I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane. At
no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR shooting
a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class D airport.
The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet five miles before the FAF
for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at 4,000 and stay
within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the authority to tell
him no?

--

Wyatt Emmerich
President, Emmerich Newspapers
601-977-0470

PO Box 16709, Jackson MS 39236
Shipping: 246 Briarwood Drive, Suite 101, Jackson MS 39206

Sure, you are PIC, magic word is "'unable" as "Unable 2,000 now, due to
safety of flight, have traffic in sight, will maintain visual"

But the controller is required to provide separation for participating
traffic, so you may well be told to turn left heading 260, vectors for
sequencing, expect 20 minute delay for traffic.



"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
| I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane. At
| no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR
shooting
| a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class D airport.
| The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet five miles before the
FAF
| for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at 4,000 and stay
| within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the authority to
tell
| him no?
|
| --
|
| Wyatt Emmerich
| President, Emmerich Newspapers
| 601-977-0470
|
| PO Box 16709, Jackson MS 39236
| Shipping: 246 Briarwood Drive, Suite 101, Jackson MS 39206
|
|

On Dec 17, 7:45 pm, "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:
> I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane. At
> no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR shooting
> a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class D airport.
> The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet

You don't say what approach you are doing, but if you are at 4000, and
5 miles from Brenz, then there is no way in haydes you are doing a
"practice approach" assuming you are doing an ILS into 16.

As Jim sez, you are the boss, and my experiences with KJAN is that
they will give you what you want, but their standard altitude is 2000
until established for all approaches from the north. From the south,
it's higher due to the antenna farm..

I shoot the ILS 16 all the time over there and depending on the
ceilings, will request 3000 to get IMC time when ceilings dictate.

I bet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHC-s9cl8cE will look might
familiar :-) as I worked the dickens out of Brenz LOL

http://www.youtube.com/BeechSundowner, I am sure will bring home
memories as I have KJAN, KMBO and KHKS approaches, both VFR and IFR
for all three airports as well as other airports in and out of
Mississippi.

Allen
(based in KMBO)

You're not seriously practicing an approach under these circumstances.



Wyatt Emmerich wrote:

> I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane. At
> no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR shooting
> a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class D airport.
> The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet five miles before the FAF
> for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at 4,000 and stay
> within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the authority to tell
> him no?
>

Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound leg.
The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then Gugwa,
which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am single
engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound from the
IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the runway, so
4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver Eagle with a
turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like the structure of
an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to 2,000
while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic that
is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind, I'd
like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend for
traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually. Will
maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his command
that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he going to
report me to the FSDO?



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> You're not seriously practicing an approach under these circumstances.
>
>
>
> Wyatt Emmerich wrote:
>
>> I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane.
>> At no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR
>> shooting a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class
>> D airport. The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet five miles
>> before the FAF for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at
>> 4,000 and stay within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the
>> authority to tell him no?
>>

Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from running
into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as concerned
about my safety if my engine quits. That's my point: I know where the
antennas are. And I have the traffic on TIS or visually. The only thing I'm
really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But the
controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was downright
determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.


> wrote in message
...
> On Dec 17, 7:45 pm, "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:
>> I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane.
>> At
>> no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR
>> shooting
>> a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class D
>> airport.
>> The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet
>
> You don't say what approach you are doing, but if you are at 4000, and
> 5 miles from Brenz, then there is no way in haydes you are doing a
> "practice approach" assuming you are doing an ILS into 16.
>
> As Jim sez, you are the boss, and my experiences with KJAN is that
> they will give you what you want, but their standard altitude is 2000
> until established for all approaches from the north. From the south,
> it's higher due to the antenna farm..
>
> I shoot the ILS 16 all the time over there and depending on the
> ceilings, will request 3000 to get IMC time when ceilings dictate.
>
> I bet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHC-s9cl8cE will look might
> familiar :-) as I worked the dickens out of Brenz LOL
>
> http://www.youtube.com/BeechSundowner, I am sure will bring home
> memories as I have KJAN, KMBO and KHKS approaches, both VFR and IFR
> for all three airports as well as other airports in and out of
> Mississippi.
>
> Allen
> (based in KMBO)

wrote:

> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from running
> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as concerned
> about my safety if my engine quits.


Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
engine airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at
the marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.



That's my point: I know where the
> antennas are.

Irrelevant.


And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.


TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
aircraft was the sole reason.



The only thing I'm
> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But the
> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was downright
> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.





You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
Then you'll have to go VFR.

