An Oops! To Remember

[PropPilot23]

Oops.

It was an ambitious flight. We wanted to do our IFR currency in one flight. We planned six approaches to six airports, all with holds, tracking, intercepts, and even a circle to land. We were excited. We’ve done this before many times, and each time the controllers were fun, we were on top of our game, and landed after having broken a sweat or two.

Today was no different, at least until we requested the first approach. It was simple: we wanted an ILS approach with a procedure turn (which is part of a hold), a touch and go, and a right crosswind departure to make our way to our next approach like we did many times before, all under VFR. However, this time was different: the controller instructed us to complete our touch and go and then make a right turn to join the published missed. I took the instruction down, and complied with instructions to the initial approach fix which coincidentally is where the procedure turn began.

After completing our procedure turn and joining the localizer, we were switched over to tower. We informed the tower that we were inbound on the ILS and requested a right crosswind departure. This is where confusion took hold. The controller responded that we were cleared for the option. That’s it. Nothing more. I interpreted this to mean that a right crosswind was approved. I was wrong.

After making the right crosswind departure, we were handed off to approach. They were not happy. They asked whether we were on the published missed, and we were honest: we were not. We explained we were on a right crosswind departure, and that we requested the departure with tower. The controller then unloaded a bad day’s worth of stress, and yelled at us quite clearly: what we did was not okay, ever. He explained, rather angrily (or, very angrily) that he was trying to reach us, expected us on the published missed, and that we were to never, ever do that again. He then called the tower and informed us tower did not approve our right crosswind departure. We did the only thing we knew how: apologize. With that, he handed us off with a tone that clearly meant we were to never call him again. And call him we did not for the remainder of the flight. Thankfully, the next controller was much nicer, and we were certainly humbled by the experience.

This was a learning opportunity for us. Is an approach clearance under VFR an actual IFR approach clearance? Apparently, and at least by default, it is not. FAA JO Order 7110.65W states that practice approaches, when clearance is issued, simply mean that the controller is providing standard IFR separation. (See paragraph 4-8-11). We were VFR for the entire flight, although we were provided with a squawk code and separation services throughout. Interestingly, we were never instructed to “maintain VFR,” or at least we did not recall being instructed that.

That being said, we were never provided with an IFR clearance of any kind. The magic language, “Cleared to [insert destination airport or clearance limit here], maintain [insert altitude here]” was never given to us. Thus, we assumed, and perhaps rightly, we were VFR.

Even more confusing is that the LOAs for our TRACON on the subject are not clear. They simply refer to IFR separation services, and do not discuss whether we were IFR or VFR, or whether the “cleared for the option” instruction from the tower controller allowed us to execute the right crosswind departure afterward.

In the end, the simple fact is this: we messed up. Ultimately, it was our responsibility to clarify ATC instructions and make sure we were clear on what was expected, and that we and ATC were on the same page. Luckily for us, there was no traffic in our area, we did not disrupt the flow of traffic, did not ‘bust’ any airspaces or otherwise violate any regulations. While the controller had every right to be frustrated, yelling at us served no purpose other than to add additional external stress to an already busy flight crew. But, on the bright side, we learned from this little experience, completed our approaches, and returned home safely.

The lesson is this: clarify, clarify, and clarify. If your intentions change, explicitly request permission, or at least make sure that the controllers understand what you want to do. If the tower controller does not approve a departure, stick to what you were instructed to do last, and then clarify. Or better yet: ask if you are approved for what you intend to do. The controller will either say yes, or no. It does not take much time, nor does it take much effort.

What a day, and what a way to learn.

 

[TommyG]

Think the biggest problem of this was that you said you do this same exact routine every 6 month for currency. You had it in your head what you’re used to doing, and one thing changed and caught you off guard.

 

[luvflyin]

Oops.

It was an ambitious flight. We wanted to do our IFR currency in one flight. We planned six approaches to six airports, all with holds, tracking, intercepts, and even a circle to land. We were excited. We’ve done this before many times, and each time the controllers were fun, we were on top of our game, and landed after having broken a sweat or two.

Today was no different, at least until we requested the first approach. It was simple: we wanted an ILS approach with a procedure turn (which is part of a hold), a touch and go, and a right crosswind departure to make our way to our next approach like we did many times before, all under VFR. However, this time was different: the controller instructed us to complete our touch and go and then make a right turn to join the published missed. I took the instruction down, and complied with instructions to the initial approach fix which coincidentally is where the procedure turn began.

