VFR Practise Approaches

[ChristianFro]

If an approach says DME required but I dont have DME, can I still execute a VFR practise approach?

On GPS (RNAV) approaches, can I deviate from the published procedures with permission from the Tower or controlling agency if I am doing a VFR practise approach? I.E. Altitude deviation for a fix.

If so, what is the reference?

Thanks in advance.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

ChristianFro > wrote:

> If an approach says DME required but I dont have DME, can I still
> execute a VFR practise approach?

Are you asking can you do it legally, or are you just asking if it's possible? Legally, remember you're
VFR, so the IFR procedure rules don't really apply. If you are following the approach procedure (3D path
over the ground) and not causing a problem for ATC, they can't see what's on your panel.

OTOH, if you need DME distance to identify a step-down fix or missed approach point, it may be difficult
to fly the procedure correctly without it.

Also bear in mind you can use GPS in lieu of DME in most cases.

> On GPS (RNAV) approaches, can I deviate from the published procedures
> with permission from the Tower or controlling agency if I am doing a VFR
> practise approach? I.E. Altitude deviation for a fix.

If you have permission from ATC, and aren't causing a safety problem (terrain or traffic separation), I
don't see an issue. Remember, you are VFR.

> If so, what is the reference?

Not sure.


Mike

[Mxsmanic]

ChristianFro > wrote:

> If an approach says DME required but I dont have DME, can I still
> execute a VFR practise approach?

As long as you are under VFR in VMC, you can do what you want, provided that
it does not conflict with ATC instructions (if you are in airspace where ATC
instructions take priority). You need not say anything to ATC about it, since
you are still legally VFR. Just take care that it does not conflict with other
traffic--in busy airspace you may have to obtain ATC's approval and
cooperation to allow this.

For example, if you are told to make straight in to the airport and you wish
to capture and follow the ILS for your approach, nothing prevents you from
doing so, and it's legal as long as the primary means of navigation remains
VFR. If you are told to enter the pattern but you wish to practice with the
ILS, you'll have to request and coordinate that with ATC.

Note that ATC may not provide separation services to VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approaches, and approval for a practice instrument approach does
not include approval for the missed-approach procedure unless this is
explicitly requested from and approved by ATC. Your VFR responsibility to see
and avoid is not suspended by approval for a practice IFR approach.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 22, 6:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> For example, if you are told to make straight in to the airport and you wish
> to capture and follow the ILS for your approach, nothing prevents you from
> doing so, and it's legal as long as the primary means of navigation remains
> VFR.

NOT ALWAYS......

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> On Sep 22, 6:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > For example, if you are told to make straight in to the airport and you wish
> > to capture and follow the ILS for your approach, nothing prevents you from
> > doing so, and it's legal as long as the primary means of navigation remains
> > VFR.
>
> NOT ALWAYS......

Describe the exceptions, then.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 26, 4:58*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > On Sep 22, 6:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > For example, if you are told to make straight in to the airport and you wish
> > > to capture and follow the ILS for your approach, nothing prevents you from
> > > doing so, and it's legal as long as the primary means of navigation remains
> > > VFR.
>
> > NOT ALWAYS......
>
> Describe the exceptions, then.

NO

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> NO

So you've contributed nothing to the thread. QED.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 27, 3:39*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> So you've contributed nothing to the thread. QED.

NO.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

" > wrote:

> On Sep 26, 4:58*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > On Sep 22, 6:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > > For example, if you are told to make straight in to the airport
>> > > and you wish
>> > > to capture and follow the ILS for your approach, nothing prevents
>> > > you from
>> > > doing so, and it's legal as long as the primary means of
>> > > navigation remains VFR.
>>
>> > NOT ALWAYS......
>>
>> Describe the exceptions, then.
>
> NO

I have to agree with MX. Why not provide some examples? About the only
exception I can think of is an ILS that's slightly offset from the
runway alignment, but I don't know of one that's more than a few degrees.
A similar situation is routine in airline practice - cleared for a visual approach but
tracking the ILS for reference.

Mike

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Adams writes:

> About the only exception I can think of is an ILS that's
> slightly offset from the runway alignment, but I don't
> know of one that's more than a few degrees.

Even in that case, you can still practice the instrument approach under VFR in
VMC. I'm not sure why an offset ILS would be an exception, since there is
still a corresponding instrument procedure to practice.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Adams writes:
>
>> About the only exception I can think of is an ILS that's
>> slightly offset from the runway alignment, but I don't
>> know of one that's more than a few degrees.
>
> Even in that case, you can still practice the instrument approach
> under VFR in VMC. I'm not sure why an offset ILS would be an
> exception, since there is still a corresponding instrument procedure
> to practice.

