AviationBanter - View Single Post

**Christopher C. Stacy** · August 28th 06, 12:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr

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" ?

My interpretation of the ATC handbook is that there are
three types of practice approaches:

1) You can be IFR, in which case it works just like any other IFR
operation except that practice approaches are lower priority (you
can be delayed). This comes with a proper IFR clearance (with a
clearance limit) as has been stated in this thread.

Yes.

2) You can be VFR, but with separation services. Here you get 500 ft
vertical separation from other traffic and standard lateral separation.
The published miss is not authorized unless the controller
specifically approves it, and if he does approve it, separation
services are provided for the missed approach procedure as well.
This comes with the instruction "CLEARED FOR THE APPROACH" or similar.

Yes.

3) You can be VFR, but without separation services. The missed
approach is again not authorized. This comes with the instruction
"PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED" or similar.

"MAINTAIN VFR, PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED, NO SEPARATION SERVICES PROVIDED."

If you're operating under VFR, the controller is supposed to remind you
by saying "MAINTAIN VFR" at some point, but if the controller forgets,
it doesn't change anything.

It presumably reflects whether the controller believes whether you are now IFR.

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.

My point is just that the controller may have made a mistake and issued
a wrong clearance, and that the pilot should clarify what he wanted.