Narrative:

The situation involved a practice instrument approach procedure while not being on an instrument flight plan. When approaching stp we (instrument student and I) were given a transponder code, cleared to enter the TCA, and told to remain VFR. We proceeded to the NDB approach course under VFR. After we had been idented on radar and cleared for the approach we entered a cloud bank. I had figured since I was instrument rated, the airplane was instrument qualified, and we were cleared for the approach that we did not have to remain VFR. We did the approach, broke out VFR before the MDA, and then did a missed approach. At the time of our missed approach we were asked if we could remain VFR at a proposed altitude, and we replied no. So we flew the missed approach procedure as published and held within the holding pattern for 2 patterns. As I listened to ATC talk with other traffic that were on instrument flight plans I was beginning to find out that they were describing us as VFR traffic. So when they vectored us away from the holding pattern to allow IFR traffic through, and when we became solid VFR again I called ATC, cancelled our NDB holding pattern request and returned to the home base VFR. Later that day I asked the chief instrument if we could fly IFR if cleared for an IFR approach and on radar. She said we were to have remained VFR. The mistake I made was assuming that we could go IFR if cleared for an IFR approach, even though not on an IFR flight plan. I feel that some of the confusion would be eliminated if the approach controller would have told us to remain VFR after he cleared us for the instrument approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VFR IN IMC.

Narrative: THE SITUATION INVOLVED A PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APCH PROC WHILE NOT BEING ON AN INST FLT PLAN. WHEN APCHING STP WE (INSTRUMENT STUDENT AND I) WERE GIVEN A XPONDER CODE, CLRED TO ENTER THE TCA, AND TOLD TO REMAIN VFR. WE PROCEEDED TO THE NDB APCH COURSE UNDER VFR. AFTER WE HAD BEEN IDENTED ON RADAR AND CLRED FOR THE APCH WE ENTERED A CLOUD BANK. I HAD FIGURED SINCE I WAS INSTRUMENT RATED, THE AIRPLANE WAS INSTRUMENT QUALIFIED, AND WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO REMAIN VFR. WE DID THE APCH, BROKE OUT VFR BEFORE THE MDA, AND THEN DID A MISSED APCH. AT THE TIME OF OUR MISSED APCH WE WERE ASKED IF WE COULD REMAIN VFR AT A PROPOSED ALT, AND WE REPLIED NO. SO WE FLEW THE MISSED APCH PROC AS PUBLISHED AND HELD WITHIN THE HOLDING PATTERN FOR 2 PATTERNS. AS I LISTENED TO ATC TALK WITH OTHER TFC THAT WERE ON INSTRUMENT FLT PLANS I WAS BEGINNING TO FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE DESCRIBING US AS VFR TFC. SO WHEN THEY VECTORED US AWAY FROM THE HOLDING PATTERN TO ALLOW IFR TFC THROUGH, AND WHEN WE BECAME SOLID VFR AGAIN I CALLED ATC, CANCELLED OUR NDB HOLDING PATTERN REQUEST AND RETURNED TO THE HOME BASE VFR. LATER THAT DAY I ASKED THE CHIEF INSTR IF WE COULD FLY IFR IF CLRED FOR AN IFR APCH AND ON RADAR. SHE SAID WE WERE TO HAVE REMAINED VFR. THE MISTAKE I MADE WAS ASSUMING THAT WE COULD GO IFR IF CLRED FOR AN IFR APCH, EVEN THOUGH NOT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. I FEEL THAT SOME OF THE CONFUSION WOULD BE ELIMINATED IF THE APCH CTLR WOULD HAVE TOLD US TO REMAIN VFR AFTER HE CLRED US FOR THE INSTRUMENT APCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.