Silly controller

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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".

"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) 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.

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) 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.