Silly controller

[Robert M. Gary]

The other day I was doing a VFR practice approach into Tracy, CA when
the controller told me "reporting canceling IFR this freq, or on ground
via land line...". I told him "uh, ok canceling IFR, I didn't believe I
was IFR" (because I hadn't asked for or received an IFR clearance).
The controller told me that any aircraft on an approach clearance is
IFR for the purposes of the approach. I guess even controllers can be
students?

-Robert

[Brad[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The other day I was doing a VFR practice approach into Tracy, CA when
> the controller told me "reporting canceling IFR this freq, or on ground
> via land line...". I told him "uh, ok canceling IFR, I didn't believe I
> was IFR" (because I hadn't asked for or received an IFR clearance).
> The controller told me that any aircraft on an approach clearance is
> IFR for the purposes of the approach. I guess even controllers can be
> students?
>
> -Robert

At least it's better than the controller who told my instrument student
as we approached the FAF, (we were on an IFR flight plan) "IFR
canceled, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." even though we hadn't
canceled. It was VMC, so operationally it wasn't a big deal for us,
but I learned from TRACON's QC person that the controller was a trainee
and the instructing controller missed it.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The other day I was doing a VFR practice approach into Tracy, CA when
> the controller told me "reporting canceling IFR this freq, or on ground
> via land line...". I told him "uh, ok canceling IFR, I didn't believe I
> was IFR" (because I hadn't asked for or received an IFR clearance).
> The controller told me that any aircraft on an approach clearance is
> IFR for the purposes of the approach. I guess even controllers can be
> students?

We are in the middle of that same thing now. Your approach control,
like ours, probably has a letter to airmen out there that says they will
provide service to the extent possible. What they probably did, like we
used to, is to tell you "radar service terminated, squawk VFR, freq
change approved." Our region has determined that that does not provide
the service the letter to airmen says we will. He probably didn't say
report cancelling IFR but rather to report completing the approach,
that's the region mandated phraseology. Another unwanted outcome of
this policy is at uncontrolled airports you can now only have one
aircraft on a practice approach at a time. We used to just terminate
the aircraft about 6-8 miles from the airport and then as long as the
next approach was at least three miles behind that one everything was
good. Now we can no longer have anybody on the approach behind the
first guy unless we say "practice approach approved, separation not
provided, maintain VFR." When we terminated the first guy that does not
relieve ATC from providing the required three miles and since by
definition you cannot provide radar service to somebody you terminate,
even though you can still see his target, you have to get the report of
completing the approach before allowing the next guy to get a clearance.

[Sam Spade]

Brad wrote:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> At least it's better than the controller who told my instrument student
> as we approached the FAF, (we were on an IFR flight plan) "IFR
> canceled, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." even though we hadn't
> canceled. It was VMC, so operationally it wasn't a big deal for us,
> but I learned from TRACON's QC person that the controller was a trainee
> and the instructing controller missed it.
>

I've had that happen a couple times over the years. My stock reply was
"I am inside a cloud, unable VFR."

[Hamish Reid]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> The other day I was doing a VFR practice approach into Tracy, CA when
> the controller told me "reporting canceling IFR this freq, or on ground
> via land line...". I told him "uh, ok canceling IFR, I didn't believe I
> was IFR" (because I hadn't asked for or received an IFR clearance).
> The controller told me that any aircraft on an approach clearance is
> IFR for the purposes of the approach. I guess even controllers can be
> students?

I had a similar experience Wednesday evening with the VOR/DME GPS A
practice approach into Tracy in good VMC. I explicitly asked for a
practice approach, negotiated with the controller for the missed, and
got switched to CTAF fairly early on. The approach went fairly normally,
then when I came back to him on the (new, improved) missed and asked for
flight following back to Hayward, he says "report cancelling IFR". I
thought maybe he'd confused us with someone else, so I repeated the
request, and got the same terse response. So I cancelled IFR, even
though it was a practice approach; there was no mode c code change or
any other change after cancelling IFR.

It wasn't a big deal or anything, but it hasn't happened to me before
with NorCal Approach, and I've done that and surrounding approaches many
times as practice approaches. I just thought maybe I'd said something
wrong earlier when I'd asked for the approach, especially since I'd
cancelled the original clearance (from Hayward) much earlier in the
flight when doing a bunch of practice approaches at Stockton with the
same controller...

Hamish

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Hamish Reid > writes:
> I had a similar experience Wednesday evening with the VOR/DME GPS A
> practice approach into Tracy in good VMC. I explicitly asked for a
> practice approach, negotiated with the controller for the missed, and
> got switched to CTAF fairly early on. The approach went fairly normally,
> then when I came back to him on the (new, improved) missed and asked for
> flight following back to Hayward, he says "report cancelling IFR". I
> thought maybe he'd confused us with someone else, so I repeated the
> request, and got the same terse response. So I cancelled IFR, even
> though it was a practice approach; there was no mode c code change or
> any other change after cancelling IFR.

When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
"Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR. And that makes
sense, since he subsequently asked you to report when you were
cancelling your IFR clearance. The above exchange sounds to me
like he gave you a new pop-up IFR clearance -- what you requested:
direct Hayward. The part where you asked for "practice" and "flight
following" seems inconsistent with what he was saying back to you.
Are you sure it was the same guy who you started the approach with?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>

No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."

[Denny]

Umm, I would like to see this cancellation scenario happen when the IFR
student is on his check ride with either an FAA examiner or DER in the
plane... Watching two branches of the federal government duke it out
could be highly entertaining...

Anyway, if you are not truly VFR or if you need that IFR approach for
currency there is that word in the regs, "Unable", for a reason... A
single word, unadorned - and no further explanation will be offered by
me any more than he did. The controller is then obligated to continue
to handle you IFR...
Now, having said that, being normally a cooperative cuss, and if I am
just shooting the approach to stay sharp, and he is busy, etc., I won't
care, I'll simply grunt, "roger that, 57 pop", hit the 1200 button and
continue the approach...

denny

[Sam Spade]

Denny wrote:
> .. Watching two branches of the federal government duke it out
> could be highly entertaining...
>

It's all the FAA. They often never talk to each other.

[Doug[_1_]]

I was once told, just outside the FAF "the approach is APPROVED, radar
services TERMINATED". And yes kiddies I was in a cloud. (He musta been
a supervisor :-)

Brad wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The other day I was doing a VFR practice approach into Tracy, CA when
> > the controller told me "reporting canceling IFR this freq, or on ground
> > via land line...". I told him "uh, ok canceling IFR, I didn't believe I
> > was IFR" (because I hadn't asked for or received an IFR clearance).
> > The controller told me that any aircraft on an approach clearance is
> > IFR for the purposes of the approach. I guess even controllers can be
> > students?
> >
> > -Robert
>
> At least it's better than the controller who told my instrument student
> as we approached the FAF, (we were on an IFR flight plan) "IFR
> canceled, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." even though we hadn't
> canceled. It was VMC, so operationally it wasn't a big deal for us,
> but I learned from TRACON's QC person that the controller was a trainee
> and the instructing controller missed it.

[Brad[_1_]]

Doug wrote:
> I was once told, just outside the FAF "the approach is APPROVED, radar
> services TERMINATED". And yes kiddies I was in a cloud. (He musta been
> a supervisor :-)


Not sure what he meant by approved, but radar services terminated means
he's not providing radar services to you when you're below
MVA,regardless of whether you're IFR or VFR.

[Brad[_1_]]

Doug wrote:
> I was once told, just outside the FAF "the approach is APPROVED, radar
> services TERMINATED". And yes kiddies I was in a cloud. (He musta been
> a supervisor :-)


Not sure what he meant by approved, but radar services terminated means
he's not providing radar services to you when you're below
MVA,regardless of whether you're IFR or VFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Brad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Not sure what he meant by approved, but radar services terminated means
> he's not providing radar services to you when you're below
> MVA,regardless of whether you're IFR or VFR.
>

Radar Service Terminated means the pilot will no longer be provided any of
the services that could be received while in radar contact. MVA has nothing
to do with it.

[Robert Chambers]

Radar services terminated is not the same thing as IFR being cancelled.
Where I fly I'm always told that "Radar services terminated, contact
xx tower on 120.9" I'm still fully IFR, and may or may not be in the
clouds and although he says he's terminated radar services he is more
than likely still keeping an eye on me. If I were to veer way off
course he'd call my tower and ask what the heck n12345 was doing.

Robert

Doug wrote:
> I was once told, just outside the FAF "the approach is APPROVED, radar
> services TERMINATED". And yes kiddies I was in a cloud. (He musta been
> a supervisor :-)
>
> Brad wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>The other day I was doing a VFR practice approach into Tracy, CA when
>>>the controller told me "reporting canceling IFR this freq, or on ground
>>>via land line...". I told him "uh, ok canceling IFR, I didn't believe I
>>>was IFR" (because I hadn't asked for or received an IFR clearance).
>>>The controller told me that any aircraft on an approach clearance is
>>>IFR for the purposes of the approach. I guess even controllers can be
>>>students?
>>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>At least it's better than the controller who told my instrument student
>>as we approached the FAF, (we were on an IFR flight plan) "IFR
>>canceled, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." even though we hadn't
>>canceled. It was VMC, so operationally it wasn't a big deal for us,
>>but I learned from TRACON's QC person that the controller was a trainee
>>and the instructing controller missed it.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Radar services terminated is not the same thing as IFR being cancelled.
> Where I fly I'm always told that "Radar services terminated, contact xx
> tower on 120.9" I'm still fully IFR, and may or may not be in the clouds
> and although he says he's terminated radar services he is more than likely
> still keeping an eye on me. If I were to veer way off course he'd call my
> tower and ask what the heck n12345 was doing.
>

Note that the word APPROVED was emphasized. I think the point being made
was that the controller thought he was VFR and thus approved the approach
instead of clearing him for it as he should have done.

