Some approaches have a note, "Procedure NA at night except by prior
arrangement for runway lights". Let's say I make this prior arrangement
(presumably by talking to the airport manager and having him leave the
lights on for me), how do I deal with ATC?

When I ask for the approach, is the controller going to ask me if I have
made "prior arrangement" for the lights? Is my say-so good enough for him,
or does he need to get some official notice from the airport manager saying
it's OK to let him run the approach?

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> Some approaches have a note, "Procedure NA at night except by prior
> arrangement for runway lights". Let's say I make this prior
> arrangement (presumably by talking to the airport manager and having
> him leave the lights on for me), how do I deal with ATC?
>
> When I ask for the approach, is the controller going to ask me if I
> have made "prior arrangement" for the lights? Is my say-so good
> enough for him, or does he need to get some official notice from the
> airport manager saying it's OK to let him run the approach?

IME, ATC assumes that if you ask for something, it's legal for you to do
it. They don't have the time to investigate that kind of thing.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

ATC could care less if you have lights.

KG

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Some approaches have a note, "Procedure NA at night except by prior
> arrangement for runway lights". Let's say I make this prior arrangement
> (presumably by talking to the airport manager and having him leave the
> lights on for me), how do I deal with ATC?
>
> When I ask for the approach, is the controller going to ask me if I have
> made "prior arrangement" for the lights? Is my say-so good enough for
> him,
> or does he need to get some official notice from the airport manager
> saying
> it's OK to let him run the approach?

Roy Smith wrote:

> Some approaches have a note, "Procedure NA at night except by prior
> arrangement for runway lights". Let's say I make this prior arrangement
> (presumably by talking to the airport manager and having him leave the
> lights on for me), how do I deal with ATC?
>
> When I ask for the approach, is the controller going to ask me if I have
> made "prior arrangement" for the lights? Is my say-so good enough for him,
> or does he need to get some official notice from the airport manager saying
> it's OK to let him run the approach?

As has been said here many times, ATC is neither a regulatory nor legal
interpretation entity. If he even asks, which is problematical, you tell him
it's been taken care of.

The only time ATC gets involved with authorizations for an approach is to deny
its use at night when it is not authorized at night. Or, to deny its use when
the airport is officially known to his ATC facility to be closed. Or, to
temporarily deny its use when there is a traffic conflict. Or, to deny its use
when the basic facility for ground-based-navigation is NOTAMed OTS.

And, he is not supposed to clear you for an approach that requires equipment
that you apparently do not have, as indicated by your equipment suffix.

That's about it. In the final analysis the regulatory requirements,
authorizations and limitations of the Part 97 IAP are between you and the
regulators at the FAA. Neither controllers nor ATC facilities are regulators
or regulatory functions of the FAA.

Not always. I was supprised when I ask for a "Pop Up" from Toledo, OH
the other day. I ask for a GPS approach and he ask if the plane was
IFR GPS equiped and current. I guess because there are so many VFR
GPSs. I said yes and that was that.

Chuck

In article . com>,
"Chuck" > wrote:

> Not always. I was supprised when I ask for a "Pop Up" from Toledo, OH
> the other day. I ask for a GPS approach and he ask if the plane was
> IFR GPS equiped and current. I guess because there are so many VFR
> GPSs. I said yes and that was that.

This caught my eye the other day:

!FDC 5/2548 FWN FI/T SUSSEX, SUSSEX, NJ.
VOR OR GPS-A AMDT 5B...
PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR IFR GPS-EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT.

I struck me as strange that they felt the need to explicitly state "IFR
GPS" for an approach procedure. And, even then, it's badly worded, since
there are plenty of IFR GPS units which are not approved for approaches.

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:35:10 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
> >In article . com>,
> > "Chuck" > wrote:
> >
> >> Not always. I was supprised when I ask for a "Pop Up" from Toledo, OH
> >> the other day. I ask for a GPS approach and he ask if the plane was
> >> IFR GPS equiped and current. I guess because there are so many VFR
> >> GPSs. I said yes and that was that.
> >
> >This caught my eye the other day:
> >
> >!FDC 5/2548 FWN FI/T SUSSEX, SUSSEX, NJ.
> > VOR OR GPS-A AMDT 5B...
> > PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR IFR GPS-EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT.
> >
> >I struck me as strange that they felt the need to explicitly state "IFR
> >GPS" for an approach procedure. And, even then, it's badly worded, since
> >there are plenty of IFR GPS units which are not approved for approaches.
>
>
> Are they not saying that it cannot be flown as a VOR approach without
> GPS, i. e., as in "ADF required"?
>
> In which case an approach-approved GPS would not be necessary?
>
> Necessary for the missed, perhaps?

I suspect the approach was flight checked and they discovered that the
radial isn't good, so they let you fly it as a GPS overlay, but not with
VOR for primary guidance. At least that's my guess.

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "Chuck" > wrote:
>
> > Not always. I was supprised when I ask for a "Pop Up" from Toledo, OH
> > the other day. I ask for a GPS approach and he ask if the plane was
> > IFR GPS equiped and current. I guess because there are so many VFR
> > GPSs. I said yes and that was that.
>
> This caught my eye the other day:
>
> !FDC 5/2548 FWN FI/T SUSSEX, SUSSEX, NJ.
> VOR OR GPS-A AMDT 5B...
> PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR IFR GPS-EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT.
>
> I struck me as strange that they felt the need to explicitly state "IFR
> GPS" for an approach procedure. And, even then, it's badly worded, since
> there are plenty of IFR GPS units which are not approved for approaches.

Part of the requirement is to be able to retrieve the approach from the
database. You can't do that with an IFR GPS unit that is not approved for
approaches. So, why would the FAA need to state the obvious?

As to their stating "IFR GPS-EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT" if they simply said
"GPS-EQUPPED AIRCRAFT" some airport jailhouse lawyer would point to it as
implicit authorization to fly the approach with a Garmin hand-held.

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article . com>,
> "Chuck" > wrote:
>
> > Not always. I was supprised when I ask for a "Pop Up" from Toledo, OH
> > the other day. I ask for a GPS approach and he ask if the plane was
> > IFR GPS equiped and current. I guess because there are so many VFR
> > GPSs. I said yes and that was that.
>
> This caught my eye the other day:
>
> !FDC 5/2548 FWN FI/T SUSSEX, SUSSEX, NJ.
> VOR OR GPS-A AMDT 5B...
> PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR IFR GPS-EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT.
>
> I struck me as strange that they felt the need to explicitly state "IFR
> GPS" for an approach procedure. And, even then, it's badly worded, since
> there are plenty of IFR GPS units which are not approved for approaches.

I think what they are saying is that the VOR is not usable for the
approach. You can't even shoot the VOR and use the VFR GPS as a
backup.

-Robert