The point you raised was about tracking the ILS while making a straight in VFR approach. My only point
was that if it's an offset localizer (in the extreme) the tower might not think you're making a straight in
approach. If the tower has approved you doing a practice ILS approach that's a different situation.

Mike

[Bob Moore]

Mike Adams wrote
> The point you raised was about tracking the ILS while making a
> straight in VFR approach. My only point was that if it's an offset
> localizer (in the extreme) the tower might not think you're making a
> straight in approach. If the tower has approved you doing a practice
> ILS approach that's a different situation.

The term "straight-in approach" is used rather broadly just to distinguish
the approach from "flying the pattern" or "join a left base", etc.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

On Sep 28, 11:22*am, Mike Adams > wrote:
> " > wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 4:58*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >> > On Sep 22, 6:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >> > > For example, if you are told to make straight in to the airport
> >> > > and you wish
> >> > > to capture and follow the ILS for your approach, nothing prevents
> >> > > you *from
> >> > > doing so, and it's legal as long as the primary means of
> >> > > navigation remains VFR.
>
> >> > NOT ALWAYS......
>
> >> Describe the exceptions, then.
>
> > NO
>
> I have to agree with MX. Why not provide some examples?

Because he knows it all in his simulated world.

In the REAL world, think Bravo and you will see why I said not always.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Adams writes:

> The point you raised was about tracking the ILS while making
> a straight in VFR approach. My only point was that if it's an
> offset localizer (in the extreme) the tower might not think
> you're making a straight in approach. If the tower has approved
> you doing a practice ILS approach that's a different situation.

The large fudge factor allowed for straight-in VFR is so generous that it
should easily cover the small offset of an offset localizer or LDA approach.
Even an LDA approach should not be more than 6 degrees from the centerline,
which is trivial compared with VFR tolerances. "Straight-in" doesn't mean that
you have to be on the centerline 20 miles out (although you can be if you
want). It just means that you're not flying the pattern.

However, your point is taken, in that some instrument procedures might depart
sufficiently from normal VFR behavior that you'll probably want ATC to approve
of them before you practice them under VFR, so that they know why you don't
seem to be following the pattern. A circling approach would be one example.
That's why I mentioned an ILS approach, which looks just like a straight-in
approach under VFR.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In the REAL world, think Bravo and you will see why I said not always.

If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B, UNLESS ATC
tells you otherwise, and provided of course that you have a clearance into the
airspace before you enter it.

"Maintain VFR at or below 4500" means that you can do what you want, as long
as you stay at or below 4500 feet. The controller says this when he knows that
he doesn't have any conflicting traffic near you below 4500 feet. If he sees a
possible conflict, he'll be more specific, such as "fly heading 250" or
"remain south of the freeway." Once you're given a restriction, you must
observe it until you leave the airspace or ATC cancels it.

The most general instruction for a Class B is simply "maintain VFR," in which
case altitude, speed, and heading are at your discretion, subject to
regulations.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 9:06*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > In the REAL world, think Bravo and you will see why I said not always.
>
> If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B,

WRONG. I DO WHAT ATC WANTS.

But I fly in the real world to know this.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 9:01*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> That's why I mentioned an ILS approach, which looks just like a straight-in
> approach under VFR.

WRONG.

YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT CONSIDERING THERE IS MORE TO A GLIDE SLOPE TO AN
ILS APPROACH IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHERE YOU ARE.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

" > wrote:

> On Sep 29, 9:06*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > In the REAL world, think Bravo and you will see why I said not always.
>>
>> If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B,
>
> WRONG. I DO WHAT ATC WANTS.
>
> But I fly in the real world to know this.

I think I'm participating in this discussion beyond the point of any value, but I fly in the real world too, and
have been given the instruction, "cleared into Bravo airspace, maintain own nav to XXXX". So, it is
definitely possible.

Back to the original question, are there any other cases (besides possibly the extremely offset localizer)
when you would not be able to track the ILS when doing a VFR straight-in approach?

Mike

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> WRONG.
>
> YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT CONSIDERING THERE IS MORE TO A GLIDE SLOPE TO AN
> ILS APPROACH IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHERE YOU ARE.

What?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> WRONG. I DO WHAT ATC WANTS.

If ATC doesn't give you any instructions, it is impossible to do "what ATC
wants." In Class B airspace, you must follow ATC instructions, but ATC won't
necessarily give any restrictive instructions unless traffic conditions
warrant them.

> But I fly in the real world to know this.

It doesn't sound like you spend a lot of time in Class B airspace, however.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 4:54*pm, Mike Adams > wrote:

> Back to the original question, are there any other cases (besides possibly the extremely offset localizer)
> when you would not be able to track the ILS when doing a VFR straight-in approach?

Exactly like I said, in Bravo. If you intend to do a practice ILS
approach, I would hope you would want to pick it up at the IAF?

If you have been given instructions by ATC, approved straight in
approach, it's expected you make a reasonable beeline to the threshold
so ATC can maintain spacing. Part of that includes getting lined up
for the runway so yes, you can slide down the glide slope at will but
that hardly is a practice ILS approach!

If you are outside the IAF and it's between you and the threshold OR
OFFSET from the final approach course in a reasonable distance, sure,
knock your socks off but if it requires more then a significant
heading change from my nose pointed toward the threshold, I MYSELF
would get a clearance for that practice approach FROM THE CONTROLLER
in BRAVO airspace.

All ATC sees is your nose pointing away from the airport and you right
fully should get chewed out or asked what your intentions are since
your deviations may become an spacing issue for the controller AND THE
AIRPLANE BEHIND YOU.

Mx is clueless in the real world, he plays a game in MSFS and thinks
that MSFS simulates the real world.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 5:17*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It doesn't sound like you spend a lot of time in Class B airspace, however.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 7:16*pm, " > wrote:

> Mx is clueless in the real world, he plays a game in MSFS and thinks
> that MSFS simulates the real world.

CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE

The above should read.

Mx is clueless in the real world, he plays a game in MSFS and thinks
that MSFS IS the real world.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 5:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > WRONG.
>
> > YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT CONSIDERING THERE IS MORE TO A GLIDE SLOPE TO AN
> > ILS APPROACH IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHERE YOU ARE.
>
> What?

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> AND HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU SPENT IN BRAVO AIRSPACE AS PIC IN A REAL
> PLANE???????????????????

I've spent hundreds of hours in it in simulation, and that's a lot more useful
as experience than nearly zero hours in real life.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 30, 1:36*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > AND HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU SPENT IN BRAVO AIRSPACE AS PIC IN A REAL
> > PLANE???????????????????
>
> I've spent hundreds of hours in it in simulation, and

SO YOU PRETEND YOU ARE SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT?????????? AND YOU STILL
FAILED TO ANSWER THE DIRECT QUESTION.

> that's a lot more useful
> as experience than nearly zero hours in real life.

WRONG AS YOU HAVE PROVEN BY YOUR REPLIES IN THIS THREAD.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> WRONG. I DO WHAT ATC WANTS.
>
> If ATC doesn't give you any instructions, it is impossible to do "what ATC
> wants." In Class B airspace, you must follow ATC instructions, but ATC won't
> necessarily give any restrictive instructions unless traffic conditions
> warrant them.

This is incorrect. You forget to take into account that ATC
doesn't need to talk to you at all. That in itself is restrictive. If
ATC tells you "Aircraft calling for Class B clearance remain outside of
Class B airspace", it is restrictive, even if they do not acknowledge
you directly. If ATC doesn't answer your call, you are to remain
outside of Class B until they do. If they don't answer, too bad.

>> But I fly in the real world to know this.
>
> It doesn't sound like you spend a lot of time in Class B airspace, however.

Nor do you, it seems.

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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMpZVVyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkHLAKDTsyj+6wktBVgEckgvfJ KFuviVfACgkm/t
V8PHdGg5aXl4f7V+tFCPd4k=
=9hgx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> This is incorrect. You forget to take into account that ATC
> doesn't need to talk to you at all.

I've already excluded that by considering only the case in which you are
cleared into the Class B, which makes the rest of your post moot.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
> This is incorrect. You forget to take into account that ATC
> doesn't need to talk to you at all. That in itself is restrictive. If
> ATC tells you "Aircraft calling for Class B clearance remain outside
> of Class B airspace", it is restrictive, even if they do not
> acknowledge
> you directly. If ATC doesn't answer your call, you are to remain
> outside of Class B until they do. If they don't answer, too bad.
>

Answering you isn't enough, if ATC does not clear you into Class B airspace
you are to remain outside.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 1, 6:13*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I've already excluded that by considering only the case in which you are
> cleared into the Class B, which makes the rest of your post moot.

YOUR ORIGINAL POST WAS WRONG.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> YOUR ORIGINAL POST WAS WRONG.

Unless you explain the error that you believe it to have contained, your post
doesn't serve much purpose, does it?

[[email protected]]

On Oct 1, 12:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > YOUR ORIGINAL POST WAS WRONG.
>
> Unless you explain the error that you believe it to have contained, your post
> doesn't serve much purpose, does it?

I ALREADY DID.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I ALREADY DID.

If that were true, why would you bring it up again?

[Brian Whatcott]

On 9/22/2010 6:16 AM, ChristianFro wrote:
> If an approach says DME required but I dont have DME, can I still
> execute a VFR practise approach?
>
> On GPS (RNAV) approaches, can I deviate from the published procedures
> with permission from the Tower or controlling agency if I am doing a VFR
> practise approach? I.E. Altitude deviation for a fix.
>
> If so, what is the reference?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
In VMC, there are VFR approaches, and practice IFR approaches.
In IMC there are IFR approaches. Full stop.

Required equipment for VFR approaches are one pair regulation eye-balls,
an ASI, altimeter and compass. A radio is helpful.

Brian W

[[email protected]]

On Oct 1, 7:07*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:

> In VMC, there are VFR approaches, and practice IFR approaches.
> In IMC there are IFR approaches. Full stop.

Brian,

I think it's ATC facility dependent for IFR approaches and full stops.

I get touch and goes on IFR approaches on IFR clearances routinely my
neck of the woods.

Touch and goes also can be done on IFR XC round robins. Just file to
a fix at the destination airport, pick up the approach clearance and
fly back home after the touch and go.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 1, 4:32*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I ALREADY DID.
>
> If that were true, why would you bring it up again?

BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???????????

[Don Poitras]

> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 7:07?pm, brian whatcott > wrote:

> > In VMC, there are VFR approaches, and practice IFR approaches.
> > In IMC there are IFR approaches. Full stop.

> Brian,

> I think it's ATC facility dependent for IFR approaches and full stops.

> I get touch and goes on IFR approaches on IFR clearances routinely my
> neck of the woods.

> Touch and goes also can be done on IFR XC round robins. Just file to
> a fix at the destination airport, pick up the approach clearance and
> fly back home after the touch and go.

"Full stop" is British for "Period."

--
Don Poitras

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>> This is incorrect. You forget to take into account that ATC
>> doesn't need to talk to you at all. That in itself is restrictive. If
>> ATC tells you "Aircraft calling for Class B clearance remain outside
>> of Class B airspace", it is restrictive, even if they do not
>> acknowledge
>> you directly. If ATC doesn't answer your call, you are to remain
>> outside of Class B until they do. If they don't answer, too bad.
>>
>
> Answering you isn't enough, if ATC does not clear you into Class B airspace
> you are to remain outside.

That's exactly my point. If ATC tells you 'remain outside of
Class Bravo Airspace', you're stuck. you remain outside it. If they
don't contact you, you remain outside. If they even identify you, and
you don't hear those magic words clearing you into the Bravo, you
remain outside. Anthony here isn't getting the point there.

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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMppr/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAuOrAKCMJXIRwaRpm+VTKJz4fyp3YkeQZwCfcs qw
q9guD6C/IrBvSiPohyY1VC8=
=WWus
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> That's exactly my point. If ATC tells you 'remain outside of
> Class Bravo Airspace', you're stuck. you remain outside it. If they
> don't contact you, you remain outside. If they even identify you, and
> you don't hear those magic words clearing you into the Bravo, you
> remain outside.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B, UNLESS ATC
> tells you otherwise, and PROVIDED OF COURSE THAT YOU HAVE A CLEARANCE into the
> airspace before you enter it.

(emphasis added)

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> That's exactly my point. If ATC tells you 'remain outside of
>> Class Bravo Airspace', you're stuck. you remain outside it. If they
>> don't contact you, you remain outside. If they even identify you, and
>> you don't hear those magic words clearing you into the Bravo, you
>> remain outside.
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B, UNLESS ATC
>> tells you otherwise, and PROVIDED OF COURSE THAT YOU HAVE A CLEARANCE into the
>> airspace before you enter it.
>
> (emphasis added)

You miss the point again. ATC does *NOT* have to reply to you
at all, despite all your calls for Class B clearance. If you do not
hear from them, you're not getting into the Bravo at all. So you'd
better get below it (assuming you can without passing through it), stay
above it (assuming you can without passing through it), or go around
it.

And for 'you can do what you want in Class B', 7-9-2.a of the
..65T tells you otherwise:

a. VFR aircraft must obtain an ATC clearance to operate in Class B
airspace.

PHRASEOLOGY:
CLEARED THROUGH/TO ENTER/OUT OF BRAVO AIRSPACE,

and as appropriate,

VIA (route). MAINTAIN (altitude) WHILE IN BRAVO AIRSPACE.

or

CLEARED AS REQUESTED.

(Additional instructions, as necessary.)

REMAIN OUTSIDE BRAVO AIRSPACE. (When necessary, reason and/or
additional instructions.)


So if you are told to maintain a given altitude while in the
Bravo with your clearance to enter the Bravo, you will be no where near
'you can do what you want'. In short, you're a guest in Class B
airspace, and at the command of what ATC needs you to do, based on
their workload, other traffic, and/or any other limitations.

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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMptuAyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnKuAJ96qH9M1WSfwytZmNtrgq aFkdULuACeOHLb
VeeFHIHQ89aoo54hbMxY6Gk=
=//qC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> You miss the point again. ATC does *NOT* have to reply to you
> at all, despite all your calls for Class B clearance. If you do not
> hear from them, you're not getting into the Bravo at all. So you'd
> better get below it (assuming you can without passing through it), stay
> above it (assuming you can without passing through it), or go around
> it.

Brad, I can only assume that you do not see the gaping holes in your
reasoning, but I certainly do, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I suggest you join the Internet Chess Club and "play" me there. I'm a very
poor and indifferent chess player, and you could beat me easily (I'm at the
bottom of the rankings). That would satisfy your desire to "beat" me, and your
efforts would not be doomed to failure as they are here. Additionally, it
would spare other people on this newsgroup your sophomoric attempts to
demonstrate a superiority over me that you do not possess, and the group could
return to intelligent discussion of aviation.

I'm tired of indulging you here.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 1, 9:11*pm, (Don Poitras) wrote:
> > wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 7:07?pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> > > In VMC, there are VFR approaches, and practice IFR approaches.
> > > In IMC there are IFR approaches. Full stop.
> > Brian,
> > I think it's ATC facility dependent for IFR approaches and full stops.
> > I get touch and goes on IFR approaches on IFR clearances routinely my
> > neck of the woods.
> > Touch and goes also can be done on IFR XC round robins. *Just file to
> > a fix at the destination airport, pick up the approach clearance and
> > fly back home after the touch and go.
>
> "Full stop" is British for "Period."
>
> --
> Don Poitras

Ahh, thanks! Never knew :-)

[[email protected]]

On Oct 2, 2:13*am, A Guy Called Tyketto

>So if you are told to maintain a given altitude while in the
>Bravo with your clearance to enter the Bravo, you will be no where
>near

> 'you can do what you want'. In short, you're a guest in Class B
> airspace, and at the command of what ATC needs you to do, based on
> their workload, other traffic, and/or any other limitations.

Well stated Brad. Guest being a key word.

Loitering is not permitted without explicit permission in Bravo.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 2, 1:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B, UNLESS ATC
> > tells you otherwise, and PROVIDED OF COURSE THAT YOU HAVE A CLEARANCE into the
> > airspace before you enter it.
>
> (emphasis added)

YOU CAN ADD ALL THE EMPHASIS YOU WANT, THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS WRONG.

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/2/2010 7:28 AM, wrote:
> On Oct 2, 1:45 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> > If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B, UNLESS ATC
>> > tells you otherwise, and PROVIDED OF COURSE THAT YOU HAVE A CLEARANCE into the
>> > airspace before you enter it.
>>
>> (emphasis added)
>
> YOU CAN ADD ALL THE EMPHASIS YOU WANT, THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS WRONG.

What's wrong about it?

[[email protected]]

On Oct 2, 9:56*am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 10/2/2010 7:28 AM, wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 1:45 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >> > If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B, UNLESS ATC
> >> > tells you otherwise, and PROVIDED OF COURSE THAT YOU HAVE A CLEARANCE into the
> >> > airspace before you enter it.
>
> >> (emphasis added)
>
> > YOU CAN ADD ALL THE EMPHASIS YOU WANT, THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS WRONG.
>
> What's wrong about it?

The first sentence before his word unless..... Start from the
beginning of this thread see why I say this.

His response to the OP question is so far off base it's ridiculous.

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/2/2010 9:56 AM, wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:56 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 10/2/2010 7:28 AM, wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 2, 1:45 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> >> > If you are thinking Class B, you can do what you want in Class B, UNLESS ATC
>> >> > tells you otherwise, and PROVIDED OF COURSE THAT YOU HAVE A CLEARANCE into the
>> >> > airspace before you enter it.
>>
>> >> (emphasis added)
>>
>> > YOU CAN ADD ALL THE EMPHASIS YOU WANT, THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS WRONG.
>>
>> What's wrong about it?
>
> The first sentence before his word unless..... Start from the
> beginning of this thread see why I say this.
>
> His response to the OP question is so far off base it's ridiculous.

Are you saying his statement is wrong because some idiot could interpret
"you can do anything" as, for example, you can dance a jig?

The PIC does the flying. Unless ATC gives you specific instructions to
the contrary, you fly the way you want. If you want to ascend, you can
ascend (within airspace restrictions, of course); if you want to turn,
you turn, etc.

You are clearly reading more into his statement than what's there.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 2, 12:16*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

> You are clearly reading more into his statement than what's there.

No.... He said I can do what I want in Bravo. I cannot.

I can decline an ATC instruction as PIC for remaining VMC rather then
penetrate a cloud or the unlikely possibility of traffic conflict, but
I CANNOT do as I well please in Bravo.

AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE.....

If KMEM says cleared visual into Memphis, I am not expected to go
willy nilly. I am expected to make a straight line approach into
Memphis. Not take a scenic tour along the route from my position to
the threshold. If I wish such a deviation, I best get a clearance.
UNNECESSARY S turns slows my ground speed and I am sure would mess up
ATC's chess game of airplanes BEHIND me (not even considering the line
of planes waiting for me to vacate the piece of pavement in front of
me after landing).

Same for altitude. If I am 2000, with a visual cleared to land with
the above instructions, I best not climb without a clearance as I
would suspect that is not expected by ATC and that airspace above is
occupied by another airplane with the expectation I am to descend and
land.

Key thing is the expectation. Anything unexpected by ATC, I better
request a clearance. This is how I run my shop in the real world.

I have heard enough on Bravo freq. to substantiate what I am saying
where somebody gummed up the works and got chewed out on the air
because they did something unexpectedly.

Mx MSFS world nothing like the real deal and I sure hope you can
differentiate that even if he can't????????

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/2/2010 1:59 PM, wrote:
> On Oct 2, 12:16 pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>
>> You are clearly reading more into his statement than what's there.
>
> No.... He said I can do what I want in Bravo. I cannot.
>
> I can decline an ATC instruction as PIC for remaining VMC rather then
> penetrate a cloud or the unlikely possibility of traffic conflict, but
> I CANNOT do as I well please in Bravo.

So your example is that you must follow an ATC instruction? Really?
He said "Unless ATC tells you otherwise...". Please explain exactly
what he said can be done in B which you believe cannot.

If he says that to land a plane, you must descend from cruise altitude,
will you say that's wrong because he didn't include the other 20 or 30
things which also must be done?

It's clear you simply have a bone to pick with Anthony and don't care
if you're actually making any sense.

Lately I've noticed that Anthony has been making a real effort to
make it clear that he only simulates. Perhaps it's time to give him
a break?

[[email protected]]

On Oct 2, 5:43*pm, Mark Hansen > wrote:

>Please explain exactly
> what he said can be done in B which you believe cannot.

I JUST DID. Let me repeat myself AGAIN so we are very clear where Mx
is wrong. He said I can do what I want in Bravo. I cannot.

RE-READ MY PRIOR POST.

To repeat myself AGAIN. You can't climb when you are expected to
descend. You can't change course without ATC permission in Bravo.
NOT SURE WHY YOU SNIPPED THAT OUT????

Lets go this route, be my guest if YOU wish to climb when making an
approach to land or deviate from your EXPECTED heading without a
clearance in Bravo. Not my ticket on the line. (see further down on
how I handle Bravo)

On Bravo transitions, when I request transition to XYZ airport, AFTER
getting my Bravo clearance, I may get maintain at or below 4500. Lack
of heading instructions does not give me permission to deviate. ATC
expects a straight line from entry to XYZ airport before you exit
Bravo. You best not be loitering over one's house while transitioning
WITHOUT permission as ATC just may be planning that airspace behind
you.

AGAIN If I am going to do something different then what is expected, I
will request from ATC permission. That is what I have done in KMEM,
KPIT, KMSY, KBWI and KCLE bravo airspace for sight seeing and I have
NOT been gigged for any time I queried to deviate.

With all the radio traffic, you have to be concise and to the point
and KNOW THE AREA for sight seeing in Bravo. I got from approach,
deviation approved, advise when returning back on course when I did
sight seeing tours in these areas.

I have on the flip side been denied sight seeing twice due to traffic
in the area. (houses were near IA approach fixes).

Again, if YOU want to change headings IN BRAVO without notifying ATC
JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T ISSUE YOU HEADING INSTRUCTIONS, be my guest,
it won't be my ticket on the line. You just may be turning into an IA
approach course filled up with airplanes!!!!!

>Lately I've noticed that Anthony has been making a real effort to
>make it clear that he only simulates. Perhaps it's time to give
>him a break?

He sure DID NOT say he never flew a real plane in this thread until I
called him out on it did he!!!!!

He never answered my question about his experience in a real plane in
Bravo did he!!!!!

He won't get a break out of me until he stops lying to whom he
responds to. At least the person receiving the answer will at least
have a warning he has NO REAL WORLD experience.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> You miss the point again. ATC does *NOT* have to reply to you
>> at all, despite all your calls for Class B clearance. If you do not
>> hear from them, you're not getting into the Bravo at all. So you'd
>> better get below it (assuming you can without passing through it), stay
>> above it (assuming you can without passing through it), or go around
>> it.
>
> Brad, I can only assume that you do not see the gaping holes in your
> reasoning, but I certainly do, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Apparently, you are alone, Anthony. So enlighten all of us.
What are the gaping holes in my reasoning? Tell me how ATC not
responding to your call gets you clearance into Class B, let alone in
it to 'do whatever you want'.

In short, put up, or shut up.


> I suggest you join the Internet Chess Club and "play" me there. I'm a very
> poor and indifferent chess player, and you could beat me easily (I'm at the
> bottom of the rankings). That would satisfy your desire to "beat" me, and your
> efforts would not be doomed to failure as they are here. Additionally, it
> would spare other people on this newsgroup your sophomoric attempts to
> demonstrate a superiority over me that you do not possess, and the group could
> return to intelligent discussion of aviation.
>
> I'm tired of indulging you here.

You can always killfile me. But then again, I really do not
care what you do. And if my throwing the .65T at you is a sophmoric
attempt to be superior to you, then that would cause everyone here to
assume that the FAA is doing the same thing, leading to the assumption
that you are superior to the FAA. If Blakely were still in charge, then
I would say that you *might* be right.. But she isn't, therefore you
aren't.

So killfile away. Become real tired of indulging me here. Do
whatever you want with your life. But taking your toys and going home
does nothing to argue your side of this discussion, and in fact shows
your unwillingness to challenge something that is right and documented
as such. Mais, c'est la vie, mon ami; c'est la vie.

Comme E. R. Murrough dirait, "bonne nuite, et bonne chance."

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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMqCeByBkZmuMZ8L8RAtoPAJ4vk++OtnHWPowLHO/GA2qM+RcT1gCgp08K
Y6Me8fG/Z4/yKot0g34Y1FQ=
=7pug
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 1:49*am, A Guy Called Tyketto

> What are the gaping holes in my reasoning? Tell me how ATC not
> responding to your call gets you clearance into Class B, let alone in
> it to 'do whatever you want'.

Actually he had it right with getting the clearance in Bravo in his
original post. He just has it flat out wrong on "do whatever you want
absent ATC instruction" after that bravo entry clearance.

Can you imagine if everybody did what they wanted in Bravo? I
wouldn't.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Actually he had it right with getting the clearance in Bravo in his
> original post. He just has it flat out wrong on "do whatever you want
> absent ATC instruction" after that bravo entry clearance.

I'm afraid I'm right about that, too. Within the context of applicable
regulations, you can do what you want. You still have to stay at proper VFR
altitudes, remain below 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet, and so on, but you are not
constrained otherwise in route, altitude, or speed, UNLESS ATC imposes a
constraint.

If ATC needs to impose restrictions to make sure that you don't interfere with
other traffic, then rest assured, they most certainly will. If no
restrictions are imposed, that is because ATC doesn't see you as a potential
conflict for nearby traffic for the moment.