[Matt Barrow]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Umm, I would like to see this cancellation scenario happen when the IFR
> student is on his check ride with either an FAA examiner or DER in the
> plane... Watching two branches of the federal government duke it out
> could be highly entertaining...

Which two of the three (Judicial, Legislative, Executive)?

Are you one of those modern public school graduates? :~)

[Christopher C. Stacy]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>>
>
> No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."

Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established" ?

[Robert M. Gary]

The controller said
"Reporting canceling IFR this freq or..."

-Robert


Robert Chambers wrote:
> Radar services terminated is not the same thing as IFR being cancelled.
> Where I fly I'm always told that "Radar services terminated, contact
> xx tower on 120.9" I'm still fully IFR, and may or may not be in the
> clouds and although he says he's terminated radar services he is more
> than likely still keeping an eye on me. If I were to veer way off
> course he'd call my tower and ask what the heck n12345 was doing.
>
> Robert
>
> Doug wrote:
> > I was once told, just outside the FAF "the approach is APPROVED, radar
> > services TERMINATED". And yes kiddies I was in a cloud. (He musta been
> > a supervisor :-)
> >
> > Brad wrote:
> >
> >>Robert M. Gary wrote:
> >>
> >>>The other day I was doing a VFR practice approach into Tracy, CA when
> >>>the controller told me "reporting canceling IFR this freq, or on ground
> >>>via land line...". I told him "uh, ok canceling IFR, I didn't believe I
> >>>was IFR" (because I hadn't asked for or received an IFR clearance).
> >>>The controller told me that any aircraft on an approach clearance is
> >>>IFR for the purposes of the approach. I guess even controllers can be
> >>>students?
> >>>
> >>>-Robert
> >>
> >>At least it's better than the controller who told my instrument student
> >>as we approached the FAF, (we were on an IFR flight plan) "IFR
> >>canceled, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." even though we hadn't
> >>canceled. It was VMC, so operationally it wasn't a big deal for us,
> >>but I learned from TRACON's QC person that the controller was a trainee
> >>and the instructing controller missed it.
> >
> >

[Robert M. Gary]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
> > "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
> >> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
> >>
> >
> > No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>
> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established" ?
Or "Cleared to Land" ;)

Word games aside, Steven is right. The difference between being IFR and
VFR in controlled airspace is being told "cleared to foobar".

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until
> established" ?
>

No. Like when you picked up your IFR clearance some time prior to that and
heard "Cleared to..."

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

>
>
> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.


Who taught you that? IFR by osmosis, that sure would help to unclutter
the frequency sometimes.

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


> Word games aside, Steven is right. The difference between being IFR and
> VFR in controlled airspace is being told "cleared to foobar".
>
> -Robert
>

The system is designed to process a formally filed IFR flight plan from
one airport to another. The formal tower-en route program in Southern
California works, too, because it is formalized.

Pop-ups without a filed flight plan, and local training flights
sometimes get mishandled because, unlike the foregoing, they just aren't
in the "system" in a formal sense.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:

> Hamish Reid > writes:
> > I had a similar experience Wednesday evening with the VOR/DME GPS A
> > practice approach into Tracy in good VMC. I explicitly asked for a
> > practice approach, negotiated with the controller for the missed, and
> > got switched to CTAF fairly early on. The approach went fairly normally,
> > then when I came back to him on the (new, improved) missed and asked for
> > flight following back to Hayward, he says "report cancelling IFR". I
> > thought maybe he'd confused us with someone else, so I repeated the
> > request, and got the same terse response. So I cancelled IFR, even
> > though it was a practice approach; there was no mode c code change or
> > any other change after cancelling IFR.
>
> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.

Hmmm. That's not how I learned it...

> And that makes
> sense, since he subsequently asked you to report when you were
> cancelling your IFR clearance.

But as explained in my first posting, I'd already cancelled my original
clearance some 30 minutes earlier; I was now doing a sequence of
practice approaches first at Stockton then into Tracy (something I've
done many times in the past year or two).

> The above exchange sounds to me
> like he gave you a new pop-up IFR clearance -- what you requested:
> direct Hayward.

But I didn't request direct Hayward -- I requested (and got) the
practice VOR/DME GPS A approach into Tracy, and I was on the published
missed for that approach when I asked for VFR flight following back to
Hayward...

> The part where you asked for "practice" and "flight
> following" seems inconsistent with what he was saying back to you.
> Are you sure it was the same guy who you started the approach with?

Not certain, but it sure sounded like him.

In any case, what both Robert and I noticed was that NorCal appears to
have either changed the SOP for practice approaches 'round here, or a
particular controller or sector was doing things differently, or maybe
it was just a bad day :-).

Hamish

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>>
>
> No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."

I once requested a practice approach with a student, and the controller
asked if I wanted to do it VFR or IFR. I replied that I preferred VFR,
and he gave me an altitude to climb to. I told him that if he wanted us
there, we'd have to do it IFR. His response? "Ok, you're IFR then.
Climb and maintain 5000." It's really hard to teach correct phraseology
to a student with instructions like that. Student and I had a really
long talk on the ground later.

[Emily[_1_]]

Doug wrote:
> I was once told, just outside the FAF "the approach is APPROVED, radar
> services TERMINATED". And yes kiddies I was in a cloud. (He musta been
> a supervisor :-)

At my home airport, we had radar service terminated all the time. Radar
didn't reach below 3000 feet or so and they (usually) let us know when
they couldn't pick us up anymore. We were still IFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> At my home airport, we had radar service terminated all the time. Radar
> didn't reach below 3000 feet or so and they (usually) let us know when
> they couldn't pick us up anymore. We were still IFR.
>

The phraseology for loss of radar contact is "radar contact lost", not
"radar service terminated".

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:53 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Silly controller
> Subject: Re: Silly controller
>
>
....
>
> The phraseology for loss of radar contact is "radar contact lost", not
> "radar service terminated".

Steve,
Do they still advise "radar contact lost, radar service
terminated, cleared for the <approach>..."? I seem to remember getting
that when I used to go into Gunnison, Co. years ago.

[Jim Macklin]

My best "silly controller" was back in 1981-82 with a new
hire working the Topeka, Kansas Forbes Airport. I checked
in IFR about 20 miles from the airport and he gave me the
weather, "Forbes 600 overcast, visibility 4 miles, cleared
for the visual approach." After waiting a few seconds I
replied, "If it really is 600 over, can I have the ILS?"


It had been severe clear for days, I guess he'd just gotten
used to that clearance.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:004301c6c98f$b7d9d310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
|
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Steven P. McNicoll
]
| > Posted At: Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:53 PM
| > Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
| > Conversation: Silly controller
| > Subject: Re: Silly controller
| >
| >
| ...
| >
| > The phraseology for loss of radar contact is "radar
contact lost", not
| > "radar service terminated".
|
| Steve,
| Do they still advise "radar contact lost, radar service
| terminated, cleared for the <approach>..."? I seem to
remember getting
| that when I used to go into Gunnison, Co. years ago.
|

[Christopher C. Stacy]

"Robert M. Gary" > writes:

> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>>
>> > "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>> >> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>>
>> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established" ?
> Or "Cleared to Land" ;)
>
> Word games aside, Steven is right. The difference between being IFR and
> VFR in controlled airspace is being told "cleared to foobar".

The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established"
contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted IFR procedure), an altitude,
and a clearance limit (landing Foobar airport, or executing the published missed
approach procedure). How is that not an IFR clearance?

I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
"Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".

[Christopher C. Stacy]

(Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>
>> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>>>
>>> > "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >>
>>> >> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>>> >> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>>>
>>> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established" ?
>> Or "Cleared to Land" ;)
>>
>> Word games aside, Steven is right. The difference between being IFR and
>> VFR in controlled airspace is being told "cleared to foobar".
>
> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established"
> contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted IFR procedure), an altitude,
> and a clearance limit (landing Foobar airport, or executing the published missed
> approach procedure). How is that not an IFR clearance?
>
> I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
> When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
> I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
> "Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".

I phoned Boston TRACON for their opinion, and the supervisor said that when
(for example) receiving multiple practice approaches in VFR conditions,
with the phraeology given above: unless the magic words "maintain VFR"
are in the instruction, you are in the system, receiving IFR separation,
and in the event of lost comm would be expected (in VFR conditions) to land.

[Jim Macklin]

And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you
in violation of the FAR.