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane. At
> no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR
> shooting a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class D
> airport. The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet five miles
> before the FAF for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at
> 4,000 and stay within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the
> authority to tell him no?
>

You can tell him you have the traffic in sight, then he can assign visual
separation and there's no reason for him to push you down.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure, you are PIC, magic word is "'unable" as "Unable 2,000 now, due to
> safety of flight, have traffic in sight, will maintain visual"
>
> But the controller is required to provide separation for participating
> traffic, so you may well be told to turn left heading 260, vectors for
> sequencing, expect 20 minute delay for traffic.
>

In Class C airspace all traffic is participating traffic.

> wrote in message
...
>
> You don't say what approach you are doing, but if you are at 4000, and
> 5 miles from Brenz, then there is no way in haydes you are doing a
> "practice approach" assuming you are doing an ILS into 16.
>

Five miles from BRENZ would put him in Class E airspace, he said he was in
Class C airspace.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
> involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
> leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
> Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am
> single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound
> from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
> runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver
> Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like
> the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
> emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
> doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
> descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway,
> for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you
> don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do
> mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have
> traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry
> way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding distance.
> Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?
>

You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
remain clear of Class C airspace.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
> you'll have to go VFR.
>

He was VFR.

On Dec 17, 10:26 pm, > wrote:
> At night, I like the structure of
> an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
> Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
> controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to 2,000
> while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic that
> is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind, I'd
> like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend for
> traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually. Will
> maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his command
> that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he going to
> report me to the FSDO?

With all that technology and you had an agenda / flight profile of
your own, and you didn't want or need ATC assistance, why even bother
calling in for VFR flight following? Navigate as you see fit and just
call into Hawkins tower.

Allen

That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes into
Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.

It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always got
the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into Hawkins
which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining power.
However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I supposed
it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole complaint is that
they ignored my very understandable desire to stay within glide distance,
which really shouldn't have been a problem for them. It was as though I were
inconveniencing them by flying the approach differently, wanting to stay
higher until the FAF.

Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was told
"unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to what?
I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a thing.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS. This
>> involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
>> leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
>> Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I am
>> single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance. Outbound
>> from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
>> runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a Silver
>> Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I like
>> the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
>> emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
>> doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
>> descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the
>> runway, for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say,
>> "If you don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller
>> says, "I do mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend
>> yet. Have traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue on
>> my merry way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding
>> distance. Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?
>>
>
> You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
> remain clear of Class C airspace.
>

You're right. I've just always felt like talking to approach was the good
citizen thing to do. But if they don't care about my personal safety
concerns, then maybe I should just operate independently.

Jog by memory. What are my requirements to enter Class D. If I recall, I
just have to make radio contact with the tower. What happens when the tower
is closed.

It's so rare I fly outside the system.


> wrote in message
...
> On Dec 17, 10:26 pm, > wrote:
>> At night, I like the structure of
>> an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
>> Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
>> controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to
>> 2,000
>> while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic
>> that
>> is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind, I'd
>> like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend
>> for
>> traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually. Will
>> maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his
>> command
>> that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he going
>> to
>> report me to the FSDO?
>
> With all that technology and you had an agenda / flight profile of
> your own, and you didn't want or need ATC assistance, why even bother
> calling in for VFR flight following? Navigate as you see fit and just
> call into Hawkins tower.
>
> Allen

If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good chance of
missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in Mississippi. At
night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you are
forced to land.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Newps" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Who's Boss?


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from running
>> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as concerned
>> about my safety if my engine quits.
>
>
> Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
> airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
> critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single engine
> airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
> marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
>
>
>
> That's my point: I know where the
>> antennas are.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
> And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
>
>
> TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
> aircraft was the sole reason.
>
>
>
> The only thing I'm
>> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But the
>> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was downright
>> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
>
>
>
>
>
> You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
> you'll have to go VFR.
>
>

It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers) don't
consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
safety issue.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from running
>> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as concerned
>> about my safety if my engine quits.
>
>
> Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
> airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
> critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single engine
> airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
> marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
>
>
>
> That's my point: I know where the
>> antennas are.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
> And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
>
>
> TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
> aircraft was the sole reason.
>
>
>
> The only thing I'm
>> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But the
>> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was downright
>> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
>
>
>
>
>
> You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
> you'll have to go VFR.
>
>

Visit the facility and talk. They will tell what they do and why and you
can explain you r concerns.

BTW, if you are THAT worried, about an engine failure at night or in the day
for that matter, buy a twin and get very good instruction. Unless you are
over some very hostile terrain, like Chicago near Midway, and you are not
stretching fuel, an engine failure is not a serious problem that you will
solve with an extra 1,000 feet.



