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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Tom S. wrote:
"Icebound" wrote in message ogers.com... When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the "emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG. Cite? From the business pages: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969048863851 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C34921976 some quotes: "And so the giant Electronic Data Systems Corp., founded by Ross Perot but no longer run by that noisy patriot, now recruits $1.25-an-hour tech workers in India and sheds their $10-an-hour counterparts in EDS's home state of Texas. Wall Street brokerages including Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. are shifting from New York to India the ground-floor stock-research jobs that traditionally lead to plum analyst assignments. Both India and China are already well-known to recruiters from Intel Corp. and Microsoft Corp. Levi Strauss & Co. has just announced the closing of its remaining four North American plants, including three in Canada, and will shift all production to Asia and Latin America." |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:8yOqb.99886$275.275845@attbi_s53... Icebound wrote: Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from activists and scientists. Nope, sorry. A few tree huggers don't have the political power necessary to force down all these changes. Bull! See the fires in California last couple of weeks, as well as the Yellowstone fire a few years back, the fires in Colorado and Arizona last year... These are the same "progressives" that cleaned up the air and water everywhere but in the areas they control themselves. The same ones that Rachel Carlson gave the impetus to that still kills tens of millions a year. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
"Icebound" wrote in message e.rogers.com... Tom S. wrote: "Icebound" wrote in message ogers.com... When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the "emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG. Cite? From the business pages: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066428608401&call_pag eid=968350072197&col=969048863851 What a joke! Now that's funny!!! When you learn something other than what they shoved down your face in school, we'll discuss it. One person asked if someone was listening to talk radio, I guess this guy is listening to NPR! |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom S." wrote in message ... From the business pages: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066428608401&call_pag eid=968350072197&col=969048863851 A spurious appears in the above: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969048863851 |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:45:18 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:45:15 -0500, "Robert Henry" wrote: The instruction was terrible, but technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish That removes the controller training level from the risk equation. I thought you said that ATC was not protecting the ODP for an IFR departure. If so, there is an ATC training issue that will affect other pilots who do things by the book. No, sorry for the confusion. In the discussions that followed, the tower suggested that I inform them of my intentions to fly the ODP (which is similar to the circumstances originating this thread, right?), so that they could coordinate better. The implication was that in vmc RAPCON could vector arriving aircraft on the visual approach further away from the ODP so that there would not be a head to head situation. There was nothing to imply that the ODP was not being protected. That doesn't make sense to me. If the ODP is being protected, then a conflict will not arise. If a "head to head situation" arises, then the ODP was not being protected. Also, you previously wrote that "both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot if not issued" That is just not the case. An ODP never needs to be requested by the pilot. The pilot may fly it at his prerogative, unless alternate departure instructions have been received from ATC. Now, it is my position that the safer procedure would be for the tower to automatically issue departure heading instructions that are consistent with the ODP. It should be the case that any departure instructions issued by the tower are either consistent with the ODP *OR* with taking you over an area that is 40:1 clear. In some circumstances (although generally not a towered field), ATC is *required* to obtain pilot agreement to fly certain departure routes. I think we agree on that. (Frankly, I know now that my error was in expecting this to happen - AGAIN, a misconception (that I believe non-scientifically could be fairly common about the level of service one can expect at a towered airport in a radar environment on an IFR flight plan.) Now, when the pilot contacts departure, he can say, "...can we get on course?" Departure can say, "radar contact, but I cannot turn you on course until you reach MVA." If conditions warrant, the pilot can come back and say, "We will maintain our own terrain clearance, request on course." All things being equal, that could be approved as requested with an instruction to maintain visual terrain clearance. Approach control should NOT give you vectors below the MVA/MIA (with rare exceptions as noted above). However, if you say "...can we get on course?", ATC could certainly say "Proceed on course". They have not given you a vector, and you are still responsible for terrain clearance. If you say to ATC, "We'd like to ..." ATC will generally assume that you feel it is safe and legal for you to do so and that you are able to do so. Whether they allow it or not usually depends on factors other than terrain. Some of these factors include traffic and LOA's between facilities that may require you to be in a certain spot. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... That doesn't make sense to me. If the ODP is being protected, then a conflict will not arise. If a "head to head situation" arises, then the ODP was not being protected. Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? What protection would be provided? Radar services are not being provided to either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA. Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case, but there are no approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to protect. Also, you previously wrote that "both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot if not issued" That is just not the case. An ODP never needs to be requested by the pilot. The pilot may fly it at his prerogative, unless alternate departure instructions have been received from ATC. True. I think I overstated that. The idea was that they would hope that I would tell them of my intentions to fly the ODP to make things go more smoothly for all involved. I took this to mean that I really should have requested it, even though it's not required. Approach control should NOT give you vectors below the MVA/MIA (with rare exceptions as noted above). However, if you say "...can we get on course?", ATC could certainly say "Proceed on course". They have not given you a vector, and you are still responsible for terrain clearance. If you say to ATC, "We'd like to ..." ATC will generally assume that you feel it is safe and legal for you to do so and that you are able to do so. Whether they allow it or not usually depends on factors other than terrain. Some of these factors include traffic and LOA's between facilities that may require you to be in a certain spot. Absolutely, and until ATC and you concur on that course of action, I think proceeding according to the ODP is the ideal strategy to reach the enroute system. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Henry wrote: Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? What protection would be provided? Radar services are not being provided to either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA. Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case, but there are no approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to protect. IFR aircraft are always provided separation from each other until touchdown, the type of airspace does not matter. The fact that one aircraft is inside some kind of ring or below the MVA is not relavant. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:48:42 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote: Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? ATC is responsible for providing separation between IFR aircraft. IFR refers to the RULES under which the aircraft are flying and NOT to the weather conditions. What protection would be provided? Separation from other IFR traffic. Radar services are not being provided to either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA. I don't know what you mean by "the ring". But since when are radar services required for IFR traffic separation? Radar allows for less separation, but non-radar IFR regulations have been around for a long time. Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case Why and how? (Unless *both* aircraft report traffic in sight, and consent to "maintain visual separation") no approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to protect. But you are implying that they are NOT protecting this airspace unless the pilot specifically requests an ODP (something he is NOT required to do) when you talk about the possibility of "head to head" encounters. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Henry" wrote in message news:rIZqb.402$5e.280@lakeread06...
Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? No. IFR separation rules still apply. Aircraft operating under IFR in VMC must still be separated. They are not separated from aircraft operating VFR in VMC. What protection would be provided? IFR separation should still be provided Radar services are not being provided to either aircraft along the ODP If radar services can not be provided then the aircraft should be separated under non-radar rules. True. I think I overstated that. The idea was that they would hope that I would tell them of my intentions to fly the ODP to make things go more smoothly for all involved. I took this to mean that I really should have requested it, even though it's not required. Getting back to the original topic in the thread, it's clear that it's helpful to inform ATC of one's intentions. Cheers, Sydney |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:48:42 -0500, "Robert Henry" wrote: ATC is responsible for providing separation between IFR aircraft. IFR refers to the RULES under which the aircraft are flying and NOT to the weather conditions. Yes, but see and avoid applies to IFR also. I can now see that there is more to it than that. What protection would be provided? Separation from other IFR traffic. Sure, as long as the arrival remains IFR. If the arriving aircraft is cleared for the visual, the departing aircraft is probably not going to be released, and if the departing aircraft is released, the arriving aircraft is probably going to be given delaying / spacing vectors. If the arriving aircraft cancels IFR and proceeds direct to the field...that's different. Now, if the tower was expecting an easterly departure, and the aircraft proceeds west according to the ODP, then what? Radar services are not being provided to either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA. I don't know what you mean by "the ring". But since when are radar services required for IFR traffic separation? Radar allows for less separation, but non-radar IFR regulations have been around for a long time. Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case Why and how? because... there are no approaches that traverse this ODP, so in IMC there would be no truly VFR aircraft (we hope ) or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to protect. (Unless *both* aircraft report traffic in sight, and consent to "maintain visual separation") But you are implying that they are NOT protecting this airspace unless the pilot specifically requests an ODP (something he is NOT required to do) when you talk about the possibility of "head to head" encounters. No, the tower is saying, we don't know what you are going to do, so it'd be nice if you would tell us. Are you saying that the tower is responsible for protecting the ODP? I don't believe that's the case, else they wouldn't have to request a release. That said, I totally agree that since there is clearly ambiguity (tower thought: let's see, the aircraft has an easterly flight plan, but the ODP is westerly...I wonder which way he is going to turn after departure since he might be able to outfly the terrain over there visually?), I think the tower would be well advised to clarify. Instead, they have clearly stated that the pilot can do what he wants (just like you say - pilot prerogative), and they'll figure it out/react/respond accordingly. So as Sydney notes, it would be best to state intentions, but that would not have made any difference if I had hit the ground less than 3 minutes after departure. That's what I would like to prevent from happening to someone else. Let's get back to that. Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approaches with Center | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 104 | October 22nd 03 09:42 PM |
IFR Routing Toronto to Windsor (CYTZ - CYQG) | Rob Pesan | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 7th 03 01:50 PM |
required readback on clearance | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 04:33 PM |
Picking up a Clearance Airborne | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 03 01:31 AM |
Big John Bites Dicks (Security Clearance) | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 27 | August 21st 03 12:40 AM |