"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in
message ...
| (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
|
| > "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
| >
| >> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
| >>> "Steven P. McNicoll" >
writes:
| >>>
| >>> > "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote
in message
| >>> > ...
| >>> >>
| >>> >> When he gave you the clearance for the approach,
did he say
| >>> >> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
| >>> >>
| >>> >
| >>> > No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
| >>>
| >>> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar
maintain 2000 until established" ?
| >> Or "Cleared to Land" ;)
| >>
| >> Word games aside, Steven is right. The difference
between being IFR and
| >> VFR in controlled airspace is being told "cleared to
foobar".
| >
| > The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar
maintain 2000 until established"
| > contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted IFR
procedure), an altitude,
| > and a clearance limit (landing Foobar airport, or
executing the published missed
| > approach procedure). How is that not an IFR
clearance?
| >
| > I think it is, unless the controller adds the words
"maintain VFR".
| > When I want a practice approach and the controller fails
to say "VFR",
| > I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
| > "Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".
|
| I phoned Boston TRACON for their opinion, and the
supervisor said that when
| (for example) receiving multiple practice approaches in
VFR conditions,
| with the phraeology given above: unless the magic words
"maintain VFR"
| are in the instruction, you are in the system, receiving
IFR separation,
| and in the event of lost comm would be expected (in VFR
conditions) to land.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

(Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>>
>>> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>>>>
>>>> > "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>>>> >> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>>>>
>>>> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established" ?
>>> Or "Cleared to Land" ;)
>>>
>>> Word games aside, Steven is right. The difference between being IFR and
>>> VFR in controlled airspace is being told "cleared to foobar".
>>
>> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established"
>> contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted IFR procedure), an altitude,
>> and a clearance limit (landing Foobar airport, or executing the published missed
>> approach procedure). How is that not an IFR clearance?
>>
>> I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
>> When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
>> I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
>> "Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".
>
> I phoned Boston TRACON for their opinion, and the supervisor said that when
> (for example) receiving multiple practice approaches in VFR conditions,
> with the phraeology given above: unless the magic words "maintain VFR"
> are in the instruction, you are in the system, receiving IFR separation,
> and in the event of lost comm would be expected (in VFR conditions) to land.

I forgot to add to the scenario (and forgot to mention to the controller)
that the pilot was also given a transponder code (which I believe was the
case with the OP, and which is always my experience also). That's another
element that points to it being an IFR clearance. Probably everyone assumed
it anyway, even though of course you could also be assigned a squawk under VFR.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:
> And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you
> in violation of the FAR.

I didn't mention that to avoid opening that can of worms.
I think the answer is, "probably". Probably also always
gets ignored by the FAA from the enforecement standpoint.

[Jim Macklin]

It would be a good idea to always state that you're a VFR
only pilot and even if they apply IFR procedures on their
end, you must reject the IFR clearance, so it is on the
tape.
All the controller cares about is keeping the blips apart.
They do it with IFR procedures, which you can accept as long
as you both understand that the VFR pilot is operating VFR,
while practicing IFR procedures.

It would seem that a letter from the region to the field may
be needed to clarify procedures.



"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" >
writes:
| > And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put
you
| > in violation of the FAR.
|
| I didn't mention that to avoid opening that can of worms.
| I think the answer is, "probably". Probably also always
| gets ignored by the FAA from the enforecement standpoint.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000
> until established" contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted
> IFR procedure), an altitude, and a clearance limit (landing Foobar
> airport,
> or executing the published missed approach procedure). How is that not
> an IFR clearance?
>
> I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
> When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
> I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
> "Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".
>

It does not contain a clearance limit. IFR training flights frequently
include approaches at intermediate airports and approach clearances for each
one, but the clearance limit remains the destination airport.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> I phoned Boston TRACON for their opinion, and the supervisor said that
> when
> (for example) receiving multiple practice approaches in VFR conditions,
> with the phraeology given above: unless the magic words "maintain VFR"
> are in the instruction, you are in the system, receiving IFR separation,
> and in the event of lost comm would be expected (in VFR conditions) to
> land.
>

The phraseology given above would not make a VFR aircraft an IFR aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:POcIg.6099$SZ3.2344@dukeread04...
>
> And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you
> in violation of the FAR.
>

Nope.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> I forgot to add to the scenario (and forgot to mention to the controller)
> that the pilot was also given a transponder code (which I believe was the
> case with the OP, and which is always my experience also). That's another
> element that points to it being an IFR clearance. Probably everyone
> assumed
> it anyway, even though of course you could also be assigned a squawk under
> VFR.
>

You're contradicting yourself. If IFR and VFR aircraft are assigned beacon
codes, then being assigned a beacon code does not suggest it's an IFR
clearance.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:004301c6c98f$b7d9d310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
>>
>> The phraseology for loss of radar contact is "radar contact lost", not
>> "radar service terminated".
>>
>
> Steve,
> Do they still advise "radar contact lost, radar service
> terminated, cleared for the <approach>..."? I seem to remember getting
> that when I used to go into Gunnison, Co. years ago.
>

I hope not.

[Roy Smith]

(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:

> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000
> until established" contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted
> IFR procedure), an altitude, and a clearance limit (landing Foobar
> airport, or executing the published missed approach procedure). How
> is that not an IFR clearance?

There is no clearance limit -- you're not cleared "to" anyplace. The IFR
version of the above would be:

"Cleared to the Foobar airport, cleared ILS 23 approach, maintain 2000
until established".

There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
procedures". You can fly them VFR or IFR.

[The Visitor]

Roy Smith wrote:


>
> There is no clearance limit -- you're not cleared "to" anyplace. The IFR
> version of the above would be:
>
> "Cleared to the Foobar airport, cleared ILS 23 approach, maintain 2000
> until established".


"Cleared to the Foobar airport, via (insert routing or direct) expect
the ILS 23 approach., or cleared the ils 23 approach at Foobar, maintain
2000 until established".

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 26 Aug 2006 06:56:08 -0700, "Doug" > wrote:

>I was once told, just outside the FAF "the approach is APPROVED, radar
>services TERMINATED". And yes kiddies I was in a cloud. (He musta been
>a supervisor :-)

Why did you think that was a problem?

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At my home airport, we had radar service terminated all the time. Radar
>> didn't reach below 3000 feet or so and they (usually) let us know when
>> they couldn't pick us up anymore. We were still IFR.
>>
>
> The phraseology for loss of radar contact is "radar contact lost", not
> "radar service terminated".

Tell that to Chicago Center.

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

>
>
> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established"
> contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted IFR procedure), an altitude,
> and a clearance limit (landing Foobar airport, or executing the published missed
> approach procedure). How is that not an IFR clearance?

It's not.


>
> I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
> When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
> I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
> "Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".

Not necessary. If you are doing a whole series of practice approaches
the controller needs to tell you one time to maintain VFR. Not one time
per approach, just one time.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you
> in violation of the FAR.

He misunderstood, that's not what happens.

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:


>
> I forgot to add to the scenario (and forgot to mention to the controller)
> that the pilot was also given a transponder code (which I believe was the
> case with the OP, and which is always my experience also). That's another
> element that points to it being an IFR clearance. Probably everyone assumed
> it anyway, even though of course you could also be assigned a squawk under VFR.

Everybody gets a code to get service from the approach control. It
means nothing.

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>>And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you
>>in violation of the FAR.
>
>
> I didn't mention that to avoid opening that can of worms.
> I think the answer is, "probably". Probably also always
> gets ignored by the FAA from the enforecement standpoint.

You can't be this uninformed. You just can't be.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Tell that to Chicago Center.
>

I have.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Tell that to Chicago Center.
> I have.

What was their response?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> What was their response?
>

"Okay".

[Christopher C. Stacy]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000
>> until established" contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted
>> IFR procedure), an altitude, and a clearance limit (landing Foobar
>> airport,
>> or executing the published missed approach procedure). How is that not
>> an IFR clearance?
>>
>> I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
>> When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
>> I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
>> "Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".
>>
>
> It does not contain a clearance limit. IFR training flights frequently
> include approaches at intermediate airports and approach clearances for each
> one, but the clearance limit remains the destination airport.

I you have filed (phone, DUATS, or "pop-up" on the radio) an IFR flight
plan to an airport, and along the way you ask for a practice approach
to some other airport, then the destination of your plan has not changed.
Yes, that would be the destination airport you said originally.

The scenario I've been talking about is where you come out nowhere VFR
and tell the controller you want an IFR approach to some airport
(which is usually real close, but could be some ways off).

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> I you have filed (phone, DUATS, or "pop-up" on the radio) an IFR flight
> plan to an airport, and along the way you ask for a practice approach
> to some other airport, then the destination of your plan has not changed.
> Yes, that would be the destination airport you said originally.
>
> The scenario I've been talking about is where you come out nowhere VFR
> and tell the controller you want an IFR approach to some airport
> (which is usually real close, but could be some ways off).
>

I understand completely. The example you provided did not contain a
clearance limit, thus it was not an IFR clearance. An IFR clearance must
have a clearance limit.

[Emily[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What was their response?
>>
>
> "Okay".
>
>
So you're calling me a liar? <rolls eyes> Ok. Until you've flown into
that airport and NOT heard them say it, don't tell me I'm wrong.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Newps > writes:

> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
>> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain
>> 2000 until established"
>> contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted IFR procedure), an altitude,
>> and a clearance limit (landing Foobar airport, or executing the published missed
>> approach procedure). How is that not an IFR clearance?
>
> It's not.
>
>
>> I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
>> When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
>> I add it back in to try and make sure, like: "Cherokee 97R cleared
>> for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".
>
> Not necessary. If you are doing a whole series of practice approaches
> the controller needs to tell you one time to maintain VFR. Not one
> time per approach, just one time.

How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?
Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)

When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".
In the discussion when I said "practice approach", he read it
back to me as "multiple approaches in VFR conditions".

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Newps > writes:

> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
>> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>>
>>> And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you in
>>> violation of the FAR.
>> I didn't mention that to avoid opening that can of worms.
>> I think the answer is, "probably". Probably also always
>> gets ignored by the FAA from the enforecement standpoint.
>
> You can't be this uninformed. You just can't be.

