Narrative:

There appears to be inconsistency in controller acknowledgement of whether a pilot accepts a visual approach to an airport while on an IFR flight plan.I flew a long cross-country to wisconsin. The trip was completed in three legs; all filed as IFR flight plans. This trip was fairly consistent with my making frequent long cross-country trips and all but the middle leg landing airport was a route that I have flown numerous times. The inconsistency reported here has been experienced on other occasions but not previously with the impact of a minor altitude deviation on the last leg at kmsn.the third leg of this trip was completed to kmsn. It was filed IFR direct at 6;000 feet and was completed as such accept some ATC vectors for traffic; parachute jumpers and weather. After chicago center turned me over to rockford approach; nearing the wisconsin border they warned me of weather. I acknowledged seeing a buildup that appears to be exceeding 20;000 feet in height and took ATC's offer for a deviation to the right (or east of route) of 10 degrees. Around the wisconsin line rockford approach handed me off to madison approach. At that time I acknowledged receipt of ATIS information (that indicated runway 18 and 21 were active and lighting east of the field); requested immediate approval to step down in altitude; and told madison approach that the prior controller had approved a deviation of 10 degrees to the right of course. Madison approach acknowledge with approval to step down in altitude to 4;000 feet; to expect runway 21. I confirmed runway 21 was acceptable and it was very logical with my course deviation east of the airport allowing me to line up with the approach. There was a thunderstorm west of the airport; the cloud bases along the route of flight madison approach was giving me resulted in me popping in and out if IMC conditions. The controller was handling another flight who was at 5;000 feet and was requesting numerous deviations due to weather; and the controller was giving him those deviations including one in which he referenced as acceptable under some sort of milwaukee agreement. During this routing of that other traffic; madison approach was routinely giving me additional course adjustments vectoring me further away from the airport to the east. This was happening during a time period when the sun was going lower in the sky to the west and as I would turn into the airport I was effectively blind via a combination of sun angle; sporadic IMC conditions; and lightening both west of the airport in the obvious thunderstorm plus reported in ATIS as also east of the airport where the controller had routed me. Eventually the controller turned me on vectors toward the airport for an approach to runway 22. This is where confusion arose in that I was on an IFR flight plan in IMC conditions (sporadic from the clouds but effectively continuously from the light) and I was not communicated as being on an instrument approach vector to runway 22 or a visual approach. However; eventually and repeatedly the controller ask me to confirm that I had the airport in site; implying but not confirming his expectation I was on a visual approach. I responded to each inquiry that I did not have the airport in sight. However; his request to confirm that resulted in me looking more aggressively out the window seeking the now implied visual to a class C airport and the assumption I was no longer on my filed IFR flight plan as far as making an approach to runway 21. In the process of looking out and seeking to obtain visibility through the IMC conditions noted earlier I descended 200 feet below the last IFR altitude assignment the controller had given me; and he began aggressively telling me to return to it which I did immediately. He subsequently vectored me to an ILS approach to the runway; likely what he should have done initially with an aircraft on an IFR flight plan in IMC conditions.the procedural improvement opportunity fromthis experience at kmsn is that it would seem to make a lot of sense to have standard practice for a controller; confirming with a pilot the acceptance of a visual rather than instrument approach. It seemed reasonable with the routing vectors being given to both another aircraft and my aircraft that the planes were likely facing IMC conditions to some extent. It might be all fine and dandy that the airfield itself is reporting VFR conditions but that does not mean that approaching aircraft face those identical conditions; especially when the ATIS is reporting lightening to the east and obvious ATC vectoring for an active thunderstorm to the west would suggest to a reasonable person that conditions surrounding the airport were less than those on the airfield. Further; even if it were merely setting sun blinding the view out the cockpit to the field; it should be the pilot's option on an IFR flight plan to either keep an instrument approach or clearly confirm acceptance of a visual approach. And if a visual is provided; that the course and altitude to align to the runway is left in the pilot's hands to adjust to visible conditions as they seek visual confirmation of the active runway they have been assigned. Controllers should offer but not assume acceptance of a visual approach from a pilot on an IFR flight plan; active confirmation of acceptance by the pilot should be required. Then confusion over authority to descend and maneuver for runway alignment would not be an issue with this clarity.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: General aviation pilot reported an inconsistency in controller acknowledgement of a visual approach to an airport while on a long IFR cross country flight plan.

