Cleared the Approach?

[Dave T]

The past little while coming into YYC I've just been cleared the approach. "Flight 115 heading 130 for the intercept cleared the runway 16 approach."

My question is what does this mean? Are they giving you the option of visual or ILS? What do they expect you to do? I know I am being picky but I just like to know what I am expected to do. Once I read back cleared the ILS because we didn't have the field yet and the controller gave me some attitude on the read back.

I'd assume the controller would prefer to know what you are doing. For example as far as I've always understood if you're on a visual you are no longer expected to fly the published missed approach if you need to go around.

Just something I'm looking for some controller insight on.

[NJ]

I'm not a terminal controller, and I don't work in a terminal environment. But it sounds like a bit of sloppy phraseology which leaves some gray area. If in doubt, question it. It's a clearance and you need to know what to do before accepting it. And as you pointed out, it does make a difference in the event of a missed approach.

I would expect they would want you to intercept the LOC, then fly the straight-in ILS. But again, ask the controller if it's unclear.

[square]

I was listening in on Edmonton Centre today and the guy cleared both Jazz and Mikisew saying, "cleared for an approach into fort mcmurray." he emphasized the word an. I guess he means to give you options, since there's not normally conflicting IFR traffic into there. I believe the Jazz guy said he's descending through another cloud layer momentarily but he was planning the visual, mikisew also called the visual, a few minutes later.

[AuxBatOn]

Isn't McMurray uncontrolled? If so, it's a totally valid clearance. You need to get back to him with your type of approach, routing and landing runway.

[Jerricho]

Dave, I don't think you're being picky at all.

I've heard a controller "interpretation on this". When WJA first started flying their RNP stuff into here, I heard use of "cleared for the approach RWY <>" as a perceived means of eliminating

ATC: "Cleared NDB approach, RWY 18"

WJA: "Ahhh, roger we're going to fly the RNP RNAV if that's ok"

ATC: "Ok, cleared RNP RNAV Rwy 18".

From how I've heard it used, I believe it's an "attempt" to cut down on a potential call. However, you are correct in what you say with respect to a visual approach, and I believe that phraseology does cause a little confusion (as you post indicates) and most pilots who I;ve heard receive that clearance reply with what sort of approach they will do anyway.

Me, I'm not a fan of any phraseology that allows for ambiguity or interpretation.

[NJ]

Isn't McMurray uncontrolled? If so, it's a totally valid clearance. You need to get back to him with your type of approach, routing and landing runway.

There can be unrestricted approaches into controlled airports. We usually do it here if an aircraft wants something like a full procedure, or any other type of non-standard approach. It gets them over quicker to us tower guys so we can give more timely traffic or FIS to the aircraft. It basically shuts down our aircraft for IFR departures while they're inbound, but we do it strategically and when it's useful.

Then again it's used sometimes in the winter evenings (when we get 1 flight every 2 hours). FAB123 gets an unrestricted approach when they first call EG Centre, then switched over to us. Then we can give them the landing clearance while they're still in Northern Domestic Airspace, with backtrack and exit instructions It helps when you can visually see the aircraft from 75 miles away

[Dave T]

Thanks for your input guys. Guess it wasn't just me.

I was listening in on Edmonton Centre today and the guy cleared both Jazz and Mikisew saying, "cleared for an approach into fort mcmurray." he emphasized the word an. I guess he means to give you options, since there's not normally conflicting IFR traffic into there. I believe the Jazz guy said he's descending through another cloud layer momentarily but he was planning the visual, mikisew also called the visual, a few minutes later.

I am talking about approaches in a terminal environment, different from being cleared for an approach at an uncontrolled airport.

[parrot_head]

In the terminal I work in, we clear aircraft for "an approach" all the time. It gives them the option of anything other than a visual or contact. It's completely legal and the only requirement is that the aircraft advises which approach they're doing....or a simple...uhhhh we have the field in sight...then it's OK cleared visual approach. Why say "an approach" and not give a specific clearance? Saves time. Case in point, this last week we have had the glide slope for our primary runway offline, this usually means that Air Canada and Jazz may want the LOC or NDB approach....Westjet will want the RNP or LOC approach...and the American carriers, anything but the NDB. If you clear a guy for one he'll always ask for the other....just saves talking....I think.

