New phraseology for RNAV approache clerance

MachFly

En-Route
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
2,514
Display Name

Display name:
MachFly
Instrument pilots flying RNAV-equipped aircraft should expect to hear some slightly different phraseology from air traffic controllers beginning June 3.

In an effort to avoid confusion about when pilots should perform a hold in lieu of a procedure turn at certain initial approach fixes, controllers will specifically tell pilots they are cleared “straight in” during approach clearances. Also, instead of beginning approaches at an initial approach fix, pilots of RNAV-equipped aircraft may be cleared to an intermediate fix as long as it is on the final approach course and three miles or more from the final approach fix.

“Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course, or clear an aircraft to any fix 3 NM or more prior to the FAF along the final approach course,” according to the FAA policy statement. “If a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not defined, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn.”

Under the new rules, a pilot on a RNAV approach should expect to hear a variation of the following clearance:

“Cleared direct (initial or intermediate approach fix), maintain at or above three thousand feet until (initial or intermediate approach fix), cleared straight-in RNAV Runway One Eight approach.”

The eight-page FAA document also allows controllers to clear pilots for localizer approaches when ILS glideslopes are known to be out of service, and it removes all references to microwave landing systems.
http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/articles/2013/130430new-atc-phraseology-for-rnav-approaches.html?CMP=News:S2T

I am very happy they are doing this, it really screwed me up a few times before.
 
Last edited:
Lol! Oh so we're saying HILPT is required unless cleared for a straight-in. So basically nothing has changed.
 
Lol! Oh so we're saying HILPT is required unless cleared for a straight-in. So basically nothing has changed.

"straight in" was not official terminology before (for approaches).
 

I notice that the original FAA notice that that's based on says this procedure applies to both conventional and RNAV approaches if the aircraft is RNAV equipped. Anyone want to take bets on how many non-RNAV equipped aircraft end up receiving such instructions on conventional approaches?
 
I notice that the original FAA notice that that's based on says this procedure applies to both conventional and RNAV approaches if the aircraft is RNAV equipped. Anyone want to take bets on how many non-RNAV equipped aircraft end up receiving such instructions on conventional approaches?
About the same number as those improperly being given point-to-point clearances now -- and that's a bunch.
 
"straight in" was not official terminology before (for approaches).

Au contraire:

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED (type) APPROACH.

(For a straight-in-approach− IFR),

CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH.

(To authorize a pilot to execute his/her choice of instrument
approach),

CLEARED APPROACH.

(Where more than one procedure is published on a single
chart and a specific procedure is to be flown),

CLEARED (specific procedure to be flown) APPROACH.

(To authorize a pilot to execute an ILS/MLS approach when
the glideslope/glidepath is out of service),

CLEARED (type) APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE/
GLIDEPATH UNUSABLE.
 
From the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook-

"The procedure turn or hold-in lieu- of- procedure turn (PT) is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart."

"ATC may specify in the approach clearance 'CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH' to ensure that the pilot understands that the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown."

This rule was always around, now they're just making it mandatory for controllers to issue the straight-in. Controllers have been having too many aircraft entering the reversal and surprising the controller because it was unexpected. Now, no surprises anymore.
 
Last edited:
This rule was always around, now they're just making it mandatory for controllers to issue the straight-in. Controllers have been having too many aircraft entering the reversal and surprising the controller because it was unexpected. Now, no surprises anymore.

In my opinion that's going to make it much better.
 
From the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook-

"The procedure turn or hold-in lieu- of- procedure turn (PT) is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart."

"ATC may specify in the approach clearance 'CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH' to ensure that the pilot understands that the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown."

This rule was always around, now they're just making it mandatory for controllers to issue the straight-in. Controllers have been having too many aircraft entering the reversal and surprising the controller because it was unexpected. Now, no surprises anymore.

If they really wanted to eliminate surprises they'd drop that absurd language that "requires" the procedure turn or hold-in lieu-of-procedure turn simply because it is depicted on the approach chart. If the hold is needed for ATC purposes the controller will issue holding.
 
