or above 5500 ft, frequency change approved."

 

[Velocity173]

OK for the OP. Did the controller say "cleared straight in GPS RWY 31 approach."???

 

[Palmpilot]

His point may be that the pilots answering were perfectly happy accepting an approach clearance that was bound (or at least "highly" likely to) leave them too high for a normal approach to landing without a second thought. That's not an ATC problem.

I got the impression from one of Wally's posts that not flying straight-in in this situation was a rule that applied to pilots, but I could have misinterpreted what he wrote.

 

[skidoo]

OK for the OP. Did the controller say "cleared straight in GPS RWY 31 approach."???

OP here... Yes, I believe so... Just prior to that, controller asks if pilot desires straight in or course reversal. Pilot originally said visual was ok, but changed mind to the GPS approach after getting closer to the smoke and not seeing through it.

After the approach was cleared and frequency changed, it later became apparent that a visual could have been done, or canceled. My main points of learning are

1) What is the most common or appropriate decision to resolve this situation. and
2) Since there are circling minimums as well as straight in, not towered field, is there anything wrong with circling around and landing in visual conditions after being cleared for the straight in GPS approach? I believe Ron answered this in post 11 as acceptable.

Other perspectives and responses are interesting also...

 

[skidoo]

Then whoever trained you was remiss in their responsibility as an instructor. From 61.65:

Not necessarily so. They probably did all they were supposed to do. I don't recall spending much time on the visual. I probably got the answers right when questioned. So, less time spend on it. Less time on it, I forget the details, such as how a missed would apply, etc... I looked it up and apparently there is no missed for a visual. Probably a moot point, that anyone should ever need a missed on one. Time for me to study it some more...

 

[Captain]

Then whoever trained you was remiss in their responsibility as an instructor. From 61.65:

No. As it says in the AIM, once cleared for the visual, you have no missed approach option, and if you cannot land, it is your responsibility to remain clear of clouds until a new or amended clearance is obtained. See AIM Section 5-4-23.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

It blows me away that guys can fly an ILS or GPS or NDB circling, all to mins, by the numbers and have it all work out. Then you take the clouds away, show them a piece of runway and say, 'go land on that' and many times they bugger it all up. I'm talking about paid, on the clock, commercial or ATP pilots here too.

The only thing I can think of is people spend all their time studying and practicing the IAP's and they never think about or were never initially trained how to just land a plane.

BTW, quoting the PTS that says you have to be taught 'everything' was kinda lame. Just like the FAA busting guys for the catch all 'careless and reckless' when nothing else really fits. Maybe his instructor was remiss. But from my perspective, all of them are to some degree or another.

Hell, even you Ron. You were (many threads back) trying to 'instruct' folks on this very forum that a CIWS can target a boat. It simply can not and you took the position that you knew better and told folks it could.

Never mind, the only point is that bad info and poor instruction gets out there and we end up with what we have. Grinds my gears, but many things do...

 

[denverpilot]

Grinds my gears, but many things do...

You don't say...

 

[Velocity173]

OP here... Yes, I believe so... Just prior to that, controller asks if pilot desires straight in or course reversal. Pilot originally said visual was ok, but changed mind to the GPS approach after getting closer to the smoke and not seeing through it.

After the approach was cleared and frequency changed, it later became apparent that a visual could have been done, or canceled. My main points of learning are

1) What is the most common or appropriate decision to resolve this situation. and
2) Since there are circling minimums as well as straight in, not towered field, is there anything wrong with circling around and landing in visual conditions after being cleared for the straight in GPS approach? I believe Ron answered this in post 11 as acceptable.

I see. Yeah the clearance for the straight in GPS has nothing to do with a straight in landing. Two different things. In this case the pilot was free to circle. You'll hear some pilots notifying ATC of their intentions to circle at a non towered airport almost as if to get approval. They don't care. The airspace is blocked off for them. Telling ATC you'll be canceling on the ground is kinda important. Doing an IAP to one rwy, circling, then canceling on the ground will take time. Knowing that ATC can anticipate when to release a departure or clear an arrival. Still plenty of pilots just switch over after getting the clearance and don't tell ATC anything about their intentions. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as circling on the visual. Same thing. The clearance is to the airport and not a specific runway. ATC might not even see the aircraft circling on radar. If you somehow can't complete it, no big deal, you still retain your IFR until canceling. Contact ATC and try another one or do the IAP for the field.

 

[poadeleted20]

No but I thought the thread was whether to excecute the PT or proceed straight in. That would be a clearance for a straight in approach by definition. A straight in landing isn't important in this case because ATC could careless if he goes straight in or circles. Non towered. No instructions issued on their behalf.

Exactly my point. Note that in the original post, the OP was very concerned about circling to land after being "cleared straight in", and was considering going missed rather than circling to land if too high to land straight in. In giving IR training and instrument refreshers, the difference between being cleared straight in for the approach and landing straight in is a point which many pilots do not understand well.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not necessarily so. They probably did all they were supposed to do. I don't recall spending much time on the visual.

Here's what you said:

I don't recall being instructed or studying the definition of what a visual approach actually is.

That's not quite the same as what you now say, so I'm sure you can see why I responded as I did.

I looked it up and apparently there is no missed for a visual. Probably a moot point, that anyone should ever need a missed on one.

Think runway incursion, or being cut off by another aircraft.

 

[skidoo]

That's not quite the same as what you now say, so I'm sure you can see why I responded as I did.

Yes... It was most likely the lack of my recollection than anything else...