Narrative: There appears to be inconsistency in controller acknowledgement of whether a pilot accepts a visual approach to an airport while on an IFR flight plan.I flew a long cross-country to Wisconsin. The trip was completed in three legs; all filed as IFR flight plans. This trip was fairly consistent with my making frequent long cross-country trips and all but the middle leg landing airport was a route that I have flown numerous times. The inconsistency reported here has been experienced on other occasions but not previously with the impact of a minor altitude deviation on the last leg at KMSN.The third leg of this trip was completed to KMSN. It was filed IFR direct at 6;000 feet and was completed as such accept some ATC vectors for traffic; parachute jumpers and weather. After Chicago Center turned me over to Rockford Approach; nearing the Wisconsin border they warned me of weather. I acknowledged seeing a buildup that appears to be exceeding 20;000 feet in height and took ATC's offer for a deviation to the right (or east of route) of 10 degrees. Around the Wisconsin line Rockford Approach handed me off to Madison Approach. At that time I acknowledged receipt of ATIS information (that indicated runway 18 and 21 were active and lighting east of the field); requested immediate approval to step down in altitude; and told Madison Approach that the prior controller had approved a deviation of 10 degrees to the right of course. Madison approach acknowledge with approval to step down in altitude to 4;000 feet; to expect runway 21. I confirmed runway 21 was acceptable and it was very logical with my course deviation east of the airport allowing me to line up with the approach. There was a thunderstorm west of the airport; the cloud bases along the route of flight Madison approach was giving me resulted in me popping in and out if IMC conditions. The controller was handling another flight who was at 5;000 feet and was requesting numerous deviations due to weather; and the controller was giving him those deviations including one in which he referenced as acceptable under some sort of Milwaukee agreement. During this routing of that other traffic; Madison approach was routinely giving me additional course adjustments vectoring me further away from the airport to the east. This was happening during a time period when the sun was going lower in the sky to the west and as I would turn into the airport I was effectively blind via a combination of sun angle; sporadic IMC conditions; and lightening both west of the airport in the obvious thunderstorm plus reported in ATIS as also east of the airport where the controller had routed me. Eventually the controller turned me on vectors toward the airport for an approach to runway 22. This is where confusion arose in that I was on an IFR flight plan in IMC conditions (sporadic from the clouds but effectively continuously from the light) and I was not communicated as being on an instrument approach vector to runway 22 or a visual approach. However; eventually and repeatedly the controller ask me to confirm that I had the airport in site; implying but not confirming his expectation I was on a visual approach. I responded to each inquiry that I did NOT have the airport in sight. However; his request to confirm that resulted in me looking more aggressively out the window seeking the now implied visual to a Class C airport and the assumption I was no longer on my filed IFR flight plan as far as making an approach to runway 21. In the process of looking out and seeking to obtain visibility through the IMC conditions noted earlier I descended 200 feet below the last IFR altitude assignment the controller had given me; and he began aggressively telling me to return to it which I did immediately. He subsequently vectored me to an ILS approach to the runway; likely what he should have done initially with an aircraft on an IFR flight plan in IMC conditions.The procedural improvement opportunity fromthis experience at KMSN is that it would seem to make a lot of sense to have standard practice for a controller; confirming with a pilot the acceptance of a visual rather than instrument approach. It seemed reasonable with the routing vectors being given to both another aircraft and my aircraft that the planes were likely facing IMC conditions to some extent. It might be all fine and dandy that the airfield itself is reporting VFR conditions but that does NOT mean that approaching aircraft face those identical conditions; especially when the ATIS is reporting lightening to the east and obvious ATC vectoring for an active thunderstorm to the west would suggest to a reasonable person that conditions surrounding the airport were less than those on the airfield. Further; even if it were merely setting sun blinding the view out the cockpit to the field; it should be the pilot's option on an IFR flight plan to either keep an instrument approach or clearly confirm acceptance of a visual approach. And if a visual is provided; that the course and altitude to align to the runway is left in the pilot's hands to adjust to visible conditions as they seek visual confirmation of the active runway they have been assigned. Controllers should offer but not assume acceptance of a visual approach from a pilot on an IFR flight plan; active confirmation of acceptance by the pilot should be required. Then confusion over authority to descend and maneuver for runway alignment would not be an issue with this clarity.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.