Leaving the Clearance Limit Scenario

[MauleSkinner]

Okay, so lets say they give you an EFC then. Then this scenario would fall under rule 1A or 2A

1A) You HAVE an EFC - descend and approach as close to EFC
2A) You HAVE an EFC - leave clearance limit at EFC, fly to a fix where an approach begins, hold until ETA and start approach

Which rule does the scenario fall under now?

1A, hypothetically DVV is an IAF at some airport below, you'd hold until EFC, then start the approach for an airport you have no clue what the weather is
2A, you're not supposed to do 1A in this scenario so you hold until EFC, the fly to a fix where an approach begins at ORD, hold until your ETA, then start your approach. Right?

You should also have an expected clearance or filed route* after the hold...so 2A would be appropriate, except that I can't imagine a hold at the IAF being necessary, especially if you've already been delayed.

*edited for accuracy.

 

[Palmpilot]

Okay, so lets say they give you an EFC then. Then this scenario would fall under rule 1A or 2A

1A) You HAVE an EFC - descend and approach as close to EFC
2A) You HAVE an EFC - leave clearance limit at EFC, fly to a fix where an approach begins, hold until ETA and start approach

Which rule does the scenario fall under now?

1A, hypothetically DVV is an IAF at some airport below, you'd hold until EFC, then start the approach for an airport you have no clue what the weather is
2A, you're not supposed to do 1A in this scenario so you hold until EFC, the fly to a fix where an approach begins at ORD, hold until your ETA, then start your approach. Right?

Since the filed destination is ORD and not some airport in Colorado, 91.195(c)(1)(iii) or (iv) would apply:

(iii) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance; or

(iv) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed in the flight plan.​

 

[hindsight2020]

in case of "Cleared to YYYY via Direct" with departure being XXXX airport. Wouldn't XXXX be the "last fix before destination airport" ? Couldn't one then make the case(assuming the timing is ok) that the pilot have met the ("clearance limit" regulation) and can now simply go to IAF(starting descent when appropriate)?

I know the question was made half-trolling, but if the reg defined the clearance limit as "the last point before the destination airport" in an ave-f scenario then sure, your thought process and course of action is absolutely in congruence with the reg. The problem is, it does not say that. It just says clearance limit.

ATC, in your example and in the OPs example, defines the clearance limit as the destination airport. That's a problem. So then you have the two camps of dissent on here.

Camp #1 thinks everybody is an idiot for not assuming that because "destination airports" are not "holding fixes", the pilot should already know that there's a super secret handshake samurai code among the "brighter IR pilots" that says you are not to treat a destination airport as a real clearance limit for lost comm purposes (a Scotsman fallacy). Camp #2 says: oh, we know what a clearance limit is, we also recognize the aerodrome as a legitimate clearance limit, and I am breaking the reg and still not going there direct at altitude after my last route point, under emergency authority in order to preserve safety of flight. I belong to the latter camp. The end result is the same, both camps disagree with the reg. Camp 1 is just more self-righteous than camp 2 about it, but that's POA for ya.

The problem is that the people who would raise a stink about this difference of opinion is ATC, a completely different camp altogether. They have claimed the Pontius Pilatus position of saying since we have our own reg, we'll just blow the whistle if we get blood spatter coming from the radar scope and the FAA can take it from there. Kinda spineless from where I sit.

This would all be solved by the FAA, but they're asleep at the wheel. Convenient, since it allows them the discretion to hang you if the outcome doesn't suit their public relations politically, if an accident were to result in collateral damage. Standard GS-series/SES drones, afraid for their jobs and FERS pension. See, some of us have to actually work for a living, and stick our necks out there at 500 knots in order to advance society forward. It requires a nominal level of spinal fortitude to do your job in spite of coward gatekeepers. I just cannot get over how chicken-sh%t the FAA is while playing with people's livelihoods. That's my real angle in all of this.

 

[roncachamp]

What last assigned route?

