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 |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
On 12/27/06 14:12, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... Pilots don't operate under 7110.65. We use Part 91. Show me where, under Part 91, it says that intending to land at a Class D airport requires communication with the Class D tower before entering Class D airspace. I have, three times now. In this case, 91.129(c)(1) has been fully complied with. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You just keep regurgitating the same FAR. And you keep misinterpreting it. Well, one of us is, that's for sure ;-) |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
I agree the regs are rather poorly written.
We agree on =something=! I'm not familiar with any letters of agreement like that. I have never seen letters of agreement. I do know that letters of agreement exist which allow me to perform some operations which would normally be expected to require communication with one facility by communicating with a different one. Not having seen any of these letters of agreement, I don't really know which operations are covered, and when, and under what circumstances. I know this because I have requested that one controller coordinate my transit through another's airspace, and been granted that request. (Yes, I am trusting that the controller is operating properly in doing so). Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport (sorry - "a towered airport within class D airspace" is a service or operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that would allow a different facility to provide those services. However, nothing in part 91 or 61 with which I am familiar makes that distinction. In fact, I've yet to find anything in part 91 or 61 that even mentions letters of agreement. If I am approaching a Class D airport and the approach controller gives me an actual landing clearance instead of "contact the tower...", maybe the controller made an error. But maybe there is some sort of letter of agreement that I don't know about. I'd ask, if I could get a word in edgewise. But as a practical matter, if the field really is IFR, I'm the only one that should be there anyway, and I'd have no reason to assume that the clearance is invalid. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
Jose wrote: Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport (sorry - "a towered airport within class D airspace" is a service or operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that would allow a different facility to provide those services. Well not "cleared to land." But it is not required that a controller terminate an aircraft before he enters a class D area. That's ridiculous. Both Denver and Minneapolis will tell you to contact the tower after you are clear of all other traffic ande you may or may not be in the class D. Either way the tower knows you're inbound. If I am approaching a Class D airport and the approach controller gives me an actual landing clearance instead of "contact the tower...", maybe the controller made an error. Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape. But maybe there is some sort of letter of agreement that I don't know about. All TRACON's will have a letter of agreement with class D's under their airspace. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
Newps wrote in
: Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport (sorry - "a towered airport within class D airspace" is a service or operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that would allow a different facility to provide those services. Well not "cleared to land." But it is not required that a controller terminate an aircraft before he enters a class D area. That's ridiculous. Both Denver and Minneapolis will tell you to contact the tower after you are clear of all other traffic ande you may or may not be in the class D. Either way the tower knows you're inbound. Thank you Newps, Based on Steven's responses, I'd be busting FARS all the time..... I have been in KHKS Delta airspace many times without talking to tower, but only to approach controllers, I have been cleared for the approach with landing INSTRUCTIONS by approach while doing approaches (both VFR and IFR handling). After all, VFR traffic doesn't get cleared for approaches. And yes, within Delta airspace, I have been switched to tower (via prompt by me - like a gentle reminder N1943L 2 miles inside Brenz) so I could get the magic words cleared to land by tower. Allen |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape.
