-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newslEyf.701287$x96.296658@attbi_s72...

So this choice is entirely up to the controller?


Probably not. Understand that there are many airports where it generally
isn't necessary for the controller to establish an arrival sequence. The
need to do that implies a fair amount of traffic.



Seems like a giant pain for the flight crew, to have to keep all the
various approach plates, etc., at hand. (I'm assuming the commuter
airlines we usually hear don't have the sophisticated flight controllers
on-board, with all the pre-loaded approaches ready to be punched in at a
moment's notice?)


Where's the pain? The approach in use will be on the ATIS, crews generally
have that information before they ever talk to approach control. And it is
a crew, it ain't one guy thumbing through a Jepp binder while trying to
hand-fly the airplane.

While I agree, I also disagree.

Take LAS for instance. very few times out of the year is the
ceiling and visibility warranting of an ILS approach. Most of the time
they're under CAVU. ATIS almost always shows that visual approaches are
in use. However, as most commercial arrivals are on 25L, that tends to
be a problem in the evenings when the sun blinds the pilot and they
either can't see the field, or can't see the traffic in front of them.
So from there, controllers give the ILS approach.

Granted it's situational, and doesn't help or hinder
sequencing, but there you have it.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDy1AhyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkSHAJ4rRpfHomXiD6R0E4TiYJ zU7aUKOACfUXwQ
krc1zUGBMk6SQZmsxZzKEmM=
=x6Gr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----