A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IFR Cancellation Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old December 27th 06, 11:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default IFR Cancellation Question

On 12/27/06 14:12, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Pilots don't operate under 7110.65. We use Part 91. Show me where, under
Part 91, it says that intending to land at a Class D airport requires
communication with the Class D tower before entering Class D airspace.


I have, three times now.



In this case, 91.129(c)(1) has been fully complied with.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You just keep
regurgitating the same FAR.


And you keep misinterpreting it.



Well, one of us is, that's for sure ;-)
Ads
  #172  
Old December 27th 06, 11:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default IFR Cancellation Question

I agree the regs are rather poorly written.

We agree on =something=!

I'm not familiar with any letters of agreement like that.


I have never seen letters of agreement. I do know that letters of
agreement exist which allow me to perform some operations which would
normally be expected to require communication with one facility by
communicating with a different one. Not having seen any of these
letters of agreement, I don't really know which operations are covered,
and when, and under what circumstances. I know this because I have
requested that one controller coordinate my transit through another's
airspace, and been granted that request. (Yes, I am trusting that the
controller is operating properly in doing so).

Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for
letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your
contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport (sorry
- "a towered airport within class D airspace" is a service or
operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that would
allow a different facility to provide those services.

However, nothing in part 91 or 61 with which I am familiar makes that
distinction. In fact, I've yet to find anything in part 91 or 61 that
even mentions letters of agreement.

If I am approaching a Class D airport and the approach controller gives
me an actual landing clearance instead of "contact the tower...", maybe
the controller made an error. But maybe there is some sort of letter of
agreement that I don't know about. I'd ask, if I could get a word in
edgewise. But as a practical matter, if the field really is IFR, I'm
the only one that should be there anyway, and I'd have no reason to
assume that the clearance is invalid.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #173  
Old December 28th 06, 12:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default IFR Cancellation Question



Jose wrote:


Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for
letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your
contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport (sorry
- "a towered airport within class D airspace" is a service or
operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that would
allow a different facility to provide those services.


Well not "cleared to land." But it is not required that a controller
terminate an aircraft before he enters a class D area. That's
ridiculous. Both Denver and Minneapolis will tell you to contact the
tower after you are clear of all other traffic ande you may or may not
be in the class D. Either way the tower knows you're inbound.





If I am approaching a Class D airport and the approach controller gives
me an actual landing clearance instead of "contact the tower...", maybe
the controller made an error.


Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape.


But maybe there is some sort of letter of
agreement that I don't know about.


All TRACON's will have a letter of agreement with class D's under their
airspace.

  #174  
Old December 28th 06, 01:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
A Lieberma
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default IFR Cancellation Question

Newps wrote in
:

Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for
letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your
contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport
(sorry - "a towered airport within class D airspace" is a service
or operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that
would allow a different facility to provide those services.


Well not "cleared to land." But it is not required that a controller
terminate an aircraft before he enters a class D area. That's
ridiculous. Both Denver and Minneapolis will tell you to contact the
tower after you are clear of all other traffic ande you may or may not
be in the class D. Either way the tower knows you're inbound.


Thank you Newps,

Based on Steven's responses, I'd be busting FARS all the time.....

I have been in KHKS Delta airspace many times without talking to tower,
but only to approach controllers,

I have been cleared for the approach with landing INSTRUCTIONS by
approach while doing approaches (both VFR and IFR handling).

After all, VFR traffic doesn't get cleared for approaches.

And yes, within Delta airspace, I have been switched to tower (via prompt
by me - like a gentle reminder N1943L 2 miles inside Brenz) so I could
get the magic words cleared to land by tower.

Allen
  #175  
Old December 28th 06, 01:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default IFR Cancellation Question

Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape.

Maybe. The rules can change, and I might not be aware of such a change.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #176  
Old December 28th 06, 01:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default IFR Cancellation Question



Jose wrote:

Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape.



Maybe. The rules can change, and I might not be aware of such a change.


Actually now that I think about it we have had the approach controller
clear an aircraft to land. Approach tells aircraft to contact tower.
He never does. On real short final tower calls down and tells approach
controller to clear him to land. Guy probably never makes that mistake
again. Another way to get the point across is to let the guy land
without a clearance and then have the approach controller tell him where
to turn off and contact ground. He'll know then. There have been tower
radio problems and we have just had the tower controller tell the
approach controller over the landline to tell the pilot cleared to land.
  #177  
Old December 28th 06, 03:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
KP[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default IFR Cancellation Question


"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
Actually now that I think about it we have had the approach controller
clear an aircraft to land. Approach tells aircraft to contact tower. He
never does. On real short final tower calls down and tells approach
controller to clear him to land. Guy probably never makes that mistake
again. Another way to get the point across is to let the guy land without
a clearance and then have the approach controller tell him where to turn
off and contact ground. He'll know then. There have been tower radio
problems and we have just had the tower controller tell the approach
controller over the landline to tell the pilot cleared to land.