The one implied in the scenario; "Let's say you're flying from KLAX to KORD and your clearance limit from ATC is DVV VOR (Mile High VOR in Denver)." When flying from KLAX to KORD a clearance limit of DVV, or any other fix short of KORD, indicates an enroute hold.

Lets say in LAX they couldn't give you your clearance to ORD, so instead they give you a clearance to DVV
"N123AB cleared to Mile High VOR via direct, climb and maintain 17,000, squawk 2125"

They would only do that if you requested clearance to DVV. If you make that request and are so cleared then you are not flying from KLAX to KORD.

So you get to DVV, now what? I understand .185(b), but for discussion sakes, there's no VMC the entire way

You've reached your destination. The regulation is silent on non-airport destinations.

 

[genna]

I know the question was made half-trolling, but if the reg defined the clearance limit as "the last point before the destination airport" in an ave-f scenario then sure, your thought process and course of action is absolutely in congruence with the reg. The problem is, it does not say that. It just says clearance limit.

ATC, in your example and in the OPs example, defines the clearance limit as the destination airport. That's a problem. So then you have the two camps of dissent on here.

Camp #1 thinks everybody is an idiot for not assuming that because "destination airports" are not "holding fixes", the pilot should already know that there's a super secret handshake samurai code among the "brighter IR pilots" that says you are not to treat a destination airport as a real clearance limit for lost comm purposes (a Scotsman fallacy). Camp #2 says: oh, we know what a clearance limit is, we also recognize the aerodrome as a legitimate clearance limit, and I am breaking the reg and still not going there direct at altitude after my last route point, under emergency authority in order to preserve safety of flight. I belong to the latter camp. The end result is the same, both camps disagree with the reg. Camp 1 is just more self-righteous than camp 2 about it, but that's POA for ya.

The problem is that the people who would raise a stink about this difference of opinion is ATC, a completely different camp altogether. They have claimed the Pontius Pilatus position of saying since we have our own reg, we'll just blow the whistle if we get blood spatter coming from the radar scope and the FAA can take it from there. Kinda spineless from where I sit.

This would all be solved by the FAA, but they're asleep at the wheel. Convenient, since it allows them the discretion to hang you if the outcome doesn't suit their public relations politically, if an accident were to result in collateral damage. Standard GS-series/SES drones, afraid for their jobs and FERS pension. See, some of us have to actually work for a living, and stick our necks out there at 500 knots in order to advance society forward. It requires a nominal level of spinal fortitude to do your job in spite of coward gatekeepers. I just cannot get over how chicken-sh%t the FAA is while playing with people's livelihoods. That's my real angle in all of this.

I'm just glad I have a lot of radios!

So, wouldn't this discussion be settled if you had filed a feasible IAF as your last fix which will be that "clearance limit"? You can always request a different approach, but this at least solves the "be legal" vs. "be safe" as you can now do the camp1/2 thing legally. This is the advice I had gotten from my DPE on the IFR checkride.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So, wouldn't this discussion be settled if you had filed a feasible IAF as your last fix which will be that "clearance limit"?

About the only way to do that would be to not put your destination airport in your flight plan, which kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[JC150]

So if you're cleared direct destination by ATC and you're still 500nm out, and the radios suddenly stop working, and assuming you never encounter VFR conditions along the way, at which point would you proceed direct to an IAF? Immediately at 500nm out? Wait until 20 miles out?

I'm not sure if I'm in camp #1 or #2, or over here alone in camp #3 by myself, but the way i read the reg here's what I would do:

AVEF - assigned route was direct, continue direct to destination
Once reaching the clearance limit, THEN you fly to a fix from which an approach begins

I think it makes more sense to fly direct destination until you're roughly 20 miles out then proceed direct to an IAF, but how can ATC know what to expect from you? From the way the reg reads, clearance limit first, THEN a fix from which an approach begins.

 

[genna]

About the only way to do that would be to not put your destination airport in your flight plan, which kind of defeats the purpose.

That seems inaccurate. FAR states
(3)Leave clearance limit.
(i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins......
(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins.....

