Silly controller

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".

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

Tell that to Chicago Center.


I have.

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

What was their response?


"Okay".