> wrote in message
...
| That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes
into
| Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.
|
| It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
| approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always
got
| the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into
Hawkins
| which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining power.
| However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I supposed
| it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole complaint is that
| they ignored my very understandable desire to stay within glide distance,
| which really shouldn't have been a problem for them. It was as though I
were
| inconveniencing them by flying the approach differently, wanting to stay
| higher until the FAF.
|
| Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
| flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was
told
| "unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to what?
| I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a thing.
|
|
| "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > > wrote in message
| > ...
| >>
| >> Let me elaborate: First of all, I am shooting the GPS 16 into KHKS.
This
| >> involves going to Ocaro and then doing a semi-hold prior to the inbound
| >> leg. The inbound leg is Ocaro, which is about ten miles from HKS, then
| >> Gugwa, which is five miles (I guess co-located to Brenz.) Remember, I
am
| >> single engine so my whole goal is to stay within glide distance.
Outbound
| >> from the IAF of Ocaro in the pre-approach hold, I am 13 miles from the
| >> runway, so 4000 is where I want to be if my engine fails. I fly a
Silver
| >> Eagle with a turbine, so a rapid descent is no problem. At night, I
like
| >> the structure of an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an
| >> emergency glide. Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by
| >> doing so, the controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to
| >> descend to 2,000 while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the
| >> runway, for traffic that is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I
say,
| >> "If you don't mind, I'd like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller
| >> says, "I do mind. Descend for traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend
| >> yet. Have traffic visually. Will maintain seperation." Can I continue
on
| >> my merry way and ignore his command that I descend below a safe gliding
| >> distance. Or is he going is he going to report me to the FSDO?
| >>
| >
| > You're VFR in Class E airspace, if you're not happy tell him bye-bye and
| > remain clear of Class C airspace.
| >
|
|

When the tower is closed, use the tower CTAF, which is the tower freq
[towers with multiple freq, check the AIM.



> wrote in message
. ..
| You're right. I've just always felt like talking to approach was the good
| citizen thing to do. But if they don't care about my personal safety
| concerns, then maybe I should just operate independently.
|
| Jog by memory. What are my requirements to enter Class D. If I recall, I
| just have to make radio contact with the tower. What happens when the
tower
| is closed.
|
| It's so rare I fly outside the system.
|
|
| > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Dec 17, 10:26 pm, > wrote:
| >> At night, I like the structure of
| >> an instrument approach, but I want the altitude for an emergency glide.
| >> Maybe I shouldn't call it a "practice approach" but by doing so, the
| >> controller knows where I am going and why. He asked me to descend to
| >> 2,000
| >> while I am outbound from Ocaro, 13 miles from the runway, for traffic
| >> that
| >> is not a threat an clearly visible to me. I say, "If you don't mind,
I'd
| >> like to stay higher until Gugwa." Controller says, "I do mind. Descend
| >> for
| >> traffic." So if I say "Unable to descend yet. Have traffic visually.
Will
| >> maintain seperation." Can I continue on my merry way and ignore his
| >> command
| >> that I descend below a safe gliding distance. Or is he going is he
going
| >> to
| >> report me to the FSDO?
| >
| > With all that technology and you had an agenda / flight profile of
| > your own, and you didn't want or need ATC assistance, why even bother
| > calling in for VFR flight following? Navigate as you see fit and just
| > call into Hawkins tower.
| >
| > Allen
|
|

Turn on the landing light at 200 feet, if you don't like what you see, turn
it off.

That is why they sell twins. But if you are not very well trained and
current, twins crash out of control and have a fatal rate worse than the
singles. Of course every engine failure in a single probably is reported
and only the accidents get reported in twins.


> wrote in message
...
| If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
| ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good chance
of
| missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in Mississippi. At
| night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you are
| forced to land.
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Newps" >
| Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
| Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
| Subject: Re: Who's Boss?
|
|
| "Newps" > wrote in message
| . ..
| >
| >
| > wrote:
| >
| >> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
running
| >> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
concerned
| >> about my safety if my engine quits.
| >
| >
| > Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
| > airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
| > critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
engine
| > airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
| > marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
| >
| >
| >
| > That's my point: I know where the
| >> antennas are.
| >
| > Irrelevant.
| >
| >
| > And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
| >
| >
| > TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
| > aircraft was the sole reason.
| >
| >
| >
| > The only thing I'm
| >> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But
the
| >> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
downright
| >> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
Then
| > you'll have to go VFR.
| >
| >
|
|

They will vector you over the Atlantic Ocean even if you don't have
flotation gear too.

Better stop night flights, stay away from swamps, mountains, oceans, lakes,
cities or get good maintenance, buy plenty of fuel and study the area.



> wrote in message
...
| It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers)
don't
| consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
| traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
| sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
| obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
| safety issue.
|
|
| "Newps" > wrote in message
| . ..
| >
| >
| > wrote:
| >
| >> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
running
| >> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
concerned
| >> about my safety if my engine quits.
| >
| >
| > Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
| > airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
| > critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
engine
| > airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
| > marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
| >
| >
| >
| > That's my point: I know where the
| >> antennas are.
| >
| > Irrelevant.
| >
| >
| > And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
| >
| >
| > TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
| > aircraft was the sole reason.
| >
| >
| >
| > The only thing I'm
| >> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But
the
| >> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
downright
| >> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
Then
| > you'll have to go VFR.
| >
| >
|
|

> wrote in message
...
>
> That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes
> into Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.
>

GUGWA looks to be about 2 miles from the Class C boundary, you don't need to
enter Class C airspace at all on that approach.


>
> It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
> approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always
> got the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into
> Hawkins which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining
> power. However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I
> supposed it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole complaint
> is that they ignored my very understandable desire to stay within glide
> distance, which really shouldn't have been a problem for them. It was as
> though I were inconveniencing them by flying the approach differently,
> wanting to stay higher until the FAF.
>
> Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
> flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was
> told "unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to
> what? I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a
> thing.
>

It could only mean they're unable to provide separation from IFR aircraft in
the outer area. So tell them good day and continue with your plans, staying
outside of Class C airspace.

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> Jog by memory. What are my requirements to enter Class D. If I recall, I
> just have to make radio contact with the tower. What happens when the
> tower is closed.
>

The field is uncontrolled and tower frequency is CTAF.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:38:23 -0600, > wrote:

>It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers) don't
>consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
>traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
>sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
>obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
>safety issue.
>
>

You would think that someone would calculate the probability of having
an engine failure during the last 6 minutes of a flight.

Not much of a safety issue, I'm afraid.

Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
about departure rules on the instrument written.

Now there's a safety issue...




>"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from running
>>> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as concerned
>>> about my safety if my engine quits.
>>
>>
>> Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
>> airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
>> critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single engine
>> airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
>> marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's my point: I know where the
>>> antennas are.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
>>
>>
>> TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
>> aircraft was the sole reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only thing I'm
>>> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But the
>>> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was downright
>>> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide? Then
>> you'll have to go VFR.
>>
>>
>

True, but it cuts it pretty close. But you can't avoid class C shooting the
GPS 34 into the other runway.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That's interesting. The GPS 16 approach starts off in Class E then goes
>> into Class C at above 1700 just past the Gugwa (or Brenz) FAF.
>>
>
> GUGWA looks to be about 2 miles from the Class C boundary, you don't need
> to enter Class C airspace at all on that approach.
>
>
>>
>> It looks like I could shoot the whole approach without talking to Jackson
>> approach, although it would be very close. That being said, I've always
>> got the feeling that I should be talking to Jackson approach going into
>> Hawkins which is in Class C. I guess that gives me a little bargaining
>> power. However, I have to deal with these controllers all the time and I
>> supposed it's not wise to irritate them in this manner. My whole
>> complaint is that they ignored my very understandable desire to stay
>> within glide distance, which really shouldn't have been a problem for
>> them. It was as though I were inconveniencing them by flying the approach
>> differently, wanting to stay higher until the FAF.
>>
>> Lately, I get the feeling that the Jackson controllers are overwhelmed. I
>> flew in tonight, asked for the GPS 16 VFR by my own navigation and was
>> told "unable" when 20 miles out. What the heck does that mean? Unable to
>> what? I'm flying the whole thing myself VFR. They don't have to do a
>> thing.
>>
>
> It could only mean they're unable to provide separation from IFR aircraft
> in the outer area. So tell them good day and continue with your plans,
> staying outside of Class C airspace.
>

Given that my one engine is a turbine, the odds of an engine failure during
this tiny time span is infintesimal. The Allison B17F has a failure rate, at
most, of once per 200,000 hours. (Based on the FAA stats on the Bell
helicopters which use thise engine.) Since I fly only ten percent of my time
at night, that boosts the probablity to one in two million. If you consider
that I am outside of glide range only ten percent of my night routes, that
boosts the odds of an engine failure at night outside of glide range to one
in twenty million.