Implying that there ARE clearance limits which are IAF. Since in practice you are always "Cleared to [destination airport], it seems to me that "clearance limit" is not always the airport. Clear as mud, of course.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That seems inaccurate. FAR states
(3)Leave clearance limit.
(i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins......
(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins.....

Implying that there ARE clearance limits which are IAF. Since in practice you are always "Cleared to [destination airport], it seems to me that "clearance limit" is not always the airport. Clear as mud, of course.

There are clearance limits that are the IAF...but in 30 years of instrument flying, the only IAF clearance limits I've ever heard of anyone getting were the holding fixes on the missed approach. The only clearance limits I've ever had prior to a missed approach were either the destination airport or an enroute hold with a filed/expected route beyond.

 

[Palmpilot]

This is not the first thread to take up this issue. People have been having this argument for decades.

 

[Sundancer]

"Pilot failed to follow regulations and instead deviated into the approach path of an international airport. As a result all inbound traffic was diverted in order to maintain separation."

Sounds like a pretty compelling pilot deviation to me. As far as an NTSB hearing: I think a plane deviating from its clearance and flying into the approach path of multiple airline flights would indeed sound stupid.

I don't have much trouble imagining the FAA backing the supervisor because:
a) the specific, actual, flight i talked to the tower/TRACON supervisors (2) about put me at the same position and altitude as arrivals into the class C airport, and
b) one of the local FAA ASIs was a CFI before he became an ASI. He did my CFII training and made a point of noting that the regs require flying to the clearance limit (in this case, the airport) first. So I know he knows what the pilot is expected to do and expects pilots to do it.

Point taken, but my understanding is once comms are lost, and ATC realizes it (or you can squawk it), they'll be clearing traffic anyway, and expecting you to bring it to a rational conclusion. Assuming a radar environment, and you doing the approach, it'll be pretty clear to ATC what you are doing. Hate to have to pay the lawyer, of course, but if he/she can walk and chew gum, and the FAA presses it, it shouldn't be hard to defend. Might be good to state your concern about "an electrical fire" making it an emergency in which you exercisec your PIC authority.

 

[denverpilot]

I know the question was made half-trolling,

Only half? LOL.

 

[Palmpilot]

Destination and class C were two different airports. Of course there is likely a conflict at some point. I don't know all the details of if/how going to the airport first makes that easier on him. I do know that he told me it does.

It could be that his answer was shaped by the specifics of the airspace, airports, and traffic levels involved. Was this in Iowa?

More highly congested airspace would likely have different issues. It's hard to imagine a controller in the LA Basin, for example, wanting anything other than for the nordo aircraft to get on the ground as soon as possible.

 

[Palmpilot]

That seems inaccurate. FAR states
(3)Leave clearance limit.
(i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins......
(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins.....

Implying that there ARE clearance limits which are IAF. Since in practice you are always "Cleared to [destination airport], it seems to me that "clearance limit" is not always the airport. Clear as mud, of course.

It's possible that there were sometimes clearance limits at IAFs when that regulation was written, but that was a long time ago. In 24 years of instrument flying, I don't think I ever heard a clearance like that.

 

[Palmpilot]

Unfortunately @Palmpilot 's question didn't give enough information..."the last fix before your destination airport" could be a fix from which you could navigate direct to the airport. That's the reason I asked the question.

Sorry for the delayed reply; I had some home maintenance to attend to.

I was talking about the "direct" that has been stated at the end of virtually every initial IFR route clearance that I've heard. It always gets replaced by a specific approach assignment when the aircraft gets to the vicinity of the destination, so I have never taken that "direct" literally, and have never felt it necessary to consider whether it is actually possible to navigate directly from the last route fix to the airport. If there is an approach that I can fly with the equipment on board, that's good enough for me.

