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".

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

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

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:
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