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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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". |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Did I violate an FAR?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Getting the MOCA | Dan | Instrument Flight Rules | 59 | July 3rd 06 01:43 AM |
IFR use of handheld GPS | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 251 | May 19th 06 02:04 PM |
More IFR with VFR GPS questions | Chris Quaintance | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | November 30th 05 08:39 PM |