IFR for the VFR guys

[minitour]

This argument came up a while ago at an airport I was flying to for my solo XCs and I never really paid attention until now when I'm actually doing the instrument rating. Hopefully you guys can shine some light on what I'm looking at here. The discussion was as follows:

A student and an instructor are doing IRF hoodwork in VFR conditions. They did not file a IFR flight plan, nor have they received any clearance. So they must maintain their required cloud clearances and flight visibilities during their flight.

Well, on the way back they decide they want to shoot the ILS to runway X (we'll use 2 in this case). So they call approach and ask for and get vectors. Well you know how it goes, this heading, that altitude, blah blah...well finally they get the "Five from the marker turn right 350 maintain 3,000 til established tower 119.4 cleared ils 2 approach"

So they turn, descend, intercept the localizer, and just before glideslope interception they pop right through a cloud.

The argument was:
Guy A (I think a CFI) was saying totally illegal because they aren't on an IFR flight plan and the approach clearance doesn't count as an IFR clearance.

Guy B (I think a CFI also) was saying totally legal because the approach clearance DOES count unless the approach controller says "maintain VFR conditions".

I tend to agree with guy A. I just think if the feds showed up at the scene of the crash, they'd want to know what I was doing VFR in a cloud....what do you think?

Thanks

-mini

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Guy A is correct.

 

[minitour]

Guy A is correct.

Thanks...thats what I thought

-mini

 

[Vector4fun]

mini,

The situation you describe is common, and I'll tell you my thoughts. To me, (and I consider myself "old-school" ATC), an IFR clearance contains 3 important things:

Clearance Limit

Route

Altitude

In the interest of brevity, or a little sloppiness or forgetfulness, a lot of controllers leave off "Maintain VFR" with the practice approach clearance. I'm even sure I've done it myself when really busy. But If a pilot actually asked me for a local IFR clearance to fly the approach, and I did things properly, the following would take place:

I'd probably change your beacon code to an "IFR" code that provides MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) Codes from our local VFR code bank suppress MSAW alerts.

I'd issue a clearance similar to: "Cleared to XYZ airport via radar vectors and the ILS runway 2, maintain X thousand feet." There's your three basic requirements for an IFR clearance.

See FAA 7110.65 para 4-2-8:

4-2-8. IFR-VFR AND VFR-IFR FLIGHTS​

a. Clear an aircraft planning IFR operations for the initial part of flight and VFR for the latter part to the fix at which the IFR part ends.

b. Treat an aircraft planning VFR for the initial part of flight and IFR for the latter part as a VFR departure. Issue a clearance to this aircraft when it requests IFR clearance approaching the fix where it proposes to start IFR operations. The phraseology CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT AS FILED may be used with abbreviated departure clearance procedures. ​

[size=-2]REFERENCE-​

FAAO 7110.65, Abbreviated Departure Clearance, Para 4-3-3.[/size]

c. When an aircraft changes from VFR to IFR, the controller shall assign a beacon code to Mode-C equipped aircraft that will allow MSAW alarms. ​

​

*I* personally wouldn't violate VFR clearance from cloud regs unless I made plain to the controller I was requesting a local IFR clearance. Also be advised that you may not receive IFR separation from other aircraft unless you specifically request a local IFR clearance. I'm only required to provide 500' vertical separation between a practice VFR approach, and another IFR aircraft.


If you want approved IFR separation from other aircraft, and backup terrain warning via MSAW, always make plain to the controller you are requesting a local IFR clearance. Something to think about....

 

[minitour]

Vector4fun

Thanks for the info there! I just couldn't imagine unless I requested an IFR clearance busting the VFR cloud/vis requirements, etc. But still, this guy was just adamant that once you're cleared for the approach its an IFR clearance...

I guess the first guy could have simply argued that a Visual approach doesn't cancel the IFR flight plan (...it doesn't...right?) so its not a VFR clearance although you've gotta have that cieling/vis mins...

Anyway...thanks for clearing that up in my head guyz....I would have hated to give bad info like that to a student (in the future) or...eek actually fly an approach like that...

Thankya again

-mini

 

[philo beddoe]

Guy B wouldn't last long as a DO or chief pilot.

Interpreting the controller's omission of the Remain VFR advisory as a default IFR clearance is a huuuge stretch.

Shows a very large gap in FAR knowledge.

 

[A Squared]

Guy B wouldn't last long as a DO or chief pilot.

Interpreting the controller's omission of the Remain VFR advisory as a default IFR clearance is a huuuge stretch.

Shows a very large gap in FAR knowledge.

DOs and CHief pilots are capable of HUUUUUGE stretches.

some of the better one's I've seen:

Standby is not duty (part 121)

Annual recurrent training isn't duty (part 121)

You may descend to the minimum safe altitude shown on the approach plate in routine (non-emergency) operations.

That's just off the top of my head

 

[mar]

The beer test

DOs and CHief pilots are capable of HUUUUUGE stretches.

some of the better one's I've seen:

Standby is not duty (part 121)

Annual recurrent training isn't duty (part 121)

I always like to apply the beer test.

For example: Standby is not duty? Then I can have a beer, right?

You say no? Then I say I'm on duty.

Simple. But then a lot of things are simple in my head.

 

[minitour]

I always like to apply the beer test.

For example: Standby is not duty? Then I can have a beer, right?

You say no? Then I say I'm on duty.

Simple. But then a lot of things are simple in my head.

I've got to remember that!

 

[Singlecoil]

You may descend to the minimum safe altitude shown on the approach plate in routine (non-emergency) operations.

I hope you're kidding, but I'm afraid you're not.

 

[philo beddoe]

Okay, then let's say that Guy B would make a great (dare I say typical) DO for a real $hitbag 135 operator.

I was thinking quality 121 operator.

It always amazes me how these huge assumptions by pilots often go unquestioned for years.

Why, just the other day some idiot was trying to tell me that pitch controlled airspeed. Time for a drug test, I say.

 

[igneousy2]

The only thing people have done here is express their opinions, but yet i'm not swayed either way. I can see the safer play bet is to assume A, but I don't see any proof in the regs.


91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required

No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

It could be said that A above would mean that an approach clearence would not make you legal for IFR because you don't have a flight plan, however, A would also seem to invalidate most pop-up IFR clearences. Furthermore 91.169 gives ATC the option of not requiring any of the information in a flight plan.

§ 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.

(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following information:

(1) Information required under §91.153 (a) (VFR flight-plan) of this part...and an alternate if required (my para-phrase)

From what I have read of the the plain text of the regulations right now I would have to conclude that under the circumstances listed in this post (instructor "requested vectors", instructor was "cleared for ILS 2"), would sufice as an "appropriate IFR clearence" unless the "maintain VFR" is attached.

I cannot find anywhere in the regulations that state pilots must have knowledge of local transponder code practices.

I cannot find anywhere in the regulations that state that a clearence for an instrument approach does not suffice as an instrument clearence.

If I ask for vectors to an airport and I am given "cleared for the ILS 2", I am IFR as far as I'm concerned, if you tell me enter right base runway 2, I am VFR.

I am not saying I am positive...but please prove me wrong (i.e. quote some federal document) and not just state your opinion.

thanks

P.S. Pitch does control airspeed...and so does power

 

[Lead Sled]

The only thing people have done here is express their opinions, but yet i'm not swayed either way. I can see the safer play bet is to assume A, but I don't see any proof in the regs...

I agree. Personally, I think the answer is "It depends". I've seen it both ways - where you ended up on an IFR clearance and also where you didn't. Controllers (and pilots) don't always do things by the "strict letter of the law".

My recommendation? If there's ANY ambiguity as to your status make sure you verify it with ATC. If you need an IFR clearance to conduct the approach simply tell them. If you need to remain VFR, make sure they know that as well. That way, you'll have the "tapes" on your side if there's ever any question.

Lead Sled

PS...

You pull back to go higher and pull back more to go down.

 

[minitour]

The only thing people have done here is express their opinions, but yet i'm not swayed either way. I can see the safer play bet is to assume A, but I don't see any proof in the regs.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but if it is an IFR clearance to conduct an instrument approach, then what about practice approaches where the Controller doesn't specify maintain VFR...

Does that mean the Private pilot buzzin along with his/her safety pilot decides to do an instrument approach and....bam....violated....you can't accept an IFR clearance because you're not Instrument rated....

True? Maybe I misunderstand that one...

-mini

 

[Lead Sled]

If you accept an instrument clearance, either knowingly or unknowingly, and you're not instrument rated and current... BAM, you're busted.

Lead Sled

 

[minitour]

If you accept an instrument clearance, either knowingly or unknowingly, and you're not instrument rated and current... BAM, you're busted.

Lead Sled

Right...so is an approach clearance an instrument clearance?

I still vote no...but compelling arguments both ways...

-mini

 

[JediNein]

Okkkaayyy.... near and dear to me, just had a chat with ATC about the following after asking for a PRACTICE VFR approach:

"Aircraft XXX, 4 miles from XXXXX, turn right heading 160, maintain VFR until established, cleared for the XXX ILS approach."

Is it IFR? Is it VFR?

Per those guys, they're military, they have to treat all practice approaches as IFR aircraft. The clearance was IFR due to the "maintain VFR until established" phrase.

Per the FAA controllers, there was no clearance limit, it's a practice approach in VFR conditions.

Later on that same flight, the military controller issued a clearance limit, heading, altitude, freq., and squawk when we really needed a IFR approach in IMC to get back home.

The FAA and Military have adjoining sectors. This can be quite fun.

Sooo.... Was it IFR? Was it VFR? What do you say at the NTSB hearing?

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[Lead Sled]

Like I said...

If there's ANY ambiguity as to your status make sure you verify it with ATC. If you need an IFR clearance to conduct the approach simply tell them. If you need to remain VFR, make sure they know that as well. That way, you'll have the "tapes" on your side if there's ever any question.

I think some of you guys are expecting this type of stuff to be "cut and dryed", it's not. It's called working the system. A lot of it comes down to the controller's perceptions. Like I said, if there is any ambiguity, get it cleared up - just like any other item on an instrument clearance.

Lead Sled

 

[philo beddoe]

If I have not filed an IFR clearance or requested one, how can ATC "force" me to be IFR?

One more problem is that a pilot was once violated for flying approaches on a local IFR clearance with no alternate on file, since weather conditions required one.

ATC might think I'm IFR, but that does not make it so.

 

[Lead Sled]

If I have not filed an IFR clearance or requested one, how can ATC "force" me to be IFR?

If you ask for an approach and you accept vectors, altitude assignments, etc. I think that it's reasonable for a controller to assume that you're IFR at that point. But hey, that's just me.

"Aircraft XXX, 4 miles from XXXXX, turn right heading 160, maintain VFR until established, cleared for the XXX ILS approach."

That sure sounds like you've accepted an IFR clearance to me - after you've established yourself on the approach.

Lead Sled