"Going for the Visual"

I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
"Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."

about half the time I get asked if I have the ATIS, told to report when I have
the ATIS, or told ATIS papa is current.

J Haggerty wrote:

Do you say you have "the ATIS" or do you say you have the
appropriate/current ATIS code. Makes a difference to the controller.


But, it is frequent for me to be asked if I have the ATIS even when I have
just called in reporting that I DO have the ATIS!



--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:28:09 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

Do you say you have "the ATIS" or do you say you have the
appropriate/current ATIS code. Makes a difference to the controller.

JPH

If I say I have an ATIS, I always identify it by code.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in
link.net:

Cruise Clearances: the reason it's not used much and rarely offered,
here anyway, is terrain and radio/radar coverage. It's basically
a block altitude from whatever you give away, to the ground, and
if it doesn't work out, back up to whatever altitude you assign.
That's one hell of a chunk of airspace to lock up. And you are never
sure how long you are really giving it away for as you may not hear
the aircraft cancel. Also things not used often or on a regular
basis, controllers get rusty on, let's be honest.

Anyone gets rusty on things they don't do. The ZHU controllers tend to
stay up on cruise clearances because they issue them all the time. It's
the only way things can get done out in the Gulf, because of lack of radar
and radio coverage. We go out IFR and fly instrument approaches to
offshore platforms, and our letters of agreement with ZHU say that we
'shall' request a cruise clearance when within 40NM of our destination.
(Whoever wrote that LOA didn't know the legal meaning of 'shall',
obviously, since it's used many times when the context makes it obvious it
should be 'will' or 'should'). It does tie up lots of airspace, but there
is just no other way of doing it, with the current equipment situation.
Everyone tries to cooperate by cancelling as soon as possible, and we all
have company comm centers which can call center for us and cancel when we
lose comm with ATC. I've never received a cruise clearance inbound,
though.

--
Regards,

Stan

"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.

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.

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?

Michael

"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

"Chip Jones" wrote
Safety first and above all, right?

No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever
be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training,
and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly
these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most
important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what
appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or
convenience.

You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time.
Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human
reliability is unreliable. Further, the more complex you make the
system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently
correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used
only rarely, you need a computer, not a human.

I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better.

I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any
better? He's not an isolated example. Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the
result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have
the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible
anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which
are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an
increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify
the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the
reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in
rare cases.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Chip Jones" wrote
Safety first and above all, right?

No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever
be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training,
and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly
these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most
important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what
appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or
convenience.

I was referring to the controller. Controllers aren't flying those "little
airplanes". They're operating an air traffic system where safety is the
most important goal, even above efficiency.



You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time.

I never said anyone was correct 100% of the time. I said the controller is
paid to be correct 100% of the time- that is the air safety goal of the FAA,
zero errors. Not saying it's achievable, but that is the goal and that is
part of why the controller is drawing a salary funded by your tax dollars.


Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human
reliability is unreliable.

I strongly disagree. Human ATC is not unreliable at all, nor is it
inherintly error prone.

Further, the more complex you make the
system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently
correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used
only rarely, you need a computer, not a human.

LOL! What is so complex about issuing a legal Visual Approach Clearance?


I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any
better.

I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any
better? He's not an isolated example.

Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed"
program, in which FAA management deemed that any human being, especially
female and minority human beings, could succeed as a full performance level
controllers, if only given enough training time, regardless of failing
benchmark checkrides. The result is that now we have some weak controllers
whom we can't fire because we don't have a replacement pipe-line. In my
facility, we don't even have time to do recurrent training anymore.

Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.


In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the
result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have
the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible
anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which
are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an
increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify
the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the
reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in
rare cases.

Interesting points, but I don't see the rules governing cruise clearances
and visual approaches to be overly complex.

Chip, ZTL

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Chip Jones" wrote
Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed"

Oh, dont get me started on that piece of crapola program. I always called
it "Train to Suck". And now they wonder why all these operational
errors are popping up, often with these people.

Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.

My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly
Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have
been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about
it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation,
great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance
as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb
VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can
provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have
to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed,
provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb
and..." no way jose.

One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.
Chris

We've got Mesa out here now flying the RJ's to Phoenix and Vegas. Haven't
had any goofy requests like that. I'll have to watch that.



"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
nk.net...
My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly
Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have
been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about
it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation,
great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance
as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb
VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can
provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have
to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed,
provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb
and..." no way jose.

One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.
Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote
Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.

My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb"

Nope, not at all. What I mean is this:

I have departed VFR under low but legal (say 1500 ft) ceilings, and
call to pick up my IFR clearance. I didn't get it on the ground
because there is no clearance delivery frequency, and doing it by
phone is a pain - and should not be necessary anyway. So I get "Climb
VFR to 2000" only of course I can't because of the 1500 ft ceilings.
So I say "Unable, but I can provide my own obstruction clearance to
2000 on this heading." Sometimes it works as advertised, but
sometimes the controller insists there is no such thing, and either I
accept the VFR climb or I can squawk VFR, but he can't issue me a
clearance below the MIA. Well, I can get ****ed, or I can land and
start over, or I can demand to call the manager, or I can just grit my
teeth and climb.

that so many, mostly
Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
traffic.

Well, that's I want too. I understand I'm below you MIA - I'll
provide my own terrain clearance until I get there. All I want is for
you to spearate me from other IFR traffic while I do. It's in the
book, and it's not unreasonable.

One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
situation.

Well, I encountered this practice in Part 121 while studying for my
ATP written. See, you're making my point for me. Clearly the rules
are too complex - because here's a pilot trying to gain an operational
advantage by doing it like it says in the book - probably because his
copilot just ran into it studying for ATP written - and you've never
heard of it.

I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.

Well, actually the rules for taking advantage of that particular twist
in the regs require that you have at least 5 miles vis, be at least
1000 ft above any bkn/ovc layers, and any layers above you be at least
1000 ft above MEA. So I don't think smacking into terrain is too
likely.

Michael