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.

(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.

"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 in message
...

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".


It does not contain a clearance limit. IFR training flights frequently
include approaches at intermediate airports and approach clearances for each
one, but the clearance limit remains the destination airport.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
news:004301c6c98f$b7d9d310$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

The phraseology for loss of radar contact is "radar contact lost", not
"radar service terminated".


Steve,
Do they still advise "radar contact lost, radar service
terminated, cleared for the approach..."? I seem to remember getting
that when I used to go into Gunnison, Co. years ago.


I hope not.

(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.