Did I violate an FAR?

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?

Anonymous coward #673 wrote in news:nowhere-
:

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?

I believe even on a VFR practice approach controllers "put you in the
system" with a VFR notation of some sort. You properly requested a practice
approach in VFR conditions. However, he should have indicated "maintain
VFR" in his clearance to indicate that you were not accepting an actual IFR
Clearance. If he did not, it is possible that you did accept an actual IFR
Clearance. Of course, it's also possible that he just didn't call the
clearance properly. ATC isn't always perfect...

If you were PIC on an IFR Clearance, and you were not current, you violated
FAR 61.57 - Recent Flight Experience.
"(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or
flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for
the instrument privileges sought—

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems"

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].

"Putting you in the computer" doesn't make you IFR. It just lets them
do things like get you a squawk code and the like so it's easier to
track you. Normally they don't bother telling you that they are doing
this.

Ron Natalie wrote:
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].


"Putting you in the computer" doesn't make you IFR. It just lets them
do things like get you a squawk code and the like so it's easier to
track you. Normally they don't bother telling you that they are doing
this.

But, since the controller told him that, he may have entered him into
the computer as an IFR operation.

If, in fact, that were the case, it would go no where as an enforcement
case.

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:

Anonymous cowards are only allowed to post on slashdot :-)

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?

First off, if you were not current (and neither was your buddy), then it
was illegal to accept an IFR clearance.

That being said, are you sure you were given an IFR clearance? Did the
controller say "cleared to the XXX airport"? Unless you are cleared TO
someplace, it's not IFR.

More than likely, your clearance was something like "Cleared XYZ approach,
maintain VFR at all times". He's providing your IFR separation, but you're
operating under VFR (i.e. must maintain VFR weather minimia).

If you really thought the controller was giving you an IFR clearance, you
should have said, "Unable IFR, I need to do this under VFR".

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?

You should file a NASA Aviation Safety Report on this. In that way you
have immunity from any possible (unlikely) enforcement action and, more
important, the ATC tapes will be reviewed and the situation corrected.

Sam Spade wrote:

You should file a NASA Aviation Safety Report on this. In that way you
have immunity from any possible (unlikely) enforcement action and, more
important, the ATC tapes will be reviewed and the situation corrected.

I agree that there's never anything wrong with filing an ASRS report,
but how likely is it that this specific incident will be reviewed and
that the tapes will be listened to? As I understand, the "tapes" are
only stored for a short time frame. Do the ASRS folks forward the
report to the local FSDO? Does this happen quick enough for the tapes
to still exist? Certainly the ASRS researchers don't have the manpower
to investigate and follow-up on every incident.

Brad wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:


You should file a NASA Aviation Safety Report on this. In that way you
have immunity from any possible (unlikely) enforcement action and, more
important, the ATC tapes will be reviewed and the situation corrected.


I agree that there's never anything wrong with filing an ASRS report,
but how likely is it that this specific incident will be reviewed and
that the tapes will be listened to? As I understand, the "tapes" are
only stored for a short time frame. Do the ASRS folks forward the
report to the local FSDO? Does this happen quick enough for the tapes
to still exist? Certainly the ASRS researchers don't have the manpower
to investigate and follow-up on every incident.


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.

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:

Anonymous cowards are only allowed to post on slashdot :-)

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?

First off, if you were not current (and neither was your buddy), then it
was illegal to accept an IFR clearance.

That being said, are you sure you were given an IFR clearance? Did the
controller say "cleared to the XXX airport"? Unless you are cleared TO
someplace, it's not IFR.

More than likely, your clearance was something like "Cleared XYZ approach,
maintain VFR at all times". He's providing your IFR separation, but you're
operating under VFR (i.e. must maintain VFR weather minimia).

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.

If you really thought the controller was giving you an IFR clearance, you
should have said, "Unable IFR, I need to do this under VFR".

I think that's the right answer.

rg

Sam Spade wrote:



ATC tapes are now retained for 30 days at most facilities.


45 days is now the standard.