It's true that there is usually a VOR whose service volume extends to the airport, but what if there's no DME at that VOR or no DME in the aircraft, and no other VOR close enough to use for a crossing radial? Then you'd have to look up the radial and distance from the VOR to the airport, look up the forecast winds, probably interpolate between the forecasts for two altitudes, calculate an expected time to be overhead the airport, and concentrate on maintaining your target airspeed. That's a lot of workload to be adding to single-pilot IFR at a time when you already have equipment failures. And assuming you do all that accurately, you still don't know whether you're really over the airport, because winds aloft forecasts are not necessarily accurate. Now throw some tall mountains into the scenario. No thanks. In case of lost comm, I'm going to stay on published routes, because my goal is to survive long enough to attend the hearing.

I'm not saying this is a common occurrence, just that there are exceptions to the idea it is always possible and safe for a lost-comm aircraft to overfly the destination airport before flying to an IAF.

Now back to my home maintenance for a few hours.

 

[genna]

Only half? LOL.

i was only 49.6% trolling

 

[luvflyin]

If your clearance limit is the airport, then your clearance limit is the AIRPORT. Not some point in space located some certain thousands of feet above it. If my clearance limit is the airport, when I get there I'm gonna hit the head, take a pizz, maybe drop a duece, then maybe a cup of coffee and some chow.

"Clearance Limit is not a fix from which an approach begins" maybe should be rewritten as "Clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does not begin." That is the intent. No, I can't prove it. I also can't "prove" the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning.

 

[Shawn]

I'm just glad I have a lot of radios!

Do you have a lot of Com panels as well?...cuz that is what failed on me!

 

[JC150]

If your clearance limit is the airport, then your clearance limit is the AIRPORT. Not some point in space located some certain thousands of feet above it. If my clearance limit is the airport, when I get there I'm gonna hit the head, take a pizz, maybe drop a duece, then maybe a cup of coffee and some chow.

"Clearance Limit is not a fix from which an approach begins" maybe should be rewritten as "Clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does not begin." That is the intent. No, I can't prove it. I also can't "prove" the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning.

So if you are flying direct, and there are no fixes on your route, then whats your clearance limit?

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

I don't have much trouble imagining the pilot successfully defending against an enforcement action by pointing out that, "In my judgment as PIC, prolonging the flight without communications in busy airspace would have been unsafe, and therefore I considered the situation to be an emergency requiring immediate action."

Note that the AIM section quoted above states,

"Whether two-way communications failure
constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances,
and in any event, it is a determination made
by the pilot." [emphasis added]
​

I'm of course not going to argue that a pilot can't exercise emergency authority when deemed appropriate.

Two questions, out of curiosity:
Would you consider lost comms in IMC to always require using emergency authority?
In a scenario where you consider lost comms to be an emergency requiring a deviation from 91.185, are you squawking 7600 or 7700?

 

[roncachamp]

So if you are flying direct, and there are no fixes on your route, then whats your clearance limit?

Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm of course not going to argue that a pilot can't exercise emergency authority when deemed appropriate.

Two questions, out of curiosity:
Would you consider lost comms in IMC to always require using emergency authority?

I didn't use to think so, but now that I've seen the Chief Counsel opinion cited earlier, I would say yes if there is radar coverage in the destination area, because I think the requirement to overfly the destination airport and then fly out to an IAF and wait for the filed ETA before flying the approach creates an unacceptable and unnecessary safety hazard.

Of course, if I flew out of IFR conditions at some point and was able to remain VFR to a landing somewhere, that would normally end the emergency.

In a scenario where you consider lost comms to be an emergency requiring a deviation from 91.185, are you squawking 7600 or 7700?

I would squawk 7700 if there was something more than lost comm going on that I felt rose to the level of a distress condition. If I felt that the emergency only rose to the level of an urgency condition, I would squawk 7600. (See the Pilot/Controller Glossary for the definitions of emergency, distress, and urgency.)

When I would use 7700, it would be an attempt to convey that the situation was more serious than lost comm. (Note that when there is an emergency, there is no requirement for it to be declared.)

 

[Palmpilot]

Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

And for anyone who doesn't believe you, they can read how the controllers' manual instructs controllers to state clearance limits:

b. Clearance limit.

1. When the clearance limit is an airport, the
word “airport” must follow the airport name.

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT.