I analyzed the phraseology in the scenario by the usual syntactic
criteria for meeting an IFR clearance and explained my reasoning.
Then I asked Boston TRACON their opinion (just asked -- without
telling them my theory), and the seem to concur with me.

Neither you (nor the other fellow) have presented any reasoning
nor evidence to contradict this, beyond simply asserting "It's not",
"You're wrong", and the above. My mind is certainly not closed
on the subject, but do you have anything else?
(By which I mean, "Do you have anything?")

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:

> There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
> procedures".

Where did you get that idea? I think the terms are interchangeable.

Remember the old IFR Departure Procedures that are now Obstacle
Departure Procedures? Those terms were both chosen by working groups
thinking more in terms of human factors than regulatory nuance.

Then, there is Part 95, IFR Altitudes.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I you have filed (phone, DUATS, or "pop-up" on the radio) an IFR flight
>> plan to an airport, and along the way you ask for a practice approach
>> to some other airport, then the destination of your plan has not changed.
>> Yes, that would be the destination airport you said originally.
>>
>> The scenario I've been talking about is where you come out nowhere VFR
>> and tell the controller you want an IFR approach to some airport
>> (which is usually real close, but could be some ways off).
>>
>
> I understand completely. The example you provided did not contain a
> clearance limit, thus it was not an IFR clearance. An IFR clearance must
> have a clearance limit.

In the case of a VFR pop-up requesting an approach,
it's the airport, according to the local TRACON.
Why don't you think it's a clearance limit?

(I specifically addressed that in my my other message that you
seem to have already read but ignored. I believe I was the one
who brought up having been given a clearance limit as part of
my argument.)

[Roy Smith]

In article <sfkIg.168$c07.152@fed1read04>, Sam Spade >
wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
> > procedures".
>
> Where did you get that idea? I think the terms are interchangeable.

The OP was making the assumption that since he was flying and "IFR
procedure", that must mean he was flying under Instrument Flight Rules. I
was just trying to make the point that just because you're flying the
procedure doesn't mean you're on an IFR clearance.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> So you're calling me a liar?
>

No.


>
> <rolls eyes> Ok. Until you've flown into that airport and NOT heard them
> say it, don't tell me I'm wrong.
>

I simply stated the correct terminology. I never said it was not improperly
used by some controllers.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?
> Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)
>

Yes.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0408.html#4-8-11


>
> When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
> Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".
> In the discussion when I said "practice approach", he read it
> back to me as "multiple approaches in VFR conditions".
>

Perhaps you didn't explain adequately, perhaps you weren't talking to a
sharp trooper.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> I analyzed the phraseology in the scenario by the usual syntactic
> criteria for meeting an IFR clearance and explained my reasoning.
> Then I asked Boston TRACON their opinion (just asked -- without
> telling them my theory), and the seem to concur with me.
>
> Neither you (nor the other fellow) have presented any reasoning
> nor evidence to contradict this, beyond simply asserting "It's not",
> "You're wrong", and the above. My mind is certainly not closed
> on the subject, but do you have anything else?
> (By which I mean, "Do you have anything?")
>

That's not true. I explained that your example lacked a clearance limit.
Others did so as well.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the case of a VFR pop-up requesting an approach,
> it's the airport, according to the local TRACON.
>

Then the local TRACON is wrong.


>
> Why don't you think it's a clearance limit?
>

Because it wasn't preceded by "cleared to".


>
> (I specifically addressed that in my my other message that you
> seem to have already read but ignored. I believe I was the one
> who brought up having been given a clearance limit as part of
> my argument.)
>

I didn't ignore it, I responded to it, review the thread. What you believed
to be a clearance limit was not.

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

>
> How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?

You must tell me you need to be IFR.


> Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)

Yes.


>
> When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
> Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".

There's no way they wouldn't recognize it.

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:


> Neither you (nor the other fellow) have presented any reasoning
> nor evidence to contradict this, beyond simply asserting "It's not",
> "You're wrong", and the above. My mind is certainly not closed
> on the subject, but do you have anything else?
> (By which I mean, "Do you have anything?")

You call approach control out of the blue and ask for a practice ILS
approach. This in no way is a request to be IFR. No way, no how. The
controller is required to tell you once to maintain VFR, normally he'll
do that in the first practice approach clearance, but it could be at any
time up to that point too. A clearance for a practice approach is never
an IFR clearance in the sense that that constitutes the CRAFT. Sounds
like you and Boston were talking past each other.

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:


>
> The scenario I've been talking about is where you come out nowhere VFR
> and tell the controller you want an IFR approach to some airport


Be careful how you word your request. If you say the above that sounds
like a request to be IFR but would still require a clearance limit,
route, altitude, etc. Saying "Approach approved" or "cleared ILS..."
does not constitute a clearance limit.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:

> Newps > writes:
>
> > Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
> >>
> >>> And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you in
> >>> violation of the FAR.
> >> I didn't mention that to avoid opening that can of worms.
> >> I think the answer is, "probably". Probably also always
> >> gets ignored by the FAA from the enforecement standpoint.
> >
> > You can't be this uninformed. You just can't be.
>
> I analyzed the phraseology in the scenario by the usual syntactic
> criteria for meeting an IFR clearance and explained my reasoning.
> Then I asked Boston TRACON their opinion (just asked -- without
> telling them my theory), and the seem to concur with me.
>
> Neither you (nor the other fellow) have presented any reasoning
> nor evidence to contradict this, beyond simply asserting "It's not",
> "You're wrong", and the above. My mind is certainly not closed
> on the subject, but do you have anything else?
> (By which I mean, "Do you have anything?")

What both Stephen McNicholls and Newps (and others) have been trying to
tell you is that without the "Cleared to..." part, you have no clearance
limit, and that's not an IFR clearance; just getting the standard
"Cleared the ILS at ..." doesn't cut it, and is almost always the way
NorCal "clears" you for practice approaches around here. And yes,
"practice approach" is in the pilot / controller glossary.

Since it was me you originally responded to, let's review the sequence
of events: I was on a pre-filed IFR clearance to Stockton (KSCK), went
missed on the ILS, went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, requesting
multiple practice approaches. I got the standard "Maintain VFR..." at
that point, then did three practice approaches with NorCal: two at
Stockton, then the one at Tracy (KTCY) that caused the issue (Tracy's
VOR/DME GPS-A approach starts close to Stockton, so it's a natural on
currency flights like this). When I reported back on the missed at Tracy
and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD) I was asked to
cancel IFR. That made absolutely no sense at that point, since I hadn't
been on an IFR clearance since going missed on the ILS at Stockton some
30 or 40 minutes earlier. No mode C changes were made, which is (IIRC)
SOP with NorCal at Stockton.

When I finally got flight following with NorCal and later asked for the
practice LOC 28L approach back into Hayward, the controller in the next
sector (125.35 for those in the know) asked me if I wanted a pop-up or
if this was a practice approach. He sounded relieved that it was a
practice-only approach, gave the standard "Maintain VFR...", then
cleared me for the approach just outside SUNOL, just the way it normally
happens with NorCal....

Hamish

[Newps]

Hamish Reid wrote:

> Since it was me you originally responded to, let's review the sequence
> of events: I was on a pre-filed IFR clearance to Stockton (KSCK), went
> missed on the ILS, went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, requesting
> multiple practice approaches. I got the standard "Maintain VFR..." at
> that point, then did three practice approaches with NorCal: two at
> Stockton, then the one at Tracy (KTCY) that caused the issue (Tracy's
> VOR/DME GPS-A approach starts close to Stockton, so it's a natural on
> currency flights like this). When I reported back on the missed at Tracy
> and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD) I was asked to
> cancel IFR. That made absolutely no sense at that point, since I hadn't
> been on an IFR clearance since going missed on the ILS at Stockton some
> 30 or 40 minutes earlier. No mode C changes were made, which is (IIRC)
> SOP with NorCal at Stockton.

OK, I can see what maybe happened here. You were IFR then went VFR.
When you're IFR you will be on a code that will show low altitude
warnings, this is not necessary when VFR. Your data block on the radar
scope while you were IFR is standard. One quick look at it and
everybody knows that you are IFR. Facilities can use any type of data
block for VFR aircraft. An IFR data block looks like this:

N12345
070 15
/
/
/
N
A way to show an aircraft is VFR is to put a "V" after the 15.
Here at BIL we will take the same airplane when he's VFR and it will
look like this:

TC345
070 15
/
/
/
N

So there's no way to mistake whether or not an aircraft is IFR or VFR.
The TC stands for twin Cessna. We have abbreviations for a lot of
different types.
So it's possible that after you changed to VFR the controller simply
forgot you were VFR, maybe forgot to put the letter in the data block.
This is why our system here at BIL is vastly superior to using full data
blocks.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:32:03 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Yes.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0408.html#4-8-11

Regarding the difference between 2. and 3.: When would "procedures require
application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument
approaches" as opposed to "Where separation services are not provided to
VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches"?

- Andrew

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Roy Smith > writes:
> (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
>
>> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000
>> until established" contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted
>> IFR procedure), an altitude, and a clearance limit (landing Foobar
>> airport, or executing the published missed approach procedure). How
>> is that not an IFR clearance?
>
> There is no clearance limit -- you're not cleared "to" anyplace. The IFR
> version of the above would be:
>
> "Cleared to the Foobar airport, cleared ILS 23 approach, maintain 2000
> until established".
>
> There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
> procedures". You can fly them VFR or IFR.

