VFR general aviation aircraft inbound to epm; not on a published route; received an IFR cruise clear...

Narrative:

I was VFR at 9;500 enroute to epm. Passing bhb; because of a developing undercast; I requested an IFR clearance to my destination. During the course of the conversation; I responded that my requested altitude would be 9;000. I also stated that I 'could accept' a cruise clearance. A few minutes later; I received a clearance to 'cruise 9;000' to epm. However; at the time I was not on a published route; and epm has an instrument approach; so I found it unusual that I did not receive any crossing restriction from ATC. Being familiar with the area and also with the minimum IFR altitude rules; I did not view this as a safety issue for me. However; it seems inconsistent with the published guidance I have seen. The idea of requiring altitude restrictions until established on a published portion of an IAP was emphasized many years ago when a commercial airliner descended prematurely into the ground when cleared for an approach to an airport in washington; dc. I had thought it was routine to include it; even in a cruise clearance which; when associated with an airport; is also a clearance to conduct an IAP.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VFR general aviation aircraft inbound to EPM; not on a published route; received an IFR cruise clearance to EPM at 9000 FT; the reporter indicating ATC's lack of any altitude restrictions seemed inconsistent with published guidance.

Narrative: I was VFR at 9;500 enroute to EPM. Passing BHB; because of a developing undercast; I requested an IFR clearance to my destination. During the course of the conversation; I responded that my requested altitude would be 9;000. I also stated that I 'could accept' a cruise clearance. A few minutes later; I received a clearance to 'cruise 9;000' to EPM. However; at the time I was not on a published route; and EPM has an instrument approach; so I found it unusual that I did not receive any crossing restriction from ATC. Being familiar with the area and also with the minimum IFR altitude rules; I did not view this as a safety issue for me. However; it seems inconsistent with the published guidance I have seen. The idea of requiring altitude restrictions until established on a published portion of an IAP was emphasized many years ago when a commercial airliner descended prematurely into the ground when cleared for an approach to an airport in Washington; DC. I had thought it was routine to include it; even in a cruise clearance which; when associated with an airport; is also a clearance to conduct an IAP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	887875
Time
Date	201005
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	EPM.Airport
State Reference	ME
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying Single Pilot
Qualification	Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Instrument
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 25 Flight Crew Total 3690 Flight Crew Type 3280
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types

VFR general aviation aircraft inbound to epm; not on a published route; received an IFR cruise clearance to epm at 9000 ft; the reporter indicating ATC's lack of any altitude restrictions seemed inconsistent with published guidance.