Silly controller

"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.

It would be a good idea to always state that you're a VFR
only pilot and even if they apply IFR procedures on their
end, you must reject the IFR clearance, so it is on the
tape.
All the controller cares about is keeping the blips apart.
They do it with IFR procedures, which you can accept as long
as you both understand that the VFR pilot is operating VFR,
while practicing IFR procedures.

It would seem that a letter from the region to the field may
be needed to clarify procedures.



"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in
message ...
| "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.

"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message
...

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".


It does not contain a clearance limit. IFR training flights frequently
include approaches at intermediate airports and approach clearances for each
one, but the clearance limit remains the destination airport.

"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message
...

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.


The phraseology given above would not make a VFR aircraft an IFR aircraft.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:POcIg.6099$SZ3.2344@dukeread04...

And if you are not IR rated and current, they just put you
in violation of the FAR.


Nope.

"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote in message
...

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.


You're contradicting yourself. If IFR and VFR aircraft are assigned beacon
codes, then being assigned a beacon code does not suggest it's an IFR
clearance.

(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?

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".

There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
procedures". You can fly them VFR or IFR.

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.