Yes. The question at hand is how the pilot and controller understand
whether the instrument procedure is being flown under IFR or VFR.

My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:

"Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
UNTIL established on the localizer."

that you are have accepted an IFR clearance. This phraseology is
exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
your flight on an IFR flight plan. It obviously has the syntax
of an IFR clearance: the words "cleared", a route (including even
a charted instrument procedure), an altitude, a beacon tracking code,
and a clearance limit (the airport). The only difference is the context
in which it was given. There is standard phraseology for ATC for the
specific situation of "practice approaches" to confirm that you are
going to operate under VFR, otherwise they issue an IFR clearance.
If you are a VFR flight and you ask for a "Practice Approach",
then ATC is supposed to issue the clearance with the magic words
"Maintain VFR", or else confusion may ensue.

In the OP's scenario, confusion did ensue, because (according to his
recollection) the controller did not say "maintain VFR", and after
the approach was done and the pilot asked for flight following to
his home field, ATC advised him to "report when cancelling IFR".
There was some additional confusion here because the pilot asked
for "flight following", which is a radar service that you can receive
while operating under VFR. The pilot had never intended to ask for an
IFR clearance and was somewhat bewildered by ATC thinking he was IFR.

The question of accepting the clearance for a practice approach
is all about pilot and controller responsibilities.

First of all, regardless of what kind clearance is issued,
if it's VFR conditions you are still required to see and avoid.
But if you hear the words "Maintain VFR", then ATC considers you to
be VFR traffic and is telling you that they are (presumably) not giving
IFR separation. Otherwise, in the IFR clearance above, ATC is providing
IFR separation (from both other IFR and from VFR aircraf): in VMC this
allows visual separation, and 500 feet vertical.

"Maintain VFR" also means they're not expecting you to follow any
IFR rules outside of complying with instructions they are issuing.

Next comes lost communications procedures. If it's "Maintain VFR",
you're still on a VFR flight plan if there was one. Absent that,
the above is an IFR clearance to the approach airport, but since
it's VMC, you (go back if needed) and land at this airport, even
though you were told to report when on the missed approach procedure.

(It gets weird if you were already on an IFR flight plan in IMC.
You're still on the filed plan because the practice approach is just
an authorized deviation to where you were already going. If you lose
it before "cleared to land", or on the missed approach, I think you're
supposed to fly to and land at your original destination airport,
not the practice airport. That is highly counter-intuitive, and
maybe a good reason not to do practice approaches on an IFR flight
plan at an airport in IMC. Can you imagine losing comm on the
final approach course with the runway environment in sight but
without a landing clearance, on an IFR flight? I'd be crazy
unless I decided it was an emergency, and just land anyway.)

Yesterday I asked a supervisor at the Boston TRACON, "If I came along
VFR and requested a practice approach, and received the clearance
[above], is that an IFR clearance?" He clarified that we were talking
about the usual scenario of someone showing up VFR and asking for
multiple approaches. His answer was that without the words "Maintain VFR",
you would be receiving IFR separation and would be expected to follow
IFR lost communication procedures (in which event, since you had shown
up VFR you should land at this airport. I believe that's all consistent
with what I am saying above.

"Practice Approach" is official phraseology but does not mean "VFR".
It means several things, one of which is that ATC can consider you
lower priority than traffic and deny the request based on workload.

People are concerned here about whether you can legally accept the
above seemingly-IFR clearance if you are not rated and equipped.
Here's where I think we get into lawyering (and I am not a lawyer).
The FARs imply that maybe you cannot accept this IFR clearance,
by saying that you can't act as PIC unless are rated, and that
nobody can operate under IFR in controlled airspace under IFR
without receiving a clearance and being on an IFR flight plan

If you accepted the above clearance, are you now operating under IFR?
Well, if you popped up VFR, ATC certainly knew you were not on an IFR
flight plan when they gave you that clearance. On the other hand,
they gave you an IFR clearance and are expecting you to obey IFR.
Do you now magically have an IFR flight plan concocted by ATC to get
you into the airport? You probably wouldn't even ask yourself this
question (nor would ATC) if you thought you were going to be in the
clouds during the procedure. You would know it was "for real".
But maybe the theory is that since it was VMC, legal for you to be
operating under VFR, then due to the fact that there was no flight plan,
you were by definition not construed to be "operating under IFR" even
though you were following what sounded like an IFR clearance and some
instrument flight rules.

After all, when you enter class B airspace for example, you are
given a clearance. But that clearance doesn't usually have all
the syntax of an IFR clearance, and doesn't usually include a
limit or an instrument procedure, and it always says "Maintain VFR".

A similar question of semantics could be asked about a "Special VFR"
clearance, which is also syntactically an IFR clearance. It sounds a
lot like IFR, ATC handles the separation like IFR, but it's not IFR.
You have a different rating requirement, don't have the IFR equipment
requirement, and the normal flight plan requirements are just the
"authorized by ATC" variety. But "Special VFR" is a different set of
rules specifically defined in FAR 91, while "Practice Approach" is not.
"Practice approach" isn't even in the AIM, although it's in the
controller handbook. But the most obvious difference between this
funny in-between-IFR/VFR flight, and the IFR flight described above,
is that the clearance contains the words "Maintain Special VFR".

The reasons why you might be concerned about accepting this IFR clearance
would be that you could not comply (perhaps because you're not current,
or just a student, or the equipment does not satisfy the requirements),
and more importantly you don't want misunderstandings, not to mention
FAA enforcement actions. But controllers are human and sometimes make
mistakes in issuing clearances, just like pilots. Let's suppose the above
is an IFR clearance and you shouldn't accept it. I think if you mistakenly
accept it, but in VMC, and nothing bad results from it, that the FAA is
not concerned. After all, "the FAA" present on scene is ATC.
Consider that ATC has received a request that can be presumed to come
from someone who may not be current, or maybe not even rated -- they
specifically asked for a "Practice Approach", a training exercise.
It's really mainly ATC's fault for not saying "Maintain VFR".

Whatever you believe, legalities aside, as seen in the OP's case,
this could lead to confusion. And it's it's not not too hard to
imagine a confusion about whether someone was operating under IFR
or VFR as contributing to a chain of events with unfortunate results.

When I want to do a practice approach and not be considered an
IFR flight, I ask the controller for a "Practice approach" and
if the controller does not say "Maintain VFR" in the clearance,
I just add back "VFR" in my readback. The pilot is supposed to
request an ammended clearance if he can't comply, and I think
this satisfies that. Regardless of a comeback on that point by
the controller, it clarifies what I understood the clearance to be.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Newps > writes:

> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
>> How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?
>
> You must tell me you need to be IFR.
>
>
>> Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
>> Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".
>
> There's no way they wouldn't recognize it.

I am reciting a conversation I had with someone there;
your inability to deal with reality is irrelevent.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Hamish Reid > writes:
> Since it was me you originally responded to, let's review the sequence
> of events: I was on a pre-filed IFR clearance to Stockton (KSCK), went
> missed on the ILS, went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, requesting
> multiple practice approaches. I got the standard "Maintain VFR..." at
> that point, then did three practice approaches with NorCal

Oh, well I completely misunderstood your scenario! I thought you were
VFR, not an any IFR flight plan, asked for a "Practice Approach", were
never told "Maintain VFR", and then when you were done with those you
wanted to go home to a previously unannounced airport, were instructed
"report cancelling IFR".

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:


> My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:
>
> "Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
> Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
> UNTIL established on the localizer."
>
> that you are have accepted an IFR clearance.

It's not standard phraseology but would suffice.




This phraseology is
> exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
> your flight on an IFR flight plan.

No it's not. You will never hear "Cleared to the Foobar airport" as
part of your approach clearance. As for all the rest of the crap you
wrote that I snipped, go see an instructor. You are woefully
misinformed about so many things.

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:


> Regarding the difference between 2. and 3.: When would "procedures require
> application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument
> approaches" as opposed to "Where separation services are not provided to
> VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches"?

It depends. Most facilities have a letter to airmen out there that says
they will provide services to the extent possible. If so then the
facility must provide the three mile separation(500 feet vertical)
unless there's a good reason they can't.

[skym]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> ...
> Perhaps you didn't explain adequately, perhaps you weren't talking to a
> sharp trooper.

Uh, I really hope all you ATC guys are "sharp troopers." You're
scaring me.

[Newps]

skym wrote:

> Uh, I really hope all you ATC guys are "sharp troopers." You're
> scaring me.

Stop by the tower sometime and have your eyes opened. Get your plane
back yet?

[skym]

Newps wrote:

> Stop by the tower sometime and have your eyes opened. Get your plane
> back yet?

"It's in the paint shop." I hope this isn't like "the check's in the
mail."

[Jose[_1_]]

> went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, [...]
> When I reported back on the [practice] missed at Tracy
> and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD)
> I was asked to cancel IFR.

Maybe they didn't receive your original cancellation. Either NorCal
didn't really cancel, or they didn't transmit the cancellation properly
(would Tracy have advance strips on you?)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:

> Roy Smith > writes:
> > (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:
> >
> >> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000
> >> until established" contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted
> >> IFR procedure), an altitude, and a clearance limit (landing Foobar
> >> airport, or executing the published missed approach procedure). How
> >> is that not an IFR clearance?
> >
> > There is no clearance limit -- you're not cleared "to" anyplace. The IFR
> > version of the above would be:
> >
> > "Cleared to the Foobar airport, cleared ILS 23 approach, maintain 2000
> > until established".
> >
> > There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
> > procedures". You can fly them VFR or IFR.
>
> Yes. The question at hand is how the pilot and controller understand
> whether the instrument procedure is being flown under IFR or VFR.

