A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Silly controller



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old August 27th 06, 10:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Christopher C. Stacy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Silly controller

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".


  #72  
Old August 27th 06, 10:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Silly controller



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.



  #73  
Old August 27th 06, 10:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Silly controller



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.
  #74  
Old August 27th 06, 10:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
skym
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Silly controller


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.

  #75  
Old August 27th 06, 10:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Silly controller



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?
  #76  
Old August 27th 06, 10:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
skym
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Silly controller


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."

  #77  
Old August 27th 06, 10:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default Silly controller

went back to NorCal and cancelled IFR, [...]
When I reported back on the [practice] missed at Tracy
and requested flight following back to Hayward (KHWD)
I was asked to cancel IFR.


Maybe they didn't receive your original cancellation. Either NorCal
didn't really cancel, or they didn't transmit the cancellation properly
(would Tracy have advance strips on you?)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #78  
Old August 27th 06, 10:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Hamish Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Silly controller

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
  #79  
Old August 27th 06, 10:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Hamish Reid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Silly controller

In article ,
Newps wrote:

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.


Thanks -- a clear explanation from a controller's point of view. Seems
pretty damn plausible to me, especially since NorCal usually gets this
sort of thing right, and the controller who originally fielded my IFR
cancellation seemed in no doubt that I was VFR from that point on. If he
just forgot to update the data block, oh well...

Hamish
  #80  
Old August 27th 06, 10:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default Silly controller

...usually
regardless of whether I'm on a practice approach, pop-up, or pre-filed
IFR flight plan. There's no clearance limit there...


If you are on an IFR flight plan, you already have a clearance limit.
It was given to you when you got your clearance. "CLEARED TO FooBar
International via..." That doesn't get invalidated by an approach
clearance. If you are VFR, the approach clearance doesn't give you a
clearance limit, and thus does not make you IFR.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Silly controller Robert M. Gary Piloting 119 August 30th 06 01:56 AM
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? Rick Umali Piloting 29 February 15th 06 04:40 AM
Columns by a Canadian centre controller David Megginson Instrument Flight Rules 1 August 9th 04 10:05 PM
Skyguide traffic controller killed HECTOP Piloting 39 March 3rd 04 01:46 AM
AmeriFlight Crash C J Campbell Piloting 5 December 1st 03 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.