IFR - Expected clearance void after new clearance?

[RocktheWings]

Scenario - You receive a clearance "...On departure climb and maintain 2000, expect 9000 10 minutes after departure...". One minute elapses from your takeoff and you check in with departure who responds with "Cessna1234, climb and maintain 6000". After 5 minutes a radio failure occurs. Would you climb and maintain 9000 after 10 minutes? Or would you stay at 6000 (assuming this is above the MEA in the area)?

Looking at the IFH, it states "The last clearance received supersedes all clearances."

Want to make sure I understand this right that the 9000 after 10 minutes is no longer valid since I received a new clearance.

Thanks

 

[Larry in TN]

14 CFR 91.185 IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

(c) IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph (b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the flight according to the following:

(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:

(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.​

 

[RyanB]

Looking at the IFH, it states "The last clearance received supersedes all clearances."

Looks like you found your answer!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Looks like you found your answer!

What is it?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Want to make sure I understand this right that the 9000 after 10 minutes is no longer valid since I received a new clearance.

Not unless you were told, “climb and maintain 6000. That will be your final altitude.”

there’s nothing that says you’re going to get to your expected altitude without additional step altitudes.

 

[flyingron]

Not unless you were told, “climb and maintain 6000. That will be your final altitude.”.

I'm going to disagree on this. The ATC Handbook implies the opposite. A new "CLIMB AND MAINTAIN" instruction is an amended clearance replaces anything prior you're told and the controller is required to restate the whole altitude part of the clearance (including expected altitude) if such applies.

I've never heard "This is your final altitude" and it's not in the handbook.

 

[Hang 4]

Reading the rule quoted above (Red emphasis added)

14 CFR 91.185 IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

(c) IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph (b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the flight according to the following:

(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:

(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.​

My read would be (iii), as it's the highest of the choices the OP had to work from.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Reading the rule quoted above (Red emphasis added)

My read would be (iii), as it's the highest of the choices the OP had to work from.

The question is, does he still even have the 9,000 choice "to work from"? Or did it go away when he was given the interim 6,000 hard altitude?

Notice how @flyingron and @MauleSkinner gave opposite opposite answers. And no, I don't have a source for a definitive answer.

As academic lost com questions go, this is a really good one. I posted the equivalent on a FB Pilot/Controller forum and so far am getting the same mix of "yes, " "no" and answers which don't answer it. Of course, I added a request for references. None yet.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm going to disagree on this. The ATC Handbook implies the opposite. A new "CLIMB AND MAINTAIN" instruction is an amended clearance replaces anything prior you're told and the controller is required to restate the whole altitude part of the clearance (including expected altitude) if such applies.

I've never heard "This is your final altitude" and it's not in the handbook.

The intent always seemed to be that I would get my expected altitude, even though there were normally 3-5 intermediate altitudes assigned unless I was told “this is your final altitude” (and I have been told that). The 4th and 5th intermediates often did come with a reason (traffic) or “expect higher in 10 miles”, but not always.

 

[Hang 4]

The question is, does he still even have the 9,000 choice "to work from"? Or did it go away when he was given the interim 6,000 hard altitude?

Notice how @flyingron and @MauleSkinner gave opposite opposite answers. And no, I don't have a source for a definitive answer.

As academic lost com questions go, this is a really good one. I posted the equivalent on a FB Pilot/Controller forum and so far am getting the same mix of "yes, " "no" and answers which don't answer it. Of course, I added a request for references. None yet.

Except if you read the reg, it's (2) the higher of the last clearance received (i) or the expected further clearance (iii). The last received was the climb and maintain 6,000, the expect in 10 minutes was the 9,000. 9 is higher than 6.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Except if you read the reg, it's (2) the higher of the last clearance received (i) or the expected further clearance (iii). The last received was the climb and maintain 6,000, the expect in 10 minutes was the 9,000. 9 is higher than 6.

That misses the question. You are assuming the original "expected" is still "expected." Your assumption is that it is still valid. The reg tells us what to do with the expected. It doesn't tell us whether it's still expected.

See the discussion between Ron and MauleSkinner. That's the question being asked. I have not yet seen a verifiable answer to it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The intent always seemed to be that I would get my expected altitude, even though there were normally 3-5 intermediate altitudes assigned unless I was told “this is your final altitude” (and I have been told that). The 4th and 5th intermediates often did come with a reason (traffic) or “expect higher in 10 miles”, but not always.

