"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message >...
> Afterthoughts. If you had descended below radar coverage, the correct ATC
> transmission would have been "Radar contact lost," not "Radar service
> terminated," and you would have still been IFR. A controller cannot
> unilaterally terminate your IFR status.

Bob, FWIW, we hear "radar service terminated" all the time whilst
on IFR flight plans, and we are still IFR. All it means (around here)
is that radar separation, traffic advisories, etc are no longer being
provided, and we must follow the non-radar provisions (make position
reports etc). "Radar contact lost" to me might mean he's not picking
up my transponder at the moment, but expects to see other traffic at
my altitude or to pick me up again shortly ie I can still expect some
radar services. Again, FWIW.

From reading the original post, my guess is that there was an ambiguous
situation because the pilot filed an IFR flight plan to one destination,
then continued doing approaches at other airports. If he didn't ask to
amend his flight plan to a different destination or file a new IFR flight
plan, the controller may have been treating the continuation of his
flight to other airports as VFR.

A good caution to us all to clarify our status when there's reason to
believe it might be unclear.

Cheers,
Sydney

There are two different approach control sectors that border on LVK. From the
SCK area, you undoubtedly were on 123.85. If you wanted to fly the missed approach
at LVK and told them that before they handed you off to the tower, they would
have coordinated with the sector that would handle you on the missed (I think it's
135.4 or 134.5--can't remember as both freqs are used here in the Bay area).
I tried to do just that with a student this morning as we came from SCK to LVK.
The controller on 123.85 said he was unable to get the next controller to accept us
for the missed, so we would have to land at LVK, and pick up a new clearance on the ground.
We were in the same position as you--we had filed to SCK, and not any further.
Max T, CFI

Ron Garrison > wrote in message ...
> Yesterday during a practice flight with a CFII something unexpected
> happened, and after reviewing the FARs and the AIM I still haven't been able
> to figure it out. At the time I was IFR rated and current, but my currency
> was about to expire.
>
> The plan for the flight was to fly from Hayward, CA (HWD) out to Stockton
> (SCK), Tracy (TCY) and Livermore (LVK) and then back to HWD for some
> practice approaches. The forecast for the duration of the flight (based on
> the OAK and SCK TAF) was for HWD to be 1000' OVC and all of the other
> airports to be 10 miles and clear, and the forecast turned out to be
> accurate. I filed IFR from HWD to SCK, with no alternate and a notation in
> the remarks section that I wanted multiple approaches. After flying 3
> approaches into SCK, I requested an approach into TCY, including the full
> published missed procedure including a hold. Following the hold I requested
> an approach into LVK. As I was handed off to the LVK tower NORCAL approach
> informed me that radar services were terminated, which I assumed was because
> I was dropping below radar coverage. After reaching the MAP at LVK, the
> tower instructed me to squawk VFR. After leaving the LVK Class D, I
> requested a pop-up clearance back into HWD.
>
> Now for the question. At what point during this flight did I cease to be
> operating under an IFR flight plan? I had assumed that since I had not
> requested to cancel IFR at any point that I was still on an IFR flight plan
> the entire time. This is certainly what I would expect if, for example, all
> of the airports in question were below VFR minimums and the approaches had
> been "real" missed approaches, in other words I had gotten down to the DH or
> MDA, had not met the requirements to descend lower and elected to divert to
> an alternate.
>
> Ron Garrison
>
>

> Now for the question. At what point during this flight did I cease to be
> operating under an IFR flight plan? I had assumed that since I had not
> requested to cancel IFR at any point that I was still on an IFR flight
> plan the entire time.

> Per the Pilot/Controller Glossary, as soon as you shot the approach
> at Stockton. If I read your post correctly, SCK was your clearance limit.

It seems to me that it depends on whether or not he landed at Stockton, not
just did an approach. The AIM 5-1-13 says:

e. If operating on an IFR flight plan to an airport with a functioning control
tower, the flight plan is automatically closed upon landing.

There must be something about this in the 7110.65, but I can't find it.

"Max T, CFI" > wrote in message
news:JYiSc.106867$8_6.104469@attbi_s04...
> There are two different approach control sectors that border on LVK. From
the
> SCK area, you undoubtedly were on 123.85. If you wanted to fly the
missed approach
> at LVK and told them that before they handed you off to the tower, they
would
> have coordinated with the sector that would handle you on the missed (I
think it's
> 135.4 or 134.5--can't remember as both freqs are used here in the Bay
area).
> I tried to do just that with a student this morning as we came from SCK to
LVK.
> The controller on 123.85 said he was unable to get the next controller to
accept us
> for the missed, so we would have to land at LVK, and pick up a new
clearance on the ground.
> We were in the same position as you--we had filed to SCK, and not any
further.
> Max T, CFI

That clarifies a lot of things. For the first 4 approaches, I had been
talking to approach on 123.85, and informed them prior to getting handed off
to the tower that I intended to go missed. At LVK I forgot to tell them
that. It still raises a question though with regard to Bob Gardners' comment
earlier about SCK being my clearance limit. If I have the time and fuel and
ATC says things aren't to busy, I will occasionally take an approach in IMC
down to minimums, fly the missed and then go back for a second approach to a
full landing. For example, at MRY with a 500' ceiling, fly the NDB approach,
not find the runway, go back and land using the ILS. Suppose that had been
the case at SCK, but the weather had deteriorated so much below the forecast
that I really couldn't land. I wouldn't have known that until after I was
handed off to the tower and thus approach would not be expecting a missed
approach. It sounds like the flight plan status depends on the approach
controllers perception of the weather at an airport, which is unnerving to
say the least.

Ron Garrison

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> I was wrong, because I didn't take time to really read your post. Per the
> Pilot/Controller Glassary, as soon as you shot the approach at Stockton.
If
> I read your post correctly, SCK was your clearance limit.
>
> "I filed IFR from HWD to SCK, with no alternate and a notation in the
> remarks section that I wanted multiple approaches"

> > After flying 3
> > approaches into SCK, I requested an approach into TCY, including the
full
> > published missed procedure including a hold.

Wouldn't you regard the acceptance of his request as an amendment to the
clearance? Perhaps it depends on the phraseology used.

Julian Scarfe

Never been told "round robin" by controller before, but my instructor
and I have filed for such a trip. FSM (Fort Smith, AR) in both
departure and destination, route including the airports we intend to do
approaches at - ie FSM V13 RZC XNA (NW AR Regional Airport) RZC H34
(Huntsville, AR) WESTY FSM

Then for comments we put approach at XNA, H34, FSM

Fort Smith clearance delivery happily tells us
"Skyhawk 669RA is cleared to Fort Smith airport as filed..."
John Clonts wrote:
> "SFM" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am not so sure he was still on his flight plan. Since he only filed to
>
> SCK
>
>>once he left there they probably closed his IFR Flight plan and had him on
>
> a
>
>>VFR one. When he requested the change to leave SCK and go to TCY he should
>>have used the phrase "I would like to ammend my flight plan to go to TCY".
>>
>>It is a confusing situation that the pilot created what would have been
>
> the
>
>>best solution would have been to file all the flight plans, upon finishing
>>up at each ariport pick up his new clearence to the next stop. Thsi is
>
> what
>
>>ATC likes us to do in the midwest.
>>
>
> I was in Austin Saturday and called clearance delivery and requested a local
> IFR clearance to do some approaches at some surrounding airports. They said
> "will you be returning to Austin?". I said yes. They said "N7NZ cleared to
> Austin via round-robin, climb and maintain 3000, departure freq
> x.xx....etc".
>
> I had heard of that before but this was the first I'd actually heard it
> literally, from ATC.
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
>