![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . com,
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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..." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? :~) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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" ? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Silly controller | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 119 | August 30th 06 01:56 AM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Columns by a Canadian centre controller | David Megginson | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 9th 04 10:05 PM |
Skyguide traffic controller killed | HECTOP | Piloting | 39 | March 3rd 04 01:46 AM |
AmeriFlight Crash | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | December 1st 03 02:13 PM |