Silly controller

Hamish Reid writes:
Since it was me you originally responded to, let's review the sequence
of events: I was on a pre-filed IFR clearance to Stockton (KSCK), went
missed on the ILS, went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, requesting
multiple practice approaches. I got the standard "Maintain VFR..." at
that point, then did three practice approaches with NorCal

Oh, well I completely misunderstood your scenario! I thought you were
VFR, not an any IFR flight plan, asked for a "Practice Approach", were
never told "Maintain VFR", and then when you were done with those you
wanted to go home to a previously unannounced airport, were instructed
"report cancelling IFR".

went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, [...]
When I reported back on the [practice] missed at Tracy
and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD)
I was asked to cancel IFR.

Maybe they didn't receive your original cancellation. Either NorCal
didn't really cancel, or they didn't transmit the cancellation properly
(would Tracy have advance strips on you?)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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.

Jim Macklin wrote:

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

He misunderstood, that's not what happens.

(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.

"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:



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.

Everybody gets a code to get service from the approach control. It
means nothing.

"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.