I've heard both the non-standard "final altitude" (rarely) and the standard "expect higher in xxxx". I guess the question is whether one or the other is needed to "save" the original expected altitude.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I've heard both the non-standard "final altitude" (rarely) and the standard "expect higher in xxxx". I guess the question is whether one or the other is needed to "save" the original expected altitude.

“Expect higher” or something similar seems never to be given at the top of an approach or center controller’s airspace, but I certainly wouldn’t expect to fly a jet 1500 miles at 17000 feet in the event of lost comm.

 

[Hang 4]

@midlifeflyer, I get what you are saying. Having said that, I almost always get a pretty low altitude in my initial clearance. Sea level airport 1,500 for example. As soon as I get on with departure it's "radar contact, climb and maintain 3,000". I've never heard an expect higher as part of that initial new altitude. Reading the rule, I'd still see the expected altitude as the one to follow based on 91.185.

I have to say, this is one of the things I find frustrating about IFR. A simply written rule can be interpreted differently by people with a lot more experience and knowledge than I have. I learn a lot from these types of discussions, but at the same time end up feeling like I'll never learn it all.

 

[flyingron]

The intent always seemed to be that I would get my expected altitude, even though there were normally 3-5 intermediate altitudes assigned unless I was told “this is your final altitude” (and I have been told that). The 4th and 5th intermediates often did come with a reason (traffic) or “expect higher in 10 miles”, but not always.

Again, the ATC procedure is that if the controller tells you to "climb and maintain" and altitude but you're still expecting a higher, to repeat the expecting part as well. The "This is your final answer" (RIP Regis) is reinforcement, but it means the same thing even without it.

 

[flyingron]

I have to say, this is one of the things I find frustrating about IFR. A simply written rule can be interpreted differently by people with a lot more experience and knowledge than I have. I learn a lot from these types of discussions, but at the same time end up feeling like I'll never learn it all.

In practice, it's entirely an intellecutal issue. If you never lose comms it doesn't matter. Even if you do lose Comms, if you fly too high, it's not going to make much of an operational difference these days. This whole thing is entrenched in the pre-radar days. The one thing you don't want to do is fly BELOW the minimum IFR altitude.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This thanks to @John Collins, here's what the AIM says about this scenario in a note to 6-4-1:

The intent of the rule is that a pilot who has experienced two-way radio failure should select the appropriate altitude for the particular route segment being flown and make the necessary altitude adjustments for subsequent route segments. If the pilot received an "expect further clearance" containing a higher altitude to expect at a specified time or fix, maintain the highest of the following altitudes until that time/fix:

(1) the last assigned altitude; or
(2) t he minimum altitude/flight level for IFR operations.

Upon reaching the time/fix specified, the pilot should commence climbing to the altitude advised to expect. If the radio failure occurs after the time/fix specified, the altitude to be expected is not applicable and the pilot should maintain an altitude consistent with 1 or 2 above. If the pilot receives an "expect further clearance" containing a lower altitude, the pilot should maintain the highest of 1 or 2 above until that time/fix specified in subparagraph (c) Leave clearance limit, below.​

So, it looks like the AIM guidance is:

• if the failure occurs before the time/distance in the stated "Expect" maintain the last assigned altitude or MIA (whether initial or interim) until the applicable time/distance.
• if the failure occurs after the time/distance in the stated "Expect," it has expired and the pilot should use last assigned or MIA for the duration of the flight.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This thanks to @John Collins, here's what the AIM says about this scenario in a note to 6-4-1:

The intent of the rule is that a pilot who has experienced two-way radio failure should select the appropriate altitude for the particular route segment being flown and make the necessary altitude adjustments for subsequent route segments. If the pilot received an "expect further clearance" containing a higher altitude to expect at a specified time or fix, maintain the highest of the following altitudes until that time/fix:

(1) the last assigned altitude; or
(2) t he minimum altitude/flight level for IFR operations.