Maybe. The rules can change, and I might not be aware of such a change. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
Jose wrote: Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape. Maybe. The rules can change, and I might not be aware of such a change. Actually now that I think about it we have had the approach controller clear an aircraft to land. Approach tells aircraft to contact tower. He never does. On real short final tower calls down and tells approach controller to clear him to land. Guy probably never makes that mistake again. Another way to get the point across is to let the guy land without a clearance and then have the approach controller tell him where to turn off and contact ground. He'll know then. There have been tower radio problems and we have just had the tower controller tell the approach controller over the landline to tell the pilot cleared to land. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
"Newps" wrote in message . .. Actually now that I think about it we have had the approach controller clear an aircraft to land. Approach tells aircraft to contact tower. He never does. On real short final tower calls down and tells approach controller to clear him to land. Guy probably never makes that mistake again. Another way to get the point across is to let the guy land without a clearance and then have the approach controller tell him where to turn off and contact ground. He'll know then. There have been tower radio problems and we have just had the tower controller tell the approach controller over the landline to tell the pilot cleared to land. A VFR aircraft making a practice ASR or PAR approach, monitored ILS, or flight-followed approach will enter the Class D airspace and continue to receive ATC services while remaining in contact with approach control. Switching to tower won't happen until after the aircraft has landed. This happens around the clock, every day, all over the country. No FARs are being violated by anyone involved. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message et... Perhaps you should use your connections and ask that very same question to San Carlos Tower (KSQL), as they have pilots coming in exactly like this, and they *ARE* a Class D airport. No need to, I already know the answer. What makes you think NORCAL approach makes a phone call to San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals? I asked you the question. Provide the answer, and your rationale on why NCT does this. If you want to hear them doing this very thing, listen to the LiveATC feed. Then come back to us. I'm not on the spot here, You are. In fact, it isn't only the TRACON that is doing this, KSFO Tower does this as well. Constantly and Consistently, the following is given to pilots: "N123CM, leaving Class Bravo airspace to the south, radar services terminated, maintain your present beacon code, contact San Carlos Tower, 119.0." That instruction tells you that San Francisco tower makes a phone call to San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals? You're putting words in my mouth. You're the controller. Answer the question. Want proof of it, hit up the KSFO Tower feed at LiveATC. Interfacility phone calls are on LiveATC? Did I ever say they were? you're putting words in my mouth again. You really do love to avoid answering questions posed to you, don't you? Now, I haven't visited KSQL so I don't know if they have BRITE, but from my tour of NCT, controllers there told us that it is done so the tower knows who is who as they drop below the Class B floor. What would be the point in telling aircraft to maintain their present beacon code if SQL tower had no radar? You definitely misunderstand and misconstrue. Read my quote again. I say again, I have not visited SQL Tower, so I do not know if they have radar or not. there's only so many times in which I will repeat myself before I apply the Dilbert rule. you're coming close to it. So I say again. Why don't you ask them, as they are actively doing this. I've supplied you the proof they do it, and the question is being asked. You're the controller who says he has the answers. Well, Britannica, let's have them.. Or should what you're saying go by the way of Wikipedia as well? For some they do call the tower to let them know who is coming in (pending how the traffic load is), some they don't. But it is a standard practice happening at one of the busiest centralized TRACONs in the airspace. More likely a misunderstanding on your part. What I stated came from the controller working that airspace at that time. But you would already know that, all the way from Green Bay, wouldn't you. I'm sorry. Do us this then. I'll provide you the name of the controller. Call up NCT, and have the ATM there fire the controller. That will do that airspace a world of good. While you're at it, since he more than likely came from OKC, fire everyone providing the training as well. Steven, for a long time, you've sounded like the typical ATC pompous idiot, and you really have to wonder why people question you. If you were to leave your attitude at work, where Green Bay TRACON is rather busy, you'd get a better response, and provide a much better understanding to pilots and controllers around these groups. In short, grow up. BL. - -- Brad Littlejohn | Email: Unix Systems Administrator, | Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFlC1myBkZmuMZ8L8RAkD9AKDQ3CHTPXQJI422HQvQ7/HW0MNgMgCbBY61 dLX9Vyj259hkt5akYdUg/II= =YvxB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Cancellation Question
On 12/28/06 12:47, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
[ snip ] Steven, for a long time, you've sounded like the typical ATC pompous idiot, and you really have to wonder why people question you. If you were to leave your attitude at work, where Green Bay TRACON is rather busy, you'd get a better response, and provide a much better understanding to pilots and controllers around these groups. In short, grow up. It's clear (to me) that Steven's purpose on the news groups is not the advancement of knowledge. It's fun to watch the jousting, though. I missed it while he was away. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lyc. O-360 cylinder question | JB | Owning | 13 | November 27th 04 09:32 PM |
Handheld battery question | RobsSanta | General Aviation | 8 | September 19th 04 03:07 PM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Question | Charles S | Home Built | 4 | April 5th 04 09:10 PM |
Partnership Question | Harry Gordon | Owning | 4 | August 16th 03 11:23 PM |