"Going for the Visual"

Dan Luke wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote:

Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
retaliate immediately.


There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has
handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It
got me a very frosty reply both times.

Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own
excitement. :-)


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote:

Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
retaliate immediately.


There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has
handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It
got me a very frosty reply both times.

Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own
excitement. :-)


BLOCKED! :-)

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dan Luke wrote:

"Chip Jones" wrote:


Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
retaliate immediately.


There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has
handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It
got me a very frosty reply both times.

Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own
excitement. :-)



BLOCKED! :-)

Chip, ZTL



Oh, no, I think it got through just fine! :-)

Matt

"Chip Jones" wrote
Safety first and above all, right?

No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever
be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training,
and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly
these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most
important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what
appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or
convenience.

You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time.
Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human
reliability is unreliable. Further, the more complex you make the
system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently
correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used
only rarely, you need a computer, not a human.

I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better.

I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any
better? He's not an isolated example. Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the
result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have
the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible
anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which
are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an
increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify
the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the
reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in
rare cases.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Chip Jones" wrote
Safety first and above all, right?

No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever
be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training,
and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly
these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most
important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what
appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or
convenience.

I was referring to the controller. Controllers aren't flying those "little
airplanes". They're operating an air traffic system where safety is the
most important goal, even above efficiency.



You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time.

I never said anyone was correct 100% of the time. I said the controller is
paid to be correct 100% of the time- that is the air safety goal of the FAA,
zero errors. Not saying it's achievable, but that is the goal and that is
part of why the controller is drawing a salary funded by your tax dollars.


Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human
reliability is unreliable.

I strongly disagree. Human ATC is not unreliable at all, nor is it
inherintly error prone.

Further, the more complex you make the
system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently
correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used
only rarely, you need a computer, not a human.

LOL! What is so complex about issuing a legal Visual Approach Clearance?


I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any
better.

I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any
better? He's not an isolated example.

Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed"
program, in which FAA management deemed that any human being, especially
female and minority human beings, could succeed as a full performance level
controllers, if only given enough training time, regardless of failing
benchmark checkrides. The result is that now we have some weak controllers
whom we can't fire because we don't have a replacement pipe-line. In my
facility, we don't even have time to do recurrent training anymore.

Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.


In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the
result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have
the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible
anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which
are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an
increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify
the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the
reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in
rare cases.

Interesting points, but I don't see the rules governing cruise clearances
and visual approaches to be overly complex.

Chip, ZTL

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Chip Jones" wrote
Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed"

Oh, dont get me started on that piece of crapola program. I always called
it "Train to Suck". And now they wonder why all these operational
errors are popping up, often with these people.

Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.

My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly
Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have
been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about
it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation,
great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance
as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb
VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can
provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have
to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed,
provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb
and..." no way jose.

One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.
Chris

We've got Mesa out here now flying the RJ's to Phoenix and Vegas. Haven't
had any goofy requests like that. I'll have to watch that.



"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
nk.net...
My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly
Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have
been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about
it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation,
great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance
as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb
VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can
provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have
to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed,
provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb
and..." no way jose.

One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.
Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote
Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.

My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb"

Nope, not at all. What I mean is this:

I have departed VFR under low but legal (say 1500 ft) ceilings, and
call to pick up my IFR clearance. I didn't get it on the ground
because there is no clearance delivery frequency, and doing it by
phone is a pain - and should not be necessary anyway. So I get "Climb
VFR to 2000" only of course I can't because of the 1500 ft ceilings.
So I say "Unable, but I can provide my own obstruction clearance to
2000 on this heading." Sometimes it works as advertised, but
sometimes the controller insists there is no such thing, and either I
accept the VFR climb or I can squawk VFR, but he can't issue me a
clearance below the MIA. Well, I can get ****ed, or I can land and
start over, or I can demand to call the manager, or I can just grit my
teeth and climb.

that so many, mostly
Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
traffic.

Well, that's I want too. I understand I'm below you MIA - I'll
provide my own terrain clearance until I get there. All I want is for
you to spearate me from other IFR traffic while I do. It's in the
book, and it's not unreasonable.

One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
situation.

Well, I encountered this practice in Part 121 while studying for my
ATP written. See, you're making my point for me. Clearly the rules
are too complex - because here's a pilot trying to gain an operational
advantage by doing it like it says in the book - probably because his
copilot just ran into it studying for ATP written - and you've never
heard of it.

I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.

Well, actually the rules for taking advantage of that particular twist
in the regs require that you have at least 5 miles vis, be at least
1000 ft above any bkn/ovc layers, and any layers above you be at least
1000 ft above MEA. So I don't think smacking into terrain is too
likely.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
ourselves and fly the airlines.


Oh, of course, because nobody ever came to harm flying the airlines.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net...
"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
[snipped]
One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been
and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed
approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when
making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach.
If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain
clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've
met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the
visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where
radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in
order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules.

Sydney, to me this paragraph of yours illustrates why it is legally
important for the pilot to first report sighting the airfield (or aircraft
to follow etc) before ATC issues a visual apprach clearance. A remote
Visual Approach clearance issued way before you see the airport, followed by
lost comm and lost radar as you descend trying to find it, just doesn't
sound like positive IFR air traffic control to me. At ZTL, the controller
(if caught, which is a big IF) would be credited with an operational error.
Sadly, an FAA controller OE investigation would likely come only after the
NTSB crash site investigation was completed... too late to do the pilot any
good.

Chip, excellent points. However, I'm not sure to what extent the
legally correct alternative (a 'cruise clearance') provides more
positive IFR traffic control in the situation I'm considering
(plane flying into rural airport with no IAP, pilot planning to
conduct visual approach procedure). In both cases I would assume
the prudent controller is going to maintain IFR separation until
the flight plan has been cancelled through FSS.

In both cases, as far as I can tell, the burden of safe operation
really remains with the pilot -- to be jolly darn sure there really
is a safe margin to operate in visual conditions at the MIA for
the area and to have a good procedure worked out to climb back to
the MIA and resume communications with ATC if for any reason the
landing can not be made (fog forming over the airport, say).

If the pilot crashed, the real operational error IMO would be the
pilot's, for using a visual approach as an excuse to operate in
marginal conditions and for not flight-planning the "alternative
if the flight can not be completed as planned". (I don't want
to incite a scud-running vs. IFR debate here, but I think everyone
will agree that scud-running is something which requires
a much higher degree of planning and situational awareness to
conduct with any margin of safety -- not something to blunder
into without planning at the end of a flight in the clear-blue
over a layer).

Best,
Sydney