Can they do this? Restrict airport to IFR traffic only?

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
::

Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

thus the requirement for the safety pilot to look out for
other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
separation, etc.

Of course aircraft on an IFR flight plan flying an approaches in VMC
are _required_ to see-and-avoid also.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:03:36 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
::

Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

Nothing except pages like http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/lta_list.cfm
containing references to ATC services provided to VFR aircraft doing
practice approaches, and the aforementioned controller telling us
"maintain VFR at all times" when giving us our approach instructions,
lack of hard IFR altitude assignments, filing an IFR flightplan, or
requesting a popup IFR clearance.......

thus the requirement for the safety pilot to look out for
other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
separation, etc.

Of course aircraft on an IFR flight plan flying an approaches in VMC
are _required_ to see-and-avoid also.

But are not required to avoid clouds, the point I was attempting to
make.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:42:47 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
::

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:03:36 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
::

Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

Nothing except pages like http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/lta_list.cfm
containing references to ATC services provided to VFR aircraft doing
practice approaches,

This is the first reference I looked at from the link you provided
above:

http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/oprdoc/Ge...M?File_ID=2212
----------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FRESNO AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
5055 E. Andersen Ave. Suite 2
Fresno, Ca. 93727

ISSUED: March 11, 2005
EFFECTIVE: April 5, 2005

FRESNO AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL LETTER TO AIRMEN NO. 05-1

SUBJECT: VFR Practice Instrument Approaches

CANCELLATION: April 5, 2007

Fresno ATCT/TRACON (ATC) provides approach control service and
standard IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approach
procedures to Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The primary
approach control frequencies for Fresno Yosemite are 119.6/351.95
(North) and 132.35/323.25 (South).

ATC provides VFR aircraft practicing instrument approach procedures
with standard IFR separation, applying 500-foot vertical separation.
When separating from heavy/B757 aircraft, vertical separation is
increased to 1000 feet. IFR separation begins when the approach
clearance becomes effective and continues throughout the missed
approach procedure. However, pilots of VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approach procedures can expect to receive VFR departure
instruction (i.e., MAINTAIN AT OR BELOW 2000 feet or FLY RUNWAY
HEADING) in lieu of published missed approach procedures. When
vectoring and sequencing for an approach procedure, ATC provides Class
C separation and service to radar identified VFR aircraft.

At secondary airports under our jurisdiction with published instrument
approaches, pilots conducting VFR practice instrument approaches will
receive standard IFR separation, applying 500-foot vertical
separation. Some delays may be anticipated dependent on workload, and
radar capability.

These airports a Fresno Chandler-Executive (frequency 119.0),
Visalia Municipal (frequency 118.5, Madera Municipal (frequency
119.45) and Hanford Municipal (frequency 123.9).

For further information, refer to the Airmen's Information Manual.
Subject “Practice Instrument Approaches” or call Fresno ATCT/TRACON at
(559) 255-5754.


Original signed by Kenneth J Hyman
Kenneth J Hyman
Acting Air traffic Manager/Fresno Tower/TRACON
----------------------------------------------------------

That does seem to substantiate your claim. Thanks.

and the aforementioned controller telling us
"maintain VFR at all times" when giving us our approach instructions,
lack of hard IFR altitude assignments, filing an IFR flightplan, or
requesting a popup IFR clearance.......

Right.

thus the requirement for the safety pilot to look out for
other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
separation, etc.

Of course aircraft on an IFR flight plan flying an approaches in VMC
are _required_ to see-and-avoid also.

But are not required to avoid clouds, the point I was attempting to
make.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:03:36 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
::

Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

And 7110.65P, section 4-8-11 - Practice Approaches
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0408.html#4-8-11

Specifically section A paragraph 5:

"5. All VFR aircraft shall be instructed to maintain VFR on initial
contact or as soon as possible thereafter.

NOTE-
This advisory is intended to remind the pilot that even though ATC is
providing IFR-type instructions, the pilot is responsible for
compliance with the applicable parts of the CFR governing VFR flight."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

You posted the citation yourself. While the 7110 provides some insight into
ATC activities, all you really need to know is that the airport is
(according to this thread) requiring all arrivals to occur under IFR, on an
IFR flight plan, and that that can only occur with an instrument rated and
current pilot acting as PIC.

If you bring a safety pilot along who is instrument rated, and who files an
IFR flight plan, and who acts as PIC during your "practice" approach, that's
fine. But if you had that guy along, you could just get him to fly you
there. Or even to just file and act as PIC while you fly there. No need to
fly a "practice approach" at all.

If the reasoning is really to provide for more efficient arrivals, then they
will not be allowing navaid approaches in VMC. That would negate the whole
point of providing for efficient arrivals (you can land a heck of a lot more
planes in a given time period if they are doing visual approaches with
visual separation than you can for instrument approaches).

All that said, someone else pointed out that the reality may well be that
VFR traffic will be allowed under a reservation system, and that arrivals
won't be restricted to IFR flights at all. I think that's certainly likely,
and would allow for efficient use of the airport without blocking access by
pilots who are not instrument rated.

Pete

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:15:19 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

No need to fly a "practice approach" at all.

Right. I never suggested there was. It was another poster who did.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
No need to fly a "practice approach" at all.

Right. I never suggested there was.

I never suggested you suggested there was.

This whole deal about restricting VFR flights has nothing to do with
what the tower/approach control can handle. This is a parking problem.
As a controller I can get many times more VFR aircraft into an airport
than IFR.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.


You posted the citation yourself. While the 7110 provides some insight into
ATC activities, all you really need to know is that the airport is
(according to this thread) requiring all arrivals to occur under IFR, on an
IFR flight plan, and that that can only occur with an instrument rated and
current pilot acting as PIC.

If you bring a safety pilot along who is instrument rated, and who files an
IFR flight plan, and who acts as PIC during your "practice" approach, that's
fine. But if you had that guy along, you could just get him to fly you
there. Or even to just file and act as PIC while you fly there. No need to
fly a "practice approach" at all.

If the reasoning is really to provide for more efficient arrivals, then they
will not be allowing navaid approaches in VMC. That would negate the whole
point of providing for efficient arrivals (you can land a heck of a lot more
planes in a given time period if they are doing visual approaches with
visual separation than you can for instrument approaches).

All that said, someone else pointed out that the reality may well be that
VFR traffic will be allowed under a reservation system, and that arrivals
won't be restricted to IFR flights at all. I think that's certainly likely,
and would allow for efficient use of the airport without blocking access by
pilots who are not instrument rated.

Pete

"Newps" wrote in message
...
This whole deal about restricting VFR flights has nothing to do with what
the tower/approach control can handle. This is a parking problem.

Perhaps. But if so, it makes no sense. After all, a parking problem can
easily be addressed with a reservation system, or a "first-come,
first-served" basis. And discrimination on a flight rules basis certainly
would seem to violate the intent of the AIP rules, if not the letter (which
is, of course, the original question here), there being no legitimate safety
or operational advantage to prohibiting VFR arrivals.

As a controller I can get many times more VFR aircraft into an airport
than IFR.

Yes, agreed. I even said so in my post.

Pete

All technicalities aside, it comes down to the fact that the resort
owners at Sun Valley [we call them "greedheads"] are sucking up to the
"Richie Riches" [Gates, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Cruise, Eastwood,
Buffet, et al] and pressure the airport manager to cater to their jets.


That and the fact that the jets & turbines that come into Friedman
[HLE] put a lot more $$ in the FBO's pockets [there's only one FBO on
the field, thus the 100LL is $4/gallon!] than us VFR'ers.