"Michael" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote
(d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances

I say "d" with a twist: The controller knows there is something in the
book
about a cruise clearance, but doesn't know how a cruise clearance works.

I agree. This is exactly what I'm talking about - he knows that
cruise clearances exist - meaning he heard the term somewhere,
probably in training - but he doesn't actually know anything ABOUT
cruise clearances, in the sense that he would be able to use them.

Probably because as a Center guy he avoids working low altitude airspace
like the plague...


This seems most likely to me, since the controller also doesn't know how
a
visual approach works either...

I think that's a bit unfair. He probably issues visual approaches
properly under normal circumstances. This is a special circumstance.
He COULD be an ass about it - keep the plane at an altitude high
enough to assure radio comms and force the pilot to accept the
resulting slam dunk - or cancel IFR. Instead, he's doing what makes
sense. The problem is that he doesn't know the correct phraseology to
accomplish this, and as a result he's breaking regs because he doesn't
know the correct magic word to use.

Well, I agree with nuch of what you say in this paragraph, but I don't think
what I said about the controller is unfair. This controller is supposed to
be an air safety professional. Safety first and above all, right? You pay
him to be correct 100% of the time, every time. There is no excuse for
issuing an illegal approach clearance. That's how pilots die.... Heck,
that's how all these regs got written to begin with, because of sloppy
procedure.

I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better.
How does ATC issuing a visual approach clearance under these circumstances
make sense? "Oops, your non-radar now, I'd better shift the burden of
positive IFR air traffic control to the cockpit now before I lose comm
too..." What happens when this pilot never reports his cancellation to FSS?
What if he never spots the airport and he's non radar, lost comm, below the
MIA?

Also, so what if you have to "slam dunk" the airport? If that's what you
have to do to get into a place under IFR, that's what you have to do. You
get down to the MIA, you see the airport, you get the clearance. You
descend and land. We're not talking a split-S wingover. If you spiral
down, so be it. I don't break the regs to keep pilots from the "slam
dunk". IFR aircraft don't get below the MIA until it's legal to get below
it. By legal, I'm talking "controller" legal here, not pilot legal. No
question in my opinion that the pilot is legal when the controller issues
the approach clearance. I don't see the "being an ass" part about it
either. I'd rather see the controller doing his job properly because that's
the safest thing for him to do, and he's in the safety business.


Are the regs unnecessarily complicated? This is a guy who talks to
airplanes issuing instructions and clearances 40+ hours a week, every
week. If he can't keep all the regs straight, what sort of chance
does a weekend pilot have?

With this controller losing radar contact with an IFR, and then illegally
clearing that aircraft for a visual approach to a distant airport the pilot
hasn't yet seen, followed by loss of comm between pilot and controller, what
chance does the weekend pilot have, indeed?


Chip, ZTL