"Going for the Visual"

In article CwFfc.151835$JO3.89405@attbi_s04,
(Ben Jackson) wrote:

In article .net,
SeeAndAvoid wrote:
Being called "approach" is about the only real insult, on those
occasions I may reply with the name of an airline that may
offend them, or call a Citation a twin cessna, etc.

That's good to know. I was getting flight following last Sunday and the
frequency was dead quiet. I wanted to make a request, but I couldn't
remember if I was talking to approach or center so I had to look it up.
I wouldn't want to find out what they demote a single to. ;-)

Off-frequency, they call you flib.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:28:09 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

Do you say you have "the ATIS" or do you say you have the
appropriate/current ATIS code. Makes a difference to the controller.

JPH

If I say I have an ATIS, I always identify it by code.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
What about those fields with SIAPs but no weather reporting at all?

I havent read every approach chart, yet, but I think every one I've
read has a note about whether the procedure is approved or
not without the local altimeter or one from a designated nearby
airport.
"When local altimeter not received, procedure not authorized"
or
"Obtain Local altimeter setting on CTAF; when not received
use XXX altimeter setting"
At one of our tower controlled airports, there is no AWOS/ASOS,
just an ATIS, and when the tower closes it's just a looped recording
until they reopen. But we get the weather hourly in our computer,
so we have to issue it for a/c heading there.
Just glancing through the SW-1 book, I cant find any airports that
dont have some kind of weather reporting, or a note about alternate
weather or saying procedure not authorized.
Then again, AWOS/ASOS's can fail, and there'd be an airport
with an SIAP without weather reporting.
As always it all comes down to the pilot.
Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
link.net...

I havent read every approach chart, yet, but I think every one I've
read has a note about whether the procedure is approved or
not without the local altimeter or one from a designated nearb
airport.
"When local altimeter not received, procedure not authorized"
or
"Obtain Local altimeter setting on CTAF; when not received
use XXX altimeter setting"
At one of our tower controlled airports, there is no AWOS/ASOS,
just an ATIS, and when the tower closes it's just a looped recording
until they reopen. But we get the weather hourly in our computer,
so we have to issue it for a/c heading there.
Just glancing through the SW-1 book, I cant find any airports that
dont have some kind of weather reporting, or a note about alternate
weather or saying procedure not authorized.
Then again, AWOS/ASOS's can fail, and there'd be an airport
with an SIAP without weather reporting.
As always it all comes down to the pilot.


In other words, you cannot do what you said you're required to do.

I've done that when I missed the name of the facility I was being handed off
to.

One time I missed the name of the facility, but my copilot did not. As he
was flying and I was working the radios, I asked him repeatedly the name,
but I thought he was trying to play a joke on me.

Being my first time flying through central North Carolina, I wasn't familiar
with an approach facility named Seymour Johnson. Keep in mind that my help
was from a guy who on occasion files flight plans under the name of "Ben
Dover".

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Ray Andraka wrote:
I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
"Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."

To change the topic a bit...

I've been flying lately with somebody who tends to leave off the "who
you're talking to" part of radio calls. He would make the above call as
simply, "Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa". It
drives me nuts, but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's really a
problem?

What do you controllers say? Do you like to have every pilot call you
by name at the beginning of each call, or is it just extraneous verbiage
that could be dropped with no harm done?

In article xpSfc.3663$yD1.13307@attbi_s54, Brad Z
wrote:

Being my first time flying through central North Carolina, I wasn't familiar
with an approach facility named Seymour Johnson. Keep in mind that my help
was from a guy who on occasion files flight plans under the name of "Ben
Dover".

Oh, that's in Delaware.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Ray Andraka wrote:
I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
"Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."

To change the topic a bit...

I've been flying lately with somebody who tends to leave off the "who
you're talking to" part of radio calls. He would make the above call as
simply, "Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa". It
drives me nuts, but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's really a
problem?

What do you controllers say? Do you like to have every pilot call you
by name at the beginning of each call, or is it just extraneous verbiage
that could be dropped with no harm done?

I prefer to be called by name.

Chip, ZTL

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
link.net...
I get called all kinds of things, and I usually joke about it that
I'm used to it being married and all.

I guess it's not such a big deal, and I dont rub it in if I get called
the wrong facility, but it'd be nice if the crew knew where they
were I'd think.

I *usually* don't rub it in. Call me "Memphis Center" and I'm cool. Call
me "Indy Center" and I'm insulted. Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
retaliate immediately.


On the flip side, what if I reply "504 (leaving out airline callsign),
roger". Technically it's incorrect, and not being a walking FAR
knowitall, I'd guess you are supposed to identify what facility you are
calling, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Being called "approach" is about the only real insult, on those
occasions I may reply with the name of an airline that may
offend them, or call a Citation a twin cessna, etc.

I like to use "Eastern" or "Braniff" if I'm talking to an air carrier...

Chip, ZTL

"Michael" wrote in message
...
"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.

Probably because as a Center guy he avoids working low altitude airspace
like the plague...


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.

Well, I agree with nuch of what you say in this paragraph, but I don't think
what I said about the controller is unfair. This controller is supposed to
be an air safety professional. Safety first and above all, right? You pay
him to be correct 100% of the time, every time. There is no excuse for
issuing an illegal approach clearance. That's how pilots die.... Heck,
that's how all these regs got written to begin with, because of sloppy
procedure.

I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better.
How does ATC issuing a visual approach clearance under these circumstances
make sense? "Oops, your non-radar now, I'd better shift the burden of
positive IFR air traffic control to the cockpit now before I lose comm
too..." What happens when this pilot never reports his cancellation to FSS?
What if he never spots the airport and he's non radar, lost comm, below the
MIA?

Also, so what if you have to "slam dunk" the airport? If that's what you
have to do to get into a place under IFR, that's what you have to do. You
get down to the MIA, you see the airport, you get the clearance. You
descend and land. We're not talking a split-S wingover. If you spiral
down, so be it. I don't break the regs to keep pilots from the "slam
dunk". IFR aircraft don't get below the MIA until it's legal to get below
it. By legal, I'm talking "controller" legal here, not pilot legal. No
question in my opinion that the pilot is legal when the controller issues
the approach clearance. I don't see the "being an ass" part about it
either. I'd rather see the controller doing his job properly because that's
the safest thing for him to do, and he's in the safety business.


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?

With this controller losing radar contact with an IFR, and then illegally
clearing that aircraft for a visual approach to a distant airport the pilot
hasn't yet seen, followed by loss of comm between pilot and controller, what
chance does the weekend pilot have, indeed?


Chip, ZTL

"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.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM