In article
,
Hamish Reid wrote:

In article ,
Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



You call up and say you are VFR at 8500 and request an ILS into Ontario.
Nothing so far suggests you even want to be IFR. Had you said you
were VFR on top of an overcast and would like a local IFR clearance to
get down then it would have been clear. The controller would have
responded with a clearance to Ontario as per the .65 4-2-1.

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0402.html

I guess it boils down to whether "fly heading 260 for vectors to the
Chino Runway 26 ILS, descent to and maintain 6,000" contains the
component of a clearance limit."

I think it does.

You say it doesn't.

Sounds like a subject ripe for some ATPAC discussion and clear AIM material.

I'm having a really hard time seeing a clearance limit in your example.
What do you think the clearance limit is in it?

IMO it is not entirely unreasonable to suppose that being cleared for an
approach contains an implicit clearance to the corresponding airport,
especially if you're in the air and haven't committed chapter and verse
of the AIM to memory.

rg