Did I violate an FAR?

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:

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

That is a VFR clearance. An IFR clearance would be
"cleared to the XYZ airport via the GINNA, .....". If he didn't say
"cleared to the xyz airport" then you were NOT IFR.

-Robert, CFII

On 11/27/06 09:23, Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
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."

This does not mean you are IFR. An IFR clearance must include the phrase
"Cleared to XXX" where XXX is the clearance limit (destination or fix).

"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.

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.

I'm not sure he has to remind you to maintain VFR. This is, after all,
the PIC's responsibility. The controllers in my area do this anyway FWIW.


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



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

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



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



45 days is now the standard.


Even better than what I thought it was.

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.

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.




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.


The way to respond in this situation is to simply say "Roger, understand
I'm VFR." Or words to that effect.




I'm not sure he has to remind you to maintain VFR. This is, after all,
the PIC's responsibility. The controllers in my area do this anyway FWIW.

The controller is required to tell you to maintain VFR one time, as soon
as possible upon initial contact or finding out you want practice
approaches.

Newps wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:



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


45 days is now the standard.

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.

-Robert

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.

In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Newps wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:



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


45 days is now the standard.

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".

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.

-Robert

On 11/27/06 16:07, Robert M. Gary wrote:
Newps wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:



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


45 days is now the standard.

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.

Wow. The pilot allowed the controller to cancel his IFR flight plan while
he was flying in IMC?


-Robert




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