IFR Approach Debate

[coma24]

My takeaway from this thread is that while "cleared for the approach" by itself is perfectly standard (and well-understood) in Canada, if I ever hear it when I'm flying in the U.S. again after the pandemic, I'll query the controller and ask for clarification.

If I was on an airway leading to an IAF or feeder and they said, "cleared approach" (which is the most rudimentary form of approach clearance..."for the" shouldn't be there), I'd mentally high-five the controller and get to it. I would have no questions. If I was on a random route and they said it, then I'd seek clarification regarding the altitude.

In other words, the circumstances where an altitude needs to be issued as part of the clearance are extremely well-defined. There's really no gray area, hence, the times when you'd actually need to seek clarification are equally well-defined.

Mercifully, instances of controllers making the error described by the OP are very rare afaik.

 

[PPC1052]

AGNSS isn’t an IAF. There is no IAF for this approach. You can’t get on this approach apart from vectors to final. It was a mistake for the controller not to issue the vector.

This, exactly. The note on the approach plate even says that radar is required for procedure entry.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My takeaway from this thread is that while "cleared for the approach" by itself is perfectly standard (and well-understood) in Canada, if I ever hear it when I'm flying in the U.S. again after the pandemic, I'll query the controller and ask for clarification.

It is well-defined here too. What a pilot is supposed to do based on the OP's description is very well-defined.

Whether it is well understood by every instrument pilot in either country is a different question. Here, our ATC has been given orders to account for that lack of understanding by stating the altitude to maintain until on a published segment, even if it means restating the same altitude again. This is hardly the only example. Besides, I've seen questions from Canadian instrument pilots elsewhere - easy stuff they had problems with - so I have doubts about the perfection of our northern neighbors.

 

[John Collins]

AGNSS isn’t an IAF. There is no IAF for this approach. You can’t get on this approach apart from vectors to final. It was a mistake for the controller not to issue the vector.

Sure, you can get to the IF with RNAV via own navigation using direct-to. Note 2 says "Radar required for procedure entry." That does not mean radar vectors are required for procedure entry, although that is an option. Since there isn't an IAF, the IF may be used subject to the guidance in 7110.65Z quoted below in part(emphasis is mine):

4−8−1. APPROACH CLEARANCE

h. For RNAV−equipped aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue approach clearance for conventional or RNAV SIAP including approaches with RF legs only after the aircraft is:
2. Established on a heading or course direct to the IF at an angle not greater than 90 degrees, provided the following conditions are met:
(a) Assign an altitude in accordance with b2 that will permit a normal descent to the FAF.
NOTE− Controllers should expect aircraft to descend at approximately 150-300 feet per nautical mile when applying guidance in subparagraph h2(a).
(b) Radar monitoring is provided to the IF.
(c) The SIAP must identify the intermediate fix with the letters “IF.”

When all of these conditions are met, one can be cleared for the approach. The OP says he was previously cleared to descend to 3000 and the controller should have restated the altitude to maintain before crossing the IF (maybe he did and the OP missed it.) Regardless, the point is that it is permissible to clear an RNAV equipped aircraft on a conventional approach direct to the IF as long as the intercept is 90 degrees or less, the altitude is assigned to cross the IF, radar monitoring is provided, and the IF is labeled as such.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This, exactly. The note on the approach plate even says that radar is required for procedure entry.

But even that doesn't mean "vectors to final." Are you saying a controller cannot say to an RNAV pilot to proceed direct to an initial fix and fly the approach rom there?

 

[PPC1052]

But even that doesn't mean "vectors to final." Are you saying a controller cannot say to an RNAV pilot to proceed direct to an initial fix and fly the approach rom there?

Yeah, I guess I am. At least on this approach. If it were permissible to just give direct to a waypoint, why would radar be necessary for procedure entry? Wouldn't it just show AGNSS as the IAF rather than as an IF?

Edit: also, isn't the IF the intermediate fix, not the initial fix? Not sure if that makes a difference here.

