Did I violate an FAR?

In article .com,
"PilotWeb.org" wrote:

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Are you talking about the US here?
I've spent entire afternoons doing practice approaches with NorCal
Approach here on the US's left coast and been "cleared for [approach]"
every time. They'll occasionally throw in a "maintain VFR" in the same
phrase, but that's not even common on the approaches I typically
practice on.

The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
say anything like "Cleared IFR...")

I can't imagine they *ever* say that, but never mind...

[...]

[advertising deleted...]

Hamish

Roy Smith wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:

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?


I can't find one (but you knew that). I guess it's one of those things
that I've always taken for granted, that "cleared to" is the magic phrase
you need to hear to be IFR.

So, are you saying that after the following conversation:

Me: "Request practice ILS-16 approach"

ATC: "Cleared ILS-16 approach"

I'm IFR?

No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.

I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the LA
Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500 feet
east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario and tell
the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives me a squawk,
then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and maintain
6,000 for an ILS to 26R."

PilotWeb.org wrote:

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
appropriate rating and without currency.

That is not what triggers IFR.

In my hypothetical I am on top of stratus 15 miles east of Podunck
Airport (which has a TRACON). I call in, "Poduck Approach, Baron 1234C
is at 8,500, VFR, over ACMEE intersection. Requst an ILS approach to
Runway 26."

"Baron 34C, radar contact over ACMEE, fly heading 270 for vectors to the
Podunck 26 ILS. Descent to and maintain 6,000."

Then, there could follow several altitude and vector heading changes
while I am IMC.

Finally, once the controller satisfies the vector-to-final requirements
of 7110.65P, only then will he say "Cleared for approach."

Sam Spade wrote:



No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.

I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the LA
Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500 feet
east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario and tell
the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives me a squawk,
then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and maintain
6,000 for an ILS to 26R."

You're still VFR.

Sam Spade wrote:

PilotWeb.org wrote:

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
appropriate rating and without currency.


That is not what triggers IFR.

In my hypothetical I am on top of stratus 15 miles east of Podunck
Airport (which has a TRACON). I call in, "Poduck Approach, Baron 1234C
is at 8,500, VFR, over ACMEE intersection. Requst an ILS approach to
Runway 26."

"Baron 34C, radar contact over ACMEE, fly heading 270 for vectors to the
Podunck 26 ILS. Descent to and maintain 6,000."

Then, there could follow several altitude and vector heading changes
while I am IMC.

You busted the regs when you went in the clouds.

Sam Spade wrote:
PilotWeb.org wrote:

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
The actual term IFR isn't usually used on the radio much, (they rarely
say anything like "Cleared IFR...") If you were "cleared for approach"
then you violated the regulations for operating under IFR without the
appropriate rating and without currency.

That is not what triggers IFR.

In my hypothetical I am on top of stratus 15 miles east of Podunck
Airport (which has a TRACON). I call in, "Poduck Approach, Baron 1234C
is at 8,500, VFR, over ACMEE intersection. Requst an ILS approach to
Runway 26."

"Baron 34C, radar contact over ACMEE, fly heading 270 for vectors to the
Podunck 26 ILS. Descent to and maintain 6,000."

Then, there could follow several altitude and vector heading changes
while I am IMC.

Finally, once the controller satisfies the vector-to-final requirements
of 7110.65P, only then will he say "Cleared for approach."

But "cleared for approach" is no more an IFR clearance than "cleared
for takeoff." Neither is "fly heading 270" an IFR clearance.

The best AIM reference I can get you is in 4-3-21: "If pilots wish to
proceed in accordance with instrument flight rules, they must
specifically request and obtain, an IFR clearance." So you would have
to say something like "Request an IFR clearance to Podunk airport via
the ILS runway 26."

Just requesting the ILS is ambiguous at best. You might get away with
it if Podunk airport is IFR, but if the stratus stops short of the
airport and the airport is VFR, then the controller may assume you want
to fly the ILS while under VFR.

Now about the "maintain VFR" wording the controller is supposed to use:
I've read that 1) it is only a reminder, 2) the controller only needs
to state it once (not necessarily in conjunction with the approach
clearance, it could have happened 30 minutes prior, or whatever) and 3)
if the controller forgets to state "maintain VFR" (or if the pilot
doesn't remember hearing it) then the pilot must still maintain VFR.

In article . com,
wrote:

The best AIM reference I can get you is in 4-3-21: "If pilots wish to
proceed in accordance with instrument flight rules, they must
specifically request and obtain, an IFR clearance." So you would have
to say something like "Request an IFR clearance to Podunk airport via
the ILS runway 26."

Just requesting the ILS is ambiguous at best.

In this case there was no ambiguity, at least not on my end. I
specifically requested a practice approach in VFR conditions (I used
both phrases). I got back something that sounded like it might have
been an IFR clearance ("Cleared for the approach", but not "Cleared TO
anywhere", but also (notably) not "practice approach approved" and not
"maintain VFR.")

Then I specifically replied that I didn't want a real approach, I wanted
a practice approach, and ATC responded that I "had to be in the system"
(whatever that means). Notably they did NOT say anything along the
lines of "Acknowledged, maintain VFR at all times."

It was a very strange situation, hence my question.

In article
,
Hamish Reid wrote:

In article .com,
"PilotWeb.org" wrote:

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Are you talking about the US here?


Yes. SoCal.

Anonymous coward #673 wrote:
In article
,
Hamish Reid wrote:

In article .com,
"PilotWeb.org" wrote:

If ATC uses the term "Cleared for approach" and/or gave you a clearance
limit, using the term "Cleared" then yes, you were operating under IFR.
Well, that's the question, isn't it? Are you talking about the US here?


Yes. SoCal.

Is that still in the US?

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



No, the word "practice" muddys the waters.

I am thinking in terms of a non-training flight that shows up in the
LA Basin on top of a bunch of unforecasted stratus. I am at 8,500
feet east of Ontario. I call SoCal and request an ILS into Ontario
and tell the controller I am VFR at 8,500. He identifies me, gives me
a squawk, then says, 34 Charlie, maintain heading 260, descent to and
maintain 6,000 for an ILS to 26R."


You're still VFR.

What would have to be different to make me IFR? Could you cite a reference?