Silly controller

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

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...)

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/

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

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.