After completing our procedure turn and joining the localizer, we were switched over to tower. We informed the tower that we were inbound on the ILS and requested a right crosswind departure. This is where confusion took hold. The controller responded that we were cleared for the option. That’s it. Nothing more. I interpreted this to mean that a right crosswind was approved. I was wrong.

After making the right crosswind departure, we were handed off to approach. They were not happy. They asked whether we were on the published missed, and we were honest: we were not. We explained we were on a right crosswind departure, and that we requested the departure with tower. The controller then unloaded a bad day’s worth of stress, and yelled at us quite clearly: what we did was not okay, ever. He explained, rather angrily (or, very angrily) that he was trying to reach us, expected us on the published missed, and that we were to never, ever do that again. He then called the tower and informed us tower did not approve our right crosswind departure. We did the only thing we knew how: apologize. With that, he handed us off with a tone that clearly meant we were to never call him again. And call him we did not for the remainder of the flight. Thankfully, the next controller was much nicer, and we were certainly humbled by the experience.

This was a learning opportunity for us. Is an approach clearance under VFR an actual IFR approach clearance? Apparently, and at least by default, it is not. FAA JO Order 7110.65W states that practice approaches, when clearance is issued, simply mean that the controller is providing standard IFR separation. (See paragraph 4-8-11). We were VFR for the entire flight, although we were provided with a squawk code and separation services throughout. Interestingly, we were never instructed to “maintain VFR,” or at least we did not recall being instructed that.

That being said, we were never provided with an IFR clearance of any kind. The magic language, “Cleared to [insert destination airport or clearance limit here], maintain [insert altitude here]” was never given to us. Thus, we assumed, and perhaps rightly, we were VFR.

Even more confusing is that the LOAs for our TRACON on the subject are not clear. They simply refer to IFR separation services, and do not discuss whether we were IFR or VFR, or whether the “cleared for the option” instruction from the tower controller allowed us to execute the right crosswind departure afterward.

In the end, the simple fact is this: we messed up. Ultimately, it was our responsibility to clarify ATC instructions and make sure we were clear on what was expected, and that we and ATC were on the same page. Luckily for us, there was no traffic in our area, we did not disrupt the flow of traffic, did not ‘bust’ any airspaces or otherwise violate any regulations. While the controller had every right to be frustrated, yelling at us served no purpose other than to add additional external stress to an already busy flight crew. But, on the bright side, we learned from this little experience, completed our approaches, and returned home safely.

The lesson is this: clarify, clarify, and clarify. If your intentions change, explicitly request permission, or at least make sure that the controllers understand what you want to do. If the tower controller does not approve a departure, stick to what you were instructed to do last, and then clarify. Or better yet: ask if you are approved for what you intend to do. The controller will either say yes, or no. It does not take much time, nor does it take much effort.

What a day, and what a way to learn.

“...The lesson is this: clarify, clarify, and clarify. If your intentions change, explicitly request permission, or at least make sure that the controllers understand what you want to do....” I see as the most important part of your post.

Y is the current version of the version of the 7110.65. No changes I can see from the W concerning Practice Approaches, but you are aware of it and quote it. Some things change, you may want to get up to date.

Where did you get the LOA? Those are not generally made available to to the public, for reason.

You originally requested a Touch and Go. Did you read 4-8-12 of the 7110.65?

You said you don’t remember him telling you ‘maintain’ VFR. Maybe he thought were a Pop Up requesting IFR Clearance and wanting Practice Approaches. That’s a thing, along with VFR aircraft doing Practice Approaches. There are three kinds of Practice Approaches. IFR aircraft doing them. VFR aircraft doing them where a program has been established to provide IFR separation to aircraft doing it and VFR aircraft doing it where a Program has not been established. Separation is not required for the last one and they are required to tell you separation services will not be provided if so.

What airport was this?

 

[Salty]

Oops.

It was an ambitious flight. We wanted to do our IFR currency in one flight. We planned six approaches to six airports, all with holds, tracking, intercepts, and even a circle to land. We were excited. We’ve done this before many times, and each time the controllers were fun, we were on top of our game, and landed after having broken a sweat or two.