In my opinion that's going to make it much better.

Sure, I agree. It should eliminate any confusion on what the pilot is expected to do.
 
About the same number as those improperly being given point-to-point clearances now -- and that's a bunch.

On the Palo Alto VOR-DME approach, both the IF and the IAF are at the San Jose VOR-DME, because it's the holding fix. I haven't flown this approach in a long time, so I don't know for sure if this is still current practice, but I know that ATC always used to expect pilots to omit the HILPT.

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/pao_vor_dme_rwy_31.pdf
 
On the Palo Alto VOR-DME approach, both the IF and the IAF are at the San Jose VOR-DME, because it's the holding fix. I haven't flown this approach in a long time, so I don't know for sure if this is still current practice, but I know that ATC always used to expect pilots to omit the HILPT.

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/pao_vor_dme_rwy_31.pdf
Only if those controllers also improperly expect pilots to deviate from the FAA's rules for flying those approaches (rules which are clearly stated in the regulations and the AIM), but that is exactly what some controllers do -- as discussed in that March 2010 ASRS Callback article. If controllers and pilots can't stick to the same set of rules published by the FAA, it makes life more difficult for both and more dangerous for the pilots.
 
From the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook-

"The procedure turn or hold-in lieu- of- procedure turn (PT) is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart."

"ATC may specify in the approach clearance 'CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH' to ensure that the pilot understands that the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown."

This rule was always around, now they're just making it mandatory for controllers to issue the straight-in. Controllers have been having too many aircraft entering the reversal and surprising the controller because it was unexpected. Now, no surprises anymore.
The new change does not make it mandatory for the controllers to issue "straight-in" clearances; it only expands the conditions under which those conditions can be issued.

As for controllers being surprised when a pilot does what the rules require, that is just as big a problem as when they are surprised by pilots not doing what the rules require. There is one set of rules, and controllers should expect pilots to do what the rules say, and pilots should not do other than what the rules say.
 
On the Palo Alto VOR-DME approach, both the IF and the IAF are at the San Jose VOR-DME, because it's the holding fix. I haven't flown this approach in a long time, so I don't know for sure if this is still current practice, but I know that ATC always used to expect pilots to omit the HILPT.

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/pao_vor_dme_rwy_31.pdf
Controllers expecting pilots to do something other than what the rules require is exactly what led to the situations in those Callback articles. It's a wrongheaded concept which leads to trouble for everyone. If the controllers want pilots to skip a course reversal, and none of the three conditions dictating omission of a course reversal (vectors to final, already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude, or on a NoPT route), then the controller must tell the pilot to skip it by use of the "straight in" clearance phraseology. Controllers expecting pilots to read their minds is just as foolish as pilots expecting controllers to read theirs.
 
Sure, I agree. It should eliminate any confusion on what the pilot is expected to do.
The only reason there would be confusion on the pilot's part as to what s/he is supposed to do would be if the pilot is not familiar with what it says in the regulations, AIM, and IPH.
 
The only reason there would be confusion on the pilot's part as to what s/he is supposed to do would be if the pilot is not familiar with what it says in the regulations, AIM, and IPH.

Regarding the pilot I agree. But what about controller?
 
Only if those controllers also improperly expect pilots to deviate from the FAA's rules for flying those approaches (rules which are clearly stated in the regulations and the AIM), but that is exactly what some controllers do -- as discussed in that March 2010 ASRS Callback article. If controllers and pilots can't stick to the same set of rules published by the FAA, it makes life more difficult for both and more dangerous for the pilots.

Controllers expecting pilots to do something other than what the rules require is exactly what led to the situations in those Callback articles. It's a wrongheaded concept which leads to trouble for everyone. If the controllers want pilots to skip a course reversal, and none of the three conditions dictating omission of a course reversal (vectors to final, already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude, or on a NoPT route), then the controller must tell the pilot to skip it by use of the "straight in" clearance phraseology. Controllers expecting pilots to read their minds is just as foolish as pilots expecting controllers to read theirs.

