![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WI airport closure | Mike Spera | Owning | 0 | March 9th 05 01:53 PM |
N94 Airport may expand into mobile home community, locals supportive | William Summers | Piloting | 0 | March 18th 04 03:03 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |