Who's Boss?

wrote in message
...

Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am
single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound
from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver
Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like
the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway,
for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you
don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do
mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have
traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry
way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding distance.
Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?


You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
remain clear of Class C airspace.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
you'll have to go VFR.


He was VFR.

On Dec 17, 10:26 pm, wrote:
At night, I like the structure of
an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to 2,000
while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic that
is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind, I'd
like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend for
traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually. Will
maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his command
that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he going to
report me to the FSDO?

With all that technology and you had an agenda / flight profile of
your own, and you didn't want or need ATC assistance, why even bother
calling in for VFR flight following? Navigate as you see fit and just
call into Hawkins tower.

Allen

That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes into
Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.

It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always got
the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into Hawkins
which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining power.
However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I supposed
it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole complaint is that
they ignored my very understandable desire to stay within glide distance,
which really shouldn't have been a problem for them. It was as though I were
inconveniencing them by flying the approach differently, wanting to stay
higher until the FAF.

Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was told
"unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to what?
I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a thing.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am
single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound
from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver
Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like
the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the
runway, for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say,
"If you don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller
says, "I do mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend
yet. Have traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue on
my merry way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding
distance. Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?


You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
remain clear of Class C airspace.

You're right. I've just always felt like talking to approach was the good
citizen thing to do. But if they don't care about my personal safety
concerns, then maybe I should just operate independently.

Jog by memory. What are my requirements to enter Class D. If I recall, I
just have to make radio contact with the tower. What happens when the tower
is closed.

It's so rare I fly outside the system.


wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 10:26 pm, wrote:
At night, I like the structure of
an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to
2,000
while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic
that
is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind, I'd
like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend
for
traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually. Will
maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his
command
that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he going
to
report me to the FSDO?

With all that technology and you had an agenda / flight profile of
your own, and you didn't want or need ATC assistance, why even bother
calling in for VFR flight following? Navigate as you see fit and just
call into Hawkins tower.

Allen

If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good chance of
missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in Mississippi. At
night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you are
forced to land.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Newps"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: Who's Boss?


"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


wrote:

Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from running
into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as concerned
about my safety if my engine quits.


Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single engine
airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.



That's my point: I know where the
antennas are.

Irrelevant.


And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.


TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
aircraft was the sole reason.



The only thing I'm
really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But the
controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was downright
determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.





You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
you'll have to go VFR.

It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers) don't
consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
safety issue.


"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


wrote:

Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from running
into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as concerned
about my safety if my engine quits.


Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single engine
airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.



That's my point: I know where the
antennas are.

Irrelevant.


And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.


TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
aircraft was the sole reason.



The only thing I'm
really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But the
controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was downright
determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.





You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
you'll have to go VFR.

Visit the facility and talk. They will tell what they do and why and you
can explain you r concerns.

BTW, if you are THAT worried, about an engine failure at night or in the day
for that matter, buy a twin and get very good instruction. Unless you are
over some very hostile terrain, like Chicago near Midway, and you are not
stretching fuel, an engine failure is not a serious problem that you will
solve with an extra 1,000 feet.



wrote in message
...
| That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes
into
| Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.
|
| It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
| approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always
got
| the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into
Hawkins
| which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining power.
| However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I supposed
| it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole complaint is that
| they ignored my very understandable desire to stay within glide distance,
| which really shouldn't have been a problem for them. It was as though I
were
| inconveniencing them by flying the approach differently, wanting to stay
| higher until the FAF.
|
| Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
| flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was
told
| "unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to what?
| I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a thing.
|
|
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
| ...
|
| wrote in message
| ...
|
| Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS.
This
| involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
| leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
| Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I
am
| single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance.
Outbound
| from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
| runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a
Silver
| Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I
like
| the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
| emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
| doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
| descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the
| runway, for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I
say,
| "If you don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller
| says, "I do mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend
| yet. Have traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue
on
| my merry way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding
| distance. Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?
|
|
| You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
| remain clear of Class C airspace.
|
|
|

When the tower is closed, use the tower CTAF, which is the tower freq
[towers with multiple freq, check the AIM.



wrote in message
. ..
| You're right. I've just always felt like talking to approach was the good
| citizen thing to do. But if they don't care about my personal safety
| concerns, then maybe I should just operate independently.
|
| Jog by memory. What are my requirements to enter Class D. If I recall, I
| just have to make radio contact with the tower. What happens when the
tower
| is closed.
|
| It's so rare I fly outside the system.
|
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| On Dec 17, 10:26 pm, wrote:
| At night, I like the structure of
| an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
| Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
| controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to
| 2,000
| while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic
| that
| is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind,
I'd
| like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend
| for
| traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually.
Will
| maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his
| command
| that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he
going
| to
| report me to the FSDO?
|
| With all that technology and you had an agenda / flight profile of
| your own, and you didn't want or need ATC assistance, why even bother
| calling in for VFR flight following? Navigate as you see fit and just
| call into Hawkins tower.
|
| Allen
|
|

Turn on the landing light at 200 feet, if you don't like what you see, turn
it off.

That is why they sell twins. But if you are not very well trained and
current, twins crash out of control and have a fatal rate worse than the
singles. Of course every engine failure in a single probably is reported
and only the accidents get reported in twins.


wrote in message
...
| If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
| ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good chance
of
| missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in Mississippi. At
| night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you are
| forced to land.
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Newps"
| Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
| Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
| Subject: Who's Boss?
|
|
| "Newps" wrote in message
| . ..
|
|
| wrote:
|
| Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
running
| into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
concerned
| about my safety if my engine quits.
|
|
| Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
| airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
| critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
engine
| airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
| marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
|
|
|
| That's my point: I know where the
| antennas are.
|
| Irrelevant.
|
|
| And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
|
|
| TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
| aircraft was the sole reason.
|
|
|
| The only thing I'm
| really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But
the
| controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
downright
| determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
|
|
|
|
|
| You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
Then
| you'll have to go VFR.
|
|
|
|