[Newwave]

Wouldn`t that leave to a bit of confusion if let's say I am cleared for an approach and do the visual but end up entering a CYR. Would it be your sep loss or my infraction? I mean it is our responsibility to stay clear but if you don't comfirm the approach the onus stays on you no? I think it is better to specificy that way you know exactly what everyone is doing and there is no ambiguity. For the 2 or 3 extra words it's no big deal or am I totally of the charts here?

[parrot_head]

Good point. In the case of the visuals in the area of a CYR, we do have one in our terminal and the visual approach procedure for that runway is covered in the CAP, not below 3400 until by the FAF. As for any other cases, if we need a restriction we'll just issue it with the approach clearance....cleared for a straight in approach RWY 30 via the IF, cross the IF at or above 5000', or cleared a visual approach RWY 30 not below 5,000' until final... or cleared visual approach RWY 30, turn final at or outside the FAF.....maintain present heading until final...etc. However at the end of the day, whether its an NDB, ILS, LOC, or RNP (some) approach, they all look the same on the radar and no controller that I know is going to care (or notice) if you are cleared for a LOC approach and fly the NDB or ILS.

[parrot_head]

However as a side note, because the ILS glide slope is offline on one of the runways, I have been using the phraseology "cleared for a straight-in LOC or NDB approach RWY 30" just to make sure the aircraft know not to expect a G/S signal. The funny thing is 30% read back "roger, cleared for the straight-in ILS 30"....

[Newwave]

Yeah, that makes sense. Where do you control?

[it'sme]

I have been using the phraseology "cleared for a straight-in LOC or NDB approach RWY 30" just to make sure the aircraft know not to expect a G/S signal

I for one would prefer that you not do that. If you tell me that I am cleared for the LOC approach then we are looking for the approach plate that is titled exactly that when in fact we should be looking for an approach plate titled ILS Rwy xx. Your phraseology may lead to confusion.

[Mac]

The approach name has to be issued as published, whether it's in the CAP or company approach plates. If the glidepath is down, the aircraft is still "cleared ILS RWY 29 Approach, glidepath unserviceable".

[AuxBatOn]

The LOC approach is usually published on an ILS plate. I've been cleared for the LOC/DME approach several times even though the title of the plate is ILS/DME RWY 29R. You are not flying the ILS if the glidepath is U/S

AuxBatOn

[it'sme]

Well, as is usually the case the devil is in the details.

You can have an approach plate titled ILS or NDB Rwy xxx, ILS or LOC Rwy xxx, ILS DME or LOC Rwy xxx, ILS DME Rwy xxx, LOC (BACK CRS) Rwy xxx, LOC or NDB Rwy xxx, ILS DME Rwy xxx or LOC -A and there are probably more combinations that I am not thinking of.

But lets take the ILS or NDB Rwy xxx as an example....often contained in the minima box is a section that says something to the effect LOC (GS out) or LOC (GS out) DME and the accompanying data. In this case I am indeed flying the ILS and using the LOC (GS out) minima. To get a clearence worded to the effect of cleared LOC Rwy xxx would be incorrect as there is no such approach plate in that instance.

[Newwave]

Exactly, you clear for what's on top of the approach plate. If the GP is U/S it's up to the pilot to determine his minimums.

[AuxBatOn]

What about if the pilot wants the LOC only approach and the GS is serviceable? What do you say? (BTW, it doesn't say (gs out) in the minima box, just LOC or LOC/DME)

[Newwave]

Well you can't clear a LOC only approach if there isn't an approach named that way. If the pilot wants that just clear him for the ILS and he can use the altitude minimas on the plate like he wants. If the pilot wants to disregard the GP and go down to the BCA within the limits allowed I don' see why he couldn't. He is still flying the ILS plate but only using different altitudes on the plate instead of following a glidepath. I might be wrong but that's how I see it.

[AuxBatOn]

Hmmm, I've been cleared for the LOC/DME XXX approach several times when the plate title was ILS/DME XXX.