Well, the NorCal controller who fielded my request for cancelling IFR
and for multiple practice approaches certainly seemed to understand that
I was no longer IFR.

> My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:
>
> "Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
> Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
> UNTIL established on the localizer."
>
> that you are have accepted an IFR clearance.

Indeed. And had I requested a pop-up I'd expect (and typically get)
exactly that sort of response. I often get a pop-up back from Stockton
(or Sacramento) just for the hell of it (it's good procedural practice),
so I'm not unfamiliar with the difference between that and a practice
approach....

> This phraseology is
> exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
> your flight on an IFR flight plan.

This is where you're wrong -- at this point in the flight, I'll get
something like "Cessna 04E, 5 miles from JOTLY, right turn heading 230
maintain 2000 until established, cleared ILS 29R" or similar, usually
regardless of whether I'm on a practice approach, pop-up, or pre-filed
IFR flight plan. There's no clearance limit there...

> It obviously has the syntax
> of an IFR clearance: the words "cleared", a route (including even
> a charted instrument procedure), an altitude, a beacon tracking code,
> and a clearance limit (the airport). The only difference is the context
> in which it was given. There is standard phraseology for ATC for the
> specific situation of "practice approaches" to confirm that you are
> going to operate under VFR, otherwise they issue an IFR clearance.
> If you are a VFR flight and you ask for a "Practice Approach",
> then ATC is supposed to issue the clearance with the magic words
> "Maintain VFR", or else confusion may ensue.

Indeed, but that can be given very early on in the scheme of things,
especially when doing multiple practice approaches. I usually get the
"Maintain VFR..." bit when I first request (a) practice approach(es),
which might be some time before I actually get the clearance. On the way
back to Hayward under VFR flight following I got it many miles outside
SUNOL when I first requested the practice approach, quite some distance
before I was cleared for the (practice) localiser approach.

>
> In the OP's scenario, confusion did ensue, because (according to his
> recollection) the controller did not say "maintain VFR", and after
> the approach was done and the pilot asked for flight following to
> his home field, ATC advised him to "report when cancelling IFR".
> There was some additional confusion here because the pilot asked
> for "flight following", which is a radar service that you can receive
> while operating under VFR. The pilot had never intended to ask for an
> IFR clearance and was somewhat bewildered by ATC thinking he was IFR.

I think you have the OP's scenario horribly confused :-).

The original original point was that two Usenet posters (myself and
Robert) did the same approach, possibly on the same day, and both
practice approaches ended in them being asked to cancel IFR. NorCal's
usually pretty on-the-ball about this sort of thing, so both of us were
wondering whether NorCal dropped the ball, or whether there's been a
change in SOP for this sort of thing...

Hamish

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Hamish Reid wrote:
>
> > Since it was me you originally responded to, let's review the sequence
> > of events: I was on a pre-filed IFR clearance to Stockton (KSCK), went
> > missed on the ILS, went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, requesting
> > multiple practice approaches. I got the standard "Maintain VFR..." at
> > that point, then did three practice approaches with NorCal: two at
> > Stockton, then the one at Tracy (KTCY) that caused the issue (Tracy's
> > VOR/DME GPS-A approach starts close to Stockton, so it's a natural on
> > currency flights like this). When I reported back on the missed at Tracy
> > and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD) I was asked to
> > cancel IFR. That made absolutely no sense at that point, since I hadn't
> > been on an IFR clearance since going missed on the ILS at Stockton some
> > 30 or 40 minutes earlier. No mode C changes were made, which is (IIRC)
> > SOP with NorCal at Stockton.
>
> OK, I can see what maybe happened here. You were IFR then went VFR.
> When you're IFR you will be on a code that will show low altitude
> warnings, this is not necessary when VFR. Your data block on the radar
> scope while you were IFR is standard. One quick look at it and
> everybody knows that you are IFR. Facilities can use any type of data
> block for VFR aircraft. An IFR data block looks like this:
>
> N12345
> 070 15
> /
> /
> /
> N
> A way to show an aircraft is VFR is to put a "V" after the 15.
> Here at BIL we will take the same airplane when he's VFR and it will
> look like this:
>
> TC345
> 070 15
> /
> /
> /
> N
>
> So there's no way to mistake whether or not an aircraft is IFR or VFR.
> The TC stands for twin Cessna. We have abbreviations for a lot of
> different types.
> So it's possible that after you changed to VFR the controller simply
> forgot you were VFR, maybe forgot to put the letter in the data block.
> This is why our system here at BIL is vastly superior to using full data
> blocks.

Thanks -- a clear explanation from a controller's point of view. Seems
pretty damn plausible to me, especially since NorCal usually gets this
sort of thing right, and the controller who originally fielded my IFR
cancellation seemed in no doubt that I was VFR from that point on. If he
just forgot to update the data block, oh well...

Hamish

[Jose[_1_]]

> ...usually
> regardless of whether I'm on a practice approach, pop-up, or pre-filed
> IFR flight plan. There's no clearance limit there...

If you are on an IFR flight plan, you already have a clearance limit.
It was given to you when you got your clearance. "CLEARED TO FooBar
International via..." That doesn't get invalidated by an approach
clearance. If you are VFR, the approach clearance doesn't give you a
clearance limit, and thus does not make you IFR.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Newps > writes:
>> This phraseology is exactly the same instruction that you would be
>> given near the end your flight on an IFR flight plan.
>
> No it's not. You will never hear "Cleared to the Foobar airport"
> as part of your approach clearance.

I agree that was written sloppily. In the one case, you get the
"cleared to" the airport earlier in the flight and the "cleared for
the approach" afterwards. In the othe case, you usually get directed
to some IAP or just radar vectored to the approach course followed by
"cleared for the approach". In the example that the Boston TRACON
supervisor commented on, what I said to him was the "cleared for..."
version. He said that this absent the "Maintain VFR" phrase, this
constituted a clearance limit for the purpose of IFR lost comm
procedures (which I hadn't asked about).

You could argue that he is wrong, of course.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > ...usually
> > regardless of whether I'm on a practice approach, pop-up, or pre-filed
> > IFR flight plan. There's no clearance limit there...
>
> If you are on an IFR flight plan, you already have a clearance limit.
> It was given to you when you got your clearance. "CLEARED TO FooBar
> International via..." That doesn't get invalidated by an approach
> clearance. If you are VFR, the approach clearance doesn't give you a
> clearance limit, and thus does not make you IFR.

Indeed -- that's what we've been trying to tell the Other Guy (the
"there" up there referred to there being no clearance limit given in the
instructions you snipped).

Hamish

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, [...]
> > When I reported back on the [practice] missed at Tracy
> > and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD)
> > I was asked to cancel IFR.
>
> Maybe they didn't receive your original cancellation. Either NorCal
> didn't really cancel, or they didn't transmit the cancellation properly
> (would Tracy have advance strips on you?)

"Tracy", being an uncontrolled airport in NorCal's area, wouldn't have
any strips at all :-). I was on the same NorCal approach frequency the
entire time from before I cancelled IFR to when I got the instructions
to report cancelling IFR some 40 or more minutes later....

Hamish

[[email protected]]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
> > "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
> >> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
> >>
> >
> > No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>
> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established" ?

My interpretation of the ATC handbook is that there are three types of
practice approaches:

1) You can be IFR, in which case it works just like any other IFR
operation except that practice approaches are lower priority (you can
be delayed). This comes with a proper IFR clearance (with a clearance
limit) as has been stated in this thread.

2) You can be VFR, but with separation services. Here you get 500 ft
vertical separation from other traffic and standard lateral separation.
The published miss is not authorized unless the controller
specifically approves it, and if he does approve it, separation
services are provided for the missed approach procedure as well. This
comes with the instruction "CLEARED FOR THE APPROACH" or similar.

3) You can be VFR, but without separation services. The missed
approach is again not authorized. This comes with the instruction
"PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED" or similar.

If you're operating under VFR, the controller is supposed to remind you
by saying "MAINTAIN VFR" at some point, but if the controller forgets,
it doesn't change anything.

If separation services are provided, then the controller must be
informed when to terminate those services. Could this be when the
confusion occurs? What is the terminology for terminating VFR
separation services? I've assumed that many controllers use standard
IFR cancellation terminology for that even when the airplane is
operated under VFR.

Peter

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

My instructor always corrected the controllers when they made a mistake. If
they got snotty he would call them.
"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:bpKHg.15$c07.14@fed1read04...
> Brad wrote:
>
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>
>> At least it's better than the controller who told my instrument student
>> as we approached the FAF, (we were on an IFR flight plan) "IFR
>> canceled, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." even though we hadn't
>> canceled. It was VMC, so operationally it wasn't a big deal for us,
>> but I learned from TRACON's QC person that the controller was a trainee
>> and the instructing controller missed it.
>>
>
> I've had that happen a couple times over the years. My stock reply was "I
> am inside a cloud, unable VFR."

