Narrative:

I was working the ci-1 coordinator position for the X and Y sectors. OJT is progress in the Y sector. ZZZ tower called me to coordinate aircraft X runway heading assigned 3;000 ft. I immediately advised the Y sector. Y [sector] had crossing traffic at 3;500 ft southbound landing ZZZ1 airport. I asked the Y [sector] instructor what altitude aircraft X was climbing to and was told the pilot was instructed to maintain VFR on his own navigation. I called the Z controller to apreq aircraft X at 3;000 ft on his own nav or did they require something else. Z [controller] approved the 3;000 ft and own nav. I then observed aircraft X on a southeast bound heading and asked if the aircraft X was on a heading. I was told yes; the pilot was heading 140. I then advised the instructor that aircraft X had been assigned 3;000 ft and that the heading of 140 was below the MVA. The instructor responded that aircraft X was not assigned an altitude and was instructed to maintain VFR. I then reminded the instructor that aircraft X had been assigned to maintain 3;000 ft by ZZZ tower. The instructor then informed me that I was wrong and that she vectored aircraft regularly using this technique. The supervisor came over and told me the instructor was correct and told me to stop talking. After I was relieved from position; I asked the supervisor to clarify and asked him was he actually saying VFR aircraft could be vectored with an assigned altitude below the MVA? Instead of answering; he said he needed me to calm down; that tapes would have to be pulled; a natca rep would need to be called and that he would have to consult a rule book because he didn't know. This is a fundamental problem that does not have an easy fix. This entire traffic situation was handled very badly. Aircraft X should have been climbed to 3;500 ft or 4;000 ft; an altitude above the MVA; so he could be sequenced back to the final for another approach and clear the traffic landing ZZZ1. Trapping him at 3;000 ft below an aircraft that was at 3;500 ft and needed to descend for landing was bad planning and organization. Apparently the instructor does not understand that instructing a VFR aircraft to maintain VFR does not authorize a pilot to resume his own altitude. Unless the pilot was instructed to resume appropriate VFR altitudes; the pilot; especially flight check; is going to remain at the altitude assigned. Advising a VFR aircraft to maintain VFR is stupid and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge. The supervisor and instructor should be provided immediate clarification on this matter; especially since she is instructing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller expressed concern regarding an altitude assignment below the MVA to a flight check aircraft. The reporter noted there were differing opinions as to the legality of the clearance issued.

Narrative: I was working the CI-1 Coordinator position for the X and Y Sectors. OJT is progress in the Y Sector. ZZZ Tower called me to coordinate Aircraft X runway heading assigned 3;000 FT. I immediately advised the Y Sector. Y [Sector] had crossing traffic at 3;500 FT Southbound landing ZZZ1 airport. I asked the Y [Sector] instructor what altitude Aircraft X was climbing to and was told the pilot was instructed to maintain VFR on his own navigation. I called the Z Controller to APREQ Aircraft X at 3;000 FT on his own nav or did they require something else. Z [Controller] approved the 3;000 FT and own nav. I then observed Aircraft X on a Southeast bound heading and asked if the Aircraft X was on a heading. I was told yes; the pilot was heading 140. I then advised the instructor that Aircraft X had been assigned 3;000 FT and that the heading of 140 was below the MVA. The instructor responded that Aircraft X was not assigned an altitude and was instructed to maintain VFR. I then reminded the instructor that Aircraft X had been assigned to maintain 3;000 FT by ZZZ Tower. The instructor then informed me that I was wrong and that she vectored aircraft regularly using this technique. The Supervisor came over and told me the instructor was correct and told me to stop talking. After I was relieved from position; I asked the Supervisor to clarify and asked him was he actually saying VFR aircraft could be vectored with an assigned altitude below the MVA? Instead of answering; he said he needed me to calm down; that tapes would have to be pulled; a NATCA rep would need to be called and that he would have to consult a rule book because he didn't know. This is a fundamental problem that does not have an easy fix. This entire traffic situation was handled very badly. Aircraft X should have been climbed to 3;500 FT or 4;000 FT; an altitude above the MVA; so he could be sequenced back to the final for another approach and clear the traffic landing ZZZ1. Trapping him at 3;000 FT below an aircraft that was at 3;500 FT and needed to descend for landing was bad planning and organization. Apparently the instructor does not understand that instructing a VFR aircraft to maintain VFR does not authorize a pilot to resume his own altitude. Unless the pilot was instructed to resume appropriate VFR altitudes; the pilot; especially flight check; is going to remain at the altitude assigned. Advising a VFR aircraft to maintain VFR is stupid and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge. The Supervisor and instructor should be provided immediate clarification on this matter; especially since she is instructing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.