A heading to maintain (It's understood that the heading is to intercept final if there is an approach clearance
By 1925, ATC cleared the flight for the approach but the pilot had "trouble understanding the remainder of the controller's instructions." At 1929:29 ATC cancelled the accident pilot's approach clearance
for traffic and instructed the pilot to climb to 7000 feet and fly a heading of 275 degrees for re-sequencing.
Does it matter if you're en route or on an approach clearance
? It does matter.
In a similar situation today, an appropriate approach clearance
might be something like, "Four miles from Lima.
"If I call Tower," he said, "and they clear me to land without an approach clearance
, I can just land, right?" Logic says all the pieces are in place for it.
The approach clearance
came when the aircraft was already inside the final approach fix (FAF) and 1000 feet above the recommended altitude.
When you got the approach clearance
, you were 31 miles from EYCEH on T257.
A low altitude alert is issued by ATC and the crew returns to 14000 feet before accepting a visual approach clearance
The controller doesn't seem to be the chatty type and clears you direct to the IAF/IF and issues your approach clearance
. There's a procedure turn depicted at that fix, but your course to the IAF/IF is close to the final approach course.
An approach clearance
without a crossing restriction gives you pilot's discretion from your current altitude down to the MEA for the remainder of your route, including the airway.
When it re-intercepted the localizer, Eugene fully expected an approach clearance
. Instead the controller turned the airplane in the other direction.
Therefore, a non-towered visual approach clearance
will only be to the airport, not a specific runway.