[Jose[_1_]]

> "Tracy", being an uncontrolled airport in NorCal's area, wouldn't have
> any strips at all :-)

Just because it's uncontrolled doesn't mean they don't have strips. In
fact, there's an entire thread about a destination in NY with its own
strips. I think that's way out of control. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

writes:
> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>>
>> > "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>> >> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>>
>> Like in, "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established" ?
>
> My interpretation of the ATC handbook is that there are
> three types of practice approaches:

> 1) You can be IFR, in which case it works just like any other IFR
> operation except that practice approaches are lower priority (you
> can be delayed). This comes with a proper IFR clearance (with a
> clearance limit) as has been stated in this thread.

Yes.

> 2) You can be VFR, but with separation services. Here you get 500 ft
> vertical separation from other traffic and standard lateral separation.
> The published miss is not authorized unless the controller
> specifically approves it, and if he does approve it, separation
> services are provided for the missed approach procedure as well.
> This comes with the instruction "CLEARED FOR THE APPROACH" or similar.

Yes.

> 3) You can be VFR, but without separation services. The missed
> approach is again not authorized. This comes with the instruction
> "PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED" or similar.

"MAINTAIN VFR, PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED, NO SEPARATION SERVICES PROVIDED."

> If you're operating under VFR, the controller is supposed to remind you
> by saying "MAINTAIN VFR" at some point, but if the controller forgets,
> it doesn't change anything.

It presumably reflects whether the controller believes whether you are now IFR.

The last time I asked an operational supervisor at the FAA (Boston),
which was yesterday, he said that in this (VFR) case the lack of the
phrase "MAINTAIN VFR" indicates they believe you are accepting an IFR
clearance with the airport as the clearance limit (unless you were
previously on an IFR clearance as you describe above). I specifically
asked him if there was a clearance limit, and what it would be.
He also went on to tell me about what he expected the lost communications
procedures would be. This was without having said "CLEARED TO airport".
That is the point of contention.

My point is just that the controller may have made a mistake and issued
a wrong clearance, and that the pilot should clarify what he wanted.

[Newps]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

>
> You could argue that he is wrong, of course.

There's no question he's wrong.

[KP[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
> The last time I asked an operational supervisor at the FAA (Boston),
> which was yesterday, he said that in this (VFR) case the lack of the
> phrase "MAINTAIN VFR" indicates they believe you are accepting an IFR
> clearance with the airport as the clearance limit (unless you were
> previously on an IFR clearance as you describe above). I specifically
> asked him if there was a clearance limit, and what it would be.
> He also went on to tell me about what he expected the lost communications
> procedures would be. This was without having said "CLEARED TO airport".
> That is the point of contention.

Would this be a supervisor who's operational and procedural knowledge is on
a par with the one I dealt with at Miami TRACON in the mid-90s?

The one who told me they didn't use permanent echoes to align/check the
accuracy of their video maps even though a check of their own facility SOPs
clearly stated they did and even had photos of the indicator showing where
the PEs were.

Sometimes FAA supervisors are where they are to get them out of where they
were :-/

You're not on an IFR clearance until you're "Cleared to XXX, via YYY,
maintain ZZZ"

An approach clearance IS NOT an IFR clearance; with or without the phrase
"Maintain VFR."

has it correct.

[Newps]

wrote:


> If separation services are provided, then the controller must be
> informed when to terminate those services. Could this be when the
> confusion occurs? What is the terminology for terminating VFR
> separation services?


Separation services must be given until the pilot reports completion of
the approach(uncontrolled field) or lands/goes missed(tower). I can
cancel your approach clearance but better have a damn good reason.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> "Tracy", being an uncontrolled airport in NorCal's area, wouldn't have
>> any strips at all :-)
>
>
> Just because it's uncontrolled doesn't mean they don't have strips.



And where do these strips go if there's nobody there to receive them?

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Just because it's uncontrolled doesn't mean they don't have strips.
> And where do these strips go if there's nobody there to receive them?

See the thread "Great fly-in destination (New York/New Jersey)". :)

I think there's a cover charge.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
>
> Separation services must be given until the pilot reports completion of
> the approach(uncontrolled field) or lands/goes missed(tower). I can
> cancel your approach clearance but better have a damn good reason.

Okay, but what terminology do you use to get the pilot to report
"completion"? Say there isn't a tower and you want to let the pilot
switch to the CTAF.

[Newps]

wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>Separation services must be given until the pilot reports completion of
>>the approach(uncontrolled field) or lands/goes missed(tower). I can
>>cancel your approach clearance but better have a damn good reason.
>
>
> Okay, but what terminology do you use to get the pilot to report
> "completion"? Say there isn't a tower and you want to let the pilot
> switch to the CTAF.

"Report completion of the approach, change to advisory freq approved."
Now I should have added that if the pilot never reports it doesn't shut
down the airport like if an IFR doesn't cancel. We are told to use our
best judgement. It's bureaucratic mumbo jumbo but that's the rules we
have to operate under.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>>"Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>>
>
>
> No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>
>
How about this:

Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."

ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."

Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> news:004301c6c98f$b7d9d310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
>
>>>The phraseology for loss of radar contact is "radar contact lost", not
>>>"radar service terminated".
>>>
>>
>>Steve,
>>Do they still advise "radar contact lost, radar service
>>terminated, cleared for the <approach>..."? I seem to remember getting
>>that when I used to go into Gunnison, Co. years ago.
>>
>
>
> I hope not.
>
>
I often go IFR into KBIH from the northwest. The airport is at 4,100
feet, MSL. Oakland Center typically loses radar contact when we leave
16,000, or so. It is a one-in/one-out airport.

Oakland Center has an RCO on the airport so we are sometimes told to
switch to advisory frequency, sometimes we are not.

It is a toss up whether the controller will say "radar service
terminated," or, "radar contact lost..radar service terminated."
Sometimes, the controller will simply say "radar service terminated."

Bottom line: "radar contact lost" or "radar service terminated" has
little, if any, practical difference in meaning to a pilot going into an
airport like Bishop.

[A Lieberma]

Sam Spade > wrote in news:FhrIg.196$c07.193@fed1read04:

> How about this:
>
> Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
> 5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."

Request for an ILS approach is not a request for an IFR clearance using
CRAFT as guidelines. You have not met the C part of CRAFT

> ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
> Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>
> Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?

Nope, you were not cleared, nor were you on an IFR flight. You were VFR in
the beginning and was treated accordingly from what I have been reading.

ATC does not know what is outside YOUR window (VMC or IMC). The above ATC
instructions does not meet the C part of CRAFT (Cleared to)

Allen

[Jose[_1_]]

> ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>
> Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?

I've had the situation where I've contacted SoCal approach just like
that, VFR, for an approach into STS (which was IFR with nighttime fog).
They gave me a squawk and all, but told me to maintain VFR while they
worked out an actual IFR clearance. At some point I was given a hard
IFR altitude (they used that phrase) and said "you are now IFR". I
don't remember whether they said "cleared to", but I bet they did.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>>> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>>
> How about this:
>
> Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
> 5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."
>
> ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
> Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>
> Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?

No, you started out VFR and you have to inform ATC if you can't maintain
VFR.

[Roy Smith]

Sam Spade > wrote:
> Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
> 5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."
>
> ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
> Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>
> Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?

Nope. What you want to hear is "cleared to the Chino airport". Then
you're IFR.

On the other hand, "maintain 4,000" sure sounds pretty IFR-like. My best
guess is the controller probably meant to issue you a clearance limit of
the Chino airport but mis-spoke. On the other hand, he could still be
moving other traffic around, and won't be able to issue you your clearance
until he's got the blips separated sufficiently.

But, there's no need to guess, just ask the guy, "confirm 34B is IFR this
time?" He'll either confirm that you are indeed IFR, or he'll tell you
that you're not yet and why. It's great fun to nit-pick the FARs and AIM
and second-guess what a clearance must have meant on usenet, but in the
air, if you're ever unsure what the controller meant, don't play games; ask
for clarification.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> When he gave you the clearance for the approach, did he say
>>>> "Maintain VFR?" If not, you were really IFR.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. You're really IFR when you hear "Cleared to..."
>>>
>> How about this:
>>
>> Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
>> 5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."
>>
>> ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
>> Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>>
>> Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?
>
>
> No, you started out VFR and you have to inform ATC if you can't maintain
> VFR.

So, when did "descend to and maintain 4,000" no longer constitute an IFR
clearance?

I haven't done a pop-up in a long time, but when I did do them, no
controller said, "Cleared to the Chino Airport." that was obvious by the
fact I was very near Chino and the controller gave me a heading for the
requested ILS to that airport.

Perhaps this stuff has changed since I last did it.

I only do full-press IFR, and have for a long time since I hung up the
old CFI-I.

[Emily[_1_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>> Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
>> 5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."
>>
>> ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
>> Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>>
>> Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?
>
> Nope. What you want to hear is "cleared to the Chino airport". Then
> you're IFR.
>
> On the other hand, "maintain 4,000" sure sounds pretty IFR-like.

If he was VFR, I think it just sounds like flight following talk.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
>>5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."
>>
>>ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
>>Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>>
>>Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?
>
>
> Nope. What you want to hear is "cleared to the Chino airport". Then
> you're IFR.
>
> On the other hand, "maintain 4,000" sure sounds pretty IFR-like.



Nope, you requested a practice approach, thereby agreeing to be
vectored/sequenced.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:


>> No, you started out VFR and you have to inform ATC if you can't
>> maintain VFR.
>
>
> So, when did "descend to and maintain 4,000" no longer constitute an IFR
> clearance?

When you're VFR. You asked to be vectored/sequenced for an approach.
Just how do you think he's going to do that?



