Silly controller

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




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

"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:

"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.

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?")

"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:


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?")

You call approach control out of the blue and ask for a practice ILS
approach. This in no way is a request to be IFR. No way, no how. The
controller is required to tell you once to maintain VFR, normally he'll
do that in the first practice approach clearance, but it could be at any
time up to that point too. A clearance for a practice approach is never
an IFR clearance in the sense that that constitutes the CRAFT. Sounds
like you and Boston were talking past each other.

In article ,
(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:

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?")

What both Stephen McNicholls and Newps (and others) have been trying to
tell you is that without the "Cleared to..." part, you have no clearance
limit, and that's not an IFR clearance; just getting the standard
"Cleared the ILS at ..." doesn't cut it, and is almost always the way
NorCal "clears" you for practice approaches around here. And yes,
"practice approach" is in the pilot / controller glossary.

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: two at
Stockton, then the one at Tracy (KTCY) that caused the issue (Tracy's
VOR/DME GPS-A approach starts close to Stockton, so it's a natural on
currency flights like this). When I reported back on the missed at Tracy
and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD) I was asked to
cancel IFR. That made absolutely no sense at that point, since I hadn't
been on an IFR clearance since going missed on the ILS at Stockton some
30 or 40 minutes earlier. No mode C changes were made, which is (IIRC)
SOP with NorCal at Stockton.

When I finally got flight following with NorCal and later asked for the
practice LOC 28L approach back into Hayward, the controller in the next
sector (125.35 for those in the know) asked me if I wanted a pop-up or
if this was a practice approach. He sounded relieved that it was a
practice-only approach, gave the standard "Maintain VFR...", then
cleared me for the approach just outside SUNOL, just the way it normally
happens with NorCal....

Hamish

Hamish Reid wrote:

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: two at
Stockton, then the one at Tracy (KTCY) that caused the issue (Tracy's
VOR/DME GPS-A approach starts close to Stockton, so it's a natural on
currency flights like this). When I reported back on the missed at Tracy
and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD) I was asked to
cancel IFR. That made absolutely no sense at that point, since I hadn't
been on an IFR clearance since going missed on the ILS at Stockton some
30 or 40 minutes earlier. No mode C changes were made, which is (IIRC)
SOP with NorCal at Stockton.

OK, I can see what maybe happened here. You were IFR then went VFR.
When you're IFR you will be on a code that will show low altitude
warnings, this is not necessary when VFR. Your data block on the radar
scope while you were IFR is standard. One quick look at it and
everybody knows that you are IFR. Facilities can use any type of data
block for VFR aircraft. An IFR data block looks like this:

N12345
070 15
/
/
/
N
A way to show an aircraft is VFR is to put a "V" after the 15.
Here at BIL we will take the same airplane when he's VFR and it will
look like this:

TC345
070 15
/
/
/
N

So there's no way to mistake whether or not an aircraft is IFR or VFR.
The TC stands for twin Cessna. We have abbreviations for a lot of
different types.
So it's possible that after you changed to VFR the controller simply
forgot you were VFR, maybe forgot to put the letter in the data block.
This is why our system here at BIL is vastly superior to using full data
blocks.

In article ,
Newps wrote:

Hamish Reid wrote:

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: two at
Stockton, then the one at Tracy (KTCY) that caused the issue (Tracy's
VOR/DME GPS-A approach starts close to Stockton, so it's a natural on
currency flights like this). When I reported back on the missed at Tracy
and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD) I was asked to
cancel IFR. That made absolutely no sense at that point, since I hadn't
been on an IFR clearance since going missed on the ILS at Stockton some
30 or 40 minutes earlier. No mode C changes were made, which is (IIRC)
SOP with NorCal at Stockton.

OK, I can see what maybe happened here. You were IFR then went VFR.
When you're IFR you will be on a code that will show low altitude
warnings, this is not necessary when VFR. Your data block on the radar
scope while you were IFR is standard. One quick look at it and
everybody knows that you are IFR. Facilities can use any type of data
block for VFR aircraft. An IFR data block looks like this:

N12345
070 15
/
/
/
N
A way to show an aircraft is VFR is to put a "V" after the 15.
Here at BIL we will take the same airplane when he's VFR and it will
look like this:

TC345
070 15
/
/
/
N

So there's no way to mistake whether or not an aircraft is IFR or VFR.
The TC stands for twin Cessna. We have abbreviations for a lot of
different types.
So it's possible that after you changed to VFR the controller simply
forgot you were VFR, maybe forgot to put the letter in the data block.
This is why our system here at BIL is vastly superior to using full data
blocks.

Thanks -- a clear explanation from a controller's point of view. Seems
pretty damn plausible to me, especially since NorCal usually gets this
sort of thing right, and the controller who originally fielded my IFR
cancellation seemed in no doubt that I was VFR from that point on. If he
just forgot to update the data block, oh well...

Hamish