PHRASEOLOGY. AUDITORY INTERFERENCE. THE PLT ANNOUNCED A GAR AND BEGAN THE MANEUVER. THE CTLR QUESTIONED WHETHER HE HAD ANNOUNCED A MISSED APCH.

Narrative

I WAS ON THE ILS APCH TO JEFFCO; COMMUNICATING WITH TWR. MY APCH WAS TOO HIGH AND TOO FAST; SO I DECIDED TO GAR. THE ARPT WAS VISUALLY VFR AND THERE WAS NO OTHER TFC AT THE TIME. TWR ADVISED ME THAT THE ARPT WAS STILL OFFICIALLY IFR AND THAT I REALLY SHOULD (CTLR'S WORDS) DECLARE A MISSED APCH. I REQUESTED A VFR GAR BECAUSE THE VISIBILITY/CEILING WAS IN FACT VFR. TWR TOLD ME TO BE SURE TO KEEP THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND I REPLIED NO PROB. I CONTINUED MY GAR AND REQUESTED AND RECEIVED CLRNC TO LAND; WHICH I DID; AND THEN TAXIED TO PARKING. THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS; DID I DO SOMETHING WRONG OR DID THE SIT PLAY OUT LEGAL DUE TO THE ARPT ACTUALLY BEING VFR BY THE TIME I ARRIVED THERE? IN REVIEWING MY FARS; I CANNOT FIND THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR WAS FLYING A PIPER TURBO ARROW (PA 28R) ON AN INST APCH WHEN HE DECIDED TO GAR RATHER THAN TRY TO FORCE A LNDG FROM A HIGH FAST APCH. HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS GOING AROUND TO THE TWR AND COMMENCED THE MANEUVER. THE TWR CTLR REPLIED THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DECLARE A MISSED APCH. THE PLT SAID THAT HE DID AND HE THEN REQUESTED A VFR CLOSE IN PATTERN TO LAND. THE TWR CTLR CLRED HIM FOR THE MANEUVER. THE QUESTION FROM THE RPTR ABOUT WHETHER HE DID SOMETHING WRONG SEEMS TO BE PARTIALLY RESOLVED IN THE CALLBACK BECAUSE HE HAS RECENTLY BEEN ADVISED THAT THE STUDENT CTLR WAS TEMPORARILY CONFUSED ABOUT THE TERMS GAR VERSUS MISSED APCH AND HE MAY HAVE NOT HEARD THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PLT CLRLY BECAUSE OF TWR CONVERSATIONS. THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER ACTION ON THIS EVENT.