Today was no different, at least until we requested the first approach. It was simple: we wanted an ILS approach with a procedure turn (which is part of a hold), a touch and go, and a right crosswind departure to make our way to our next approach like we did many times before, all under VFR. However, this time was different: the controller instructed us to complete our touch and go and then make a right turn to join the published missed. I took the instruction down, and complied with instructions to the initial approach fix which coincidentally is where the procedure turn began.

After completing our procedure turn and joining the localizer, we were switched over to tower. We informed the tower that we were inbound on the ILS and requested a right crosswind departure. This is where confusion took hold. The controller responded that we were cleared for the option. That’s it. Nothing more. I interpreted this to mean that a right crosswind was approved. I was wrong.

After making the right crosswind departure, we were handed off to approach. They were not happy. They asked whether we were on the published missed, and we were honest: we were not. We explained we were on a right crosswind departure, and that we requested the departure with tower. The controller then unloaded a bad day’s worth of stress, and yelled at us quite clearly: what we did was not okay, ever. He explained, rather angrily (or, very angrily) that he was trying to reach us, expected us on the published missed, and that we were to never, ever do that again. He then called the tower and informed us tower did not approve our right crosswind departure. We did the only thing we knew how: apologize. With that, he handed us off with a tone that clearly meant we were to never call him again. And call him we did not for the remainder of the flight. Thankfully, the next controller was much nicer, and we were certainly humbled by the experience.

This was a learning opportunity for us. Is an approach clearance under VFR an actual IFR approach clearance? Apparently, and at least by default, it is not. FAA JO Order 7110.65W states that practice approaches, when clearance is issued, simply mean that the controller is providing standard IFR separation. (See paragraph 4-8-11). We were VFR for the entire flight, although we were provided with a squawk code and separation services throughout. Interestingly, we were never instructed to “maintain VFR,” or at least we did not recall being instructed that.

That being said, we were never provided with an IFR clearance of any kind. The magic language, “Cleared to [insert destination airport or clearance limit here], maintain [insert altitude here]” was never given to us. Thus, we assumed, and perhaps rightly, we were VFR.

Even more confusing is that the LOAs for our TRACON on the subject are not clear. They simply refer to IFR separation services, and do not discuss whether we were IFR or VFR, or whether the “cleared for the option” instruction from the tower controller allowed us to execute the right crosswind departure afterward.

In the end, the simple fact is this: we messed up. Ultimately, it was our responsibility to clarify ATC instructions and make sure we were clear on what was expected, and that we and ATC were on the same page. Luckily for us, there was no traffic in our area, we did not disrupt the flow of traffic, did not ‘bust’ any airspaces or otherwise violate any regulations. While the controller had every right to be frustrated, yelling at us served no purpose other than to add additional external stress to an already busy flight crew. But, on the bright side, we learned from this little experience, completed our approaches, and returned home safely.

The lesson is this: clarify, clarify, and clarify. If your intentions change, explicitly request permission, or at least make sure that the controllers understand what you want to do. If the tower controller does not approve a departure, stick to what you were instructed to do last, and then clarify. Or better yet: ask if you are approved for what you intend to do. The controller will either say yes, or no. It does not take much time, nor does it take much effort.

What a day, and what a way to learn.

You state you didn’t get a clearance, but you did get a clearance for the approach, which includes the missed procedure, which they were explicit about. Even in vfr, you have to follow atc instructions once given.

91.123 (b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...575f09b639658764&node=se14.2.91_1123&rgn=div8

I’m surprised the controller got so upset though if it wasn’t a safety issue. Maybe time for a vacation.

 

[PropPilot23]

Think the biggest problem of this was that you said you do this same exact routine every 6 month for currency. You had it in your head what you’re used to doing, and one thing changed and caught you off guard.

I agree, in part. I certainly think expectation bias played a role here, although we did request a right crosswind departure with tower and were told that we were cleared for the option. Clarification certainly should have been sought, by both the flight crew and the controller. I suspect that this was just a coordination issue as well, where we wanted something that the tower had to coordinate for, although we weren't told this. Also adding to this was the really shoddy nature of reception in the area -- it was hard to hear the controller at times, so there might have been some confusion along the way, and I suspect the controller was monitoring more than one frequency. Certainly, a lesson was learned.

 

[PropPilot23]

“...The lesson is this: clarify, clarify, and clarify. If your intentions change, explicitly request permission, or at least make sure that the controllers understand what you want to do....” I see as the most important part of your post.

Y is the current version of the version of the 7110.65. No changes I can see from the W concerning Practice Approaches, but you are aware of it and quote it. Some things change, you may want to get up to date.

Where did you get the LOA? Those are not generally made available to to the public, for reason.

You originally requested a Touch and Go. Did you read 4-8-12 of the 7110.65?

You said you don’t remember him telling you ‘maintain’ VFR. Maybe he thought were a Pop Up requesting IFR Clearance and wanting Practice Approaches. That’s a thing, along with VFR aircraft doing Practice Approaches. There are three kinds of Practice Approaches. IFR aircraft doing them. VFR aircraft doing them where a program has been established to provide IFR separation to aircraft doing it and VFR aircraft doing it where a Program has not been established. Separation is not required for the last one and they are required to tell you separation services will not be provided if so.

What airport was this?

Thanks for the heads up. I pulled up the information by searching the NOTAMs only to discover that the procedure was cancelled as of February. So We're still not clear.

We were certainly not IFR. We remained VFR at all times and were receiving separation services. We were never given any altitude instructions prior, nor did we have a flight plan in the system. We were provided with heading instructions for traffic once or twice, but that was it.

4-8-12 is very instructive, and I suspect that there was confusion on our part, and possibly the part of the controller.

The airport was in the valley area under NORCAL. Reception is pretty shoddy in the area below 2,000 MSL.

This is extremely helpful, thank you. We live and learn, and didn't get a number apart from the thrashing from ATC.

 

[PropPilot23]

You state you didn’t get a clearance, but you did get a clearance for the approach, which includes the missed procedure, which they were explicit about. Even in vfr, you have to follow atc instructions once given.


https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...575f09b639658764&node=se14.2.91_1123&rgn=div8

I’m surprised the controller got so upset though if it wasn’t a safety issue. Maybe time for a vacation.

All very true. We confirmed after the flight that we did not break any regulations or conflict with traffic. The controller had every right to be frustrated, although it certainly doesn't feel good to get a good thrashing on the frequency. I'm certain that if it was serious, we would have received a number.

 

[Salty]

All very true. We confirmed after the flight that we did not break any regulations or conflict with traffic. The controller had every right to be frustrated, although it certainly doesn't feel good to get a good thrashing on the frequency. I'm certain that if it was serious, we would have received a number.

I think you did break 91.123. I'm not saying it's a big deal, but technically speaking you did break a regulation. I might fill out a NASA report, not because I'd be worried about anybody coming after me, but rather to point out the potential for confusion in your scenario.

 

[dmspilot]

This was a learning opportunity for us. Is an approach clearance under VFR an actual IFR approach clearance? Apparently, and at least by default, it is not. FAA JO Order 7110.65W states that practice approaches, when clearance is issued, simply mean that the controller is providing standard IFR separation. (See paragraph 4-8-11). We were VFR for the entire flight, although we were provided with a squawk code and separation services throughout. Interestingly, we were never instructed to “maintain VFR,” or at least we did not recall being instructed that.

That being said, we were never provided with an IFR clearance of any kind. The magic language, “Cleared to [insert destination airport or clearance limit here], maintain [insert altitude here]” was never given to us. Thus, we assumed, and perhaps rightly, we were VFR.

Even more confusing is that the LOAs for our TRACON on the subject are not clear. They simply refer to IFR separation services, and do not discuss whether we were IFR or VFR, or whether the “cleared for the option” instruction from the tower controller allowed us to execute the right crosswind departure afterward.

Whether you were IFR or VFR or what kind of approach clearance you had or what the LOAs were, none of that matters, so one might wonder if you actually learned the correct thing. "The option" is a type of landing, not a type of traffic pattern.

Also, the approach controller explicitly told you to fly the published missed, so I am not sure what part of that is confusing.

 

[Velocity173]

This is really just miscommunication on both ends. First, the controller needs to get a handle on your departure. If I were working approach, I never would have let you navigate via your own means to the initial. You’re at an airport where separation services are being provided for VFRs conduction practice IAPs. If you didn’t want the published missed, then approach should’ve used alternate instructions which include a heading and altitude assignment. And while forcing you into the published missed is a violation of their order, the simple fact is, they issued you the published missed and you never stated “unable.” Also while the absence of the “maintain VFR” is another violation of their order, you still were in violation of 91.123. Controller sounds unprofessional but doesn’t change the fact a violation occurred.

 

[PropPilot23]

Thanks, everyone. This is all helpful. @dmspilot, you have a good point. We may have been task saturated, or simply not on top of our game. Whatever the case may be, we certainly did not fly the missed. Rest assured, however, this is a wake up call to be more focused. In the years I've been flying, I've never had a mishap or a hiccup of any kind, and I hope never to have one. It'll be back to the books, replaying the scenario in my mind, and reminding myself to slow down, focus, and do it right.

 

[Velocity173]

“...The lesson is this: clarify, clarify, and clarify. If your intentions change, explicitly request permission, or at least make sure that the controllers understand what you want to do....” I see as the most important part of your post.

Y is the current version of the version of the 7110.65. No changes I can see from the W concerning Practice Approaches, but you are aware of it and quote it. Some things change, you may want to get up to date.

Where did you get the LOA? Those are not generally made available to to the public, for reason.

You originally requested a Touch and Go. Did you read 4-8-12 of the 7110.65?

You said you don’t remember him telling you ‘maintain’ VFR. Maybe he thought were a Pop Up requesting IFR Clearance and wanting Practice Approaches. That’s a thing, along with VFR aircraft doing Practice Approaches. There are three kinds of Practice Approaches. IFR aircraft doing them. VFR aircraft doing them where a program has been established to provide IFR separation to aircraft doing it and VFR aircraft doing it where a Program has not been established. Separation is not required for the last one and they are required to tell you separation services will not be provided if so.

What airport was this?

Op is probably not referring to an LOA but an LTA.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Aug/Letter_to_Airmen_No._10-1.pdf

 

[luvflyin]

Thanks for the heads up. I pulled up the information by searching the NOTAMs only to discover that the procedure was cancelled as of February. So We're still not clear.

We were certainly not IFR. We remained VFR at all times and were receiving separation services. We were never given any altitude instructions prior, nor did we have a flight plan in the system. We were provided with heading instructions for traffic once or twice, but that was it.

4-8-12 is very instructive, and I suspect that there was confusion on our part, and possibly the part of the controller.

The airport was in the valley area under NORCAL. Reception is pretty shoddy in the area below 2,000 MSL.

This is extremely helpful, thank you. We live and learn, and didn't get a number apart from the thrashing from ATC.

Maybe that Controller got a thrashing from his Supervisor for freaking out and throwing a hissy fit over the air.

 

[luvflyin]

Op is probably not referring to an LOA but an LTA.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Aug/Letter_to_Airmen_No._10-1.pdf

Yeah, I see from his post #6 that was it.

 

[bflynn]

The issue is not whether you were IFR or VFR, it was your interpretation of "Cleared for the option". It is not an instruction that you have an option to disregard the missed approach instructions and do what you want.

"Cleared for the option" pertains solely to the runway - landing, touch and go, or low approach.

Your butt chewing was earned, so I'm glad you asked about it and learned.

 

[Arm3]

The airport was in the valley area under NORCAL. Reception is pretty shoddy in the area below 2,000 MSL.

If you know the reception is poor below 2,000 in that area, have you tried turning the radio’s squelch off while in the problem area/altitude? The constant static is a minor annoyance if it lets you hear the controller.

 

[flyingron]

First off, yelling and berating a pilot in flight is NEVER acceptable no matter WHAT BONEHEAD maneuver you might have done. I'd file a complaint with the QA/sup for no other reason that that bit of unprofessional behavior that jeopardizes safety.

You didn't indicate just what the tower controller told you when you did the missed, but it sounds like this guy got his panties in a bunch because he believes his "control" somehow supersedes another controller.

 

[Lindberg]

Whether you were IFR or VFR or what kind of approach clearance you had or what the LOAs were, none of that matters, so one might wonder if you actually learned the correct thing. "The option" is a type of landing, not a type of traffic pattern.

Also, the approach controller explicitly told you to fly the published missed, so I am not sure what part of that is confusing.

So much of this. The OP failed to follow an ATC instruction in controlled airspace. Not good. The approach controller behaved unprofessionally, but at least OP didn't get a PD, so there's that.

"Cleared for the option" doesn't tell you anything about what to do after you "go." And that's approach's airspace, not tower's.