Did I commence an approach without authorization?

coma24 said:
Termination of radar services is already implied when being handed off to the CTAF at a non-towered field,...
Click to expand...

That's correct with regard to radar service, you're not actually "handed off".

...or when cleared for a visual approach into a towered airport.
Click to expand...
That's not correct. Approach clearance has nothing to do with it. At a towered airport, type of approach doesn't matter, IFR or VFR doesn't matter, radar service termination is not implied until you're on the ground. If the tower doesn't have radar you'll be told radar service is terminated.

Regarding the OP's question, I've been in the same boat on the GPS 19 into N07 (Lincoln Park, NJ), "cleared direct [IAF], report established on the approach..." (these were not vectors to the final app course).
Click to expand...
Which is long for "cleared direct [IAF], cross [IAF] at or above [altitude] cleared RNAV RWY 19 approach, report [IAF]..."
 
jesse said:
I do recognize the difference.
Click to expand...

Your response indicates you do not, you just think that you do.

Ron was right, radar services are terminated.
Click to expand...
When he said radar service is normally terminated at untowered fields? No, he was wrong about that. He even posted documentation that showed he was wrong about that. That's why I asked how long he'd been without sleep when he wrote it.

As to my response if I can get you to dial back your attitude, even just a notch, it would provide a lot of value for the community.
Click to expand...
You can't do that. I suggest instead you put your efforts into restraining yourself from providing more responses that have no value.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
??? I think this is the key. You said specifically that radar service is not normally terminated when aircraft are sent to CTAF.
Click to expand...

Yes, posted in response to this:

pstan said:
Normally, radar service is terminated prior to this IAF, and I'm sent to advisory freq.
Click to expand...

That is quite different than saying that it is not normal to inform the pilot that radar service is terminated.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
roncachamp said:
I don't recall saying anything like that, you'll have to find that discussion.
Click to expand...

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36576

But I had forgotten the context of the discussion, which was about a towered field, and also in that case the controller had explicitly told me to keep the code. So maybe the answer here is different.

But it's worth asking: if I'm shooting an approach into an untowered field and the controller says "Radar services terminated, change to advisory frequency approved" but does NOT say "squawk VFR", can I assume he just forgot? Should I ask whether to keep the code?

And if he tells me to keep the code (which has definitely happened a number of times going into VLL, always after asking me if the approach will be to a full stop, my answer being yes), is that improper procedure on his part?

Just looking for clarification, not to hijack the thread...
 
I'm not sure I've ever had them tell me to squawk VFR, probably because having me on the code still is pretty useful when I suddenly pop back up on their display after going missed.

My memory is worthless though..so I might be remembering wrong.
 
azure said:
But it's worth asking: if I'm shooting an approach into an untowered field and the controller says "Radar services terminated, change to advisory frequency approved" but does NOT say "squawk VFR", can I assume he just forgot?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Are you flying a practice approach under VFR and have you told the controller you'll be landing and he wont be seeing you again in the near future? If so, he probably just forgot. But if you're operating IFR then no, the controller shouldn't tell you to squawk VFR because you're still operating IFR.

Should I ask whether to keep the code?
Click to expand...
If you're going into an untowered field VFR and the radar controller didn't tell you to squawk VFR it's because he forgot. I wouldn't bother asking, I'd just change to 1200.

And if he tells me to keep the code (which has definitely happened a number of times going into VLL, always after asking me if the approach will be to a full stop, my answer being yes), is that improper proce.
Click to expand...
JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control tells controllers to:

"Instruct IFR aircraft which cancel an IFR flight
plan and are not requesting radar advisory service and
VFR aircraft for which radar advisory service is being
terminated to squawk the VFR code."
 
jesse said:
I'm not sure I've ever had them tell me to squawk VFR, probably because having me on the code still is pretty useful when I suddenly pop back up on their display after going missed.

My memory is worthless though..so I might be remembering wrong.
Click to expand...

In this context, are you on flight following, or on an instrument approach to a non-towered airport changing to CTAF?
 
What I've heard:

Going into towered field without radar: "Radar services terminated, contact tower."

Going into towered field with radar: "Contact tower."