Agreed. Although there was no problem with obstacles or descent gradient because ATC always brought me in at an appropriate altitude, it has always troubled me that they didn't make it explicit, because pilots not based here were not likely to know ATC's expectations. That could throw a monkey wrench into their plans for approaches or departures to/from San Jose International.
 
Last edited:
There's an interesting little glitch regarding the Palo Alto GPS approach:

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/pao_gps_rwy_31.pdf

ATC always tells me to fly direct DOCAL, the IF. On this approach, I have never been told to fly to an IAF unless I requested it. According to the FAA notice at the link below, the new section 4-8-1d2 of the controllers' manual says that an RNAV-equipped aircraft can be cleared to start a conventional or RNAV approach at an intermediate fix, but subsection (c) only makes that option available if the approach plate identifies the intermediate fix with the letters “IF.” Since the Palo Alto approach plate lacks that designation, it will be interesting to see if ATC starts sending people to one of the IAFs instead.

http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/130430rnav-notice.pdf
 
Last edited:
The new change does not make it mandatory for the controllers to issue "straight-in" clearances; it only expands the conditions under which those conditions can be issued.

As for controllers being surprised when a pilot does what the rules require, that is just as big a problem as when they are surprised by pilots not doing what the rules require. There is one set of rules, and controllers should expect pilots to do what the rules say, and pilots should not do other than what the rules say.

I don't mean mandatory in that we all have to do straight-ins. They're just making it clear to issue that clearance or they can expect the pilot to do a HILPT.

I still don't see how any of this is really new. The 7110.65 I have dated from Feb of 2012 essentially says the same thing as this new notice. 4-8-1 depicts an aircraft direct an IF and it specifically requires the controller to issue the straight-in or expect the aircraft to do a HILPT.
 
Last edited:
There's an interesting little glitch regarding the Palo Alto GPS approach:

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/pao_gps_rwy_31.pdf

ATC always tells me to fly direct DOCAL, the IF. I have never been told to fly to an IAF unless I requested it. According to the FAA notice at the link below, the new section 4-8-1d2 of the controllers' manual says that an RNAV-equipped aircraft can be cleared to start a conventional or RNAV approach at an intermediate fix, but subsection (c) only makes that option available if the approach plate identifies the intermediate fix with the letters “IF.” Since the Palo Alto approach plate lacks that designation, it will be interesting to see if ATC starts sending people to one of the IAFs instead.

http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/130430rnav-notice.pdf
If I were you, I'd send an email to that address in the front of the Terminal Procedures book asking why DOCAL is not labeled as an IF, because everything else suggests that it is. If it were so labeled, the issue would go away.
 
I don't mean mandatory in that we all have to do straight-ins. They're just making it clear to issue that clearance or they can expect the pilot to do a HILPT.
That should have been clear even before the new change, as pointed out in the referenced discussion in Callback.

I still don't see how any of this is really new. The 7110.65 I have dated from Feb of 2012 essentially says the same thing as this new notice. 4-8-1 depicts an aircraft direct an IF and it specifically requires the controller to issue the straight-in or expect the aircraft to do a HILPT.
What's new is the expansion of this to non-GPS approaches. For example, the controller now has the option to clear GPS-equipped aircraft "straight in" from RIKME on the KESN ILS 4 approach provided the parameters in the new change are met. Previously, that option was limited only to RNAV and GPS approaches.
 
Ron,

In the prior version of the .65, when to use "Cleared Straight-In" was in an example and many controllers considered it a suggestion. In the new guidance, it is now explicitly part of the approach clearance guidance, paragraph e and uses mandatory language.

e. For both RNAV and conventional approaches, intercept angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a procedure turn, a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn pattern, or arrival holding is depicted and the pilot will execute the procedure. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the angle of intercept is 90 degrees or less, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn. (See FIG 4-8-3.)

