Can they do this? Restrict airport to IFR traffic only?

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...


You train for it under VFR rules. If you do not have a pilot who can
Legally accept an IFR clearance (rated and current) then you cannot accept
an IFR clearance. Period. If you DO, then you shoot practice approaches
under an IFR clearance.. you can even shoot REAL approaches in actual. You
can PRACTICE under VFR or under IFR.. but if under IFR someone has to be
able to accept the clearance.

Dave


Got it. I understand now.

Thanks,

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

Comments in text...


On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:06:48 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote in XtV9e.15984$%c1.13283@fed1read05::

Are you familiar with other incidents of similar traffic restrictions
using IFR flight as the criterion?

Yes... NBAA convention at LAS some years back.. no VFR flights other than
helicopters based at LAS were accepted.. all flights were IFR only and had
to include their landing reservation number in the remarks section of their
IFR flight plan. It helped that LAS is a ClassB airfield.


This happens all the time when a major aviation convention is in a certain
area. AOPA, SnF, NBAA, etc.

When an airport is unable to accommodate the traffic, ATC has various
methods of restricting the flow, but I've never seen the requirement
for an IFR flight plan in VMC used to govern traffic flow.


Airport managers can set up a "Traffic Management" requirement when
conditions or events will limit the available capacity in either landing
slots on the runway or available parking on the airport.



================================================
United State Code
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
PART B - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE
CHAPTER 471 - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I - AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 47101. Policies

(a) General. - It is the policy of the United States -
(1) that the safe operation of the airport and airway system
is the highest aviation priority;
...

9) that artificial restrictions on airport capacity -

(A) are not in the public interest;

Is it not in the public interest to limit traffic congestion that could
result in mid air collisions in the airport area?


(B) should be imposed to alleviate air traffic delays
only after other reasonably available and less
burdensome alternatives have been tried; and

hard to tell from the article given what other alternatives are available or
have been tried...


(C) should not discriminate unjustly between categories
and classes of aircraft; ...


They are not discriminating between category and class of aircraft... VFR
vs. IFR is not category/class... restricting to "multi engine only" would
be.. or limiting to helo only would be.. or restricting glider operations
from an airport that normally handled gliders would be a restriction in
category/class.

One thing I've found from Newspapers... you can't trust the ink on the paper
its written on.
Don't go by the newspaper.. look for the NOTAM that gets set up.. and
perhaps AOPA should be involved now before the "town fathers" at the airport
screw it up.

I'd bet that the restriction is not totally "IFR only".. but.. a requirement
to contact ATC and sequence to the airport.. for better spacing and flow
control.. which can be done with VFR aircraft... aka.. ClassC or ClassB

Does not OSH require the same thing? but it is done VFR with visual
observers out on the inbound route.. not IFR...

BT

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
Thanks for the information. I had a feeling it was contained in FAA
Order 7110.65, but wanted to avoid the work of locating the specific
regulation(s), although it would be interesting to read them.

That answer didn't really address your question (unless I misunderstood it).

Simulated instrument conditions refer to the *meteorological* conditions
being simulated for the flight, not the regulatory conditions. The
restriction to IFR traffic addresses the regulatory conditions, not the
meteorological conditions.

You can simulate instrument meteorological conditions all you want, that
doesn't qualify you for an arrival into an airport restricted to IFR
arrivals. Not even if you get ATC to help you by simulating IFR services.

Pete

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

You posted the citation yourself. While the 7110 provides some insight into
ATC activities, all you really need to know is that the airport is
(according to this thread) requiring all arrivals to occur under IFR, on an
IFR flight plan, and that that can only occur with an instrument rated and
current pilot acting as PIC.

If you bring a safety pilot along who is instrument rated, and who files an
IFR flight plan, and who acts as PIC during your "practice" approach, that's
fine. But if you had that guy along, you could just get him to fly you
there. Or even to just file and act as PIC while you fly there. No need to
fly a "practice approach" at all.

If the reasoning is really to provide for more efficient arrivals, then they
will not be allowing navaid approaches in VMC. That would negate the whole
point of providing for efficient arrivals (you can land a heck of a lot more
planes in a given time period if they are doing visual approaches with
visual separation than you can for instrument approaches).

All that said, someone else pointed out that the reality may well be that
VFR traffic will be allowed under a reservation system, and that arrivals
won't be restricted to IFR flights at all. I think that's certainly likely,
and would allow for efficient use of the airport without blocking access by
pilots who are not instrument rated.

Pete

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:42:47 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
::

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:03:36 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
::

Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

Nothing except pages like http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/lta_list.cfm
containing references to ATC services provided to VFR aircraft doing
practice approaches,

This is the first reference I looked at from the link you provided
above:

http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/oprdoc/Ge...M?File_ID=2212
----------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FRESNO AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
5055 E. Andersen Ave. Suite 2
Fresno, Ca. 93727

ISSUED: March 11, 2005
EFFECTIVE: April 5, 2005

FRESNO AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL LETTER TO AIRMEN NO. 05-1

SUBJECT: VFR Practice Instrument Approaches

CANCELLATION: April 5, 2007

Fresno ATCT/TRACON (ATC) provides approach control service and
standard IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approach
procedures to Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The primary
approach control frequencies for Fresno Yosemite are 119.6/351.95
(North) and 132.35/323.25 (South).