 

[John Collins]

There are IAP that don't have an IAF, just an IF. Normally one is vectored to the IF to begin the approach if the aircraft has conventional Navigation capability. If the aircraft is RNAV, one can be cleared direct to the IF if the intercept is 90 degrees or less. There are no feeder routes from the enroute environment for these procedures and in most instances you get radar vectored to join the approach and finally cleared direct to the IF when less than 90 degrees. One at my airport KUZA RNAV 20 used to have an IAF/IF with a HILPT, but it sits right over the long runway 36L/18R at KCLT and you could never get the procedure because of the HILPT, so the IAF designation was removed and only the IF remains. at CESOX, but radar is now required. You can be cleared direct to the IF if Charlotte TRACON has time for you shooting the approach as long as it does not conflict with Charlotte traffic.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah, I guess I am. At least on this approach. If it were permissible to just give direct to a waypoint, why would radar be necessary for procedure entry? Wouldn't it just show AGNSS as the IAF rather than as an IF?

This is an approach which does not contemplate even the existence of RNAV equipment. So it has to be RADAR required to get to the IF. There's simply no other way to get there. If you do have RNAV equipment I don't see any issue with "direct AGNSS." It's just another waypoint in the database.

 

[coma24]

This, exactly. The note on the approach plate even says that radar is required for procedure entry.

Violently disagree with this. You absolutely can be cleared direct to the intermediate fix. I posted to reference to the 7110.65 section which specifically permits it in an earlier post, and have experienced a bajillion times in person. "RADAR" doesn't imply that you must receive vectors to the final approach course.

In fact, I've found it relatively rare to get VTF on RNAV approaches because the video maps often do not depict the RNAV final approach course. As a result, direct to a fix somewhere on the approach is far more common in my experience.

 

[coma24]

AGNSS isn’t an IAF. There is no IAF for this approach. You can’t get on this approach apart from vectors to final. It was a mistake for the controller not to issue the vector.

I didn't say it was an IAF. I said it was an IF.

 

[John Collins]

Yeah, I guess I am. At least on this approach. If it were permissible to just give direct to a waypoint, why would radar be necessary for procedure entry? Wouldn't it just show AGNSS as the IAF rather than as an IF?

Edit: also, isn't the IF the intermediate fix, not the initial fix? Not sure if that makes a difference here.

Yes, the IF is the Intermediate fix and is not the IAF Initial Approach Fix. Radar is required to get from the enroute structure to the IF unless the aircraft is RNAV equipped, and even in that case, radar is still required to monitor the RNAV equipped aircraft. Also the RNAV equipped aircraft, depending on the direction to the fix, may need to be radar vectored so that the intercept angle is 90 degrees or less before it can be cleared to the IF. If radar is not available, the procedure may not be flown.

 

[PPC1052]

Violently disagree with this.

No need for violence. I capitulate. Thanks for the reference, by the way.

 

[John Collins]

There are even provisions for ATC to clear an aircraft direct to a step down fix inside the IF, but the intercept angle must be 30 degrees or less. Going direct to the IF or a stepdown fix is much more efficient in a lot of cases. Take this example, the ILS 20 at KJQF, if I am east of LEEMO, I don't want to go all the way to the IAF at GSO (43.8 NM) or BZM (33 NM) to begin the approach at one of the two IAF, I am going to request joining the approach direct to LEEMO.

 

[aterpster]

Violently disagree with this. You absolutely can be cleared direct to the intermediate fix. I posted to reference to the 7110.65 section which specifically permits it in an earlier post, and have experienced a bajillion times in person. "RADAR" doesn't imply that you must receive vectors to the final approach course.

In fact, I've found it relatively rare to get VTF on RNAV approaches because the video maps often do not depict the RNAV final approach course. As a result, direct to a fix somewhere on the approach is far more common in my experience.

That’s my understanding.

 

[bluesky74656]

Sure, you can get to the IF with RNAV via own navigation using direct-to. Note 2 says "Radar required for procedure entry." That does not mean radar vectors are required for procedure entry, although that is an option. Since there isn't an IAF, the IF may be used subject to the guidance in 7110.65Z quoted below in part(emphasis is mine):



When all of these conditions are met, one can be cleared for the approach. The OP says he was previously cleared to descend to 3000 and the controller should have restated the altitude to maintain before crossing the IF (maybe he did and the OP missed it.) Regardless, the point is that it is permissible to clear an RNAV equipped aircraft on a conventional approach direct to the IF as long as the intercept is 90 degrees or less, the altitude is assigned to cross the IF, radar monitoring is provided, and the IF is labeled as such.