The old structure was:

a. general
b. unpublished routes
c. one in - one out
d. don't use cleared approach in non radar environment
e. TAA


The new structure is:

a. general
b. unpublished routes
c. don't clear aircraft direct to FAF
d. RNAV equipped direct to fix
e. PT issues
f. RF legs
g. one in - one out
h. don't use cleared approach in non radar environment
J. TAA
 
What's new is the expansion of this to non-GPS approaches. For example, the controller now has the option to clear GPS-equipped aircraft "straight in" from RIKME on the KESN ILS 4 approach provided the parameters in the new change are met. Previously, that option was limited only to RNAV and GPS approaches.

Also there is guidance on clearing an RNAV equipped aircraft to a step down fix between an IF and FAF on both RNAV and conventional approaches.

Also new is the explicit guidance that an aircraft can't be cleared direct to the FAF (excepting a visual) unless the FAF is also an IAF and the aircraft is permitted to fly the PT/HILPT:

c. Except for visual approaches, do not clear an aircraft direct to the FAF unless it is also an IAF, wherein the aircraft is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.
 
If I were you, I'd send an email to that address in the front of the Terminal Procedures book asking why DOCAL is not labeled as an IF, because everything else suggests that it is. If it were so labeled, the issue would go away.

I don't really consider it a problem, just a curiosity. If ATC starts sending people to the IAF on that approach, it won't bother me. If they continue sending people to the not-explicitly-labeled IF, that won't bother me either, because the controllers' manual is binding on controllers, not pilots.
 
I don't really consider it a problem, just a curiosity. If ATC starts sending people to the IAF on that approach, it won't bother me. If they continue sending people to the not-explicitly-labeled IF, that won't bother me either, because the controllers' manual is binding on controllers, not pilots.

My guess is that because this is an old GPS stand alone approach, it did not follow current TERPS which would have labeled the IF. Furthermore, since there are no KPAO updates in the current production plan and the fact that almost all stand alone GPS approaches have been updated to RNAV procedures, I suspect it is because it doesn't meet the RNAV TERPS criteria. Rather than remove the approach and lose the ability to offer a RNAV procedure, some GPS stand alones have been kept around.
 
...d. RNAV equipped direct to fix...

I don't see a requirement for the aircraft to be RNAV equipped in the new 4-8-1a, which says that aircraft can be cleared to "any fix 3 NM or more prior to the FAF along the final approach course..." Of course, it would not be proper to instruct a /A or /U aircraft to fly direct to a fix that required RNAV to navigate to, but if the fix were a navaid, or if the aircraft were on a defining radial of a fix, then it looks like it would be allowed. I only see the RNAV-equipped requirement in sections d and f.
 
I don't see a requirement for the aircraft to be RNAV equipped in the new 4-8-1a, which says that aircraft can be cleared to "any fix 3 NM or more prior to the FAF along the final approach course..." Of course, it would not be proper to instruct a /A or /U aircraft to fly direct to a fix that required RNAV to navigate to, but if the fix were a navaid, or if the aircraft were on a defining radial of a fix, then it looks like it would be allowed. I only see the RNAV-equipped requirement in sections d and f.

Agree, but don't forget j for TAA.
 
If I were you, I'd send an email to that address in the front of the Terminal Procedures book asking why DOCAL is not labeled as an IF, because everything else suggests that it is. If it were so labeled, the issue would go away.

There are still more than a few IAPs where the IF is not specified on the chart. KEMT VOR-A comes to mind.

Charting IFs was an ACF issue brought to the table by ALPA. Prior to that it was not a charting requirement.

Reporting any of these old procedures would be a waste of time. They are compliant with charting specs in effect when they were last revised.
 
What about the controller? The rules are clearly stated for both parties.

Your excluding the possibility that the controller might not be familiar with what it says in the regs.
 
Good Change. Recognizes the problems at some of the Cali coastal NPA airports in particular.
 
Back
Top