Silly controller

(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".

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.

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.

Roy Smith 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?

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.

Yes. The question at hand is how the pilot and controller understand
whether the instrument procedure is being flown under IFR or VFR.

My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:

"Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
UNTIL established on the localizer."

that you are have accepted an IFR clearance. This phraseology is
exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
your flight on an IFR flight plan. It obviously has the syntax
of an IFR clearance: the words "cleared", a route (including even
a charted instrument procedure), an altitude, a beacon tracking code,
and a clearance limit (the airport). The only difference is the context
in which it was given. There is standard phraseology for ATC for the
specific situation of "practice approaches" to confirm that you are
going to operate under VFR, otherwise they issue an IFR clearance.
If you are a VFR flight and you ask for a "Practice Approach",
then ATC is supposed to issue the clearance with the magic words
"Maintain VFR", or else confusion may ensue.

In the OP's scenario, confusion did ensue, because (according to his
recollection) the controller did not say "maintain VFR", and after
the approach was done and the pilot asked for flight following to
his home field, ATC advised him to "report when cancelling IFR".
There was some additional confusion here because the pilot asked
for "flight following", which is a radar service that you can receive
while operating under VFR. The pilot had never intended to ask for an
IFR clearance and was somewhat bewildered by ATC thinking he was IFR.

The question of accepting the clearance for a practice approach
is all about pilot and controller responsibilities.

First of all, regardless of what kind clearance is issued,
if it's VFR conditions you are still required to see and avoid.
But if you hear the words "Maintain VFR", then ATC considers you to
be VFR traffic and is telling you that they are (presumably) not giving
IFR separation. Otherwise, in the IFR clearance above, ATC is providing
IFR separation (from both other IFR and from VFR aircraf): in VMC this
allows visual separation, and 500 feet vertical.

"Maintain VFR" also means they're not expecting you to follow any
IFR rules outside of complying with instructions they are issuing.

Next comes lost communications procedures. If it's "Maintain VFR",
you're still on a VFR flight plan if there was one. Absent that,
the above is an IFR clearance to the approach airport, but since
it's VMC, you (go back if needed) and land at this airport, even
though you were told to report when on the missed approach procedure.

(It gets weird if you were already on an IFR flight plan in IMC.
You're still on the filed plan because the practice approach is just
an authorized deviation to where you were already going. If you lose
it before "cleared to land", or on the missed approach, I think you're
supposed to fly to and land at your original destination airport,
not the practice airport. That is highly counter-intuitive, and
maybe a good reason not to do practice approaches on an IFR flight
plan at an airport in IMC. Can you imagine losing comm on the
final approach course with the runway environment in sight but
without a landing clearance, on an IFR flight? I'd be crazy
unless I decided it was an emergency, and just land anyway.)

Yesterday I asked a supervisor at the Boston TRACON, "If I came along
VFR and requested a practice approach, and received the clearance
[above], is that an IFR clearance?" He clarified that we were talking
about the usual scenario of someone showing up VFR and asking for
multiple approaches. His answer was that without the words "Maintain VFR",
you would be receiving IFR separation and would be expected to follow
IFR lost communication procedures (in which event, since you had shown
up VFR you should land at this airport. I believe that's all consistent
with what I am saying above.

"Practice Approach" is official phraseology but does not mean "VFR".
It means several things, one of which is that ATC can consider you
lower priority than traffic and deny the request based on workload.

