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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Woellhaf wrote: I try to record all communications so I can go back, if I want, and hear what was actually said. Sometimes it's as I remember, sometimes not. And if you call the tower and explain that you think you may have misheard a clearance or maybe the controller didn't issue it right and would like to listen to the tapes they should let you. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:UTcpb.88415$e01.290862@attbi_s02... In order to get a vector off the ground you have to be seen by the radar facility within a half mile of the airport. So you can't wander into anything. Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Henry wrote: "Newps" wrote in message news:UTcpb.88415$e01.290862@attbi_s02... In order to get a vector off the ground you have to be seen by the radar facility within a half mile of the airport. So you can't wander into anything. Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector? No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to fly. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:0Ydpb.87662$Tr4.226083@attbi_s03... Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector? No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to fly. And if that course takes you right into a layer of granite, oh well. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... In article , (Snowbird) wrote: Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread is non-radar towers) don't give vectors. Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"? Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again, scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest ATC could give you an answer. :-) Chip, ZTL |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message ... He/she created their own problem by clearing you into conflicting traffic unless they can prove you deviated from your IFR clearance. Do you feel that it's ATC's responsibility to protect the route of the obstacle departure procedure, even when it's not included in the pilot's clearance and does not lie in his route of flight? Yes. It is my point that the ODP *is* included in an IFR departure clearance unless ATC issues explicit alternate departure instructions as part of the launch. Should ATC fail to protect for the ODP, the official statement on the controller's operational error recert package will likely include the sentance: "Primary cause: Controller A procedurally failed to maintain vertical separation prior to losing lateral separation." Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the cooperative spirit? I agree with you. I believe that it can be clearly prudent for the pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, but within reason. I don't know that it is always reasonable for you to tell ATC that you are going to be flying the ODP though. The controller responsible for formulating your IFR clearance is supposed to be a specialist in his/her airspace. He/she should know if an ODP is an option when you depart. If that procedure is a threat to another IFR aircraft, then ATC needs to eliminate the traffic threat via alternate instructions or not clear you. Otherwise, your IFR clearance is flawed (and ATC's fault). Chip, ZTL |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message ink.net... Yes. It is my point that the ODP *is* included in an IFR departure clearance unless ATC issues explicit alternate departure instructions as part of the launch. Should ATC fail to protect for the ODP, the official statement on the controller's operational error recert package will likely include the sentance: "Primary cause: Controller A procedurally failed to maintain vertical separation prior to losing lateral separation." I agree with you. I believe that it can be clearly prudent for the pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, but within reason. I don't know that it is always reasonable for you to tell ATC that you are going to be flying the ODP though. The controller responsible for formulating your IFR clearance is supposed to be a specialist in his/her airspace. He/she should know if an ODP is an option when you depart. If that procedure is a threat to another IFR aircraft, then ATC needs to eliminate the traffic threat via alternate instructions or not clear you. Otherwise, your IFR clearance is flawed (and ATC's fault). Chip, ZTL I spoke with both the tower and the APPCON facility following an issue I experienced, and both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot if not issued, and will never be recommended/suggested/alluded to/etc. I think that is a deathtrap waiting to happen, but who am I. fwiw. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Radar coverage and "radar contact" have nothing to do with terrain
clearance, except when above the MVA and a vector is issued. Even then there can be errors, so it's wisest to always know position relative to terrain. Vectors can be issued below MVA in departures and missed approaches. Otherwise, all ok. ;-) |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
As counter-intuitive as it sounds radar contact isn't required to
issue an initial vector. The words "initial vector" do not appear in FAAO 7110.65, so the only reason that you say radar isn't required for an initial vector is that you're interpreting "heading" to mean vector. That is not supported by the .65. The section you cited, 5-8-2 contains the following: -----------snip----------------- 5-8-2 Initial Heading Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff. -----------snip----------------- Why isn't this section entitled "Initial Vector" ? My answer: because it isn't a vector. Please refer to the definition of a vector in the Pilot-Controller Glossary. The definition is ambiguous. It could just as easily be used to prove my point as yours. he is restricted in the specific headings he may issue or areas where he may vector. Where confusion can arise is when a tower issues a heading that he intends to take effect once the pilot completes the DP. The pilot can may confuse this heading for a vector, and circumvent the DP, anticipating that radar vectors will keep him out of trouble. I suspect this is why the .65 is *careful* to avoid the use of the word "vector" with this initial heading. I thnk controllers are the one who have become sloppy with the terminology. Now, you may feel inclined to assert that a guy who does the same job every day for 30 years is far better qualified to know what his job is than an outsider. Unfortunately, I haven't found that to be true *necessarily*. I've already struggled with our local class B over what "established" means, and I won that one, by going to Oklahoma City, where I found someone who had a better theoretical understanding of what a controller was supposed to do than the men in the field did. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Now I already know you don't have any idea what you're talking about but
explain to us what you, as a pilot, think the difference is between a heading and a vector. And what do you think the difference is to the controller? Greg Esres wrote: As counter-intuitive as it sounds radar contact isn't required to issue an initial vector. The words "initial vector" do not appear in FAAO 7110.65, They don't need to. A heading is a vector. so the only reason that you say radar isn't required for an initial vector is that you're interpreting "heading" to mean vector. Because that's what it means to everybody except you. That is not supported by the .65. The section you cited, 5-8-2 contains the following: -----------snip----------------- 5-8-2 Initial Heading Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff. Yes, if you want the aircraft on a specific heading for separation purposes for example, then you give that vector with the takeoff clearance. As opposed to waiting until after he takes off or after you ship him to the departure controller. -----------snip----------------- Why isn't this section entitled "Initial Vector" ? My answer: because it isn't a vector. All headings given are vectors. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approaches with Center | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 104 | October 22nd 03 09:42 PM |
IFR Routing Toronto to Windsor (CYTZ - CYQG) | Rob Pesan | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 7th 03 01:50 PM |
required readback on clearance | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 04:33 PM |
Picking up a Clearance Airborne | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 03 01:31 AM |
Big John Bites Dicks (Security Clearance) | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 27 | August 21st 03 12:40 AM |