>
> I haven't done a pop-up in a long time, but when I did do them, no
> controller said, "Cleared to the Chino Airport." that was obvious by the
> fact I was very near Chino and the controller gave me a heading for the
> requested ILS to that airport.

Then that was wrong. An IFR clearance must start with "cleared to..."

[Jose[_1_]]

> So, when did "descend to and maintain 4,000" no longer constitute an IFR clearance?

It never was an IFR clearance. It may be a cardinal IFR altitude, but
being at an altitude isn't the same as a clearance.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>
> The instruction "Cleared for the ILS runway 23 at Foobar maintain 2000 until established"
> contains "cleared", a route (which is even a charted IFR procedure), an altitude,
> and a clearance limit (landing Foobar airport, or executing the published missed
> approach procedure). How is that not an IFR clearance?
>
> I think it is, unless the controller adds the words "maintain VFR".
> When I want a practice approach and the controller fails to say "VFR",
> I add it back in to try and make sure, like:
> "Cherokee 97R cleared for the ILS 29 maintain VFR".

No, to be IFR you must have a clearance limit. The clearance must clear
you to some specific thing (like an intersection or most commonly, a
destination).
So a common popup IFR approach clearance sounds like...
"Cleared to the Foobar airport via radar vectors, fly heading 123,
maintain 2000 until established cleared for the ILS runway 22 foobar".
(Notice the "cleared to Foobar airport at the begining showing its an
IFR clearance.

-Robert, CFII

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:FhrIg.196$c07.193@fed1read04...
>
> How about this:
>
> Pilot: "SoCal Approach, Piper 1234B is 10 west of Paradise on top at
> 5,500. Request ILS approach to Chino 26 Right."
>
> ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
> Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
>
> Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:8UrIg.204$c07.37@fed1read04...
>
> So, when did "descend to and maintain 4,000" no longer constitute an IFR
> clearance?
>

It never did.


>
> I haven't done a pop-up in a long time, but when I did do them, no
> controller said, "Cleared to the Chino Airport." that was obvious by the
> fact I was very near Chino and the controller gave me a heading for the
> requested ILS to that airport.
>
> Perhaps this stuff has changed since I last did it.
>

Nope.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jose" wrote)
>> "Tracy", being an uncontrolled airport in NorCal's area, wouldn't have
>> any strips at all :-)

> Just because it's uncontrolled doesn't mean they don't have strips. In
> fact, there's an entire thread about a destination in NY with its own
> strips. I think that's way out of control. :)


I laughed. :-)


Montblack

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > ATC: "34B squawk 2133...34B radar contact, fly present heading for the
> > Chino ILS 26 Right. Descend and maintain 4,000."
> >
> > Did the controller issue an IFR clearance?
>
> I've had the situation where I've contacted SoCal approach just like
> that, VFR, for an approach into STS (which was IFR with nighttime fog).

SoCal, into STS?

Hamish

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:44:37 -0700, Sam Spade > wrote:

>So, when did "descend to and maintain 4,000" no longer constitute an IFR
>clearance?
>
>I haven't done a pop-up in a long time, but when I did do them, no
>controller said, "Cleared to the Chino Airport." that was obvious by the
>fact I was very near Chino and the controller gave me a heading for the
>requested ILS to that airport.
>
>Perhaps this stuff has changed since I last did it.
>
>I only do full-press IFR, and have for a long time since I hung up the
>old CFI-I.

Maybe it's a West Coast thing?
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jose[_1_]]

> SoCal, into STS?

SoCal, NoCal, LoCal, it's all the same to me. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:44:37 -0700, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>So, when did "descend to and maintain 4,000" no longer constitute an IFR
>>clearance?
>>
>>I haven't done a pop-up in a long time, but when I did do them, no
>>controller said, "Cleared to the Chino Airport." that was obvious by the
>>fact I was very near Chino and the controller gave me a heading for the
>>requested ILS to that airport.
>>
>>Perhaps this stuff has changed since I last did it.
>>
>>I only do full-press IFR, and have for a long time since I hung up the
>>old CFI-I.
>
>
> Maybe it's a West Coast thing?
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Actually, it may be a pre-TCA/Class B thing. Before the TCA came into
existence I don't believe there was any provision to assign an altitude
to a VFR aircraft.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:25:39 -0700, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:44:37 -0700, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, when did "descend to and maintain 4,000" no longer constitute an IFR
>>>clearance?
>>>
>>>I haven't done a pop-up in a long time, but when I did do them, no
>>>controller said, "Cleared to the Chino Airport." that was obvious by the
>>>fact I was very near Chino and the controller gave me a heading for the
>>>requested ILS to that airport.
>>>
>>>Perhaps this stuff has changed since I last did it.
>>>
>>>I only do full-press IFR, and have for a long time since I hung up the
>>>old CFI-I.
>>
>>
>> Maybe it's a West Coast thing?
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>Actually, it may be a pre-TCA/Class B thing. Before the TCA came into
>existence I don't believe there was any provision to assign an altitude
>to a VFR aircraft.

Pre-TCA was before my time. :-)

But here in the NE, at least with the ATC facilities that I've worked with,
an IFR clearance has always included a clearance limit. I've had
controllers sometimes forget I'm IFR, but I've not had them ask me to
report canceling IFR absent a prior, proper IFR clearance.

Best,
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Regarding the difference between 2. and 3.: When would "procedures require
> application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument
> approaches" as opposed to "Where separation services are not provided to
> VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches"?
>

It is FAA policy that IFR separation should be provided to VFR aircraft
practicing instrument approaches wherever it can be provided. Where it is
done a letter to airmen is issued advising the users of those airports where
standard separation is provided for VFR aircraft conducting practice
instrument approaches. Why this policy was set is beyond me.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes. The question at hand is how the pilot and controller understand
> whether the instrument procedure is being flown under IFR or VFR.
>
> My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:
>
> "Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
> Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
> UNTIL established on the localizer."
>
> that you are have accepted an IFR clearance. This phraseology is
> exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
> your flight on an IFR flight plan.
>

No it isn't. The clearance limit is issued at the beginning of the flight,
not at the end.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree that was written sloppily. In the one case, you get the
> "cleared to" the airport earlier in the flight and the "cleared for
> the approach" afterwards. In the othe case, you usually get directed
> to some IAP or just radar vectored to the approach course followed by
> "cleared for the approach". In the example that the Boston TRACON
> supervisor commented on, what I said to him was the "cleared for..."
> version. He said that this absent the "Maintain VFR" phrase, this
> constituted a clearance limit for the purpose of IFR lost comm
> procedures (which I hadn't asked about).
>
> You could argue that he is wrong, of course.
>

If he said that, he's wrong. A clearance limit is defined as the point to
which an aircraft is cleared when issued a clearance and is a necessary
component of an IFR clearance. No "cleared to", no clearance limit, no IFR
clearance.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"skym" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Uh, I really hope all you ATC guys are "sharp troopers." You're
> scaring me.
>

Some are, some are not.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> The last time I asked an operational supervisor at the FAA (Boston),
> which was yesterday, he said that in this (VFR) case the lack of the
> phrase "MAINTAIN VFR" indicates they believe you are accepting an IFR
> clearance with the airport as the clearance limit (unless you were
> previously on an IFR clearance as you describe above). I specifically
> asked him if there was a clearance limit, and what it would be.
> He also went on to tell me about what he expected the lost communications
> procedures would be. This was without having said "CLEARED TO airport".
> That is the point of contention.
>

He's wrong.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes. The question at hand is how the pilot and controller understand
>>whether the instrument procedure is being flown under IFR or VFR.
>>
>>My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:
>>
>>"Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
>>Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
>>UNTIL established on the localizer."
>>
>>that you are have accepted an IFR clearance. This phraseology is
>>exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
>>your flight on an IFR flight plan.
>>
>
>
> No it isn't. The clearance limit is issued at the beginning of the flight,
> not at the end.

And it is issued at the beginning of the clearance as well. :-)

Matt

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > SoCal, into STS?
>
> SoCal, NoCal, LoCal, it's all the same to me. :)

Just don't call NorCal "Bay Approach" as I absent-mindedly did last
Wednesday :-).

Hamish (maybe that's why they made me cancel...)

[John Clear]

In article >,
Hamish Reid > wrote:
>
>Just don't call NorCal "Bay Approach" as I absent-mindedly did last
>Wednesday :-).
>
> Hamish (maybe that's why they made me cancel...)

Or Sierra Approach. How long did that name last? I think by the
time it made it on to the VFR chart, they'd changed it to NoCal.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
(John Clear) wrote:

> In article >,
> Hamish Reid > wrote:
> >
> >Just don't call NorCal "Bay Approach" as I absent-mindedly did last
> >Wednesday :-).
> >
> > Hamish (maybe that's why they made me cancel...)
>
> Or Sierra Approach. How long did that name last? I think by the
> time it made it on to the VFR chart, they'd changed it to NoCal.

I think I got about half a dozen or so flights with Sierra. Shame
really, I liked the name -- "NorCal" is kinda graceless by comparison...

Hamish

[[email protected]]

Hamish Reid wrote:
>
> I think I got about half a dozen or so flights with Sierra. Shame
> really, I liked the name -- "NorCal" is kinda graceless by comparison...
>
> Hamish

Yeah, the controllers liked that name, too. But decided it was a bad
idea for their callsign to be a word from the phonetic alphabet, so it
was changed.