A VFR aircraft making a practice ASR or PAR approach, monitored ILS, or
flight-followed approach will enter the Class D airspace and continue to
receive ATC services while remaining in contact with approach control.
Switching to tower won't happen until after the aircraft has landed.

This happens around the clock, every day, all over the country. No FARs are
being violated by anyone involved.


  #178  
Old December 28th 06, 09:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
A Guy Called Tyketto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 236
Default IFR Cancellation Question

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote in message
et...

Perhaps you should use your connections and ask that very same
question to San Carlos Tower (KSQL), as they have pilots coming in
exactly like this, and they *ARE* a Class D airport.


No need to, I already know the answer. What makes you think NORCAL approach
makes a phone call to San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals?


I asked you the question. Provide the answer, and your
rationale on why NCT does this. If you want to hear them doing this
very thing, listen to the LiveATC feed. Then come back to us. I'm not
on the spot here, You are.


In fact, it isn't only the TRACON that is doing this, KSFO
Tower does this as well. Constantly and Consistently, the following
is given to pilots:

"N123CM, leaving Class Bravo airspace to the south, radar services
terminated, maintain your present beacon code, contact San Carlos
Tower, 119.0."


That instruction tells you that San Francisco tower makes a phone call to
San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals?


You're putting words in my mouth. You're the controller. Answer
the question.


Want proof of it, hit up the KSFO Tower feed at LiveATC.


Interfacility phone calls are on LiveATC?


Did I ever say they were? you're putting words in my mouth
again. You really do love to avoid answering questions posed to you,
don't you?


Now, I haven't visited KSQL so I don't know if they have BRITE, but from
my
tour of NCT, controllers there told us that it is done so the tower
knows who is who as they drop below the Class B floor.


What would be the point in telling aircraft to maintain their present beacon
code if SQL tower had no radar?


You definitely misunderstand and misconstrue. Read my quote
again. I say again, I have not visited SQL Tower, so I do not know if
they have radar or not. there's only so many times in which I will
repeat myself before I apply the Dilbert rule. you're coming close to
it.

So I say again. Why don't you ask them, as they are actively
doing this. I've supplied you the proof they do it, and the question is
being asked. You're the controller who says he has the answers. Well,
Britannica, let's have them.. Or should what you're saying go by the
way of Wikipedia as well?


For some they do
call the tower to let them know who is coming in (pending how the
traffic load is), some they don't. But it is a standard practice
happening at one of the busiest centralized TRACONs in the airspace.


More likely a misunderstanding on your part.


What I stated came from the controller working that airspace at
that time. But you would already know that, all the way from Green Bay,
wouldn't you. I'm sorry. Do us this then. I'll provide you the name of
the controller. Call up NCT, and have the ATM there fire the
controller. That will do that airspace a world of good. While you're at
it, since he more than likely came from OKC, fire everyone providing
the training as well.

Steven, for a long time, you've sounded like the typical ATC
pompous idiot, and you really have to wonder why people question you.
If you were to leave your attitude at work, where Green Bay TRACON is
rather busy, you'd get a better response, and provide a much better
understanding to pilots and controllers around these groups. In short,
grow up.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |

Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! |
http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFlC1myBkZmuMZ8L8RAkD9AKDQ3CHTPXQJI422HQvQ7/HW0MNgMgCbBY61
dLX9Vyj259hkt5akYdUg/II=
=YvxB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  #179  
Old December 28th 06, 11:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default IFR Cancellation Question

On 12/28/06 12:47, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


[ snip ]


Steven, for a long time, you've sounded like the typical ATC
pompous idiot, and you really have to wonder why people question you.
If you were to leave your attitude at work, where Green Bay TRACON is
rather busy, you'd get a better response, and provide a much better
understanding to pilots and controllers around these groups. In short,
grow up.


It's clear (to me) that Steven's purpose on the news groups is not the
advancement of knowledge.

It's fun to watch the jousting, though. I missed it while he was away.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lyc. O-360 cylinder question JB Owning 13 November 27th 04 10:32 PM
Handheld battery question RobsSanta General Aviation 8 September 19th 04 03:07 PM
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
Question Charles S Home Built 4 April 5th 04 09:10 PM
Partnership Question Harry Gordon Owning 4 August 16th 03 11:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.