2. When the clearance limit is a NAVAID, and
the NAVAID type is known, the type of NAVAID
must follow the NAVAID name.

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (NAVAID name and type).

3. When the clearance limit is an intersection or
waypoint, and the type is known, the type must follow
the intersection or waypoint name.

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (intersection or waypoint name and type).
​

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65W_Bsc_w_Chg_1-3_dtd_4-27-17.pdf (See section 4-2-1)

 

[JC150]

Your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to".

I got that... What i was referring to was this:

"Clearance Limit is not a fix from which an approach begins" maybe should be rewritten as "Clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does not begin." That is the intent. No, I can't prove it. I also can't "prove" the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning.

If your "clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does NOT begin", but then you have no fixes because your route is direct, then what is your clearance limit? I can understand that thinking if you have fixes along your route, but when your route is direct, the airport IS your clearance limit, and therefore you must overfly the airport, THEN proceed to a fix from which an approach begins, enter holding, and begin approach at ETA.

 

[Palmpilot]

I got that... What i was referring to was this:



If your "clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does NOT begin", but then you have no fixes because your route is direct, then what is your clearance limit? I can understand that thinking if you have fixes along your route, but when your route is direct, the airport IS your clearance limit, and therefore you must overfly the airport, THEN proceed to a fix from which an approach begins, enter holding, and begin approach at ETA.

If the entirety of your route clearance is direct to the destination airport, you don't "have no fixes," because an airport falls within the FAA's definition of "fix":

FIX− A geographical position determined by visual
reference to the surface, by reference to one or more
radio NAVAIDs, by celestial plotting, or by another
navigational device.​

 

[MauleSkinner]

I got that... What i was referring to was this:



If your "clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does NOT begin", but then you have no fixes because your route is direct, then what is your clearance limit? I can understand that thinking if you have fixes along your route, but when your route is direct, the airport IS your clearance limit, and therefore you must overfly the airport, THEN proceed to a fix from which an approach begins, enter holding, and begin approach at ETA.

Which is an entirely different scenario than when the airport is your clearance limit, but you have other fixes on the way "from which an approach begins".

Frankly, I don't care how you get to the airport if you have a loss of comms...ATC will keep you and me apart. The real question in my mind is are you able to manage your GPS well enough to fly over the airport, make a turn to an initial approach fix and reverse course a second time to get back to the airport with a descent plan that will actually allow you to get to MDA or DA before you get to the missed approach point, or will you require ATC to keep the airspace clear for another try or two?

 

[roncachamp]

If your "clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does NOT begin", but then you have no fixes because your route is direct, then what is your clearance limit?

Dude, your clearance limit is always what immediately follows "cleared to". If you file from Smallville Municipal Airport to Metropolis International Airport and Smallville tower issues ''cleared to Metropolis International Airport via direct..." Your route is defined by two fixes, the one that followed "cleared to" is your clearance limit.

I can understand that thinking if you have fixes along your route, but when your route is direct, the airport IS your clearance limit, and therefore you must overfly the airport, THEN proceed to a fix from which an approach begins, enter holding, and begin approach at ETA.

Screw that. I'd proceed to an IAF for the approach of my choice and commence that approach upon reaching the IAF, without any consideration of time or ETA. If you want an FAR reference for that it's 91.3(b).

 

[JC150]

I agree with the above statement that the airport is a FIX and it IS a clearance limit. While I agree that I wouldn't fly over the airport then proceed to an IAF, that's how myself and others have interpreted the reg. I think the wording needs to be revised so when you are GPS direct to the field and you lose comms, you are given discretion within a certain distance from the field to maneuver as necessary and shoot the approach once reaching the IAF.

 

[luvflyin]

So if you are flying direct, and there are no fixes on your route, then whats your clearance limit?

your clearance limit is what you were told it is. The controller says "cleared to Bumphuq airport," then your clearance limit is the Bumphuq airport. If they say "cleared to BlahBlah VOR," then your clearance limit is the BlahBlah VOR. etc etc. It is that simple.