Violently disagree with this. You absolutely can be cleared direct to the intermediate fix. I posted to reference to the 7110.65 section which specifically permits it in an earlier post, and have experienced a bajillion times in person. "RADAR" doesn't imply that you must receive vectors to the final approach course.

In fact, I've found it relatively rare to get VTF on RNAV approaches because the video maps often do not depict the RNAV final approach course. As a result, direct to a fix somewhere on the approach is far more common in my experience.

Well, I learned something today. I wasn’t familiar with that in the 7110.65 and didn’t pick up on the context from @coma24’s post. I concede the point.

 

[coma24]

.....well that's no fun......aren't you gonna haggle?

 

[Larry in TN]

I think ground based navaids are actually "fly-over."
...
I've also seen discussion where a faster aircraft using RNAV anticipates a turn in an instruction like "direct XYZ VOR, then outbound on the 260 degree radial." with ATC getting very upset about the turn which never got closer than 10 miles to the VOR.

That is in the AIM. If you have the ability to smooth the turn, for a fly-by waypoint, you can.

Yeah, I guess I am. At least on this approach. If it were permissible to just give direct to a waypoint, why would radar be necessary for procedure entry?

Because ATC can't separate aircraft on the random RNAV course without RADAR to see where they are. See the AIM section on random RNAV IFR routings.

 

[David Megginson]

Besides, I've seen questions from Canadian instrument pilots elsewhere - easy stuff they had problems with - so I have doubts about the perfection of our northern neighbors.

Absolutely — please don't assume this is a "pilots in country X are better than pilots in country Y" thing. My point is only that "cleared for the approach" (without any other instructions) just happens to have a simple and clear meaning in Canada, which seems to be a bit different from the meaning in the U.S. (if it's even a complete instruction down there), and that — in the case of this particular instruction — probably wouldn't trigger a long thread like this because we all have a shared understanding of it and experience it regularly, especially flying IFR into smaller airports.

Fully agree that there are lots of Canadian regs and other aspects of flying that can trigger as much misunderstanding and debate here as this particular instruction seems to have triggered among U.S. pilots, judging from the thread. Just ask about French-language radio calls in the circuit on any Canadian pilot forum, and watch the fur fly.

(I make my calls in both official languages for small, uncontrolled Quebec airports, FWIW — my anglo accent scares all the francophone pilots out of the circuit, so I'm always first for the runway .)

 

[midlifeflyer]

which seems to be a bit different from the meaning in the U.S

Does it? Putting it in simple terms, in the US it means to follow the last instruction given with respect to direction and altitude until on a charted route or area (since GPS it includes a TAA), and then follow it with respect to direction and altitude. I may have missed something but I think that covers every iteration I've seen.

the fact that some don't understand that doesn't change it. "I personally don't understand" is not the definition of "unclear."

What is the Canadian meaning?

 

[David Megginson]

Does it? Putting it in simple terms, in the US it means to follow the last instruction given with respect to direction and altitude until on a charted route or area (since GPS it includes a TAA), and then follow it with respect to direction and altitude. I may have missed something but I think that covers every iteration I've seen.

What is the Canadian meaning?

If Canadian ATC says "cleared for the XXX approach" with no other instruction, then all heading and altitude restrictions are canceled and you are expected to begin descending to the minimum usable IFR altitude (typically MSA), and join the approach in an expeditious manner, which may mean flying directly to a navaid, or to an IWP or IAWP in an RNAV approach, following your best judgement.

This usually happens only with uncontrolled airports outside terminal areas (one in; one out for IFRs), but can also happen at a big airport in the middle of the night or some other very quiet time. Typically, the clearance will also include "Radar services terminated", but it doesn't have to.