Going into uncontrolled field: "Radar services terminated, change to advisory approved, report cancelation or downtime on this frequency or through Flight Service when able."

That's been pretty consistent across 40 states and 1200 worth of flying, over 3/4 of which have been IFR.

The "Squawk 1200" is only when you cancel IFR, or when VFR you're handed off to tower. Even then, sometimes they'll keep you on the code if the tower has radar. It depends, though.

As to the OP's question: Yes, you should have heard "Cleared for the approach." In my experience, controllers have forgotten this on more than one occasion. Getting clarification is the right thing to do. If you lose radio contact with them, then I agree with Ron - squawking 7600 and doing the approach anyway is good.

You might be surprised how many controllers aren't on the ball. A month or so ago, I had to go missed (a real live missed approach, folks!), called it, and the controller (who hadn't been on the ball) said "Uhh... ok, where are you?" "I'm on the missed approach procedure." "Oh..."

Situational awareness is important. Even though someone is supposed to be watching, he or she might not be.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
When he said radar service is normally terminated at untowered fields? No, he was wrong about that. He even posted documentation that showed he was wrong about that.
Click to expand...
I was right, and the documentation I posted proves it. Radar service is automatically terminated on release to CTAF, and "automatically" is as "normally" as it gets.
 
Ron Levy said:
I was right, and the documentation I posted proves it. Radar service is automatically terminated on release to CTAF, and "automatically" is as "normally" as it gets.
Click to expand...

When you find yourself in a hole it's generally best to stop digging.

The documentation says it's automatic, that means the controller does not advise you that it's terminated. But you said most controllers do issue that advisory.
 
roncachamp said:
When you find yourself in a hole it's generally best to stop digging.

The documentation says it's automatic, that means the controller does not advise you that it's terminated. But you said most controllers do issue that advisory.
Click to expand...
Most in his area do. I've heard it too. Maybe you do it differently but the way it is is the way it is.
 
That's not correct. Approach clearance has nothing to do with it. At a towered airport, type of approach doesn't matter, IFR or VFR doesn't matter, radar service termination is not implied until you're on the ground. If the tower doesn't have radar you'll be told radar service is terminated.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm confused by this section of the AIM, though:
5-4-23 (h):
Radar service is automatically terminated, without advising the pilot, when the aircraft is instructed to change to advisory frequency.

Bear in mind that 5-4-23 is all about VISUAL APPROACHES. I had taken the quote above to apply to towered fields. In that context, is the 'advisory frequency' synonymous with the tower frequency? If not, why wouldn't they have put the contents of paragraph (h) into the non-towered field section of VISUAL APPROACHES?
Which is long for "cleared direct [IAF], cross [IAF] at or above [altitude] cleared RNAV RWY 19 approach, report [IAF]..."
Click to expand...

Mmm...not so much. The controller was surprised when he saw me descending on the approach, asked me if I wanted to continue with the approach (weather was dodgy), and THEN issued the approach clearance.

Watch this video from 16 secs to 25 secs...that's where he tells me to proceed direct ZASEB and report inbound on the approach...Then, at the 6 min mark, he queries why I'm descending, we talk for a while, then he clears me for the approach.

I think his intention was for me to "take a look at it," ie. gauge the weather from the assigned altitude, get established, and THEN get an approach clearance. That contradicts with what you said about it constituting an approach clnc.

I'm still not sure WHAT it is.
 
That's not correct. Approach clearance has nothing to do with it. At a towered airport, type of approach doesn't matter, IFR or VFR doesn't matter, radar service termination is not implied until you're on the ground. If the tower doesn't have radar you'll be told radar service is terminated.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm confused by this section of the AIM, though:
5-4-23 (h):
Radar service is automatically terminated, without advising the pilot, when the aircraft is instructed to change to advisory frequency.

Bear in mind that 5-4-23 is all about VISUAL APPROACHES. I had taken the quote above to apply to towered fields. In that context, is the 'advisory frequency' synonymous with the tower frequency? If not, why wouldn't they have put the contents of paragraph (h) into the non-towered field section of VISUAL APPROACHES?
Which is long for "cleared direct [IAF], cross [IAF] at or above [altitude] cleared RNAV RWY 19 approach, report [IAF]..."
Click to expand...

