Where is approach good about multiple approaches and clearances in the air?

Newps ) wrote:

We have gotten significant raises every year. Last month the raise was
a little over 4%. I'll gross over $100K in a couple years.

Congratulations.

--
Peter R.
























----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nice raises! Are the raises directly related to the amount of IFR traffic
your area works?

"Newps" wrote in message
news:07QWb.15015$yE5.68151@attbi_s54...
We have gotten significant raises every year. Last month the raise was
a little over 4%. I'll gross over $100K in a couple years.

Peter R. wrote:
Newps ) wrote:


Yes, the pay raises in the last 5 or so years has been nice.


Sorry, in its form above I cannot tell if you are serious or sarcastic.
Have you received steady raises or has there been a moratorium, like
most
of the the private sector?





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Marco Leon wrote:
Nice raises! Are the raises directly related to the amount of IFR traffic
your area works?

We all got our pay reclassified about 6 years ago. This was based on
traffic and some other factors like crossing runways, mountainous
terrain, secondary airports, etc. Traffic doesn't figure into the
yearly raises. We get the same as any government employee with some
adjustments for cost of living. This years raise was 4.1%. Most of
that was the regular raise and the rest was based on where you live.
People in the expensive areas got a higher raise.

Dave Butler wrote:


Psst...wanna know a secret? I do it because I'm lazy. It's more work if
I have to deal with acquiring Flight Following, at least in my
neighborhood.

Hmmm. If I recall your original post you were complaining about having to
do full stop landings and getting a new clearance for each approach.
That's easier than getting flight following? Anyway, flight following is
optional, of course.

Ah, I see where're you're going with this. It's a good point you're making.
I'm hoping, though, to find places where I can be IFR *and* not have to
land.

I VFRed a flight today (given the temperature and a warning about "ice in
clouds", I wanted the freedom to avoid...and I deliberately headed towards
clouds because I'd questions about the forecast). I picked up advisories
immediately outside of CDW's airspace. But I got dropped once during each
leg, instead of getting the handoff that would be my right as an IFRer.

Ugh All that extra talking laugh.

But at least I did get advisories inbound back to CDW. I don't, always.


There's also a fair chance that I'll not be able to speak to anyone while
approaching my "home" airport, which means one less approach.

I don't understand this statement. Your home airport has an approach
control?

NY approach covers the airspace outside of CDW's little Delta-space.

If you can't speak to them, how are you going to get home at all?

W/o speaking to approach, I have to stay below the class B shelf.

If your home airport has no approach control, how does not being able to
speak prevent you from doing an approach? Anyway, why are you unable to
speak?

Sometimes, NY won't take VFR traffic.

As to whether or not I can fly an approach...I *could*. But the approaches
at CDW conflict with approaches to (depending upon which approach) either
TEB or MMU. I'm not thrilled about following one of those w/o speaking to
Approach.

[...]
I don't know that I'm so comfortable with this idea. Being on an
approach
w/o talking to someone because that someone is too busy? What if the
someone is busy because of others on the approach (or perhaps a
conflicting approach)?

Well, that's life. VFR services are on a workload-permitting basis for
controllers. What you are saying is that you are not comfortable flying
VFR, I guess.

Not at all...but I am uncomfortable with the idea that I'm effectively NORDO
on an approach potentially in use (or conflicting with another approach in
use) by a busy approach control. That's too close to "asking for trouble"
for me.


As for others on the approach, well you can monitor the approach control
frequency, and you have a safety pilot looking out the window.

Monitoring is good. Safety pilot is good. Being w/in the system, plus
those two, is better.

In the Raleigh-Durham area, if the RDU controllers are busy enough to say
"unable VFR practice approaches", it's usually because they are busy with
traffic into and out of RDU. The satellite fields are not equally busy.

Do the approaches at the satellites conflict with RDU? The approaches into
CDW conflict with approaches into MMU and TEB. The TEB approach is one
that is used a *lot*...and it's an alpha, so it is wind-independent.

When you're IFR in VMC, you still have a responsibility to see and avoid,

Of course.

that doesn't change just because you're on an instrument flight plan. You
still can have others (VFR) on the approach or on a conflicting approach.

I was on an approach a few weeks ago, and there was a growing traffic
conflict. We never saw the traffic, and were getting ready to
deviate...when approach told us to move.

Of course, you're absolutely right in what you're saying. But I do like
having that extra set of eyes. There's a lot that I as PIC can
see/do/judge better than they...but they've a view I lack.


I usually
do my approaches at nearby non-towered fields that are under the Raleigh
TRACON jurisdiction, followed by an approach to a full stop at RDU, where
I'm based.


I dislike practicing approaches to nontowered fields VFR. It's not very
good practice, I've found, because I need to behave in a "non-IFR" way
towards the end of the approach to avoid other traffic.