So this is a bit of an intellectual argument. Nevertheless, I enjoy always
having an "out" when I fly no matter how small the odds. I admit this whole
issue is a bit compulsive, but that's one reason I enjoy flying.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Turn on the landing light at 200 feet, if you don't like what you see,
> turn
> it off.
>
> That is why they sell twins. But if you are not very well trained and
> current, twins crash out of control and have a fatal rate worse than the
> singles. Of course every engine failure in a single probably is reported
> and only the accidents get reported in twins.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> | If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
> | ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good
> chance
> of
> | missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in Mississippi.
> At
> | night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you are
> | forced to land.
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Newps" >
> | Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
> | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
> | Subject: Re: Who's Boss?
> |
> |
> | "Newps" > wrote in message
> | . ..
> | >
> | >
> | > wrote:
> | >
> | >> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
> running
> | >> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
> concerned
> | >> about my safety if my engine quits.
> | >
> | >
> | > Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
> | > airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
> | > critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
> engine
> | > airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
> | > marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > That's my point: I know where the
> | >> antennas are.
> | >
> | > Irrelevant.
> | >
> | >
> | > And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
> | >
> | >
> | > TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
> | > aircraft was the sole reason.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > The only thing I'm
> | >> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But
> the
> | >> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
> downright
> | >> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
> Then
> | > you'll have to go VFR.
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

Given that my one engine is a turbine, the odds of an engine failure during
this tiny time span is infintesimal. The Allison B17F has a failure rate, at
most, of once per 200,000 hours. (Based on the FAA stats on the Bell
helicopters which use thise engine.) Since I fly only ten percent of my time
at night, that boosts the probablity to one in two million. If you consider
that I am outside of glide range only ten percent of my night routes, that
boosts the odds of an engine failure at night outside of glide range to one
in twenty million.

So this is a bit of an intellectual argument. Nevertheless, I enjoy always
having an "out" when I fly no matter how small the odds. I admit this whole
issue is a bit compulsive, but that's one reason I enjoy flying
> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:38:23 -0600, > wrote:
>
>>It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers)
>>don't
>>consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
>>traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
>>sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
>>obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
>>safety issue.
>>
>>
>
> You would think that someone would calculate the probability of having
> an engine failure during the last 6 minutes of a flight.
>
> Not much of a safety issue, I'm afraid.
>
> Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
> approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
> about departure rules on the instrument written.
>
> Now there's a safety issue...
>
>
>
>
>>"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
>>>> running
>>>> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
>>>> concerned
>>>> about my safety if my engine quits.
>>>
>>>
>>> Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
>>> airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's that
>>> critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
>>> engine
>>> airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
>>> marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's my point: I know where the
>>>> antennas are.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
>>>
>>>
>>> TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
>>> aircraft was the sole reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only thing I'm
>>>> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies. But
>>>> the
>>>> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
>>>> downright
>>>> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
>>> Then
>>> you'll have to go VFR.
>>>
>>>
>>

Rather than shoot the approach as published, I guess I could just program
the GPS 16 with vectors and do my own vectors. This would allow me to
descend slighly to the west of the Class C airspace, then intercept the GPS
or ILS glideslope and lateral guidance as I got closer to the airport. (I
have a healthy respect for the black hole illusion.) As far as the
controller is concerned, I'm just shooting my own visual approach. If he
interferes, I just cancel following an squak VFR.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm flying into my home base KHKS at night in a single engine airplane.
>> At no point have I been outside of glide range to an airport. I am VFR
>> shooting a practice full approach in Class C airspace going into a Class
>> D airport. The controller wants me to descend to 2,000 feet five miles
>> before the FAF for traffic (which I can plainly see.) I want to stay at
>> 4,000 and stay within glide range and descend more slowly. Do I have the
>> authority to tell him no?
>>
>
> You can tell him you have the traffic in sight, then he can assign visual
> separation and there's no reason for him to push you down.
>

wrote:

> It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers) don't
> consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
> traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
> sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
> obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
> safety issue.
>

Well, look at the numbers. How many loss of power accidents on
approaches do we have? The answer, statistically, is zero. There's
lots of things to worry about. That just isn't one of them. If it was
a big deal you'd hear about it.

Did you figure your glide with the prop feathered? In the King Air, with
the PT6, you can have the engines running at idle and feather both props to
see what the glide is like. [I would not do this below 5,000 feet AGL] and
I'd be over a big airport.

The primary cause of engine failure is fuel starvation due to empty tanks.



> wrote in message
. ..
| Given that my one engine is a turbine, the odds of an engine failure
during
| this tiny time span is infintesimal. The Allison B17F has a failure rate,
at
| most, of once per 200,000 hours. (Based on the FAA stats on the Bell
| helicopters which use thise engine.) Since I fly only ten percent of my
time
| at night, that boosts the probablity to one in two million. If you
consider
| that I am outside of glide range only ten percent of my night routes, that
| boosts the odds of an engine failure at night outside of glide range to
one
| in twenty million.
|
| So this is a bit of an intellectual argument. Nevertheless, I enjoy always
| having an "out" when I fly no matter how small the odds. I admit this
whole
| issue is a bit compulsive, but that's one reason I enjoy flying.
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Turn on the landing light at 200 feet, if you don't like what you see,
| > turn
| > it off.
| >
| > That is why they sell twins. But if you are not very well trained and
| > current, twins crash out of control and have a fatal rate worse than the
| > singles. Of course every engine failure in a single probably is
reported
| > and only the accidents get reported in twins.
| >
| >
| > > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
| > | ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good
| > chance
| > of
| > | missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in
Mississippi.
| > At
| > | night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you
are
| > | forced to land.
| > |
| > | ----- Original Message -----
| > | From: "Newps" >
| > | Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
| > | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
| > | Subject: Re: Who's Boss?
| > |
| > |
| > | "Newps" > wrote in message
| > | . ..
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > wrote:
| > | >
| > | >> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
| > running
| > | >> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
| > concerned
| > | >> about my safety if my engine quits.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
| > | > airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's
that
| > | > critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
| > engine
| > | > airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
| > | > marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > That's my point: I know where the
| > | >> antennas are.
| > | >
| > | > Irrelevant.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
| > | > aircraft was the sole reason.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > The only thing I'm
| > | >> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies.
But
| > the
| > | >> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
| > downright
| > | >> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
| > Then
| > | > you'll have to go VFR.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

Sounds like you think the entire IFR system should be revamp to make
sure single-engine aircraft are "safe" at all times.

Your ideas are absurd, to say the least.

wrote:
> It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers) don't
> consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when directing
> traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide distances way
> sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about terrain,
> obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have raised this
> safety issue.

I don't know whether such stats are kept, but I suspect many more light
aircraft crash in IMC on approach than on departure.

wrote:

>
> Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
> approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
> about departure rules on the instrument written.
>
> Now there's a safety issue...
>
>
>

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:19:11 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Did you figure your glide with the prop feathered? In the King Air, with
>the PT6, you can have the engines running at idle and feather both props to
>see what the glide is like. [I would not do this below 5,000 feet AGL] and
>I'd be over a big airport.
>
>The primary cause of engine failure is fuel starvation due to empty tanks.
>
>

In which case it is usually a case of brain failure, not engine
failure...



>
> wrote in message
. ..
>| Given that my one engine is a turbine, the odds of an engine failure
>during
>| this tiny time span is infintesimal. The Allison B17F has a failure rate,
>at
>| most, of once per 200,000 hours. (Based on the FAA stats on the Bell
>| helicopters which use thise engine.) Since I fly only ten percent of my
>time
>| at night, that boosts the probablity to one in two million. If you
>consider
>| that I am outside of glide range only ten percent of my night routes, that
>| boosts the odds of an engine failure at night outside of glide range to
>one
>| in twenty million.
>|
>| So this is a bit of an intellectual argument. Nevertheless, I enjoy always
>| having an "out" when I fly no matter how small the odds. I admit this
>whole
>| issue is a bit compulsive, but that's one reason I enjoy flying.
>|
>|
>| "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>| ...
>| > Turn on the landing light at 200 feet, if you don't like what you see,
>| > turn
>| > it off.
>| >
>| > That is why they sell twins. But if you are not very well trained and
>| > current, twins crash out of control and have a fatal rate worse than the
>| > singles. Of course every engine failure in a single probably is
>reported
>| > and only the accidents get reported in twins.
>| >
>| >
>| > > wrote in message
>| > ...
>| > | If I'm in IMC I can still find see what I'm crashing into (unless the
>| > | ceilings are really, really low). In daylight, there's a very good
>| > chance
>| > of
>| > | missing the trees and finding a field or road, at least in
>Mississippi.
>| > At
>| > | night (and this was a moonless night) it's hard to see much when you
>are
>| > | forced to land.
>| > |
>| > | ----- Original Message -----
>| > | From: "Newps" >
>| > | Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
>| > | Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 PM
>| > | Subject: Re: Who's Boss?
>| > |
>| > |
>| > | "Newps" > wrote in message
>| > | . ..
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | > wrote:
>| > | >
>| > | >> Correct. 2000 from the north, 3700 from the south to keep me from
>| > running
>| > | >> into an antenna. But the controllers don't seem to be nearly as
>| > concerned
>| > | >> about my safety if my engine quits.
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | > Controllers separate you from aircraft, terrain, obstructions and
>| > | > airspace. Your engine quitting is not a concern to ATC. If it's
>that
>| > | > critical for you IFR flight will be problematic at best in a single
>| > engine
>| > | > airplane. A typical approach will have you at about 1800 AGL at the
>| > | > marker/FAF. You're not coasting in from there.
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | > That's my point: I know where the
>| > | >> antennas are.
>| > | >
>| > | > Irrelevant.
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | > And I have the traffic on TIS or visually.
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | > TIS is irrelevant for separation. And you don't know that the other
>| > | > aircraft was the sole reason.
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | > The only thing I'm
>| > | >> really worried about is gliding to the airport if my engine dies.
>But
>| > the
>| > | >> controllers seem oblivious to my real concern. And this guy was
>| > downright
>| > | >> determined to make me descend below my power-off glide altitude.
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > | > You're IFR so certain rules and procedures will apply. Can't abide?
>| > Then
>| > | > you'll have to go VFR.
>| > | >
>| > | >
>| > |
>| > |
>| >
>| >
>|
>|
>

