The approach controller was very careful to say that I was not “cleared for the approach” but “cleared to follow the approach procedure”
What is the difference? you can’t fly IFR in airspace after and no IFR missed to some IAF/Hold?
Ibra wrote:
What is the difference? you can’t fly IFR in airspace after and no IFR missed to some IAF/Hold?
I guess that’s the difference, but I’m not really sure. The “follow the approach procedure” is certainly not standard phraseology.
Ibra wrote:
What is the difference? you can’t fly IFR in airspace after and no IFR missed to some IAF/Hold?
Can’t imagine that this is really the difference because what could you do when the landing is impossible because e.g. a parade of elephants is suddenly grazing at the strip…
My guess would be that this is just a technicality as the approach can not be flown (and therefore not be cleared) if no tower controller can supervise you. The (enroute) controller on the approach frequency can, however, give you an enroute clearance that “by chance” follows exactly the lateral and vertical path of the approach.
Im pretty sure that this difference will also have impact on some fine print of separation, etc. but nothing we as pilots really need to care.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Im pretty sure that this difference will also have impact on some fine print of separation, etc
Indeed, it’s surely the case for pop-up “VFR clearance to practice ILS” in UK (it’s done in VMC with safety pilot/observer), all you have is clearance to fly ILS then depart VFR, ATC don’t apply any separation, you are not cleared to land and not allowed to go missed !
AFAIK, it helps them to release some B737 on the runway for IFR takeoff, you get some nice views as you fly downwind 
Was it really an approach controller or an FIS or even an approach controller with his FISO hat on, trying to be helpful whilst also staying within the rules as s/he saw it.
Malibuflyer wrote:
My guess would be that this is just a technicality as the approach can not be flown (and therefore not be cleared) if no tower controller can supervise you.
Of course the approach can be flown without a tower controller. There is no restriction in part-NCO for flying an instrument approach without TWR or AFIS. (But there is in part-CAT.)
gallois wrote:
Was it really an approach controller or an FIS or even an approach controller with his FISO hat on, trying to be helpful whilst also staying within the rules as s/he saw it.
If you refer to my approach, yes it was really an approach controller.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Of course the approach can be flown without a tower controller. There is no restriction in part-NCO for flying an instrument approach without TWR or AFIS.
That is the pilot/airplane view. There is also the ATC view! ATC sometimes shuts down whole sectors of airspace if they do not have enough staffing – although Part-NCO contains no such restrictions at all.
It always depends on the airspace, but in many places the tower controller is responsible for separation on final approach – if there is no tower controller, ATC might not be able to ensure separation and therefore they must not clear you for the approach…
Malibuflyer wrote:
That is the pilot/airplane view. There is also the ATC view! ATC sometimes shuts down whole sectors of airspace if they do not have enough staffing – although Part-NCO contains no such restrictions at all.It always depends on the airspace, but in many places the tower controller is responsible for separation on final approach – if there is no tower controller, ATC might not be able to ensure separation and therefore they must not clear you for the approach…
I don’t see the problem. Either the airspace is controlled or uncontrolled. If it is controlled, then ATC separates. If it is uncontrolled, then ATC has no responsibility for separation.
Are you thinking of a situation where (e.g.) the tower is closed but the control zone still established? As far as I know that doesn’t happen. (Certainly not in my case.) What would be the point?
An approach can be under the control of a remote controller or under the radar coverage of an FIS, when the airfield has no tower or AFIS.
It is why you can be cleared for the approach but not cleared to land. It doesn’t matter what NCO says.
