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 » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old October 28th 06, 03:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 660
Default Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")


"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
m...

You mean that they will handle IFR traffic up to that altitude not that
their controlled space goes up that high. The charted space for Madison is
up to 4900 (or something close, I'm not looking at the chart). If I pass
overhead of that or under or around, I will monitor but not bother them.
However, Madison controllers are extremely accomodating. I have never had
them vector me at all. The only time that even came close was a "...
transition approved. Cross directly over the airport to stay clear of
traffic."


I meant what I wrote. The controlled airspace delegated to Madison approach
control does not appear on any chart readily available to the flying public.
The charted Madison Class C airspace is just a fraction of their delegated
airspace. Madison will provide Class C services to all aircraft within the
Class C airspace and to all participating aircraft within the outer area.
The outer area extends up to the upper limit of the controlled airspace
delegated to them within a twenty mile radius of Truax Field. If you're
talking to Madison approach within that area you're a participating aircraft
and are subject to being vectored if need be to effect separation.



Milwaukee, on the other hand, seem very territorial. They are difficult to
deal with for practice approaches at Kenosha and they aggressively protect
their airspace around MKE by vectoring VFR traffic well clear. Many years
ago, I was passing along the lakeshore under their airspace. I called up
as a courtesy, got a squawk, then a chewing out for flying so close to
their airspace, then vectors further out into Lake Michigan. I responded,
"Lake 94P, squawking 1200, will remain clear of your airspace." I've never
called them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than
the protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
cooperation, they need to be nice about it


He was completely out of line to chew you out for flying close to the Class
C boundary. You can fly right up to the boundary without talking to them.
But what courtesy were you extending by calling them?


 




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
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder John Doe Piloting 145 March 31st 06 07:58 PM
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? Rick Umali Piloting 29 February 15th 06 05:40 AM
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? Ric Home Built 2 September 13th 05 10:39 PM
Real World Specs for FS 2004 Paul H. Simulators 16 August 18th 03 10:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.