Must be a difference in the traffic density where you live versus piedmont
NC. That happens occasionally, but it beats having to land and get a new
clearance as you described in your original posting.

It depends upon the weather...and is *much* more of a problem on weekends
than weekdays.

- Andrew

Dave Butler wrote
I don't know that I'm so comfortable with this idea. Being on an approach
w/o talking to someone because that someone is too busy? What if the
someone is busy because of others on the approach (or perhaps a conflicting
approach)?

Well, that's life. VFR services are on a workload-permitting basis for
controllers. What you are saying is that you are not comfortable flying VFR, I
guess.

I don't see it that way at all.

Approach control tends to be busy when a lot of people are filing and
flying IFR. You would think that would be due to weather below VFR
minimums, but that has not been my experience. I find that when the
weather is below VFR minimums, approach is not too terribly busy.
Very few instrument rated pilots do much flying when weather is below
VFR minimums (one would hope those not rated do none at all). My
experience is that approach is busiest when the weather is marginal
VFR, especially due to low vis. That's when the instrument rated
private pilots come out of the woodwork and file.

Normally, I don't worry all that much about flying VFR in 3-5 miles in
haze. In fact, I generally prefer it to filing IFR. I don't have a
lot of faith in ATC separation - the closest near miss I've ever had
was on an IFR flight plan. I think I get more benefit out of being at
a VFR altitude and well clear of cloud than I do from ATC looking out
for me. Of course both is best, but VFR services are not always
available.

Sure, it's significantly harder to see other airplanes, but there are
simply not too many of them to see. Big sky theory. Statistics bear
this out - most midairs occur in good VMC, when lots of people are
flying, rather than in marginal conditions when planes are hard to
see. Anyway, most midairs occur close to airports, where you
generally don't get RADAR services anyway.

However, flying an approach defeats the big sky theory, and ATC is
better than nothing. If approach is busy, it's because lots of people
are flying approaches - maybe the one you're flying.

As for others on the approach, well you can monitor the approach control
frequency, and you have a safety pilot looking out the window.

If you happen to know the area well, that works. My experience has
been that about 20% of the time the approach frequency I get vectored
on is not the frequency printed on the plate.

So what it comes down to is that I too am not too terribly comfortable
flying approaches under the hood at untowered fields on most days when
approach control is too busy to handle me even VFR. The risk of
midair definitely increases over and above what is normal for VFR,
even VFR in marginal vis.

Not saying I won't do it - the risk is not extreme - but I prefer not
to unless there is a good reason. I find that generally there is not
- on days like that, I go to a towered field. At a towered field, the
tower controllers are pretty good about advising me of other aircraft
on the approach and in the pattern, and besides talking is an
important part of flying IFR so the practice is of higher quality.

Michael

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:

I'm hoping, though, to find places where I can be IFR *and* not have to
land.

Most times when I want to practice some approaches, I will file IFR "round-
robin," with my home airport as the departing and arriving airport, and a
VOR near the intended class C or D airport as the route. I also include
"multiple approach practice at Kxxx" in the comments.

When I am handed off to the approach facility that coordinates approaches
into that airport, I request multiple approaches. Often the tower at class
D airports where I go will clear me for the option, allowing me to touch
down if I want to practice going off instruments to land.

Again, Binghamton (KBGM) and Elmira (KELM) are two class D airport a little
to your north that have their own approach facilities (TRSA) and are very
accommodating.

--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter R. wrote:

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:

I'm hoping, though, to find places where I can be IFR *and* not have to
land.

Most times when I want to practice some approaches, I will file IFR
"round-
robin," with my home airport as the departing and arriving airport, and a
VOR near the intended class C or D airport as the route. I also include
"multiple approach practice at Kxxx" in the comments.

Hmm. I do put "multiple approaches" in the remarks, but I've always used
two separate flight plans. Your idea is a new one to me.

Again, Binghamton (KBGM) and Elmira (KELM) are two class D airport a
little to your north that have their own approach facilities (TRSA) and
are very accommodating.

Thanks.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Hmm. I do put "multiple approaches" in the remarks, but I've always used
two separate flight plans. Your idea is a new one to me.

There's a limitation on how many text characters (15?) from the remarks field
are actually seen by ATC. Try using the acronym PLA for practice low approaches,
for example "PLA FAY" for practice approaches at Fayetteville.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com...
Peter R. wrote:

Hmm. I do put "multiple approaches" in the remarks, but I've always used
two separate flight plans. Your idea is a new one to me.


Thanks.

- Andrew

My CFII was yapping on like they do and filed two flight plans the other day. One to. One From. We never needed the second one and I
finally figured out it was because we were local IFR and they controlled the approach to our home field. So they could have cared
less whether we landed here or there.

Mike Z

I've done some practice approaches at TTN, VFR and IFR and never had to
land. Although they seemed a little confused about my IFR clearance a
couple of times. Aren't they a private control tower? Maybe that has
something to do with it?