Narrative:

About 10 NM north of the fmn VOR, we called den center to report the fmn airport in sight with the intent of receiving clearance for a visibility approach. However, den center did not respond; we again called den center and again there was no response. We were now about 5 NM north of the fmn VOR. We then called fmn tower and we reported that we had lost contact with den center, we gave our position and stated that we had the airport in sight. Fmn tower instructed us to enter a left downwind for runway 7. As we were in VMC, we turned to enter a left downwind and began our descent to traffic pattern altitude. We replied 8500'. Fmn tower responded that there was an small transport Y flight north of the airport last reported at 9000'. After landing in fmn, fmn tower asked us to call den center due to a traffic conflict. No altitude restriction was given to us by fmn tower; no traffic was reported until the conflict had already occurred. The call to den center centered on whether or not it was proper to descend from 10000' MSL. Although we did not receive clearance for a visibility approach (we were IFR and did not cancel IFR) I believe that it was proper to descend because we were in VMC and it is oft stated that when in VMC you must comply with visibility flight rules even when still holding an IFR clearance. Traffic was not pointed out by ATC (in this case fmn tower) until after the conflict and no altitude restriction was placed. Are we to guess what a previous ATC facility desires? VFR traffic patterns are to be flown and entered at specific altitudes. We are to comply with VFR when in VMC (when holding an IFR clearance), thus we descended to enter a VFR traffic pattern at the appropriate altitude. Or should we ignore this directive whenever ATC communication breaks down?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LOST COM WITH ARTCC. CONTACTED TWR AND LANDED VFR WITHOUT CANCELLING IFR. LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION INCIDENT OCCURRED DUE TO NON CANCELLATION OF IFR FLT PLAN.

Narrative: ABOUT 10 NM N OF THE FMN VOR, WE CALLED DEN CTR TO RPT THE FMN ARPT IN SIGHT WITH THE INTENT OF RECEIVING CLRNC FOR A VIS APCH. HOWEVER, DEN CTR DID NOT RESPOND; WE AGAIN CALLED DEN CTR AND AGAIN THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. WE WERE NOW ABOUT 5 NM N OF THE FMN VOR. WE THEN CALLED FMN TWR AND WE RPTED THAT WE HAD LOST CONTACT WITH DEN CTR, WE GAVE OUR POS AND STATED THAT WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. FMN TWR INSTRUCTED US TO ENTER A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 7. AS WE WERE IN VMC, WE TURNED TO ENTER A L DOWNWIND AND BEGAN OUR DSNT TO TFC PATTERN ALT. WE REPLIED 8500'. FMN TWR RESPONDED THAT THERE WAS AN SMT Y FLT N OF THE ARPT LAST RPTED AT 9000'. AFTER LNDG IN FMN, FMN TWR ASKED US TO CALL DEN CTR DUE TO A TFC CONFLICT. NO ALT RESTRICTION WAS GIVEN TO US BY FMN TWR; NO TFC WAS RPTED UNTIL THE CONFLICT HAD ALREADY OCCURRED. THE CALL TO DEN CTR CENTERED ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS PROPER TO DSND FROM 10000' MSL. ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT RECEIVE CLRNC FOR A VIS APCH (WE WERE IFR AND DID NOT CANCEL IFR) I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS PROPER TO DSND BECAUSE WE WERE IN VMC AND IT IS OFT STATED THAT WHEN IN VMC YOU MUST COMPLY WITH VIS FLT RULES EVEN WHEN STILL HOLDING AN IFR CLRNC. TFC WAS NOT POINTED OUT BY ATC (IN THIS CASE FMN TWR) UNTIL AFTER THE CONFLICT AND NO ALT RESTRICTION WAS PLACED. ARE WE TO GUESS WHAT A PREVIOUS ATC FAC DESIRES? VFR TFC PATTERNS ARE TO BE FLOWN AND ENTERED AT SPECIFIC ALTS. WE ARE TO COMPLY WITH VFR WHEN IN VMC (WHEN HOLDING AN IFR CLRNC), THUS WE DSNDED TO ENTER A VFR TFC PATTERN AT THE APPROPRIATE ALT. OR SHOULD WE IGNORE THIS DIRECTIVE WHENEVER ATC COM BREAKS DOWN?

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.