Class C Airspace Discussion

"Jose" wrote in message
...

There are limitations on where ATC can INITIATE vectoring of VFR
aircraft, but the only limitations on where VFR aircraft CAN be vectored
are radar and radio coverage. They need only request them.


This is news to me. I thought... differently.


See subparagraph g:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0506.html



You snipped a key portion of my sentence.


I didn't think it was a key point. That's a natural consequence of the
opportunity to learn.


What's the point of cutting a sentence in half yet retaining it as quoted
material?

Jose wrote:

Can they? I thought outside of class A or B, VFR traffic can only get
"suggestions".

My home class C airport routinely issues vectors to VFR traffic for
departure and landing sequencing.

--
Peter

What's the point of cutting a sentence in half yet retaining it as quoted
material?

Brevity. I routinely snip as much as I can while retaining the essence
of the statement. I indicate that I've snipped. That way people who
haven't seen the original have context, and people who have don't have
to read it again (which gets pretty tiresome after a while).


See subparagraph g:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0506.html

5-6-1. APPLICATION

Vector aircraft:
[...]
g. Operating VFR [...] when a pilot requests, or you suggest and the pilot concurs.

This raises in me another question, or perhaps several.

1: How should a pilot "concur"? Does an acknowledgement of the
suggestion and compliance therewith constitute concurrance?

If so, what is the operational difference between a vector and a
suggestion, once the suggestion has been taken? If not, how does a VFR
pilot turn a suggestion into a vector?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
news

Brevity. I routinely snip as much as I can while retaining the essence of
the statement. I indicate that I've snipped. That way people who haven't
seen the original have context, and people who have don't have to read it
again (which gets pretty tiresome after a while).


In this case you snipped too much, as the essence of the statement was not
retained. Nor did you indicate that you had snipped.



This raises in me another question, or perhaps several.

1: How should a pilot "concur"? Does an acknowledgement of the
suggestion and compliance therewith constitute concurrance?


A pilot concurs by complying with the suggested vector.



If so, what is the operational difference between a vector and a
suggestion, once the suggestion has been taken?


Once a suggested vector has been taken there is no difference between it and
one initiated by ATC.

In short, ATC can initiate vectoring of VFR aircraft wherever ATC is
required to separate VFR aircraft. The responsibility to separate brings
with it the authority to assign headings, routes, altitudes, etc.

In this case you snipped too much, as the essence of the statement was not
retained. Nor did you indicate that you had snipped.

Well, I suppose snippage was imperfect, but it was not inappropriate.
Here's the whole thing:

One instance where you can get vectors under VFR is in Class B
airspace.

I believe you mean one instance where ATC may initiate vectoring of VFR
aircraft, VFR aircraft can get vectors wherever they are in radar contact.

Your statement doesn't parse correctly as an English sentence. The way
I (still) interpret what I think you were trying to say would put a
semicolon where the comma is. That would make the last clause an
independent clause, which would stand on its own. I just stood it on
its own. If I made an error, I was certain that I would be subject to
Usenet flogging.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...

Your statement doesn't parse correctly as an English sentence. The way I
(still) interpret what I think you were trying to say would put a
semicolon where the comma is. That would make the last clause an
independent clause, which would stand on its own. I just stood it on its
own. If I made an error, I was certain that I would be subject to Usenet
flogging.


You made an error.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

RFD didn't cut Mary loose until we were inside JVL's Class D --
something they had never done before.


How did they prevent Mary from calling JVL tower prior to entering Class D
airspace?

Having read this whole thread, I am struck by the argumentative nature
of these replies. Mr Honeck has never said that Mary was prevented
from contacting the Class D airspace, and in fact has said that this
experience served as a lesson that they need to dump the Rockford
controllers in the future before entering the Class D airspace. He is
trying to present this as a lesson to us all which is well taken. The
lesson I think is to stay aware of where you are, and when to expect a
handoff (and please don't give me a lesson on the use of the word
handoff).

Yeah, I agree.

"swag" wrote in message
oups.com...

Having read this whole thread, I am struck by the argumentative nature
of these replies.


You don't believe there is a place in discussion for argument?



Mr Honeck has never said that Mary was prevented
from contacting the Class D airspace,


Mr. Honeck said that RFD didn't cut Mary loose until they were inside JVL's
Class D airspace. If he feels she needs to be cut loose by RFD in order to
call JVL, is she not then prevented from contacting JVL if she is not cut
loose?



and in fact has said that this
experience served as a lesson that they need to dump the Rockford
controllers in the future before entering the Class D airspace. He is
trying to present this as a lesson to us all which is well taken. The
lesson I think is to stay aware of where you are, and when to expect a
handoff (and please don't give me a lesson on the use of the word
handoff).


It seems some people just don't learn these lessons. You may want to go to
Google Groups to review the thread "Slam dunk into Janesville" that appeared
in this group just over three years ago. Mr. Honeck presented an almost
identical scenario at that time. Every point that was made here was also
made then.