ATC out to get us?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

You would think, but ATC here always issues "Cleared into the class Bravo
via fly runway heading..." just as if they were issuing an IFR
clearance.


Perhaps because pilots questioned the lack of specific Class B clearance in
that situation. It's not required by FAAO 7110.65.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
How about "cleared for takeoff"? The regulation states, " The operator
must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction
for that area before operating an aircraft in that area." If you're
departing VFR from the core airport in a Class B surface area wouldn't a
takeoff clearance meet the letter of the law?

Sure, that seems like a good example. Possibly the only one.

Let's say you're doing practice instrument approaches under VFR near a
Class B boundary, and the approach procedure requires you to enter Class B
airspace. Wouldn't clearance for the approach meet the letter of the law?

If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
"clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism under
VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller may
offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just as the
approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling a real
clearance.

Is there some regulation that I'm missing that allows an actual approach
clearance to be granted to an aircraft operating under VFR?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
"clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism under
VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller may
offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just as the
approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling a real
clearance.

It's completely routine to get "Cleared practice ILS-16, maintain VFR at
all times". That's a clearance in the full sense of the word, which is to
say they are providing separation services.

Sometimes, NY Approach will be too busy to provide you separation, but
doesn't mind if you fly the approach on your own. In that case, they'll
say something like, "Proceed as requested, no separation services
provided". That is NOT a clearance.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Sure, that seems like a good example. Possibly the only one.


I provided two examples.



If the aircraft isn't flying IFR, I don't see how ATC *can* give a
"clearance for the approach". As far as I know, there's no mechanism
under VFR to receive an instrument clearance. I realize that a controller
may offer IFR-like handling to facilitate the practice approach, but just
as the approach isn't a real instrument approach, neither is the handling
a real clearance.

Is there some regulation that I'm missing that allows an actual approach
clearance to be granted to an aircraft operating under VFR?


ATC provides separation between IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approaches wherever it is practical to do so and has been doing
so for a long time. At those locations VFR aircraft are given an approach
clearance. See AIM para. 4-3-21.d.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.


Odd, then, that that phrase appears nowhere in Part 91.

You're picking nits, as you always do.

The wording in part 91 is "The operator must receive an ATC clearance from
the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an
aircraft in that area."

It does not say that you must hear the particular phrase "cleared into the
class bravo". It just says that you need "an ATC clearance". That could
be an IFR clearance ("cleared to the Gopher VOR 150 radial 12 DME fix, via
radar vectors, maintain 3000"). In response to a request for a class bravo
clearance, it could be "Cleared as requested". The real magic word is
"cleared".

The most common thing a controller will say is "cleared into the class
bravo". That's what you want to hear. Variations on the theme are OK, as
long as they include the word "cleared".

What's not OK are things like "approved as requested", "proceed", or the
wonderfully vague "You'll be OK" that the OP reports having heard. Nowhere
in Part 91 does it say, "The operator must be told that they'll be OK".

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

You're picking nits, as you always do.


You say that like there's something wrong with it.



The wording in part 91 is "The operator must receive an ATC clearance from
the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an
aircraft in that area."

It does not say that you must hear the particular phrase "cleared into the
class bravo". It just says that you need "an ATC clearance". That could
be an IFR clearance ("cleared to the Gopher VOR 150 radial 12 DME fix, via
radar vectors, maintain 3000"). In response to a request for a class
bravo clearance, it could be "Cleared as requested". The real magic word
is
"cleared".

The most common thing a controller will say is "cleared into the class
bravo". That's what you want to hear. Variations on the theme are OK, as
long as they include the word "cleared".

What's not OK are things like "approved as requested", "proceed", or the
wonderfully vague "You'll be OK" that the OP reports having heard.
Nowhere in Part 91 does it say, "The operator must be told that they'll be
OK".


Correct.

Good advice here and from all... By the way, when I said "permission"
to enter class B as opposed to a "clearance", what I meant to convey
was not that permission=clearance but rather that permission most
emphatically is NOT a clearance, i.e., not accompanied by the magic
words. You have a good idea there, when getting "remain at 3000 and
you'll be fine" I could have said "understand cleared into class B" but
I at least could have said "does that mean you are clearing me into
class B"?

None of this is post 9-11 issues though... I encounter similar
scenarios all the time close in to class B both before and after 9-11,
namely a reluctance to give a clearance into class B for sightseeing,
but have yet to get denied without polite begging, and the request is
granted +/- special requests such as "remain northeast of MSP runway
12" etc.

Mitch

Roy Smith wrote:
"mvgossman" wrote:
1. Can Approach grant clearance to go thru intervening class D when
VFR? I am accustomed to this as a matter of routine when IFR but I do
not know about VFR.

Yes, it's standard practice, especially near the ceiling of the CDAS.

2. Why was I given in effect "permission", but no clearance, to enter
class Bravo at 3000, therefore permission to bust class Bravo and
potentially get cited?

You weren't. Unless you hear "cleared into the class bravo", you're not.
If the conversation really went on as you described it, I'd say the
controller was guilty of using some sloppy language. He should have either
said, "cleared into the class bravo", or "unable class bravo clearance".
One way or the other, you would have known exactly what he meant. I
haven't the foggiest idea what "You'll be OK" means.

Whenever in doubt, especially with a controller who is not being clear, the
way you can force a clear answer is to say, "Confirm Cessna 12345 is
cleared into the class bravo at 3000", or perhaps even, "Understand Cessna
12345 is cleared into the class bravo at 3000". That should get you an
unambiguous response.

Is it conceivable that a controller would be so sadistic as to send a
place through Bravo without clearance and then bust them?

Sadistic, no. But, I could certainly see a mis-understanding leading to a
bust. That's why the AIM has a glossary of specific words that have
specific meanings. If you ad-lib, you get mis-understandings.

3. Is there a better way for this trip that you can think of? For
instance, is it reasonable to file IFR and then, along the way, spring
a request to circle the area of interest, under the implied clearance
to be in Bravo and Class D afforded by the IFR flight plan?

There is no "implied" clearance. If you are on an IFR clearance, you've
got a clearance. Nothing implied about it.

Could you file IFR? Sure you could. But, if you wanted to do that, don't
spring any surprises on the controller. File an IFR flight plan from your
home base to your home base. For the route, put in a single waypoint, a
radial/DME from the nearest VOR. Put a comment that explains what you're
doing. I just did one in DUATS and it looks like this:

1 Type of flight plan: IFR
2 Aircraft tail number: N9003S
3 Acft type/special equip: BE35/G
4 True airspeed: 130
5 Departure point: HPN
6 Departure time: (UTC) Tue Oct 24 16:00
7 Altitude: 25
8 Route of flight: CMK270010/D00+20
9 Destination: HPN
10 Estimated time enroute: 0040
11 Remarks: SIGHTSEEING OVER FAIRGROUNDS
12 Fuel on board: 0400
13 Alternate destination(s):

I'm assuming 'the fairgrounds' would be a locally familiar landmark to ATC.

But, in all honesty, that's probably more trouble than it's worth. Just
call up VFR, tell the controller exactly what you want to do, and make sure
you get an unambiguous statement from him if you're cleared into the CBAS
or not.

If you're taking off from a towered airport, as CD to get you the class
bravo clearance before you take off. Even if they can't get you the
clearance per-se, they can generate a strip for you, get you a squawk, and
then Tracon will be expecting your handoff. Once you get in contact with
the first approach controller, he's the guy to tell what you want to do, "I
want to proceed direct to the Gopher 150 radial, 12 DME, and orbit at 3000
in that vicinity for 20 minutes".