ATC provides VFR aircraft practicing instrument approach procedures
with standard IFR separation, applying 500-foot vertical separation.
When separating from heavy/B757 aircraft, vertical separation is
increased to 1000 feet. IFR separation begins when the approach
clearance becomes effective and continues throughout the missed
approach procedure. However, pilots of VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approach procedures can expect to receive VFR departure
instruction (i.e., MAINTAIN AT OR BELOW 2000 feet or FLY RUNWAY
HEADING) in lieu of published missed approach procedures. When
vectoring and sequencing for an approach procedure, ATC provides Class
C separation and service to radar identified VFR aircraft.

At secondary airports under our jurisdiction with published instrument
approaches, pilots conducting VFR practice instrument approaches will
receive standard IFR separation, applying 500-foot vertical
separation. Some delays may be anticipated dependent on workload, and
radar capability.

These airports a Fresno Chandler-Executive (frequency 119.0),
Visalia Municipal (frequency 118.5, Madera Municipal (frequency
119.45) and Hanford Municipal (frequency 123.9).

For further information, refer to the Airmen's Information Manual.
Subject “Practice Instrument Approaches” or call Fresno ATCT/TRACON at
(559) 255-5754.


Original signed by Kenneth J Hyman
Kenneth J Hyman
Acting Air traffic Manager/Fresno Tower/TRACON
----------------------------------------------------------

That does seem to substantiate your claim. Thanks.

and the aforementioned controller telling us
"maintain VFR at all times" when giving us our approach instructions,
lack of hard IFR altitude assignments, filing an IFR flightplan, or
requesting a popup IFR clearance.......

Right.

thus the requirement for the safety pilot to look out for
other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
separation, etc.

Of course aircraft on an IFR flight plan flying an approaches in VMC
are _required_ to see-and-avoid also.

But are not required to avoid clouds, the point I was attempting to
make.

Well, it certainly appears to be discriminitory, and probably could be
challenged. Probably SHOULD be challenged, lest Bill Gates and friends get the
impression they can shut down any airport they choose, just by virtue of their
being there. The whole system is heavily subsidized, and the subsidy is
predicated on equal, unprejudiced access to all legitimate users.

I can understand the predicament of the airport manager, and it includes a
security concern, because a gathering of VIP's like this is almost as much of
a lighnting rod as a gathering of political heavy-hitters. Nevertheless, the
airport should make an effort to accomodate all users - and this includes
asking for volontary limitations from VFR and training activities, rather than
just hanging out the NO VACANCY sign.

G Faris

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:15:19 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

No need to fly a "practice approach" at all.

Right. I never suggested there was. It was another poster who did.

Morgans wrote:
"Dave S" wrote


To operate under an IFR flight plan (as in UNDER A CLEARANCE) you must
be instrument rated and current. What the weather is like doesn't
matter. Either you CAN legally accept an IFR clearance or you CANNOT.



If that is true, how can a pilot who has let his currency lapse, get current
again?

Doesn't he have to be on an IFR flight to get current again?

Either with another pilot in the plane serving as safety who can accept
the IFR clearance (and IS the PIC for that purpose), or under VFR under
the hood with a safety pilot..

Or with an authorized instructor for an IPC. (Who can conduct it under
either above listed method)

Dave

Everyone is screaming bloody murder about "discrimination" but there are
several public use airports that operate under an traffic management
program on a daily basis. The practical effect is no VFR into there
except in an emergency (La Guardia and JFK).. yea.. you can ask.. but if
they are busy, I don't see them dropping what you are doing to shoehorn
you in during the "push" unless you demand it by saying the E-word. And
by requiring the reservation, they are expecting that you NOT plan to be
in there unless you can get the magic blessing beforehand

This sort of thing happens all the time on a temporary, but recurring
basis: Nascar, Superbowl, NBAA Championship events

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/faq.c...urse=1&file=15
http://www.fly.faa.gov/estmp/jsp/main.html

Just because the lay-media doesn't say thats (STMP) whats going on, I
will bet that is what REALLY is going to happen for this event.

Dave


G Farris wrote:

Well, it certainly appears to be discriminitory, and probably could be
challenged. Probably SHOULD be challenged, lest Bill Gates and friends get the
impression they can shut down any airport they choose, just by virtue of their
being there. The whole system is heavily subsidized, and the subsidy is
predicated on equal, unprejudiced access to all legitimate users.

I can understand the predicament of the airport manager, and it includes a
security concern, because a gathering of VIP's like this is almost as much of
a lighnting rod as a gathering of political heavy-hitters. Nevertheless, the
airport should make an effort to accomodate all users - and this includes
asking for volontary limitations from VFR and training activities, rather than
just hanging out the NO VACANCY sign.

G Faris

mindenpilot wrote:
Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots
from
filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
This would further add to the congestion.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

Keep that quiet. You can lose your ticket if you get caught. Remember,
the instrument rating is the right to FILE IFR. Flying in the clouds is
not the priv of the rating, it's the filing. Technically, an instrument
student can't even call the FSS and file his dual IFR flight plan
(although I don't think any FSDO would actually go after a student who
planned to fly with his CFII).


-Robert, CFI