In the US, pilots are expected to descend to the TAA altitude once cleared for the approach
I recall one FAA CFII teaching in Europe who told me about descent to TAA once cleared (it’s also what I keep reading online), I always expected they were operationally usable in flight in the same way as Airway MEA or Radar MVA…in reality, especially in France & UK, lot of these IAF are isolated in uncontrolled airspace and their TAA are better treated like MSA for practical purposes
It would good to get an input on how Germany design and use TAA altitudes in their RNP approaches? my general observation on few plates is that RNP IAF is usually in General Echo airspace above Radar MRVA and well connected to STAR and Airways, I am sure someone can confirm? @boscomantico ?
NCyankee’s observation about the European AIP TAA circles being non TERPS compliant (below the IAP IAFs levels) make them pretty dumb for operational use – regardless of what some 198 page document states.
Once cleared for an approach, you can descend to the platform. This is actually rarely done in Europe, because ATC don’t like pilots suddenly dropping down before it is convenient, and the workaround would be to delay the “cleared for” until it is convenient, which is often itself not convenient. So the method used is to issue descents first, all the way down to the platform. Otherwise, you can descend to the level of the IAF which you are heading for (not to some lower level). It’s pretty simple really.
The airspace class is irrelevant, because the chief issue is obstacle safety.
On a wider topic, what I find worrying is how few participants there are in this thread who actually do any significant IFR flying in Europe. This is very much in line with this observation. But there may be other reasons… normally people who haven’t been seen for months or years are very quick to pop up and disagree with me if I post something actually wrong.
The airspace class is irrelevant
I mean having IAP sitting in joined airspace, route and services…not some IAF in Golf dead man’s land 
I just checked every German GPS plate, guess what no TAA: the IAF sits above MRVA in Echo airspace and GPS plates list 360 MSA around aerodrome ARP…I can’t post screenshots, it’s hard to resist no wonder why US & German pilots could be puzzled by these questions like “when and where you can descend after being cleared to approach?”
I think only pilots who fly IFR in France & UK & Sweden with dis-joint route & airspace (sheer of Golf around) will be interested in this talk 
maybe @Snoopy can say something about TAA altitude < IAF altitudes in Austria? another place with dis-joint procedures…
You can post screenshots but only if relevant and not flood a thread with them.
I don’t think @malibuflyer was puzzled and I am not puzzled either.
Yes flying in Germany is dead easy ATC does everything (vector, direct and assign) when you are in the system, they will cut you lose when you go outside system (e.g. under MRVA or outside CAS)
It’s in France & UK, where you have to think more about when to descend? or when to climb? and not hitting rocks & airspace as you go in/out?
Worth getting back to basics,
Dodgy TAA altitude is a small tip of that iceberg (the same as no OMNI departure, no SID departure that allow one to takeoff in IMC and join en-route from some “isolated IFR airports”)
I was trying to catch up with this thread quickly but my impression is, that it contains by far too much theory and too little practical flying.
At least in Europe, situation is quite simple:
- An approach clearance includes the clearance for altitude changes that are part of this approach. Therefore if you are already on the approach (i.e. on the lateral track that is shown on the approach chart) you are cleared to descend according to the altitude restrictions of the current leg.
- As long as you not yet on the approach (i.e. again the lateral track depicted on the chart), a clearance for the approach does not contain any clearance for altitude changes. That is the very same concept as with a landing clearance you still have to wait until you reach the runway for landing and are not allowed to land immediately wherever you are ;-)
- Therefore in case you get a direct to some point on the approach from somewhere, you are expected to stay at your current altitude/level until you reach that point. And only then – if you got the clearance for approach – you are clear to descend
- If you want to change your altitude before that, and you are in an airspace that requires clearance for altitude changes, you need to ask for a clearance to do so. In most situations, however, ATC will give you such a clearance by themselves.
MSA, TAA, SYAA, etc. all do never contain a clearance but are just helpful to a) double check if it is really a good idea to follow a clearance you just got (ATC makes mistakes as well) and b) develop a plan w/o a clearance in case you got lost or have an emergency.
In that sense Peter is quite right when saying “MSA is only relevant for emergency use” – at least in controlled airspace.
@Malibuflyer, I agree with everything you wrote, but in this case the question was if it was possible to safely proceed to MT505 at the assigned altitude – FL70 – and the TAAs show that it was. I would expect that Peter would later have got a descent clearance to 5000’, which again the TAAs show would have been safe.
A more interesting thing is if he had accepted the clearance to MT505 and before reaching it had given an approach clearance rather than a descent clearance. In that case I would have started a descent to 5000’ (altitude at MT505 according to the plate), taking the TAAs into account.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In that case I would have started a descent to 5000’ (altitude at MT505 according to the plate),
Ok – I See. Here’s the difference: I wouldn’t start a descend before reaching MT505 without an explicit clearance for it.
Practically I would simply read back the clearance “Clear direct MT505, pleas confirm cleared to descend 5000ft on QNHxxxx”. Talking to ATC almost always does the trick ;-)
that it contains by far too much theory and too little practical flying.
Well, yes, exactly, and there is a reason for that
I wouldn’t start a descend before reaching MT505 without an explicit clearance for it.
Yes, exactly, but when I asked ATC for descent instructions (on the way to MT505) they backed out of the DCT MT505 and told me to go back to LEKLA
Only a proper “Politburo ideologist” would not smell a rat there.
I flew all the way at FL070. LFMT Approach asked for FL075. ELP was marginal and e.g. I had to check whether I was cleared for the approach (answer was affirmative). Then I got a DCT MT505, loaded that, but right away said something like “I will be in India Mike Charlie; will you give me descent instructions?”. ATC replied “Standby” and after a bit told me to go to LEKLA instead.
Unfortunately somebody else will have the last laugh here because last night I discovered that my MP3 recorder was not working on the last 2 flights, due to a) a broken cable and b) some problem with the SD card. The recorder is going in the bin. I have the video and I have the KML data from FF (someone is writing a KML to SRT subtitle converter for me) but the crucial sound track is missing.
NCYankee wrote:
If that were the case at EGKA, one would have to climb to 2200 prior to reaching GODOT in the right base 2000 foot segment.
In my understanding, if flying the approach via GODOT, you would never descend below 2200 ft prior to reaching GODOT (funny name anyway, what is anyone waiting for?)
NCYankee wrote:
. In the US, pilots are expected to descend to the TAA altitude once cleared for the approach.
So if you have an approach chart which shows segment altitudes but TAA below those, then you’d descend below the segment altitude?
In any case, the case we are discussing here, the pilot was cleared to a fix which is part of the approach but he was not cleared for the approach at that time, so he would have to maintain his last cleared altitude. My expectation would have been that once within the 10 NM distance to MT505 he would have been cleared to 5000 ft and at the same time cleared for the approach. As MT505 is indicated with 5000 ft, that would have been the altitude he has to maintain until crossing that waypoint, then continue to descend to the next step down altitude e.t.c.
Ibra wrote:
Some of my comments above on the handling of VOR legs may explain why MT505 may not appear in some databases or listed as IAF:
How can it be that in a certified GPS vital data such as intermediate waypoints are missing in an approach? For me, that would disqualify the unit for flying that approach.