I always tell ATC what I'm going to do after I get a "cleared for the approach", but that's just a courtesy, not a requirement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If Canadian ATC says "cleared for the XXX approach" with no other instruction, then all heading and altitude restrictions are canceled and you are expected to begin descending to the minimum usable IFR altitude (typically MSA), and join the approach in an expeditious manner, which may mean flying directly to a navaid, or to an IWP or IAWP in an RNAV approach, following your best judgement.

This usually happens only with uncontrolled airports outside terminal areas (one in; one out for IFRs), but can also happen at a big airport in the middle of the night or some other very quiet time. Typically, the clearance will also include "Radar services terminated", but it doesn't have to.

I always tell ATC what I'm going to do after I get a "cleared for the approach", but that's just a courtesy, not a requirement.

Yep, rolling your own using your best judgement instead of following defined instructions and courses is definitely a big difference.

 

[David Megginson]

There are lots of small details that can cause confusion between countries. For example, the first time I flew to the U.S. (VFR) 18 years ago, I was shocked to hear that tower was clearing more than one airplane to land on the runway at the same time, and actually asked for clarification because I thought they'd made a mistake.

In Canada, only one plane is cleared to land at once, so if you're #3, you won't hear "cleared to land runway XX" until #1 and #2 are already down; in the U.S., "cleared to land" seems to mean "you're precleared for when your turn comes," and they'll give it to all 3 at the same time. (I'm used to that now, of course.)

 

[David Megginson]

Yep, rolling your own using your best judgement instead of following defined instructions and courses is definitely a big difference.

And, just to be clear, an approach clearance in the U.S. doesn't cancel any previous heading or altitude restrictions?

Fortunately, that's never come up for me flying U.S. approaches, because ATC has always been more explicit (maybe they're used to Canadian callsigns in the U.S. Northeast and take extra care with us), but it's good to know for the future. I did know that an approach clearance doesn't allow me to descend to MSA right away, at least.

 

[Sluggo63]

There are lots of small details that can cause confusion between countries. For example, the first time I flew to the U.S. (VFR) 18 years ago, I was shocked to hear that tower was clearing more than one airplane to land on the runway at the same time, and actually asked for clarification because I thought they'd made a mistake.

In Canada, only one plane is cleared to land at once, so if you're #3, you won't hear "cleared to land runway XX" until #1 and #2 are already down; in the U.S., "cleared to land" seems to mean "you're precleared for when your turn comes," and they'll give it to all 3 at the same time. (I'm used to that now, of course.)

That's pretty common internationally all over. You'll check on with tower and you'll get a "continue approach" until the previous plane is clear of the runway, then you'll get cleared to land.

One thing I don't like that foreign controllers do (I don't know if Canada does this), is give a conditional "line up and wait" after landing traffic. "Behind Airbus on short final, line up behind." You're instructed to line up and wait, but only after waiting for the traffic to land. Just seems like they could wait the 30 seconds and then give me the instruction then.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And, just to be clear, an approach clearance in the U.S. doesn't cancel any previous heading or altitude restrictions

Not until on a "published segment" In "Direct SOMFX. Cross SOMFX at 3000, cleared for the approach," the words "cleared for the approach" do not cancel the instruction to go direct to SOMFX and maintain 3000 until you get there,

 

[jordane93]

One thing I don't like that foreign controllers do (I don't know if Canada does this), is give a conditional "line up and wait" after landing traffic. "Behind Airbus on short final, line up behind." You're instructed to line up and wait, but only after waiting for the traffic to land. Just seems like they could wait the 30 seconds and then give me the instruction then.

That’s a weird one. I haven’t heard a Canadian controller say that.

 

[David Megginson]

Not until on a "published segment" In "Direct SOMFX. Cross SOMFX at 3000, cleared for the approach," the words "cleared for the approach" do not cancel the instruction to go direct to SOMFX and maintain 3000 until you get there,

In Canada that would mean the same thing, because direct SOMFX and crossing it at 3,000 was part of the approach clearance. I'm talking about when they say just "cleared for the XXX approach" with no other instructions at the same time.

Ideally, with your example, a Canadian controller would say "Direct SOMFX. Cross SOMFX at 3000, after SOMFX cleared for the approach XXX," but sometimes they're a bit sloppy with the phraseology (aren't we all?).

 

[David Megginson]

At least Canada and the U.S. both give altimeter settings and wind speeds the same way — no QNE vs QNH vs QFE alphabet soup for the altimeter, and no wind speeds in metres per second — so we generally manage to avoid leaving smoking craters in each-others' runways.

 

[Busflyer]

You know, I read the post again. He was cleared to AGNSS about 35 miles out, then about 5 miles out he was cleared for the approach, I've been cleared like this many times, he was not on vectors to final. . He should have crossed AGNSS, he absolutely screwed up, lucky he wasn't violated.

This is not correct. We are all taught to lead a turn when passing over an intersection and the outbound course is different. The FMS will do this on its own if left in LNAV. This is what ATC expects and the OP beginning to turn to the next inbound course is absolutely correct.
If you look at the intersection in question it is not shown to be a mandatory flyover point which is the way you guys are treating it.

 

[sarangan]

I don't understand the confusion here. The pilot was told to fly to AGNSS and start the approach from there. This was not a vectors to final. If it were, ATC would have issued a 30-deg intercept heading. The fact that AGNSS is a radar fix does not make this a VTF clearance.

 

[PaulS]

This is not correct. We are all taught to lead a turn when passing over an intersection and the outbound course is different. The FMS will do this on its own if left in LNAV. This is what ATC expects and the OP beginning to turn to the next inbound course is absolutely correct.
If you look at the intersection in question it is not shown to be a mandatory flyover point which is the way you guys are treating it.

To, I meant to, not over.

 

[Sluggo63]

This is not correct. We are all taught to lead a turn when passing over an intersection and the outbound course is different. The FMS will do this on its own if left in LNAV. This is what ATC expects and the OP beginning to turn to the next inbound course is absolutely correct.
If you look at the intersection in question it is not shown to be a mandatory flyover point which is the way you guys are treating it.

I think most are in agreement with what you're saying. Most people are saying OP was wrong to create his own vector away from the IF.

Assuming he was flying close to 180 kts. Rule of thumb for turn radius is r=V/(60*pi) : r=180/(60*pi) : r=3/pi ~= 1 nm. The FMS would have started the 90* turn to the inbound course about 1 nm from AGNSS. Instead, he took a 30 cut to the right to give himself his own vector 5 nm prior to AGNSS (or 4 NM before the FMS would have turned). With a little help from Mssrs. Newton and Pythagoras, he intercepted the final course about 2.88 nm inside of AGNSS. That would mean that he would have ended up about 1.75 nm closer to the FAP by taking the 30* cut rather than flying to AGNSS and letting the FMS lead the turn at 1 NM. And for all those who can image how tightly they pack planes landing at EWR, being 1.75 nm closer to the (possible) plane in front of you isn't a good thing there. Woe to anyone who messes up approach's spacing in the NYC metroplex.

@Larry in TN and @jordane93 were right in saying that the right way to fly this (if given this clearance, which admittedly was non-standard) was to leave the FMS in LNAV and let it make the turn at AGNSS to point down final then engage LOC/GS to fly the ILS needles.

And there is a better than even chance that I screwed up my math. Please feel free to double check and correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Sluggo63]

That’s a weird one. I haven’t heard a Canadian controller say that.

Yeah, I'm not sure about Canadia. I haven't flown there in a very long time. It's pretty much standard in Europe.

 

[luvflyin]

There are even provisions for ATC to clear an aircraft direct to a step down fix inside the IF, but the intercept angle must be 30 degrees or less. Going direct to the IF or a stepdown fix is much more efficient in a lot of cases. Take this example, the ILS 20 at KJQF, if I am east of LEEMO, I don't want to go all the way to the IAF at GSO (43.8 NM) or BZM (33 NM) to begin the approach at one of the two IAF, I am going to request joining the approach direct to LEEMO.

On the Approach we’ve been discussing, the ILS or LOC RWY 22R at KEWR, there is a Step Down Fix that could have been used using the 30 degree thing. VERDE. Pilot couldn’t have just been given direct from where he was, but could have been vectored to get a 30 degree cut. Controllers aren’t supposed to just spring this on you. They advise you in advance that that is the Fix you are being vectored to and they must do that at least 5 miles before the Fix.

