A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Going for the Visual"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 15th 04, 02:56 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 17th 04, 06:53 AM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 19th 04, 04:26 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 19th 04, 08:38 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 20th 04, 03:04 AM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 20th 04, 03:17 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 20th 04, 03:30 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old May 18th 04, 04:52 AM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 20th 04, 09:09 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old May 18th 04, 05:08 AM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.