Silly controller

Newps writes:

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?

It's not.


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".

Not necessary. If you are doing a whole series of practice approaches
the controller needs to tell you one time to maintain VFR. Not one
time per approach, just one time.

How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?
Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)

When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".
In the discussion when I said "practice approach", he read it
back to me as "multiple approaches in VFR conditions".

Newps writes:

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

"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.

You can't be this uninformed. You just can't be.

I analyzed the phraseology in the scenario by the usual syntactic
criteria for meeting an IFR clearance and explained my reasoning.
Then I asked Boston TRACON their opinion (just asked -- without
telling them my theory), and the seem to concur with me.

Neither you (nor the other fellow) have presented any reasoning
nor evidence to contradict this, beyond simply asserting "It's not",
"You're wrong", and the above. My mind is certainly not closed
on the subject, but do you have anything else?
(By which I mean, "Do you have anything?")

Roy Smith wrote:

There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
procedures".

Where did you get that idea? I think the terms are interchangeable.

Remember the old IFR Departure Procedures that are now Obstacle
Departure Procedures? Those terms were both chosen by working groups
thinking more in terms of human factors than regulatory nuance.

Then, there is Part 95, IFR Altitudes.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

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

I you have filed (phone, DUATS, or "pop-up" on the radio) an IFR flight
plan to an airport, and along the way you ask for a practice approach
to some other airport, then the destination of your plan has not changed.
Yes, that would be the destination airport you said originally.

The scenario I've been talking about is where you come out nowhere VFR
and tell the controller you want an IFR approach to some airport
(which is usually real close, but could be some ways off).


I understand completely. The example you provided did not contain a
clearance limit, thus it was not an IFR clearance. An IFR clearance must
have a clearance limit.

In the case of a VFR pop-up requesting an approach,
it's the airport, according to the local TRACON.
Why don't you think it's a clearance limit?

(I specifically addressed that in my my other message that you
seem to have already read but ignored. I believe I was the one
who brought up having been given a clearance limit as part of
my argument.)

In article sfkIg.168$c07.152@fed1read04, Sam Spade
wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:

There's also no such thing as an "IFR procedure". There are "instrument
procedures".

Where did you get that idea? I think the terms are interchangeable.

The OP was making the assumption that since he was flying and "IFR
procedure", that must mean he was flying under Instrument Flight Rules. I
was just trying to make the point that just because you're flying the
procedure doesn't mean you're on an IFR clearance.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

So you're calling me a liar?


No.



rolls eyes Ok. Until you've flown into that airport and NOT heard them
say it, don't tell me I'm wrong.


I simply stated the correct terminology. I never said it was not improperly
used by some controllers.

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

How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?
Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)


Yes.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0408.html#4-8-11



When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".
In the discussion when I said "practice approach", he read it
back to me as "multiple approaches in VFR conditions".


Perhaps you didn't explain adequately, perhaps you weren't talking to a
sharp trooper.

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

I analyzed the phraseology in the scenario by the usual syntactic
criteria for meeting an IFR clearance and explained my reasoning.
Then I asked Boston TRACON their opinion (just asked -- without
telling them my theory), and the seem to concur with me.

Neither you (nor the other fellow) have presented any reasoning
nor evidence to contradict this, beyond simply asserting "It's not",
"You're wrong", and the above. My mind is certainly not closed
on the subject, but do you have anything else?
(By which I mean, "Do you have anything?")


That's not true. I explained that your example lacked a clearance limit.
Others did so as well.

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

In the case of a VFR pop-up requesting an approach,
it's the airport, according to the local TRACON.


Then the local TRACON is wrong.



Why don't you think it's a clearance limit?


Because it wasn't preceded by "cleared to".



(I specifically addressed that in my my other message that you
seem to have already read but ignored. I believe I was the one
who brought up having been given a clearance limit as part of
my argument.)


I didn't ignore it, I responded to it, review the thread. What you believed
to be a clearance limit was not.

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:


How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?

You must tell me you need to be IFR.


Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)

Yes.



When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".

There's no way they wouldn't recognize it.