People are concerned here about whether you can legally accept the
above seemingly-IFR clearance if you are not rated and equipped.
Here's where I think we get into lawyering (and I am not a lawyer).
The FARs imply that maybe you cannot accept this IFR clearance,
by saying that you can't act as PIC unless are rated, and that
nobody can operate under IFR in controlled airspace under IFR
without receiving a clearance and being on an IFR flight plan

If you accepted the above clearance, are you now operating under IFR?
Well, if you popped up VFR, ATC certainly knew you were not on an IFR
flight plan when they gave you that clearance. On the other hand,
they gave you an IFR clearance and are expecting you to obey IFR.
Do you now magically have an IFR flight plan concocted by ATC to get
you into the airport? You probably wouldn't even ask yourself this
question (nor would ATC) if you thought you were going to be in the
clouds during the procedure. You would know it was "for real".
But maybe the theory is that since it was VMC, legal for you to be
operating under VFR, then due to the fact that there was no flight plan,
you were by definition not construed to be "operating under IFR" even
though you were following what sounded like an IFR clearance and some
instrument flight rules.

After all, when you enter class B airspace for example, you are
given a clearance. But that clearance doesn't usually have all
the syntax of an IFR clearance, and doesn't usually include a
limit or an instrument procedure, and it always says "Maintain VFR".

A similar question of semantics could be asked about a "Special VFR"
clearance, which is also syntactically an IFR clearance. It sounds a
lot like IFR, ATC handles the separation like IFR, but it's not IFR.
You have a different rating requirement, don't have the IFR equipment
requirement, and the normal flight plan requirements are just the
"authorized by ATC" variety. But "Special VFR" is a different set of
rules specifically defined in FAR 91, while "Practice Approach" is not.
"Practice approach" isn't even in the AIM, although it's in the
controller handbook. But the most obvious difference between this
funny in-between-IFR/VFR flight, and the IFR flight described above,
is that the clearance contains the words "Maintain Special VFR".

The reasons why you might be concerned about accepting this IFR clearance
would be that you could not comply (perhaps because you're not current,
or just a student, or the equipment does not satisfy the requirements),
and more importantly you don't want misunderstandings, not to mention
FAA enforcement actions. But controllers are human and sometimes make
mistakes in issuing clearances, just like pilots. Let's suppose the above
is an IFR clearance and you shouldn't accept it. I think if you mistakenly
accept it, but in VMC, and nothing bad results from it, that the FAA is
not concerned. After all, "the FAA" present on scene is ATC.
Consider that ATC has received a request that can be presumed to come
from someone who may not be current, or maybe not even rated -- they
specifically asked for a "Practice Approach", a training exercise.
It's really mainly ATC's fault for not saying "Maintain VFR".

Whatever you believe, legalities aside, as seen in the OP's case,
this could lead to confusion. And it's it's not not too hard to
imagine a confusion about whether someone was operating under IFR
or VFR as contributing to a chain of events with unfortunate results.

When I want to do a practice approach and not be considered an
IFR flight, I ask the controller for a "Practice approach" and
if the controller does not say "Maintain VFR" in the clearance,
I just add back "VFR" in my readback. The pilot is supposed to
request an ammended clearance if he can't comply, and I think
this satisfies that. Regardless of a comeback on that point by
the controller, it clarifies what I understood the clearance to be.

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:


My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:

"Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
UNTIL established on the localizer."

that you are have accepted an IFR clearance.

It's not standard phraseology but would suffice.




This phraseology is
exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
your flight on an IFR flight plan.

No it's not. You will never hear "Cleared to the Foobar airport" as
part of your approach clearance. As for all the rest of the crap you
wrote that I snipped, go see an instructor. You are woefully
misinformed about so many things.

Newps writes:
This phraseology is exactly the same instruction that you would be
given near the end your flight on an IFR flight plan.

No it's not. You will never hear "Cleared to the Foobar airport"
as part of your approach clearance.

I agree that was written sloppily. In the one case, you get the
"cleared to" the airport earlier in the flight and the "cleared for
the approach" afterwards. In the othe case, you usually get directed
to some IAP or just radar vectored to the approach course followed by
"cleared for the approach". In the example that the Boston TRACON
supervisor commented on, what I said to him was the "cleared for..."
version. He said that this absent the "Maintain VFR" phrase, this
constituted a clearance limit for the purpose of IFR lost comm
procedures (which I hadn't asked about).

You could argue that he is wrong, of course.

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:


You could argue that he is wrong, of course.

There's no question he's wrong.

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

I agree that was written sloppily. In the one case, you get the
"cleared to" the airport earlier in the flight and the "cleared for
the approach" afterwards. In the othe case, you usually get directed
to some IAP or just radar vectored to the approach course followed by
"cleared for the approach". In the example that the Boston TRACON
supervisor commented on, what I said to him was the "cleared for..."
version. He said that this absent the "Maintain VFR" phrase, this
constituted a clearance limit for the purpose of IFR lost comm
procedures (which I hadn't asked about).

You could argue that he is wrong, of course.


If he said that, he's wrong. A clearance limit is defined as the point to
which an aircraft is cleared when issued a clearance and is a necessary
component of an IFR clearance. No "cleared to", no clearance limit, no IFR
clearance.

In article ,
(Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:

Roy Smith 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?

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.

Yes. The question at hand is how the pilot and controller understand
whether the instrument procedure is being flown under IFR or VFR.

Well, the NorCal controller who fielded my request for cancelling IFR
and for multiple practice approaches certainly seemed to understand that
I was no longer IFR.

My belief is that if you receive and accept a clearance like:

"Cherokee 123 SQUAWK 5432, fly heading 090; CLEARED TO the
Foobar airport ILS 23 APPROACH via Init MAINTAIN 2000
UNTIL established on the localizer."

that you are have accepted an IFR clearance.

Indeed. And had I requested a pop-up I'd expect (and typically get)
exactly that sort of response. I often get a pop-up back from Stockton
(or Sacramento) just for the hell of it (it's good procedural practice),
so I'm not unfamiliar with the difference between that and a practice
approach....

This phraseology is
exactly the same instruction that you would be given near the end
your flight on an IFR flight plan.

This is where you're wrong -- at this point in the flight, I'll get
something like "Cessna 04E, 5 miles from JOTLY, right turn heading 230
maintain 2000 until established, cleared ILS 29R" or similar, usually
regardless of whether I'm on a practice approach, pop-up, or pre-filed
IFR flight plan. There's no clearance limit there...

It obviously has the syntax
of an IFR clearance: the words "cleared", a route (including even
a charted instrument procedure), an altitude, a beacon tracking code,
and a clearance limit (the airport). The only difference is the context
in which it was given. There is standard phraseology for ATC for the
specific situation of "practice approaches" to confirm that you are
going to operate under VFR, otherwise they issue an IFR clearance.
If you are a VFR flight and you ask for a "Practice Approach",
then ATC is supposed to issue the clearance with the magic words
"Maintain VFR", or else confusion may ensue.

Indeed, but that can be given very early on in the scheme of things,
especially when doing multiple practice approaches. I usually get the
"Maintain VFR..." bit when I first request (a) practice approach(es),
which might be some time before I actually get the clearance. On the way
back to Hayward under VFR flight following I got it many miles outside
SUNOL when I first requested the practice approach, quite some distance
before I was cleared for the (practice) localiser approach.


In the OP's scenario, confusion did ensue, because (according to his
recollection) the controller did not say "maintain VFR", and after
the approach was done and the pilot asked for flight following to
his home field, ATC advised him to "report when cancelling IFR".
There was some additional confusion here because the pilot asked
for "flight following", which is a radar service that you can receive
while operating under VFR. The pilot had never intended to ask for an
IFR clearance and was somewhat bewildered by ATC thinking he was IFR.

I think you have the OP's scenario horribly confused :-).

The original original point was that two Usenet posters (myself and
Robert) did the same approach, possibly on the same day, and both
practice approaches ended in them being asked to cancel IFR. NorCal's
usually pretty on-the-ball about this sort of thing, so both of us were
wondering whether NorCal dropped the ball, or whether there's been a
change in SOP for this sort of thing...

Hamish