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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message = ink.net... =20 "John R. Copeland" wrote in message ... Case of airport OR runway: At big places like KIAD and CYYZ, it's easy to have a runway in sight, but not the whole airport. Been there, done that. Probably the same at KDFW and KDEN, too. =20 There's no requirement to see the whole airport. =20 Clearly so. That's what I tried to say.. ---JRC--- |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"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, ZTL |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Since this topic is being beat into submission as usual, I'll
add a pet peeve of a lot of controllers I know, myself included: N1234: "airport in sight" controller: "cleared visual approach" N1234: "roger, we'll cancel IFR" This happens daily, why? What is the point in reporting the airport and a) not requesting the visual, if it's wanted, or, b) canceling in the first transmission if the visual isn't wanted? Someone brought up wasted transmissions, there's an example. Speaking of wasted transmissions, and someone used the example of five transmissions to get the Visual approach sequence rolling, the controller who will be issuing the approach should on initial call-in advise of what to expect. This should make it clearer and what's expected of the pilot later. Example: "N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray and the airport in sight" (technically now I guess we have to say the name of the airport and it's position - is it done? not often) Anyway, that transmission sure shouldn't leave much doubt in anyone's mind. It's also a good time if the pilot is requesting something other than that. Cruise Clearances: the reason it's not used much and rarely offered, here anyway, is terrain and radio/radar coverage. It's basically a block altitude from whatever you give away, to the ground, and if it doesn't work out, back up to whatever altitude you assign. That's one hell of a chunk of airspace to lock up. And you are never sure how long you are really giving it away for as you may not hear the aircraft cancel. Also things not used often or on a regular basis, controllers get rusty on, let's be honest. Contact Approaches: Read last sentence, just not requested enough and pilots and controllers both get rusty on it. Example: had a guy ask for one at an airport with no SIAP, another one asked for one where the tower said they were totally IFR less than a mile visibility, virtually impossible to accomplish. On the controller side, you'll see the "standby" as they ask their supervisor if/how to do it. Some observations, Chris |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:48:17 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote: "N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray and the airport in sight" Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"? It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request. Even better is when the "visual" is on an ATIS, if available. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote
(d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances I say "d" with a twist: The controller knows there is something in the book about a cruise clearance, but doesn't know how a cruise clearance works. I agree. This is exactly what I'm talking about - he knows that cruise clearances exist - meaning he heard the term somewhere, probably in training - but he doesn't actually know anything ABOUT cruise clearances, in the sense that he would be able to use them. This seems most likely to me, since the controller also doesn't know how a visual approach works either... I think that's a bit unfair. He probably issues visual approaches properly under normal circumstances. This is a special circumstance. He COULD be an ass about it - keep the plane at an altitude high enough to assure radio comms and force the pilot to accept the resulting slam dunk - or cancel IFR. Instead, he's doing what makes sense. The problem is that he doesn't know the correct phraseology to accomplish this, and as a result he's breaking regs because he doesn't know the correct magic word to use. Are the regs unnecessarily complicated? This is a guy who talks to airplanes issuing instructions and clearances 40+ hours a week, every week. If he can't keep all the regs straight, what sort of chance does a weekend pilot have? Michael |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote
"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray and the airport in sight" Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"? It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request. It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items: that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport in sight. Even better is when the "visual" is on an ATIS, if available. Can skip that info if pilot advises he has the ATIS, but since the rule says the controller shall advise of the approach on initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter, the pilot has to advise of the ATIS on his initial contact. Most airports I do approaches to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point. See 7110.65 Par 4-7-10 http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0407.html#4-7-1 4-7-10. APPROACH INFORMATION a. Both en route and terminal approach control sectors shall provide current approach information to aircraft destined to airports for which they provide approach control services. This information shall be provided on initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter. Approach information contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if the pilot states the appropriate ATIS code or items 3-5 below may be omitted for pilots destined to uncontrolled airports when they advise receipt of the automated weather; otherwise, issue approach information by including the following: 1. Approach clearance or type approach to be expected if two or more approaches are published and the clearance limit does not indicate which will be used. 2. Runway if different from that to which the instrument approach is made. 3. Surface wind. 4. Ceiling and visibility if the reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is below 1,000 feet or below the highest circling minimum, whichever is greater, or the visibility is less than 3 miles. 5. Altimeter setting for the airport of intended landing. Chris |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message link.net... It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items: that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport in sight. How are you going to know the current weather at fields without weather reporting? Can skip that info if pilot advises he has the ATIS, but since the rule says the controller shall advise of the approach on initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter, the pilot has to advise of the ATIS on his initial contact. Most airports I do approaches to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point. See 7110.65 Par 4-7-10 http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0407.html#4-7-1 4-7-10. APPROACH INFORMATION a. Both en route and terminal approach control sectors shall provide current approach information to aircraft destined to airports for which they provide approach control services. This information shall be provided on initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter. Approach information contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if the pilot states the appropriate ATIS code or items 3-5 below may be omitted for pilots destined to uncontrolled airports when they advise receipt of the automated weather; otherwise, issue approach information by including the following: 1. Approach clearance or type approach to be expected if two or more approaches are published and the clearance limit does not indicate which will be used. 2. Runway if different from that to which the instrument approach is made. 3. Surface wind. 4. Ceiling and visibility if the reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is below 1,000 feet or below the highest circling minimum, whichever is greater, or the visibility is less than 3 miles. 5. Altimeter setting for the airport of intended landing. I'm going to an uncontrolled field without weather reporting. How are you going to comply with that paragraph? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in
link.net: Cruise Clearances: the reason it's not used much and rarely offered, here anyway, is terrain and radio/radar coverage. It's basically a block altitude from whatever you give away, to the ground, and if it doesn't work out, back up to whatever altitude you assign. That's one hell of a chunk of airspace to lock up. And you are never sure how long you are really giving it away for as you may not hear the aircraft cancel. Also things not used often or on a regular basis, controllers get rusty on, let's be honest. Anyone gets rusty on things they don't do. The ZHU controllers tend to stay up on cruise clearances because they issue them all the time. It's the only way things can get done out in the Gulf, because of lack of radar and radio coverage. We go out IFR and fly instrument approaches to offshore platforms, and our letters of agreement with ZHU say that we 'shall' request a cruise clearance when within 40NM of our destination. (Whoever wrote that LOA didn't know the legal meaning of 'shall', obviously, since it's used many times when the context makes it obvious it should be 'will' or 'should'). It does tie up lots of airspace, but there is just no other way of doing it, with the current equipment situation. Everyone tries to cooperate by cancelling as soon as possible, and we all have company comm centers which can call center for us and cancel when we lose comm with ATC. I've never received a cruise clearance inbound, though. -- Regards, Stan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Night over water | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 43 | March 4th 04 01:13 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |