Did I violate an FAR?

[Anonymous coward #673]

The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
[some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
done instead?

[Judah]

Anonymous coward #673 > wrote in news:nowhere-
:

> The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
> IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
> was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
> practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
> [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
> something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
> conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
> instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
> done instead?

I believe even on a VFR practice approach controllers "put you in the
system" with a VFR notation of some sort. You properly requested a practice
approach in VFR conditions. However, he should have indicated "maintain
VFR" in his clearance to indicate that you were not accepting an actual IFR
Clearance. If he did not, it is possible that you did accept an actual IFR
Clearance. Of course, it's also possible that he just didn't call the
clearance properly. ATC isn't always perfect...

If you were PIC on an IFR Clearance, and you were not current, you violated
FAR 61.57 - Recent Flight Experience.
"(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or
flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for
the instrument privileges sought—

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems"

[Ron Natalie]

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
> The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
> IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
> was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
> practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
> [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
> something like that].

"Putting you in the computer" doesn't make you IFR. It just lets them
do things like get you a squawk code and the like so it's easier to
track you. Normally they don't bother telling you that they are doing
this.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
>
>> The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
>> IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
>> was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted
>> a practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system
>> for [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
>> something like that].
>
>
> "Putting you in the computer" doesn't make you IFR. It just lets them
> do things like get you a squawk code and the like so it's easier to
> track you. Normally they don't bother telling you that they are doing
> this.

But, since the controller told him that, he may have entered him into
the computer as an IFR operation.

If, in fact, that were the case, it would go no where as an enforcement
case.

[Roy Smith]

Anonymous coward #673 > wrote:

Anonymous cowards are only allowed to post on slashdot :-)

> The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
> IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
> was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
> practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
> [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
> something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
> conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
> instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
> done instead?

First off, if you were not current (and neither was your buddy), then it
was illegal to accept an IFR clearance.

That being said, are you sure you were given an IFR clearance? Did the
controller say "cleared to the XXX airport"? Unless you are cleared TO
someplace, it's not IFR.

More than likely, your clearance was something like "Cleared XYZ approach,
maintain VFR at all times". He's providing your IFR separation, but you're
operating under VFR (i.e. must maintain VFR weather minimia).

If you really thought the controller was giving you an IFR clearance, you
should have said, "Unable IFR, I need to do this under VFR".

[Sam Spade]

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
> The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
> IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
> was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
> practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
> [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
> something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
> conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
> instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
> done instead?

You should file a NASA Aviation Safety Report on this. In that way you
have immunity from any possible (unlikely) enforcement action and, more
important, the ATC tapes will be reviewed and the situation corrected.

[Brad[_1_]]

Sam Spade wrote:

> You should file a NASA Aviation Safety Report on this. In that way you
> have immunity from any possible (unlikely) enforcement action and, more
> important, the ATC tapes will be reviewed and the situation corrected.

I agree that there's never anything wrong with filing an ASRS report,
but how likely is it that this specific incident will be reviewed and
that the tapes will be listened to? As I understand, the "tapes" are
only stored for a short time frame. Do the ASRS folks forward the
report to the local FSDO? Does this happen quick enough for the tapes
to still exist? Certainly the ASRS researchers don't have the manpower
to investigate and follow-up on every incident.

[Sam Spade]

Brad wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>You should file a NASA Aviation Safety Report on this. In that way you
>>have immunity from any possible (unlikely) enforcement action and, more
>>important, the ATC tapes will be reviewed and the situation corrected.
>
>
> I agree that there's never anything wrong with filing an ASRS report,
> but how likely is it that this specific incident will be reviewed and
> that the tapes will be listened to? As I understand, the "tapes" are
> only stored for a short time frame. Do the ASRS folks forward the
> report to the local FSDO? Does this happen quick enough for the tapes
> to still exist? Certainly the ASRS researchers don't have the manpower
> to investigate and follow-up on every incident.
>

ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities. The ASRS
specialist would deal directly with the ATC facility. The FSDO has no
role in a matter involving ATC that is reported via an ASRS report.

One of the primary reasons for the 10-day limitation on reporting was
the 15-day ATC tape retention cycle, which was the norm when the ASRS
was established.

[Anonymous coward #673]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> Anonymous coward #673 > wrote:
>
> Anonymous cowards are only allowed to post on slashdot :-)
>
> > The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
> > IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
> > was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
> > practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
> > [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
> > something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
> > conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
> > instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
> > done instead?
>
> First off, if you were not current (and neither was your buddy), then it
> was illegal to accept an IFR clearance.
>
> That being said, are you sure you were given an IFR clearance? Did the
> controller say "cleared to the XXX airport"? Unless you are cleared TO
> someplace, it's not IFR.
>
> More than likely, your clearance was something like "Cleared XYZ approach,
> maintain VFR at all times". He's providing your IFR separation, but you're
> operating under VFR (i.e. must maintain VFR weather minimia).

I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
runway 26 approach." He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
"in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around.

> If you really thought the controller was giving you an IFR clearance, you
> should have said, "Unable IFR, I need to do this under VFR".

I think that's the right answer.

rg

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>>
>
> ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities.


45 days is now the standard.

[Robert M. Gary]

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
> In article >,
> Roy Smith > wrote:
>
> > Anonymous coward #673 > wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous cowards are only allowed to post on slashdot :-)
> > More than likely, your clearance was something like "Cleared XYZ approach,
> > maintain VFR at all times". He's providing your IFR separation, but you're
> > operating under VFR (i.e. must maintain VFR weather minimia).
>
> I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
> runway 26 approach." He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
> responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
> "in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around.

That is a VFR clearance. An IFR clearance would be
"cleared to the XYZ airport via the GINNA, .....". If he didn't say
"cleared to the xyz airport" then you were NOT IFR.

-Robert, CFII

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/27/06 09:23, Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
> In article >,
> Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>> Anonymous coward #673 > wrote:
>>
>> Anonymous cowards are only allowed to post on slashdot :-)
>>
>> > The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
>> > IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
>> > was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
>> > practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
>> > [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
>> > something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
>> > conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
>> > instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
>> > done instead?
>>
>> First off, if you were not current (and neither was your buddy), then it
>> was illegal to accept an IFR clearance.
>>
>> That being said, are you sure you were given an IFR clearance? Did the
>> controller say "cleared to the XXX airport"? Unless you are cleared TO
>> someplace, it's not IFR.
>>
>> More than likely, your clearance was something like "Cleared XYZ approach,
>> maintain VFR at all times". He's providing your IFR separation, but you're
>> operating under VFR (i.e. must maintain VFR weather minimia).
>
> I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
> runway 26 approach."

This does not mean you are IFR. An IFR clearance must include the phrase
"Cleared to XXX" where XXX is the clearance limit (destination or fix).

"Cleared for the approach" is different. In my area, the controllers will
at times use the phrase "approved for the approach" as a way to make it
clear that this is a practice approach, but not all controllers do that.

> He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
> responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
> "in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around.

I'm not sure he has to remind you to maintain VFR. This is, after all,
the PIC's responsibility. The controllers in my area do this anyway FWIW.

>
>> If you really thought the controller was giving you an IFR clearance, you
>> should have said, "Unable IFR, I need to do this under VFR".
>
> I think that's the right answer.
>
> rg



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities.
>
>
>
> 45 days is now the standard.
>

Even better than what I thought it was.

[Brad[_1_]]

Sam Spade wrote:

> ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities. The ASRS
> specialist would deal directly with the ATC facility. The FSDO has no
> role in a matter involving ATC that is reported via an ASRS report.
>
> One of the primary reasons for the 10-day limitation on reporting was
> the 15-day ATC tape retention cycle, which was the norm when the ASRS
> was established.

So it's reviewed by the in-house QA staffer at the facility? I was
previously under the understanding that ASRS incidents were analyzed
statistically as a whole rather than individually, to analyze trends in
safety. Thanks for the clarification.

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:


>
> "Cleared for the approach" is different. In my area, the controllers will
> at times use the phrase "approved for the approach" as a way to make it
> clear that this is a practice approach, but not all controllers do that.

That's not correct. The phrase you're thinking of is "Practice approach
approved, no separation services provided." This means ATC will not be
providing the standard separation to VFR practice approaches of 3 miles
or 500 feet.


>
>
>> He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
>>responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
>>"in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around.


The way to respond in this situation is to simply say "Roger, understand
I'm VFR." Or words to that effect.


>
>
> I'm not sure he has to remind you to maintain VFR. This is, after all,
> the PIC's responsibility. The controllers in my area do this anyway FWIW.

The controller is required to tell you to maintain VFR one time, as soon
as possible upon initial contact or finding out you want practice
approaches.

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities.
>
>
> 45 days is now the standard.

A friend of mine filed one after being on an IFR approach in actual and
the approach controller into Napa, CA told him, "radar services
canceled, squawk VFR, contact tower". He wasn't sure how to react other
than to just ack. I wonder if any action can to the controller.

-Robert

[Roy Smith]

Anonymous coward #673 > wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
> runway 26 approach." He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
> responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
> "in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around.

Nothing ambiguous about it. He didn't clear you TO anyplace, so you
weren't IFR.

[Roy Smith]

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

> Newps wrote:
> > Sam Spade wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities.
> >
> >
> > 45 days is now the standard.
>
> A friend of mine filed one after being on an IFR approach in actual and
> the approach controller into Napa, CA told him, "radar services
> canceled, squawk VFR, contact tower". He wasn't sure how to react other
> than to just ack. I wonder if any action can to the controller.

How about "unable VFR".

[Robert M. Gary]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > A friend of mine filed one after being on an IFR approach in actual and
> > the approach controller into Napa, CA told him, "radar services
> > canceled, squawk VFR, contact tower". He wasn't sure how to react other
> > than to just ack. I wonder if any action can to the controller.
>
> How about "unable VFR".

True, but I can understand why he reacted why he did. First, he was
very time pressured, he was FAF inbound. Second, we aren't used to
hearing stuff from ATC that we don't expect. Although it sounds
complicated to non-pilots, generally ATC isn't very creative in what
they say. I can see how a pilot could react unpredicatably to an
unusual (and illegal) ATC request. My guess is that he was always IFR.
The controller probably just used the wrong phrase but the flight was
probably in the computer. Certainly ATC cannot make you VFR once you
receive an IFR clearance without a pilot request.

-Robert

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/27/06 16:07, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities.
>>
>>
>> 45 days is now the standard.
>
> A friend of mine filed one after being on an IFR approach in actual and
> the approach controller into Napa, CA told him, "radar services
> canceled, squawk VFR, contact tower". He wasn't sure how to react other
> than to just ack. I wonder if any action can to the controller.

Wow. The pilot allowed the controller to cancel his IFR flight plan while
he was flying in IMC?

>
> -Robert
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/27/06 16:55, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> > A friend of mine filed one after being on an IFR approach in actual and
>> > the approach controller into Napa, CA told him, "radar services
>> > canceled, squawk VFR, contact tower". He wasn't sure how to react other
>> > than to just ack. I wonder if any action can to the controller.
>>
>> How about "unable VFR".
>
> True, but I can understand why he reacted why he did. First, he was
> very time pressured, he was FAF inbound. Second, we aren't used to
> hearing stuff from ATC that we don't expect. Although it sounds
> complicated to non-pilots, generally ATC isn't very creative in what
> they say. I can see how a pilot could react unpredicatably to an
> unusual (and illegal) ATC request. My guess is that he was always IFR.
> The controller probably just used the wrong phrase but the flight was
> probably in the computer. Certainly ATC cannot make you VFR once you
> receive an IFR clearance without a pilot request.

Well, they're not *supposed* to, but then they aren't *supposed* to
say what the controller said either ;-)

>
> -Robert
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Anonymous coward #673 > wrote:
>
>>I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
>>runway 26 approach." He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
>>responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
>>"in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around.
>
>
> Nothing ambiguous about it. He didn't clear you TO anyplace, so you
> weren't IFR.

What is the AIM reference that informs a pop-up he/she is not on a
pop-up IFR clearance unless a clearance limit is stated in the pop-up
clearance for an ILS, or such?

[Sam Spade]

Brad wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities. The ASRS
>>specialist would deal directly with the ATC facility. The FSDO has no
>>role in a matter involving ATC that is reported via an ASRS report.
>>
>>One of the primary reasons for the 10-day limitation on reporting was
>>the 15-day ATC tape retention cycle, which was the norm when the ASRS
>>was established.
>
>
> So it's reviewed by the in-house QA staffer at the facility? I was
> previously under the understanding that ASRS incidents were analyzed
> statistically as a whole rather than individually, to analyze trends in
> safety. Thanks for the clarification.
>

The statistics are the end product.

But, if the specialist doesn't dig into the issue then the statistics
are meaningless.

To what extent the QA folks at the facility delve into the incident
varies with the dynamics of the NASA staffer and the facility. It
certainly is not as good as it used to be in general. But, that doesn't
mean some incidents aren't still handled quite well.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

A few other pieces of information might clarify the situation. Was this
approach at a tower controlled airport? If not, did you cancel IFR?

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
> The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
> IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
> was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
> practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
> [some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
> something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
> conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
> instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
> done instead?

[Anonymous coward #673]

In article om>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> A few other pieces of information might clarify the situation. Was this
> approach at a tower controlled airport?

Yes.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:23:42 -0700, Anonymous coward #673
> wrote:

>I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
>runway 26 approach." He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
>responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
>"in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around


That is NOT an IFR clearance. So although you were "in the system", you
were NOT on an IFR flight plan.

Don't forget that, among other things, an IFR clearance requires a
clearance limit (which is often the destination airport). That was NOT
stated in your instruction.

No bust.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

The QA at any facility is not affected one iota by a NASA form. It goes
on regardless.




Sam Spade wrote:
> Brad wrote:
>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities. The ASRS
>>> specialist would deal directly with the ATC facility. The FSDO has no
>>> role in a matter involving ATC that is reported via an ASRS report.
>>>
>>> One of the primary reasons for the 10-day limitation on reporting was
>>> the 15-day ATC tape retention cycle, which was the norm when the ASRS
>>> was established.
>>
>>
>>
>> So it's reviewed by the in-house QA staffer at the facility? I was
>> previously under the understanding that ASRS incidents were analyzed
>> statistically as a whole rather than individually, to analyze trends in
>> safety. Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>
> The statistics are the end product.
>
> But, if the specialist doesn't dig into the issue then the statistics
> are meaningless.
>
> To what extent the QA folks at the facility delve into the incident
> varies with the dynamics of the NASA staffer and the facility. It
> certainly is not as good as it used to be in general. But, that doesn't
> mean some incidents aren't still handled quite well.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


> That is NOT an IFR clearance. So although you were "in the system", you
> were NOT on an IFR flight plan.
>
> Don't forget that, among other things, an IFR clearance requires a
> clearance limit (which is often the destination airport). That was NOT
> stated in your instruction.
>
Got an AIM reference?

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

> The QA at any facility is not affected one iota by a NASA form. It goes
> on regardless.
>
It's not the form, it's the phone call and discussion.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> The QA at any facility is not affected one iota by a NASA form. It
>> goes on regardless.
>>
> It's not the form, it's the phone call and discussion.

Whatever.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>> The QA at any facility is not affected one iota by a NASA form. It
>>> goes on regardless.
>>>
>> It's not the form, it's the phone call and discussion.
>
>
> Whatever.

Sadly, that makes you part of the reason the program came into being.

If you ever bothered to read the disposition of these reports you might
learn that discussions were often held, and corrections made where
necessary.

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>
> >
> > "Cleared for the approach" is different. In my area, the controllers will
> > at times use the phrase "approved for the approach" as a way to make it
> > clear that this is a practice approach, but not all controllers do that.
>
> That's not correct. The phrase you're thinking of is "Practice approach
> approved, no separation services provided." This means ATC will not be
> providing the standard separation to VFR practice approaches of 3 miles
> or 500 feet.

There are certain airports where the controllers say "no separation
provided" but others don't say that. At most of the airports around
here they just say "cleared for the XYZ approach, maintain VFR". No
mention of separation at all.

-Robert

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>> The QA at any facility is not affected one iota by a NASA form. It
>>>> goes on regardless.
>>>>
>>> It's not the form, it's the phone call and discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whatever.
>
>
> Sadly, that makes you part of the reason the program came into being.
>
> If you ever bothered to read the disposition of these reports you might
> learn that discussions were often held, and corrections made where
> necessary.

What you fail to realize is that QA is many times larger than the once
every 15 years a facility may get a call from NASA. I'm not aware of
it ever happening here.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


>
> There are certain airports where the controllers say "no separation
> provided" but others don't say that.


A controller will only say that when he's not providing separation, used
almost exclusively at uncontrolled fields to allow more than one
aircraft on final at the same time.





At most of the airports around
> here they just say "cleared for the XYZ approach, maintain VFR". No
> mention of separation at all.

The above clearance means you're getting separation. You will get 3
miles lateral or 500 feet vertical. The difference is the separation
ends at the approach end of the runway unless they approved a published
missed. A regular IFR approach gets you a continuous 3 miles until you
land.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:30:31 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>> That is NOT an IFR clearance. So although you were "in the system", you
>> were NOT on an IFR flight plan.
>>
>> Don't forget that, among other things, an IFR clearance requires a
>> clearance limit (which is often the destination airport). That was NOT
>> stated in your instruction.
>>
>Got an AIM reference?

No, but 7110.65 seems to instruct controllers to issue a clearance limit in
many areas in Ch 4 (IFR). Including arrival procedures.

The controllers are also supposed to instruct VFR pilots conducting
practice instrument approaches to "maintain VFR". ATC did not do this,
according to the OP.

The pilot never requested an IFR clearance, and controllers can and do
apply IFR separation procedures to VFR a/c conducting instrument
approaches.

I can't see how the OP could be held in violation of acting as PIC under
IFR in these circumstances. But the exact wording of the communication
from ATC would be of interest.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Roy Smith]

Sam Spade > wrote:
> > Nothing ambiguous about it. He didn't clear you TO anyplace, so you
> > weren't IFR.
>
> What is the AIM reference that informs a pop-up he/she is not on a
> pop-up IFR clearance unless a clearance limit is stated in the pop-up
> clearance for an ILS, or such?

I can't find one (but you knew that). I guess it's one of those things
that I've always taken for granted, that "cleared to" is the magic phrase
you need to hear to be IFR.

So, are you saying that after the following conversation:

Me: "Request practice ILS-16 approach"

ATC: "Cleared ILS-16 approach"

I'm IFR?

[PilotWeb.org]

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
appropriate rating and without currency.

When doing IFR training under VFR, ATC will use the term, "Practice
approach approved", which is the VFR equivalent to "cleared approach",
that lets' you know that you are still under VFR. It usually sounds
like this after being identified...

"Citation 98Q, turn right heading 090, descend and maintain 4500 until
established, practice approach approved ILS 30C. Maintain VFR"


Visit our website for more forums, jobs, and to post your profile and
resume.

http://www.pilotweb.org/

[Jose[_1_]]

> If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
> limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.

Not and/or. And.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

PilotWeb.org wrote:
> If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
> limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.


No, wrong. Cleared for approach in no way makes you IFR. You must hear
the regular clearance items for an IFR clearance. At a minimum you have
to be cleared to somewhere via a route(which may be vectors) and
assigned an altitude.




> The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
> say anything like "Cleared IFR...")


They never do.






If you were "cleared for approach"
> then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
> appropriate rating and without currency.



ATC cannot make you illegal by simply saying cleared for the approach.





>
> When doing IFR training under VFR, ATC will use the term, "Practice
> approach approved", which is the VFR equivalent to "cleared approach",

Completely wrong, both are used and used for very different and distinct
purposes.





> that lets' you know that you are still under VFR. It usually sounds
> like this after being identified...
>
> "Citation 98Q, turn right heading 090, descend and maintain 4500 until
> established, practice approach approved ILS 30C. Maintain VFR"


You'll never hear that.




>
>
> Visit our website for more forums, jobs, and to post your profile and
> resume.

I hope somebody there knows what the hell they're talking about.

[Ron Natalie]

PilotWeb.org wrote:
> If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
> limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.

Incorrect. I get the word CLEARED all the time in class B airspace
(coming and going) without the slightest pretense of IFR operation.

I get the word "Cleared" for landing all the time without the slightest
pretense of IFR.

[Hamish Reid]

In article . com>,
"PilotWeb.org" > wrote:

> If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
> limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Are you talking about the US here?
I've spent entire afternoons doing practice approaches with NorCal
Approach here on the US's left coast and been "cleared for [approach]"
every time. They'll occasionally throw in a "maintain VFR" in the same
phrase, but that's not even common on the approaches I typically
practice on.

> The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
> say anything like "Cleared IFR...")

I can't imagine they *ever* say that, but never mind...

[...]

> [advertising deleted...]

Hamish

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>>Nothing ambiguous about it. He didn't clear you TO anyplace, so you
>>>weren't IFR.
>>
>>What is the AIM reference that informs a pop-up he/she is not on a
>>pop-up IFR clearance unless a clearance limit is stated in the pop-up
>>clearance for an ILS, or such?
>
>
> I can't find one (but you knew that). I guess it's one of those things
> that I've always taken for granted, that "cleared to" is the magic phrase
> you need to hear to be IFR.
>
> So, are you saying that after the following conversation:
>
> Me: "Request practice ILS-16 approach"
>
> ATC: "Cleared ILS-16 approach"
>
> I'm IFR?

No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.

I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the LA
Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500 feet
east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario and tell
the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives me a squawk,
then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and maintain
6,000 for an ILS to 26R."

[Sam Spade]

PilotWeb.org wrote:

> If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
> limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
> The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
> say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
> then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
> appropriate rating and without currency.

That is not what triggers IFR.

In my hypothetical I am on top of stratus 15 miles east of Podunck
Airport (which has a TRACON). I call in, "Poduck Approach, Baron 1234C
is at 8,500, VFR, over ACMEE intersection. Requst an ILS approach to
Runway 26."

"Baron 34C, radar contact over ACMEE, fly heading 270 for vectors to the
Podunck 26 ILS. Descent to and maintain 6,000."

Then, there could follow several altitude and vector heading changes
while I am IMC.

Finally, once the controller satisfies the vector-to-final requirements
of 7110.65P, only then will he say "Cleared for approach."

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>
>
> No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.
>
> I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the LA
> Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500 feet
> east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario and tell
> the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives me a squawk,
> then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and maintain
> 6,000 for an ILS to 26R."

You're still VFR.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

> PilotWeb.org wrote:
>
>> If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
>> limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
>> The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
>> say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
>> then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
>> appropriate rating and without currency.
>
>
> That is not what triggers IFR.
>
> In my hypothetical I am on top of stratus 15 miles east of Podunck
> Airport (which has a TRACON). I call in, "Poduck Approach, Baron 1234C
> is at 8,500, VFR, over ACMEE intersection. Requst an ILS approach to
> Runway 26."
>
> "Baron 34C, radar contact over ACMEE, fly heading 270 for vectors to the
> Podunck 26 ILS. Descent to and maintain 6,000."
>
> Then, there could follow several altitude and vector heading changes
> while I am IMC.

You busted the regs when you went in the clouds.

[[email protected]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> PilotWeb.org wrote:
>
> > If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
> > limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
> > The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
> > say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
> > then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
> > appropriate rating and without currency.
>
> That is not what triggers IFR.
>
> In my hypothetical I am on top of stratus 15 miles east of Podunck
> Airport (which has a TRACON). I call in, "Poduck Approach, Baron 1234C
> is at 8,500, VFR, over ACMEE intersection. Requst an ILS approach to
> Runway 26."
>
> "Baron 34C, radar contact over ACMEE, fly heading 270 for vectors to the
> Podunck 26 ILS. Descent to and maintain 6,000."
>
> Then, there could follow several altitude and vector heading changes
> while I am IMC.
>
> Finally, once the controller satisfies the vector-to-final requirements
> of 7110.65P, only then will he say "Cleared for approach."

But "cleared for approach" is no more an IFR clearance than "cleared
for takeoff." Neither is "fly heading 270" an IFR clearance.

The best AIM reference I can get you is in 4-3-21: "If pilots wish to
proceed in accordance with instrument flight rules, they must
specifically request and obtain, an IFR clearance." So you would have
to say something like "Request an IFR clearance to Podunk airport via
the ILS runway 26."

Just requesting the ILS is ambiguous at best. You might get away with
it if Podunk airport is IFR, but if the stratus stops short of the
airport and the airport is VFR, then the controller may assume you want
to fly the ILS while under VFR.

Now about the "maintain VFR" wording the controller is supposed to use:
I've read that 1) it is only a reminder, 2) the controller only needs
to state it once (not necessarily in conjunction with the approach
clearance, it could have happened 30 minutes prior, or whatever) and 3)
if the controller forgets to state "maintain VFR" (or if the pilot
doesn't remember hearing it) then the pilot must still maintain VFR.

[Anonymous coward #673]

In article om>,
wrote:

> The best AIM reference I can get you is in 4-3-21: "If pilots wish to
> proceed in accordance with instrument flight rules, they must
> specifically request and obtain, an IFR clearance." So you would have
> to say something like "Request an IFR clearance to Podunk airport via
> the ILS runway 26."
>
> Just requesting the ILS is ambiguous at best.

In this case there was no ambiguity, at least not on my end. I
specifically requested a practice approach in VFR conditions (I used
both phrases). I got back something that sounded like it might have
been an IFR clearance ("Cleared for the approach", but not "Cleared TO
anywhere", but also (notably) not "practice approach approved" and not
"maintain VFR.")

Then I specifically replied that I didn't want a real approach, I wanted
a practice approach, and ATC responded that I "had to be in the system"
(whatever that means). Notably they did NOT say anything along the
lines of "Acknowledged, maintain VFR at all times."

It was a very strange situation, hence my question.

[Anonymous coward #673]

In article
>,
Hamish Reid > wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "PilotWeb.org" > wrote:
>
> > If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
> > limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
>
> Well, that's the question, isn't it? Are you talking about the US here?


Yes. SoCal.

[Ron Natalie]

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Hamish Reid > wrote:
>
>> In article . com>,
>> "PilotWeb.org" > wrote:
>>
>>> If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
>>> limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
>> Well, that's the question, isn't it? Are you talking about the US here?
>
>
> Yes. SoCal.

Is that still in the US?

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.
>>
>> I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the
>> LA Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500
>> feet east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario
>> and tell the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives me
>> a squawk, then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and
>> maintain 6,000 for an ILS to 26R."
>
>
> You're still VFR.

What would have to be different to make me IFR? Could you cite a reference?

[A Lieberma]

Sam Spade > wrote in
:

> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.
>>>
>>> I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the
>>> LA Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500
>>> feet east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario
>>> and tell the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives
>>> me a squawk, then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to
>>> and maintain 6,000 for an ILS to 26R."
>>
>>
>> You're still VFR.
>
> What would have to be different to make me IFR? Could you cite a
> reference?

Question to you was what was your clearance limit? No clearance limit,
no IFR clearance.

You don't say you were cleared for the ILS approach above. You were only
given directions to descent and maintain 6000..... as written above. I
don't *think* you ever mention the word cleared.

Allen

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>PilotWeb.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
>>>limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
>>> The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
>>>say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
>>>then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
>>>appropriate rating and without currency.
>>
>>That is not what triggers IFR.
>>
>>In my hypothetical I am on top of stratus 15 miles east of Podunck
>>Airport (which has a TRACON). I call in, "Poduck Approach, Baron 1234C
>>is at 8,500, VFR, over ACMEE intersection. Requst an ILS approach to
>>Runway 26."
>>
>>"Baron 34C, radar contact over ACMEE, fly heading 270 for vectors to the
>>Podunck 26 ILS. Descent to and maintain 6,000."
>>
>>Then, there could follow several altitude and vector heading changes
>>while I am IMC.
>>
>>Finally, once the controller satisfies the vector-to-final requirements
>>of 7110.65P, only then will he say "Cleared for approach."
>
>
> But "cleared for approach" is no more an IFR clearance than "cleared
> for takeoff." Neither is "fly heading 270" an IFR clearance.
>
> The best AIM reference I can get you is in 4-3-21: "If pilots wish to
> proceed in accordance with instrument flight rules, they must
> specifically request and obtain, an IFR clearance." So you would have
> to say something like "Request an IFR clearance to Podunk airport via
> the ILS runway 26."

But, that is a section dealing with practice approaches.
>
> Just requesting the ILS is ambiguous at best. You might get away with
> it if Podunk airport is IFR, but if the stratus stops short of the
> airport and the airport is VFR, then the controller may assume you want
> to fly the ILS while under VFR.

Then, the pilot should call FSS first, and file a full route IFR flight
plan. That is what the letter of the regulation requires, excepting
only the published tower-to-tower routes.

Being practical, Pop ups have been used for eons in places like the LA
Basin, and the controllers are fully aware when there is a solid stratus
overcast.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>> He identifies me, gives me a squawk, then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and maintain 6,000 for an ILS to 26R."
>>
>>
>>
>> You're still VFR.
>
>
> What would have to be different to make me IFR?

"Cleared present position to the Ontario airport..."

I don't have a reference. I was in NorCal VFR and needed an ILS into
Santa Rosa, I got radar contact, a heading, and an indication that they
will work me into the system. I got several more vectors in
anticipation of the clearance, the controller saying he'll get me a
"hard IFR altitude" shortly. Later on, when he got me into the system
he said something like "You're IFR now".

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.
>>>
>>> I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the
>>> LA Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500
>>> feet east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario
>>> and tell the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives me
>>> a squawk, then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and
>>> maintain 6,000 for an ILS to 26R."
>>
>>
>>
>> You're still VFR.
>
>
> What would have to be different to make me IFR? Could you cite a
> reference?


You call up and say you are VFR at 8500 and request an ILS into Ontario.
Nothing so far suggests you even want to be IFR. Had you said you
were VFR on top of an overcast and would like a local IFR clearance to
get down then it would have been clear. The controller would have
responded with a clearance to Ontario as per the .65 4-2-1.

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0402.html

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>

>
> You call up and say you are VFR at 8500 and request an ILS into Ontario.
> Nothing so far suggests you even want to be IFR. Had you said you
> were VFR on top of an overcast and would like a local IFR clearance to
> get down then it would have been clear. The controller would have
> responded with a clearance to Ontario as per the .65 4-2-1.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0402.html

I guess it boils down to whether "fly heading 260 for vectors to the
Chino Runway 26 ILS, descent to and maintain 6,000" contains the
component of a clearance limit."

I think it does.

You say it doesn't.

Sounds like a subject ripe for some ATPAC discussion and clear AIM material.

[Hamish Reid]

In article >,
Sam Spade > wrote:

> Newps wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > You call up and say you are VFR at 8500 and request an ILS into Ontario.
> > Nothing so far suggests you even want to be IFR. Had you said you
> > were VFR on top of an overcast and would like a local IFR clearance to
> > get down then it would have been clear. The controller would have
> > responded with a clearance to Ontario as per the .65 4-2-1.
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0402.html
>
> I guess it boils down to whether "fly heading 260 for vectors to the
> Chino Runway 26 ILS, descent to and maintain 6,000" contains the
> component of a clearance limit."
>
> I think it does.
>
> You say it doesn't.
>
> Sounds like a subject ripe for some ATPAC discussion and clear AIM material.

I'm having a really hard time seeing a clearance limit in your example.
What do you think the clearance limit is in it?

Hamish

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>> You call up and say you are VFR at 8500 and request an ILS into
>> Ontario. Nothing so far suggests you even want to be IFR. Had you
>> said you were VFR on top of an overcast and would like a local IFR
>> clearance to get down then it would have been clear. The controller
>> would have responded with a clearance to Ontario as per the .65 4-2-1.
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0402.html
>
>
> I guess it boils down to whether "fly heading 260 for vectors to the
> Chino Runway 26 ILS, descent to and maintain 6,000" contains the
> component of a clearance limit."


ATC will routinely give those types of vectors and altitudes to fit you
into the flow. Any way you slice you have to hear "Cleared to the
Ontairo airport via radar vectors, descend and maintain 6000, squawk 1234."

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> You busted the regs when you went in the clouds.
>
>

I just got off the phone with a terminal guy who is about as sharp as
they come. He stated, as you did, that an airport clearance limit is
required for a pop-up to become IFR.

He also added that a regulation bust in the context of this thread
wouldn't happen on his watch because, if the pilot did not specifically
request IFR handling, nor did he request a practice approach, nor did he
request VFR, he (the controller I spoke with) would clarify the request
before he issued *any* clearance.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Sam Spade > wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You busted the regs when you went in the clouds.
> >
> >
>
> I just got off the phone with a terminal guy who is about as sharp as
> they come. He stated, as you did, that an airport clearance limit is
> required for a pop-up to become IFR.

I'll go along with the "clearance limit" part, but I don't know about the
"airport" bit. I've certainly gotten pop-ups to climb or descend through a
cloud layer, "Cleared to the XYZ VOR".

[Jose[_1_]]

> I'll go along with the "clearance limit" part, but I don't know about the
> "airport" bit. I've certainly gotten pop-ups to climb or descend through a
> cloud layer, "Cleared to the XYZ VOR".

You are correct. However in most cases it is very good to have an
airport be a clearance limit.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Garret]

In article
>,
Hamish Reid > wrote:

> In article >,
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> > Newps wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > You call up and say you are VFR at 8500 and request an ILS into Ontario.
> > > Nothing so far suggests you even want to be IFR. Had you said you
> > > were VFR on top of an overcast and would like a local IFR clearance to
> > > get down then it would have been clear. The controller would have
> > > responded with a clearance to Ontario as per the .65 4-2-1.
> > >
> > > http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0402.html
> >
> > I guess it boils down to whether "fly heading 260 for vectors to the
> > Chino Runway 26 ILS, descent to and maintain 6,000" contains the
> > component of a clearance limit."
> >
> > I think it does.
> >
> > You say it doesn't.
> >
> > Sounds like a subject ripe for some ATPAC discussion and clear AIM material.
>
> I'm having a really hard time seeing a clearance limit in your example.
> What do you think the clearance limit is in it?

IMO it is not entirely unreasonable to suppose that being cleared for an
approach contains an implicit clearance to the corresponding airport,
especially if you're in the air and haven't committed chapter and verse
of the AIM to memory.

rg

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>You busted the regs when you went in the clouds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I just got off the phone with a terminal guy who is about as sharp as
>>they come. He stated, as you did, that an airport clearance limit is
>>required for a pop-up to become IFR.
>
>
> I'll go along with the "clearance limit" part, but I don't know about the
> "airport" bit. I've certainly gotten pop-ups to climb or descend through a
> cloud layer, "Cleared to the XYZ VOR".

He did also mention just that scenerio. My interest, though, was a
pop-up for descent through the muck onto a nearby IFR approach and
landing. He added that scenerio is covered in the 7110.65 with
specifivity because it doesn't fit the more typical mode of descent to
join an IAP at a nearby airport.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Garret wrote:


>
> IMO it is not entirely unreasonable to suppose that being cleared for an
> approach contains an implicit clearance to the corresponding airport,
> especially if you're in the air and haven't committed chapter and verse
> of the AIM to memory.
>
> rg

That was my point exactly, and I know it was done that way before they
had data entires into tht TRACON computer. The chap I spoke with agreed
that he had heard it was done that way in the days before ATC computers;
i.e., the period with 64 code transponders and no transponders at all.