Silly controller

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.

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:



The scenario I've been talking about is where you come out nowhere VFR
and tell the controller you want an IFR approach to some airport


Be careful how you word your request. If you say the above that sounds
like a request to be IFR but would still require a clearance limit,
route, altitude, etc. Saying "Approach approved" or "cleared ILS..."
does not constitute a clearance limit.

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.

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

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.

Newps writes:

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

How do you both know when the approach is no longer "practice"?

You must tell me you need to be IFR.


Is "practice approach" in the ATC manual? (I haven't looked.)

Yes.


When asked for an analysis of the scenario and the phraseology,
Boston didn't seem to recognize "practice approach".

There's no way they wouldn't recognize it.

I am reciting a conversation I had with someone there;
your inability to deal with reality is irrelevent.

Hamish Reid writes:
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

Oh, well I completely misunderstood your scenario! I thought you were
VFR, not an any IFR flight plan, asked for a "Practice Approach", were
never told "Maintain VFR", and then when you were done with those you
wanted to go home to a previously unannounced airport, were instructed
"report cancelling IFR".

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.

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.