Upon reaching the time/fix specified, the pilot should commence climbing to the altitude advised to expect. If the radio failure occurs after the time/fix specified, the altitude to be expected is not applicable and the pilot should maintain an altitude consistent with 1 or 2 above. If the pilot receives an "expect further clearance" containing a lower altitude, the pilot should maintain the highest of 1 or 2 above until that time/fix specified in subparagraph (c) Leave clearance limit, below.​

So, it looks like the AIM guidance is:

• if the failure occurs before the time/distance in the stated "Expect" maintain the last assigned altitude or MIA (whether initial or interim) until the applicable time/distance.
• if the failure occurs after the time/distance in the stated "Expect," it has expired and the pilot should use last assigned or MIA for the duration of the flight.

Having not gotten my expected altitude assignment within the time specified most of the time, I would say this is still an area where documentation doesn’t represent reality.

 

[dtuuri]

Having not gotten my expected altitude assignment within the time specified most of the time, I would say this is still an area where documentation doesn’t represent reality.

Exactly. Substitute FL410 for 9000' in the OP, where FL410 is the altitude needed to have the fuel efficiency to make it to the destination, and the answer takes on a different character altogether. Why else would the concept of "expect X,000' ten minutes after departure" be needed at all?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Having not gotten my expected altitude assignment within the time specified most of the time, I would say this is still an area where documentation doesn’t represent reality.

I agree with you to the extent that the guidance does not cover all conceivable or even reasonable permutations on the post-"expiration" scenario. Did I file and told to expect the flight levels in a turboprop and maintaining 6,000 for the duration of the flight (unless the MIA is higher) makes no sense to anyone, or is it a light piston where my requested altitude isn't that much higher than the last assigned? I can also see a "reasonable time" distinction. Did I lose com while I was still in the terminal area or have I been enroute for an hour at that last assigned altitude?

But that's where my two favorite sentences in all the AIM comes into play and it right at the beginning of the 6-4-1 discussion of lost com.

It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take.

@RocktheWings, thank you for raising this question.

 

[asicer]

Why else would the concept of "expect X,000' ten minutes after departure" be needed at all?

Perhaps to keep you underneath an arrival corridor but still get you over terrain 12 minutes after departure?

 

[flyingron]

Perhaps to keep you underneath an arrival corridor but still get you over terrain 12 minutes after departure?

You're expected to climb to the minimum IFR altitude whether you're told to expect it or not. Again, this all dates from the "before radar" days.

 

[flyingron]

This thanks to @John Collins, here's what the AIM says about this scenario in a note to 6-4-1:

Again, NOBODY is arguing that. If you were given an EXPECT HIGHER clearance and you lose comms, when the time comes that you were told to expect higher, you should use it (provided there isn't another appropriate higher altitude).

The question here was if you hear "CLIMB AND MAINTAIN <altitude>" after takeoff but before losing comms, does that cancel the "expected" part of the original clearance. My reading of the ATC Handbook, etc.. is that it does. It's a new altitude clearance and cancels EVERYTHING you've heard before whether it was an EXPECT or a CLIMB VIA SID etc... If ATC wants to restore some aspect of the previous instruction, they are obliged to reissue it.

 

[dtuuri]

The question here was if you hear "CLIMB AND MAINTAIN <altitude>" after takeoff but before losing comms, does that cancel the "expected" part of the original clearance. My reading of the ATC Handbook, etc.. is that it does. It's a new altitude clearance and cancels EVERYTHING you've heard before whether it was an EXPECT or a CLIMB VIA SID etc... If ATC wants to restore some aspect of the previous instruction, they are obliged to reissue it.

Are you saying the ATC Handbook disagrees with the AIM? The AIM only refers to altitude "restrictions", like crossing altitudes:

4-4-10 Adherence to clearance
g. The guiding principle is that the last ATC clearance has precedence over the previous ATC clearance. When the route or altitude in a previously issued clearance is amended, the controller will restate applicable altitude restrictions. If altitude to maintain is changed or restated, whether prior to departure or while airborne, and previously issued altitude restrictions are omitted, those altitude restrictions are canceled, including departure procedures and STAR altitude restrictions.​

 

[MauleSkinner]

Again, NOBODY is arguing that. If you were given an EXPECT HIGHER clearance and you lose comms, when the time comes that you were told to expect higher, you should use it (provided there isn't another appropriate higher altitude).

The question here was if you hear "CLIMB AND MAINTAIN <altitude>" after takeoff but before losing comms, does that cancel the "expected" part of the original clearance. My reading of the ATC Handbook, etc.. is that it does. It's a new altitude clearance and cancels EVERYTHING you've heard before whether it was an EXPECT or a CLIMB VIA SID etc... If ATC wants to restore some aspect of the previous instruction, they are obliged to reissue it.

What you’re saying is that a clearance with an expected altitude can be issued knowing full well that the altitude expected cannot be issued, and a revised clearance will be required.

 

[flyingron]

What you’re saying is that a clearance with an expected altitude can be issued knowing full well that the altitude expected cannot be issued, and a revised clearance will be required.

Eh? I'm not saying anything of the sort. The expected altitude is generally expected unless the controller amends the clearance. The only time the EXPECTED altitude means anything is when that clearance is in effect and comms are lost. If you are still in communication with the controller, you don't get to climb no matter what he told you to expect.

I'm saying if the controller wants to clear a pilot to an intermediate altitude while maintaining the higher altitude as "expected" he needs to repeat that.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Again, NOBODY is arguing that. If you were given an EXPECT HIGHER clearance and you lose comms, when the time comes that you were told to expect higher, you should use it (provided there isn't another appropriate higher altitude).

The question here was if you hear "CLIMB AND MAINTAIN <altitude>" after takeoff but before losing comms, does that cancel the "expected" part of the original clearance. My reading of the ATC Handbook, etc.. is that it does. It's a new altitude clearance and cancels EVERYTHING you've heard before whether it was an EXPECT or a CLIMB VIA SID etc... If ATC wants to restore some aspect of the previous instruction, they are obliged to reissue it.

Sorry, you are welcome to the opinion but I'm not buying that "last assigned altitude" doesn't mean "last assigned altitude." Or, for that matter, that ATC or anyone else in the system contemplates (avoiding the word "expect") a jet with a filed altitude in the flight levels to remain at 3,000' for the duration of it's flight from Tampa to Miami.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Eh? I'm not saying anything of the sort. The expected altitude is generally expected unless the controller amends the clearance. The only time the EXPECTED altitude means anything is when that clearance is in effect and comms are lost. If you are still in communication with the controller, you don't get to climb no matter what he told you to expect.

I'm saying if the controller wants to clear a pilot to an intermediate altitude while maintaining the higher altitude as "expected" he needs to repeat that.

How are you not saying anything of the sort when 100% of the time when your expected altitude is above FL260 in the contiguous U.S. your expected altitude would be nullified by clearances to stop climb at intermediate altitudes?

 

[crash7]

The only time the EXPECTED altitude means anything is when that clearance is in effect and comms are lost. If you are still in communication with the controller, you don't get to climb no matter what he told you to expect.

.

Hold on... Now I have a side question based on that: If I get initial clearance of “3000 expect 9000 in 10 minutes” and I level off at 3000, but the controller doesn’t say anything else to me up to my 10 minutes, but I can hear him working other planes, are you saying I can’t climb to 9000 after my 10 minutes? I haven’t really lost comms, but...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hold on... Now I have a side question based on that: If I get initial clearance of “3000 expect 9000 in 10 minutes” and I level off at 3000, but the controller doesn’t say anything else to me up to my 10 minutes, but I can hear him working other planes, are you saying I can’t climb to 9000 after my 10 minutes? I haven’t really lost comms, but...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lost com is an inability to communicate, not a failure to communicate. You haven't lost coms so the "expect" means nothing. That's what it's for. Yes, it lets you anticipate what's coming next, and may provide you a rationale for delay, but its real relevance is lost com. You call and prompt.

Interestingly, something like that happened on my instrument checkride. Not an altitude but a hold. It was my last approach, an ILS into a Class C primary (actually ARSA, which tells you how long ago it was). Approach gave me a hold because of a runway change. The real thing, including an expect further clearance time. The EFC went by. I looked at the DPE and pointed at my watch. He just shrugged. I doubt a modern DPE could come up with a better scenario.

Anyway, I just keyed the mic, "Cessna 195 is still in the hold."
"Oh!l Came the surprised reply. "Fly heading..."

 

[Clip4]

I would remain at 6000.

