Did I violate an FAR?

Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:

The QA at any facility is not affected one iota by a NASA form. It
goes on regardless.

It's not the form, it's the phone call and discussion.


Whatever.

Sadly, that makes you part of the reason the program came into being.

If you ever bothered to read the disposition of these reports you might
learn that discussions were often held, and corrections made where
necessary.

Newps wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:



"Cleared for the approach" is different. In my area, the controllers will
at times use the phrase "approved for the approach" as a way to make it
clear that this is a practice approach, but not all controllers do that.

That's not correct. The phrase you're thinking of is "Practice approach
approved, no separation services provided." This means ATC will not be
providing the standard separation to VFR practice approaches of 3 miles
or 500 feet.

There are certain airports where the controllers say "no separation
provided" but others don't say that. At most of the airports around
here they just say "cleared for the XYZ approach, maintain VFR". No
mention of separation at all.

-Robert

Sam Spade wrote:
Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:

The QA at any facility is not affected one iota by a NASA form. It
goes on regardless.

It's not the form, it's the phone call and discussion.



Whatever.


Sadly, that makes you part of the reason the program came into being.

If you ever bothered to read the disposition of these reports you might
learn that discussions were often held, and corrections made where
necessary.

What you fail to realize is that QA is many times larger than the once
every 15 years a facility may get a call from NASA. I'm not aware of
it ever happening here.

Robert M. Gary wrote:



There are certain airports where the controllers say "no separation
provided" but others don't say that.


A controller will only say that when he's not providing separation, used
almost exclusively at uncontrolled fields to allow more than one
aircraft on final at the same time.





At most of the airports around
here they just say "cleared for the XYZ approach, maintain VFR". No
mention of separation at all.

The above clearance means you're getting separation. You will get 3
miles lateral or 500 feet vertical. The difference is the separation
ends at the approach end of the runway unless they approved a published
missed. A regular IFR approach gets you a continuous 3 miles until you
land.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:30:31 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


That is NOT an IFR clearance. So although you were "in the system", you
were NOT on an IFR flight plan.

Don't forget that, among other things, an IFR clearance requires a
clearance limit (which is often the destination airport). That was NOT
stated in your instruction.

Got an AIM reference?

No, but 7110.65 seems to instruct controllers to issue a clearance limit in
many areas in Ch 4 (IFR). Including arrival procedures.

The controllers are also supposed to instruct VFR pilots conducting
practice instrument approaches to "maintain VFR". ATC did not do this,
according to the OP.

The pilot never requested an IFR clearance, and controllers can and do
apply IFR separation procedures to VFR a/c conducting instrument
approaches.

I can't see how the OP could be held in violation of acting as PIC under
IFR in these circumstances. But the exact wording of the communication
from ATC would be of interest.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Sam Spade wrote:
Nothing ambiguous about it. He didn't clear you TO anyplace, so you
weren't IFR.

What is the AIM reference that informs a pop-up he/she is not on a
pop-up IFR clearance unless a clearance limit is stated in the pop-up
clearance for an ILS, or such?

I can't find one (but you knew that). I guess it's one of those things
that I've always taken for granted, that "cleared to" is the magic phrase
you need to hear to be IFR.

So, are you saying that after the following conversation:

Me: "Request practice ILS-16 approach"

ATC: "Cleared ILS-16 approach"

I'm IFR?

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
appropriate rating and without currency.

When doing IFR training under VFR, ATC will use the term, "Practice
approach approved", which is the VFR equivalent to "cleared approach",
that lets' you know that you are still under VFR. It usually sounds
like this after being identified...

"Citation 98Q, turn right heading 090, descend and maintain 4500 until
established, practice approach approved ILS 30C. Maintain VFR"


Visit our website for more forums, jobs, and to post your profile and
resume.

http://www.pilotweb.org/

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.

Not and/or. And.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

PilotWeb.org wrote:
If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.


No, wrong. Cleared for approach in no way makes you IFR. You must hear
the regular clearance items for an IFR clearance. At a minimum you have
to be cleared to somewhere via a route(which may be vectors) and
assigned an altitude.




The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
say anything like "Cleared IFR...")


They never do.






If you were "cleared for approach"
then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
appropriate rating and without currency.



ATC cannot make you illegal by simply saying cleared for the approach.






When doing IFR training under VFR, ATC will use the term, "Practice
approach approved", which is the VFR equivalent to "cleared approach",

Completely wrong, both are used and used for very different and distinct
purposes.





that lets' you know that you are still under VFR. It usually sounds
like this after being identified...

"Citation 98Q, turn right heading 090, descend and maintain 4500 until
established, practice approach approved ILS 30C. Maintain VFR"


You'll never hear that.






Visit our website for more forums, jobs, and to post your profile and
resume.

I hope somebody there knows what the hell they're talking about.

PilotWeb.org wrote:
If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.

Incorrect. I get the word CLEARED all the time in class B airspace
(coming and going) without the slightest pretense of IFR operation.

I get the word "Cleared" for landing all the time without the slightest
pretense of IFR.