PilotEdge Forums

I've searched ATC documents and sites and can't seem to find a discussion of the terminology to "join the approach". Can't say this has occurred on PE but in RW when flying VFR practice RNAV (GPS) approaches I've been given something like "proceed direct (IAF) and join the approach". I'm at 3000' and the initial segment minimum altitude is 2000'. On arriving at the IAF I turn to join the approach segment but does that terminology allow me to descend to the minimum segment altitude before being "cleared for the approach"? Is this just a VFR practice approach thing?
Thanks, --Bruce

Not an authority here, but if you're doing practice approaches, the "join" phraseology would make sense. They are telling you to use the approach plate as a navaid, but not to execute the approach because that would mean you'd have to be IFR.

STeve

The terminology "Join" is used briefly in 7110.65V, 4-4-1 when describing instructing an aircraft to join a victor airway. Its use has expanded to include published RNAV routes like RNAV approaches. You are correct in that you may not leave your last assigned altitude when given this instruction.

The reasons an approach clearance may be withheld while you are flying the lateral portion of the approach are numerous, but some examples may include separation from other traffic operating below you; or an inconvenient airspace design, where the controller only owns a certain vertical slice of airspace on the T itself, requiring coordination to permit you to descend on the T.

Such restrictions are not limited to VFR practice approaches.

HRutila wrote:The terminology "Join" is used briefly in 7110.65V, 4-4-1 when describing instructing an aircraft to join a victor airway. Its use has expanded to include published RNAV routes like RNAV approaches. You are correct in that you may not leave your last assigned altitude when given this instruction.

The reasons an approach clearance may be withheld while you are flying the lateral portion of the approach are numerous, but some examples may include separation from other traffic operating below you; or an inconvenient airspace design, where the controller only owns a certain vertical slice of airspace on the T itself, requiring coordination to permit you to descend on the T.

Such restrictions are not limited to VFR practice approaches.

Thanks. Makes sense.

stevekirks wrote:Not an authority here, but if you're doing practice approaches, the "join" phraseology would make sense. They are telling you to use the approach plate as a navaid, but not to execute the approach because that would mean you'd have to be IFR.

STeve

You don't have to be IFR to execute an approach. It's possible to receive an approach (by request) under VFR. One of two things will happen, you'll either be told "practice approach approved, no separation services provided," or you'll receive IFR-style vectors, will be afforded separation from other traffic and will receive an actual approach clearance with the caveat that you'll be reminded to maintain VFR.

This is all correct. But there's one small item I'd like to address. I do things differently now that I'm certified. A lot of the controllers do this at my work as well... it's just habit, and most think it sounds better.

Anyway, if the aircraft will receive IFR separation for a VFR practice approach the controller need only say "maintain VFR" once (on initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter per 7110.65 4-8-11).. Even when you clear an aircraft for the approach you don't need to say "maintain vfr" again.

Example, "Cessna 345, 5 miles from lemon, turn right heading 180, cleared ils ry 20R approach." This is all that is required. But I admit even I learned to say "Cessna 345, 5 miles from (FAF), turn heading heading 180, maintain vfr, cleared XYZ approach."

Adding the "maintain VFR" again is just excess verbiage - and what I instruct when I'm OJTI'ing on radar at work.

Ryan, this is true. I remember reading this portion of the .65 a few years ago when I was drilling down on this and was surprised to see that the "maintain VFR" instruction was decoupled from the approach clearance. However, based on hearing how most controllers actually do it real world, I also added it to the approach clearance. Technically, as you said, it need only be stated once, and when it is, it should be much earlier in the process than the approach clearance itself.

It's also worth reminding pilots that the published missed approach isn't authorized when you receive a VFR approach clearance unless specifically requested and approved.

Keith Smith wrote:Ryan, this is true. I remember reading this portion of the .65 a few years ago when I was drilling down on this and was surprised to see that the "maintain VFR" instruction was decoupled from the approach clearance. However, based on hearing how most controllers actually do it real world, I also added it to the approach clearance. Technically, as you said, it need only be stated once, and when it is, it should be much earlier in the process than the approach clearance itself.

It's also worth reminding pilots that the published missed approach isn't authorized when you receive a VFR approach clearance unless specifically requested and approved.

I agree with all that. Some guys just throw it in there because the clearance flows better. Honestly I've asked pilots what separation they get when I give them a VFR practice approach (with the cleared approach phraseology) and most don't even know. There should be a big meet and greet where pilots and controllers just discuss practical things and how to make things more fluid. I mean this for real life not PE hehe. But that might work on PE too

Ryan B wrote:I agree with all that. Some guys just throw it in there because the clearance flows better. Honestly I've asked pilots what separation they get when I give them a VFR practice approach (with the cleared approach phraseology) and most don't even know. There should be a big meet and greet where pilots and controllers just discuss practical things and how to make things more fluid. I mean this for real life not PE hehe. But that might work on PE too

I've gone to a couple FAAST seminars locally when Melbourne Tower and / or Orlando TRACON are talking to see if I can get someone aside afterwards for a few questions. Always enlightening. Around here there are so many schools and students that Orlando Approach really has their hands full. It's a mix of IFR and VFR traffic and approaches even on the best of VMC days. The IFR traffic gets "missed approach instructions", usually runway heading climb and maintain 1500' return to approach freq. VFR traffic gets "climbout instructions", usually right turn to 220, climb & maintain 1500, and return to approach freq. And TWR will add "execute your right turn climbout 1 mi prior to the threshold" to keep the VFR traffic out of the VFR touch & go patterns on intersecting runways.
--Bruce