Did I violate an FAR?

On 11/27/06 16:55, Robert M. Gary wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

A friend of mine filed one after being on an IFR approach in actual and
the approach controller into Napa, CA told him, "radar services
canceled, squawk VFR, contact tower". He wasn't sure how to react other
than to just ack. I wonder if any action can to the controller.

How about "unable VFR".

True, but I can understand why he reacted why he did. First, he was
very time pressured, he was FAF inbound. Second, we aren't used to
hearing stuff from ATC that we don't expect. Although it sounds
complicated to non-pilots, generally ATC isn't very creative in what
they say. I can see how a pilot could react unpredicatably to an
unusual (and illegal) ATC request. My guess is that he was always IFR.
The controller probably just used the wrong phrase but the flight was
probably in the computer. Certainly ATC cannot make you VFR once you
receive an IFR clearance without a pilot request.

Well, they're not *supposed* to, but then they aren't *supposed* to
say what the controller said either ;-)


-Robert




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Roy Smith wrote:
Anonymous coward #673 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
runway 26 approach." He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
"in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around.


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?

Brad wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:


ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities. The ASRS
specialist would deal directly with the ATC facility. The FSDO has no
role in a matter involving ATC that is reported via an ASRS report.

One of the primary reasons for the 10-day limitation on reporting was
the 15-day ATC tape retention cycle, which was the norm when the ASRS
was established.


So it's reviewed by the in-house QA staffer at the facility? I was
previously under the understanding that ASRS incidents were analyzed
statistically as a whole rather than individually, to analyze trends in
safety. Thanks for the clarification.


The statistics are the end product.

But, if the specialist doesn't dig into the issue then the statistics
are meaningless.

To what extent the QA folks at the facility delve into the incident
varies with the dynamics of the NASA staffer and the facility. It
certainly is not as good as it used to be in general. But, that doesn't
mean some incidents aren't still handled quite well.

A few other pieces of information might clarify the situation. Was this
approach at a tower controlled airport? If not, did you cancel IFR?

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
The other day I was under the hood with a safety pilot, but I was not
IFR current. I requested a "practice approach in VFR conditions" and
was cleared for an actual approach. I advised ATC that I just wanted a
practice approach and they said, "We have to put you in the system for
[some cockamamie reason that I can no longer recall -- spacing or
something like that]." So I ended up flying the approach in VFR
conditions but under an actual IFR clearance even though I was not
instrument current. Did I violate an FAR? If so, what should I have
done instead?

In article . com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

A few other pieces of information might clarify the situation. Was this
approach at a tower controlled airport?

Yes.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:23:42 -0700, Anonymous coward #673
wrote:

I'm pretty sure the wording was "N miles from GINNA, cleared for the VOR
runway 26 approach." He did NOT say "maintain VFR" which is why I
responded that I WANTED to do it VFR and he responded that I HAD to be
"in the system". The phraseology was ambiguous all around


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.

No bust.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

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




Sam Spade wrote:
Brad wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:


ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities. The ASRS
specialist would deal directly with the ATC facility. The FSDO has no
role in a matter involving ATC that is reported via an ASRS report.

One of the primary reasons for the 10-day limitation on reporting was
the 15-day ATC tape retention cycle, which was the norm when the ASRS
was established.



So it's reviewed by the in-house QA staffer at the facility? I was
previously under the understanding that ASRS incidents were analyzed
statistically as a whole rather than individually, to analyze trends in
safety. Thanks for the clarification.


The statistics are the end product.

But, if the specialist doesn't dig into the issue then the statistics
are meaningless.

To what extent the QA folks at the facility delve into the incident
varies with the dynamics of the NASA staffer and the facility. It
certainly is not as good as it used to be in general. But, that doesn't
mean some incidents aren't still handled quite well.

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?

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.

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.