 

[luvflyin]

Violently disagree with this. You absolutely can be cleared direct to the intermediate fix. I posted to reference to the 7110.65 section which specifically permits it in an earlier post, and have experienced a bajillion times in person. "RADAR" doesn't imply that you must receive vectors to the final approach course.

In fact, I've found it relatively rare to get VTF on RNAV approaches because the video maps often do not depict the RNAV final approach course. As a result, direct to a fix somewhere on the approach is far more common in my experience.

Yeah. There have been threads here before where interpretations of what does VTF mean have led to debate. Does it mean vectors to intercept the ‘Final Approach Course’ or vectors to a Fix on it. Based on the examples many have encountered, it doesn’t seem all that rare that Controllers aren’t doing it quite right.

 

[flyingron]

Yes, provided you are on a published route or segment. This is shades of TWA 514.

At least 514 was on the assigned route, just not at the right altitude.

 

[dtuuri]

Assuming he was flying close to 180 kts. Rule of thumb for turn radius is r=V/(60*pi) : r=180/(60*pi) : r=3/pi ~= 1 nm. The FMS would have started the 90* turn to the inbound course about 1 nm from AGNSS.

I came up with the same solution slightly differently: If he's going 3 miles per minute and if he's about three miles from AGNSS (to be clear, we don't know where he started his turn—we're all just guessing) he's one minute out at the most. In order to rollout on final it'll take a one-half minute standard rate turn if started at exactly the right distance. That distance in terms of seconds is 120sec/pi/2, or roughly 20 seconds, which is one mile @ 3mi/min.

However, maybe he doesn't like the way his automation snatches the plane into a sudden bank, so for passenger comfort he elected to steer right earlier than the FMS would, because he's smarter than the dumb machine. Maybe he knows the wind is going to temper the 30° bite he chose, too, making it more like 20° in reality, or less even. So the 10 seconds he used up in the 30° turn is almost all deducted from the (worst case) 40 seconds remaining until the FMS wakes up and jerks the plane onto final. After turning, at the most, he has 30 seconds until one mile from the centerline, and then 20 seconds will be used to make the remaining 60° turn. Seems well within a captain's prerogative to me, if MY math is correct (feel free).

 

[aterpster]

At least 514 was on the assigned route, just not at the right altitude.

No, he was on a radial, which was not a Part 95 route or Part 97 segment at the point where he hit the terrain.

 

[flyingron]

No, he was on a radial, which was not a Part 95 route or Part 97 segment at the point where he hit the terrain.

And that radial was his cleared route, which was my point. He wasn't off wandering around like the OP thinks he could do.
His problem was leaving the assigned altitude after being cleared for the approach before being on some segment of the approach.

 

[John Collins]

One significant difference is the term MSA. In the US, it is the the acronym for the "Minimum Safe Altitude" and may only be used in an emergency. It is not an operational altitude on an approach and an approach clearance does not authorize descent to the MSA altitude. In Canada and other countries, MSA is the acronym for "Minimum Sector Altitude" and it may be used when cleared for the approach. This is from the current Canadian AIM:

A clearance for an approach may not include any intermediate
altitude restrictions. The pilot may receive this clearance while
the aircraft is still a considerable distance from the airport, in
either a radar or non-radar environment. In these cases, the pilot
may descend, at his/her convenience, to whichever is the lowest
of the following IFR altitudes applicable to the position of the
aircraft:
(a) minimum en route altitude (MEA);
(b) published transition or feeder route altitude;
(c) minimum sector altitude (MSA) specified on the appropriate
instrument approach chart;
(d) safe altitude 100 NM specified on the appropriate instrument
approach chart; or
(e) when in airspace for which the Minister has not specified
a higher minimum, an altitude of at least 1 000 ft above the
highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 5 NM (1 500 ft
or 2 000 ft within designated mountainous regions, depending
on the zone) from the established position of the aircraft

In the US, the TAA (Terminal Arrival Area) is considered as a large RNAV random feeder route from the enroute environment with an altitude specified and the pilot, when cleared for an approach, is permitted to descend to the charted TAA altitude, once inside the TAA on receipt of an approach clearance, unless otherwise restricted by ATC.