Maybe so.

I misspoke.

I meant to say that departures very likely killed more people than
engine failures on instrument approaches.





On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:50:23 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>I don't know whether such stats are kept, but I suspect many more light
>aircraft crash in IMC on approach than on departure.
>
wrote:
>
>>
>> Instrument departures most likely kill more people than instrument
>> approaches, and the FAA , I believe, does not even have a question
>> about departure rules on the instrument written.
>>
>> Now there's a safety issue...
>>
>>
>>

Absurd is such a strong word.

I don't want to change the entire IFR system. I just want the controller to
cut me some slack and let me stay higher until I'm a bit closer to the
runway at night. That being said, the comments on this newsgroup, once
again, have educated me and helped me figure out a better way of achieving
what I want. I realize now I have several other options: One being not
talking to approach when landing on 16. The other, staying VFR with
following and self vectoring to the FAF which will allow me to use the
glideslope information without triggering the set of controller responses
which ensues when I ask for a "practice approach."

Thanks for you help. Didn't mean to be absurd.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Sounds like you think the entire IFR system should be revamp to make sure
> single-engine aircraft are "safe" at all times.
>
> Your ideas are absurd, to say the least.
>
> wrote:
>> It's interesting that the our instrument approaches (and controllers)
>> don't consider single engine power outages and glide ratios when
>> directing traffic. Many approaches have you descending below glide
>> distances way sooner than need be. With all the worry and concern about
>> terrain, obstacles, seperation, etc. you'd think somebody would have
>> raised this safety issue.

On Dec 19, 10:52 pm, > wrote:

> The other, staying VFR with
> following and self vectoring to the FAF which will allow me to use the
> glideslope information without triggering the set of controller responses
> which ensues when I ask for a "practice approach."

You still need to tell the controller your intentions if you want to
be a "good neighbor" that you are not going direct to the airport if
you are not doing a straight in approach.

The controller is expecting you to go direct to the airport VFR, not
putz around IFR fixes. He may have an IFR plane needing that fix and
if you don't tell him, it may mess up his planning stages.

Probably the two most logical options are either squawk, talk and
comply (without compromising safety) or just go without the squawk and
talk part and do your thing.

Allen

On Dec 19, 9:32 am, > wrote:
>
>True, but it cuts it pretty close.
>

It's 1.92 NM from GUGWA to the ten mile Class C ring. A three degree
glidepath begun at GUGWA would put you at about 1300 MSL at the ten
mile ring, 400' below Class C airspace. A constant descent begun at
GUGWA so as to reach the MDA at IHUZU would put you about 1500 MSL at
the ten mile ring, 200' below Class C airspace. Not close at all.

Something like: "210BA requests Gugwa then Hawkins 16"?


> wrote in message
...
> On Dec 19, 10:52 pm, > wrote:
>
>> The other, staying VFR with
>> following and self vectoring to the FAF which will allow me to use the
>> glideslope information without triggering the set of controller responses
>> which ensues when I ask for a "practice approach."
>
> You still need to tell the controller your intentions if you want to
> be a "good neighbor" that you are not going direct to the airport if
> you are not doing a straight in approach.
>
> The controller is expecting you to go direct to the airport VFR, not
> putz around IFR fixes. He may have an IFR plane needing that fix and
> if you don't tell him, it may mess up his planning stages.
>
> Probably the two most logical options are either squawk, talk and
> comply (without compromising safety) or just go without the squawk and
> talk part and do your thing.
>
> Allen

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> Rather than shoot the approach as published, I guess I could just program
> the GPS 16 with vectors and do my own vectors. This would allow me to
> descend slighly to the west of the Class C airspace, then intercept the
> GPS or ILS glideslope and lateral guidance as I got closer to the airport.
> (I have a healthy respect for the black hole illusion.) As far as the
> controller is concerned, I'm just shooting my own visual approach. If he
> interferes, I just cancel following an squak VFR.
>

Why contact ATC in the first place you're going to refuse the service?

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> Something like: "210BA requests Gugwa then Hawkins 16"?
>

More like "210BA proceeding to Hawkins via GUGWA."

Perfect. Thanks.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Something like: "210BA requests Gugwa then Hawkins 16"?
>>
>
> More like "210BA proceeding to Hawkins via GUGWA."
>

Well . . . I want to be in contact with them because they are trying to
manage the airspace. I don't want to be rude. I know at least two of these
controllers personally. Sort of like knocking on the door before walking in,
but I want to leave if they start making me do something I don't want to.
The problem is that once you accept the invitation to the party, it's rude
to start trying to changing the itinerary. On the other hand, they know me.
I am based there. I am friends with a couple of the controllers. For me to
fly so close to their airspace unannounced is bad manners. My controller
friends oblige, but there are a few guys who don't seem to give a rat's ass.
Anyway, there's no real answer, but seeking it has enhanced my understanding
of the process. Thanks.

I'm reminded of a time I was flying through very busy Tampa airpace. The
controller wanted to vector me 30 miles offshore into an icing layer and got
irritated when I declined. It led me to coin the phrase, "Request vectors to
a less busy controller."

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Rather than shoot the approach as published, I guess I could just program
>> the GPS 16 with vectors and do my own vectors. This would allow me to
>> descend slighly to the west of the Class C airspace, then intercept the
>> GPS or ILS glideslope and lateral guidance as I got closer to the
>> airport. (I have a healthy respect for the black hole illusion.) As far
>> as the controller is concerned, I'm just shooting my own visual approach.
>> If he interferes, I just cancel following an squak VFR.
>>
>
> Why contact ATC in the first place you're going to refuse the service?
>

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> Well . . . I want to be in contact with them because they are trying to
> manage the airspace. I don't want to be rude. I know at least two of these
> controllers personally. Sort of like knocking on the door before walking
> in, but I want to leave if they start making me do something I don't want
> to. The problem is that once you accept the invitation to the party, it's
> rude to start trying to changing the itinerary. On the other hand, they
> know me. I am based there. I am friends with a couple of the controllers.
> For me to fly so close to their airspace unannounced is bad manners. My
> controller friends oblige, but there are a few guys who don't seem to give
> a rat's ass. Anyway, there's no real answer, but seeking it has enhanced
> my understanding of the process. Thanks.
>

You want to be in contact with them because they are trying to manage the
airspace, but if they attempt to manage the airspace by assigning a heading
or altitude to you you're going to decline and leave the frequency?

> wrote in message
...
>
> So how would you phrase that? "210BA is cancelling flight following and
> squawking VFR"?
>

Something like "210BA is terminating Class C services and squawking VFR"
would be better. You do realize you're getting more than flight following
here, don't you?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Well . . . I want to be in contact with them because they are trying to
>>manage the airspace. I don't want to be rude. I know at least two of these
>>controllers personally. Sort of like knocking on the door before walking
>>in, but I want to leave if they start making me do something I don't want
>>to. The problem is that once you accept the invitation to the party, it's
>>rude to start trying to changing the itinerary. On the other hand, they
>>know me. I am based there. I am friends with a couple of the controllers.
>>For me to fly so close to their airspace unannounced is bad manners. My
>>controller friends oblige, but there are a few guys who don't seem to give
>>a rat's ass. Anyway, there's no real answer, but seeking it has enhanced
>>my understanding of the process. Thanks.
>>
>
>
> You want to be in contact with them because they are trying to manage the
> airspace, but if they attempt to manage the airspace by assigning a heading
> or altitude to you you're going to decline and leave the frequency?
>
>
I think this is that simulator guy (manix?) rising once again from Hell.

As jaded as you are, Steve, why are you so kind to this guy?