![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message ink.net...
"Michael" wrote in message om... "Chip Jones" 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" 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. I can't be sure what Michael meant, but what I think he meant is straight out of 7110.65, 4-2-8d in the old paper edition I have. "When a VFR aircraft, operating below the minimum altitude for IFR operations, requests an IFR clearance and you are aware that the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions to the minimum IFR altitude: 1. before issuing a clearance, ask if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance during a climb to the minimum IFR altitude 2. if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstacle separation, (give 'em their IFR clearance) 3. if unable to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance, instruct the pilot to maintain VFR and to state intentions (etc)" I haven't had any trouble with it beyond the occasional prompting "Sir, I can maintain my own terrain and obstacle clearance to 4 thousand this heading" "standby" (which I assume covers a little questioning "why did she say that?" on the part of the occasional trainee...) I wouldn't have a clue what someone meant by "VMC climb" myself. If you wanna be VFR, say so, if you wanna be IFR but can maintain your own obstacle clearance during climb say that too. But I've never heard anyone ask for such a beast. Cheers, Sydney |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael" wrote in message om... No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground ourselves and fly the airlines. Oh, of course, because nobody ever came to harm flying the airlines. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net...
Hi, guys, sorry to be bringing this up again late. Haven't been able to keep up with the ng for a while. 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? IMO, this is the pilot's error. Whether or not it's legal, the pilot needs to understand that he must never, never, ever accept a visual approach clearance if he isn't positive he can make it in, or climb under VFR back to some altitude where he can contact ATC. Never, no matter how hard his ears are being twisted by ATC. Been there heard that, sorry I don't care how many commuters you have to hold I am in a cloud, if I go visual you'll be the second to know (if I can still talk to you), I"m flying the IAP. 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. Chip, speaking as a pilot, I guess I don't agree that being kept above MIA until I have the airport in sight is the safest thing for me. We fly into little rural airports a lot. You never know what you're gonna find there. Last weekend at an airport which shall remain nameless, it was a chap in a beautiful XXXXX practicing an aerobatic routine about 2 miles off the runway below a 2500 ft ceiling. No NOTAM about an aerobatic box or anything of the sort natch. I got a low wing plane, vis below me is limited. Think I want to spiral down on top of that kind of thing? No Way Ho Say. I even give up my desire to be able to glide to the runway to descend down to TPA in good time. (and another argument for the "dive and drive" method of flying NP approaches too, IMO). Of course I agree the best thing is to be legal, by issuing a cruise clearance when it seems warranted. In fact next time I'll ask for one. 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? Realistically speaking, Chip, in terms of safety for the pilot, what advantage do you perceive the (legal) cruise clearance to have over the (not legal) visual w/out the field in sight? Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Night over water | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 43 | March 4th 04 01:13 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |