No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

Newps wrote in message news:mI_ob.83301$e01.270611@attbi_s02...

Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

At least they'd better not.

Cheers,
Sydney

In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?

The tower where I got the clearance that started this all was HPN (White
Plains, NY). It's got a scope in the tower cab and a rotating antenna
on the field, even though the tracon is in a remote location (somewhere
out in Long Island). From a hardware point of view, it's better
equipped than LaGuardia (which has no rotating antenna on the field),
even though HPN is Class D and LGA is Class B.

Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:


Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.


Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?

A VFR tower is a tower with no radar at all in the cab or a DBRITE that
has not been certified for separation services. An example of a VFR
tower are all contract and non federal towers. Grand Forks, ND is VFR,
Van Nuys is VFR, etc. Almost all class D towers are VFR.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.


Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then
again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.


Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

It all left me with a warm fuzzy feeling, thinking these were going to put a
finger in the works.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.


LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
for some 8-track capability.

Chip, ZTL

Roy Smith wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:
Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?

I thought so. A VFR tower is one which can not provide separation
services. They have no radar, or a radar (BRITE) which isn't
certified to provide separation. If they issue vectors they are
at the direction of an associated approach control which has to
meet some criteria I don't know about (having to do with how
quickly they can pick up departures on radar).

However, I don't know how NewPS's definition that a heading issued
by a VFR tower is really always a vector actually plays out IRL.
We have definately have headings issued to us by towers where I know
radar contact was over 3000 ft and there was no "suggest" about it.
OTOH we have also had headings given to us outside PC airspace under
VFR where the controller is only supposed to "suggest" headings,
not vector -- "oh, golly, guess I did forget to say 'suggest' ".

So I dunno -- either there are an awful lot of controllers at
VFR towers who have trouble with the word "suggest", or there
are some subtleties to the distinction between heading and
vector. I have no way of knowning.

Cheers,
Sydney