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?

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.

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".

"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.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:32:03 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Yes.

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

Regarding the difference between 2. and 3.: When would "procedures require
application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument
approaches" as opposed to "Where separation services are not provided to
VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches"?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:


Regarding the difference between 2. and 3.: When would "procedures require
application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument
approaches" as opposed to "Where separation services are not provided to
VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches"?

It depends. Most facilities have a letter to airmen out there that says
they will provide services to the extent possible. If so then the
facility must provide the three mile separation(500 feet vertical)
unless there's a good reason they can't.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

Regarding the difference between 2. and 3.: When would "procedures require
application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument
approaches" as opposed to "Where separation services are not provided to
VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches"?


It is FAA policy that IFR separation should be provided to VFR aircraft
practicing instrument approaches wherever it can be provided. Where it is
done a letter to airmen is issued advising the users of those airports where
standard separation is provided for VFR aircraft conducting practice
instrument approaches. Why this policy was set is beyond me.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
...
Perhaps you didn't explain adequately, perhaps you weren't talking to a
sharp trooper.

Uh, I really hope all you ATC guys are "sharp troopers." You're
scaring me.

skym wrote:

Uh, I really hope all you ATC guys are "sharp troopers." You're
scaring me.

Stop by the tower sometime and have your eyes opened. Get your plane
back yet?

Newps wrote:

Stop by the tower sometime and have your eyes opened. Get your plane
back yet?

"It's in the paint shop." I hope this isn't like "the check's in the
mail."

"skym" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, I really hope all you ATC guys are "sharp troopers." You're
scaring me.


Some are, some are not.