 

[dtuuri]

Hold on... Now I have a side question based on that: If I get initial clearance of “3000 expect 9000 in 10 minutes” and I level off at 3000, but the controller doesn’t say anything else to me up to my 10 minutes, but I can hear him working other planes, are you saying I can’t climb to 9000 after my 10 minutes? I haven’t really lost comms, but...

If you can't communicate with ATC you can and you must climb to 9000' if remaining at 3000' is a safety of flight issue like, say, you're pointed straight at a mountain or something. I had a recurrent sim session once upon a time departing Denver's Stapleton airport due west on a SID. The lost comm procedure on the SID called for an immediate climb to 14,000' (IIRC) after 10 minutes (maybe X miles, IDK). Flight Safety's CFI played the part of ATC to perfection, spouting clearances to imaginary airplanes non-stop with nary a break. At the expected time/distance my copilot and I climbed I/A/W the SID and the instructor stopped his running dialog with himself and heaped "ATTA boys" upon us, "That's what I was looking for! You'd be surprised how many crews don't check the lost comm procedure."

The AIM has this to say, too:

6-4-3. Reestablishing Radio Contact

1. In addition to monitoring the NAVAID voice feature, the pilot should attempt to reestablish communications by attempting contact:
   1. On the previously assigned frequency; or
   2. With an FSS or *ARINC.
2. If communications are established with an FSS or ARINC, the pilot should advise that radio communications on the previously assigned frequency has been lost giving the aircraft's position, altitude, last assigned frequency and then request further clearance from the controlling facility. The preceding does not preclude the use of 121.5 MHz. There is no priority on which action should be attempted first. If the capability exists, do all at the same time.

 

[crash7]

dtuuri’s example is a good scenario of an inability to get a word in edgewise creating a “lost comm” situation. Up we should go. They carved out that bit of sky for me in case our radios exploded, so it should still be carved out for me.

Back to the original question, though, I really don’t know what to think about the climb maintain 6000 given before the 10 minutes is up. If ATC didn’t say climb to 6000 expect xxxx in y more minutes, I’d think I’m capped at 6000 (or some higher later MEA if I rub up against one). I’d infer the 6000 clearance to un-carve my 9000 tube in the sky.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Larry in TN]

The EFC went by

"[Facility], [Callsign], Request updated EFC time"

 

[Radar Contact]

dtuuri’s example is a good scenario of an inability to get a word in edgewise creating a “lost comm” situation. Up we should go. They carved out that bit of sky for me in case our radios exploded, so it should still be carved out for me.

Busy freq doesn’t equal lost comms. Even at the busiest of airspace’s, you’re not going to go 5-10 min without getting a word in. I know sometimes it feels that way. If you go up due to a busy freq and there’s a loss they will file a PD on you. There’s no airspace carved out for you. The idea is an expect higher in 10 type clearance will give us time to clear airspace if you do indeed go nordo.

 

[crash7]

Busy freq doesn’t equal lost comms. Even at the busiest of airspace’s, you’re not going to go 5-10 min without getting a word in. I know sometimes it feels that way. If you go up due to a busy freq and there’s a loss they will file a PD on you. There’s no airspace carved out for you. The idea is an expect higher in 10 type clearance will give us time to clear airspace if you do indeed go nordo.

Please define “Two-way radio communications failure”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rgbeard]

I would remain at 6000.

presuming that this altitude meets or exceeds the MEA/MVA of your route.

 

[EdFred]

So let me get this straight... the local approach will only clear to 10,000 ft because that's all they own the space to. They clear an airliner from here to 1,500 miles away as filed (filed for FL360) and give the standard climb and maintain 10,000 before handing off to center. For whatever reason comms are lost prior to handoff... they're supposed to fly at 10,000 for 1500 miles if the min IFR altitude the whole flight is under 10k? GTFO.

 

[Clip4]

So let me get this straight... the local approach will only clear to 10,000 ft because that's all they own the space to. They clear an airliner from here to 1,500 miles away as filed (filed for FL360) and give the standard climb and maintain 10,000 before handing off to center. For whatever reason comms are lost prior to handoff... they're supposed to fly at 10,000 for 1500 miles if the min IFR altitude the whole flight is under 10k? GTFO.

Yes, assuming you fly for junk airlines and you lost comms

 

[Clip4]

Also remember if you are in VMC you stay there.