Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 51; Flight Crew Total 2053; Flight Crew Type 1050
Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
I was flying INK; IFR. Somewhere past Houston; I requested to amend my IFR plan to VFR on top. It was granted and I descended to 4;500. As I approached my destination I was talking to Midland approach. I was told the MVA was 5;000 and instructed to climb to 5;000. This climb put me in the clouds. I requested my approach into INK with Midland and was told Fort Worth would handle the approach. I needed to turn to the IAF soon. I was handed off to Fort Worth. I requested the GPS Runway 31 approach; direct to BORTY. I was told to go direct to BORTY. I was then instructed to report crossing BORTY. I was under 10 miles to BORTY. I was at 5;000. My chart says cross BORTY at 5;000. The Controller then ask if I was instrument rated and if my plane was instrument certified. I said yes. At some point the Controller informed me the MVA was 5;500. He never instructed me to climb to 5;500. I reported BORTY and inbound to FAF. Three miles from the FAF I was told I would need to climb to 5;500 and start the approach over. I was on final approach; in the clouds and busy. I was unable to do what he wanted me to do nor did I have time to talk about it.We had a communication problem. I was IFR. I think the Controller thought I was VFR. One of us didn't understand about VFR on top being an IFR clearance. The only safety issue that existed since there were no other planes in the area was that I was on final approach and having to deal with ATC suggestions that didn't make any sense. In the future; I will confirm that when I convert from IFR to VFR on top and then back to IFR that we are all on the same page. Also; Midland approach should handle the approach into INK. Once they hand you off to Fort Worth; you are too close to INK to plan a proper approach.
Working the R-Side; [Aircraft X] was handed off from MAF Apch assigned AOA 50/OTP. Upon Check in the aircraft requested direct to BORTY for the RNAV 31 into KINK. While in a 5000 ft. MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude); I cleared [Aircraft X] as requested. With recently transferring from ZMP and having little knowledge of VFR On Top I asked another controller; for some assistance and understanding. The aircraft was approaching an MIA of 5500 ft. and my confusion was of if the aircraft needed to be established in the MIA in order for clearance for the RNAV approach. [The other Controller] was unsure so [they] asked the OMIC for clarification. As the aircraft proceeded inbound I advised the aircraft to report the weather and NOTAMs at KINK; which with the confusion of the altitude I missed the read back of the NOTAMs. Upon approaching the 5500 MIA I was advised that the aircraft would have to establish with in the MIA prior to clearance. [Aircraft X] 'roger'ed the transmission and proceeded in bound. I explained the altitude variation as I understood it and again told the aircraft he would have to establish in the MIA in order for clearance. At this point the pilot was he was at 5000 ft. within 5 nm of BORTY (IAF) and was proceeding inbound. After some back and forth the pilot stated he was going to continue to approach and see if he could break out of the clouds. Eventually the aircraft left the frequency and made safe landed WITHOUT clearance to KINK. Following landing he called and cancelled IFR through flight Service. This exact issue of ATC not fully understanding if we have to follow the MIA as depicted on the radar map of the altitude listed on the approach plate was brought up by the safety counsel at ZMP less than 2 years ago and was a large discussion in which half of the room said MIA and the other half said Approach plate altitude is justified. The conclusion was that no one could agree and the topic was adjourned and was supposed to be followed up on. Even after this incident the other day; there was much discussion in the control room on exactly what altitude you are to use when issuing an approach. I suggest that this be used as a training tool and be given hard proof on exactly which altitude must be followed as the lowest usable altitude when issuing approaches in to uncontrolled airports. Additionally; the lack of realizing that I had only received the Weather would have been realized had we been using Strips for arrivals in to uncontrolled airport vs 4th line or free text options.
GA pilot and Air Traffic Controller reported confusion in regard to instrument operations near BORTY waypoint.