Mmm...not so much. The controller was surprised when he saw me descending on the approach, asked me if I wanted to continue with the approach (weather was dodgy), and THEN issued the approach clearance.

Watch this video from 16 secs to 25 secs...that's where he tells me to proceed direct ZASEB and report inbound on the approach...Then, at the 6 min mark, he queries why I'm descending, we talk for a while, then he clears me for the approach.

I think his intention was for me to "take a look at it," ie. gauge the weather from the assigned altitude, get established, and THEN get an approach clearance. That contradicts with what you said about it constituting an approach clnc.

I'm still not sure WHAT it is.
 
roncachamp said:
The documentation says it's automatic, that means the controller does not advise you that it's terminated.
Click to expand...
Saying that radar service is automatically terminated is not the same as saying "the controller does not advise you that it's terminated." The Handbook says:
b. Radar service is automatically terminated and the aircraft needs not be advised of termination
Click to expand...
"Need not be advised" and "shall not be advised" are not at all the same. The actual wording leaves it within the controller's discretion to make the advisory, and as I said above, in my fairly substantial experience which includes flying in every one of the lower 48 states, most do make it.
But you said most controllers do issue that advisory.
Click to expand...
I did say that, and it is true, regardless of what you think.
 
roncachamp said:
When you find yourself in a hole it's generally best to stop digging.

The documentation says it's automatic, that means the controller does not advise you that it's terminated. But you said most controllers do issue that advisory.
Click to expand...

You just can't stop yourself from being condescending, can you?

I, for one, generally want to hear what you have to say. I just wish you'd say it with a little less self-righteousness. It makes it really hard to digest what you're trying to communicate to us when you don't act like you have any interest in genuine dialog, but only in lecturing all of us on how clueless we are.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Which poster in the argument above are we talking about here? Plenty of know it alls posting in these parts who refuse to acknowledge errors. Including, occasionally, me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but some of us are much, much worse about it than others.
 
I scanned through the previous posts, but didn't see a recommendation to file a NASA form.

OP - File a NASA form.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think it's much better to just ignore the put-downs and read posts for subject matter content.
Click to expand...
I did that for a while but trying to find the very few grains wheat in piles of chaff is tiring and so unnecessary when there are so many quality (content and presentation) sources.

Besides, the very best information tends to get quoted by others so I get them to filter for me :cornut:
 
midlifeflyer said:
I did that for a while but trying to find the very few grains wheat in piles of chaff is tiring and so unnecessary when there are so many quality (content and presentation) sources.
Click to expand...

It's kinda shocking to get on the Net and find out the bell curve truly does exist, and that some people really do live down there in that part on the lower left side, isn't it? ;)
 
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove. Best. Movie. Ever.
 
pstan said:
IFR, I had been cleared direct to an iaf at 3700 feet, but without an approach clearance, a common occurence for this location.
Click to expand...
If they didn't make the IAF your clearance limit, then you were still cleared to the destination airport as the original, unamended clearance. Reaching the IAF, you were established on the SIAP. Since you were apparently arriving on an unpublished route, ATC is supposed to withold approach clearance until you are so 'established'.

pstan said:
There are not routes to this iaf, and no taa. Coms were busy, and just prior to the iaf, atc advised me to "call when established on a portion of the instrument approach procedure". Rather than query this, and since I was at least a minute from the iaf, I replied with my call sign and "wilco". About 30 seconds later, a second request from atc, for the same. Since I was almost there, I decided to advise him I was "established on the approach". I think he did not reply, started to talk to other aircraft.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a case of lost comms, at least temporarily, so you need to follow 91.185.

pstan said:
Passing the iaf, I joined the Iaf to IF leg, and commenced descent to the minimum altitude for the segment. About a mile past the iaf and at 3200 feet or so, I was given "maintain 3700 feet til established on the approach, cleared rnav gps rw 36.
Click to expand...
ATC was checking off their box. You were complying with 91.185 since you were not given a clearance limit shy of the destination airport.

pstan said:
1. It occurs to me now, after, that maybe he did not hear my calls.
Click to expand...
Probably.

pstan said:
2. Was this proper pilot and atc procedures? What would you have done?
Click to expand...
You did good. :thumbsup:

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