A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

dropped in D



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 6th 03, 03:49 AM
Vassilii Khachaturov
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

the middle of Mc Entire class D airspace, Shaw approach gave me "radar
services terminated, squawk VFR, for further flight following suggest
you contact Columbia approach on 133.4". Hmmmm.... Doesn't this mean
that the instant after he terminated me, that I was not in two-way
communication with the ATC facility (and unintentionally in violation


Most likely he had already given a call to the class D
tower and coordinated your transition as he would with IFR traffic.

of 91.129(c)(1))? If so, what action should I have taken? Honestly,


He didn't say he won't accept any further radio calls from you, did he?
Did he say "freq change approved"? Anyway, the action is quite obvious -
you should have called him again with a request for clarification,
because you didn't fully understand his intentions
(smth like "please confirm we do not need to call the ... tower").
"When in doubt, ask"
  #2  
Old August 6th 03, 01:35 PM
Arden Prinz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Vassilii Khachaturov) wrote in message . com...
the middle of Mc Entire class D airspace, Shaw approach gave me "radar
services terminated, squawk VFR, for further flight following suggest
you contact Columbia approach on 133.4". Hmmmm.... Doesn't this mean
that the instant after he terminated me, that I was not in two-way
communication with the ATC facility (and unintentionally in violation


Most likely he had already given a call to the class D
tower and coordinated your transition as he would with IFR traffic.


Perhaps, but I'm not sure how that impacts my requirement to
have/maintain two way communication.

of 91.129(c)(1))? If so, what action should I have taken? Honestly,


He didn't say he won't accept any further radio calls from you, did he?


The Shaw approach controller didn't say that, but did suggest that I
contact Columbia approach and obviously Shaw wouldn't be able to
contact me as soon as I started trying to contact Columbia approach.

Did he say "freq change approved"? Anyway, the action is quite obvious -
you should have called him again with a request for clarification,
because you didn't fully understand his intentions
(smth like "please confirm we do not need to call the ... tower").
"When in doubt, ask"


The Shaw approach controller's instruction was clear and what I did
was to take his suggestion and contact the Columbia approach
controller. But I agree that I should have asked for clarification.
Thanks for the suggestion.

Arden
  #3  
Old August 6th 03, 03:32 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Arden Prinz" wrote in message
m...

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how that impacts my requirement to
have/maintain two way communication.


You were relieved of the requirements of FAR 91.129(c)(1) in accordance with
FAR 91.129(a).


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility
having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area, each person operating an
aircraft in Class D airspace must comply with the applicable provisions of
this section. In addition, each person must comply with §§ 91.126 and
91.127. For the purpose of this section, the primary airport is the airport
for which the Class D airspace area is designated. A satellite airport is
any other airport within the Class D airspace area.


  #4  
Old August 7th 03, 01:45 AM
Robert Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Vassilii Khachaturov" wrote in message
om...

Most likely he had already given a call to the class D
tower and coordinated your transition as he would with IFR traffic.


Remember, this is not an arrival, but a through flight. Would it be likely
for through IFR traffic to be that low that the controller would normally
provide such coordination for a through IFR flight. I'm thinking that would
be quite unusual.

"When in doubt, ask"


Agree 100%.


--

Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI


  #5  
Old August 7th 03, 12:58 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert Henry" wrote in message
news:bihYa.26631$5f.4102@lakeread05...

Remember, this is not an arrival, but a through flight. Would it be
likely for through IFR traffic to be that low that the controller would
normally provide such coordination for a through IFR flight. I'm
thinking that would be quite unusual.


The lowest practical enroute IFR altitude tends to be the MIA/MVA plus 1000
feet rounded up to the next cardinal altitude. That tends to be more than
2500 AGL and thus above typical Class D airspace.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Keith Willshaw... robert arndt Military Aviation 253 July 6th 04 05:18 AM
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 Jukka O. Kauppinen Military Aviation 4 March 22nd 04 11:19 PM
Which post-WW2 combat aircraft have not been used in combat? Kirk Stant Military Aviation 96 December 10th 03 03:03 PM
Hispanic Hero Recalls Experiences Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 30th 03 10:02 PM
#1 Jet of World War II Christopher Military Aviation 203 September 1st 03 03:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.