As elsewhere under VFR, navigation is at your discretion unless you are told
otherwise.

> Can you imagine if everybody did what they wanted in Bravo? I
> wouldn't.

No need to imagine it, as it already happens every day. Aircraft under VFR
that have not been constrained by ATC are doing exactly what they want. They
have no choice, since the pilot is the navigator and has full freedom of
action and responsibility therefore in the absence of any ATC instructions.

Suppose I want to transit a Class B under VFR to save time. All I have to do
is call up ATC before entering the airspace, get a clearance, and go. ATC may
well ask my intentions, and I'll explain that I want a transition to the
south. If there are no obvious traffic issues, ATC may simply give me a squawk
code and let me go. It's up to me to decide how to do the transition. Prudence
and courtesy dictate that I try to cross the Class B as quickly and
efficiently as possible, but no regulation requires this. I can fly straight
through, or I can decide to turn 45 degrees to head for a VOR at some point. I
can fly at 4500 feet or 6500 feet, or whatever is appropriate for my direction
of flight. I don't need ATC's approval, and there are no particular
restrictions on what I may do that I wouldn't already have outside the Class
B.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Suppose I want to transit a Class B under VFR to save time. All I have to do
> is call up ATC before entering the airspace, get a clearance, and go.

You miss my point yet again, so I'll speel it out (yet again).

You assume you GET the clearance. If ATC does not grant you
your clearance into Class B, nor even responds to your call for Class B
clearance, you will not get into Class B. ATC does *NOT* have to
explicitly state that you remain outside of Class B airspace for you to
remain outside of Class B airspace.

7-9-2.a does supply the phraseology used to keep you outside of
Class Bravo airspace, but that doesn't mean that they must *answer your
initial call*. If they don't get to answering your call, that would be
just as much denial of entry into Class B as it would to hear "REMAIN
OUTSIDE OF CLASS BRAVO AIRSPACE."

My point the entire time is that ATC does not have to tell you
to remain outside of it for you to remain outside of it. In other
words, not responding to you at all is implicit denial of entry into
Class B.

> What things can you NOT do in Class B in the absence of ATC restrictions that
> you would be able to do outside the Class B? Be sure to cite the
> regulation(s) that backs up your statement.

Simple. Fly your plane. Regulations? 7-9-2.a. You did not get
your Class Bravo clearance. AIM 3-2-3.e. You did not get your Class
Bravo clearance.

I am not saying that ATC won't ALWAYS tell you to remain
outside of Class B, but that with the way the .65T is worded, they
DON'T always have to tell you that, either. If you don't hear the magic
words, you don't get in. If you hear "remain outside of Class Bravo
airspace", or don't hear anything from them at all, you don't get in.

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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMqM1xyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhcKAJ9mqZWhbKPMSDh6hrtkVn EjCizA8ACbBss3
xlhsNEYdwXw+dc0+0VTaetM=
=lbL1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Brian Whatcott]

On 10/1/2010 8:46 PM, wrote:
> On Oct 1, 7:07 pm, brian > wrote:
>
>> In VMC, there are VFR approaches, and practice IFR approaches.
>> In IMC there are IFR approaches. Full stop.
>
> Brian,
>
> I think it's ATC facility dependent for IFR approaches and full stops.
>
> I get touch and goes on IFR approaches on IFR clearances routinely my
> neck of the woods.
>
> Touch and goes also can be done on IFR XC round robins. Just file to
> a fix at the destination airport, pick up the approach clearance and
> fly back home after the touch and go.


Hehe...I could easily get sucked up into this little anti PC pretend
dust-devil... By "full stop" I was not characterizing the landing but
the type of approaches available in IMC - which number one. You can work
it out, I'm sure.

:-)

Brian W

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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


Forgot to mention something here. My point, Anthony, is that
you go into this with the assumption that you will hear a response back
from ATC. If you don't hear a response back from ATC at all, that is
just as much crucial to your denial of Class B entry as hearing the
words "remain outside of Class Bravo airspace." In short, don't assume
that you will hear anything back, because if you don't, your Class B
plans are shot.

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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMqM44yBkZmuMZ8L8RAoknAJ0VnqPVIEseORb/GqzBpZkJ2rS94gCggUsL
o8F6rWtabR2u7kENe/WphJc=
=qEnH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 12:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> of flight. I don't need ATC's approval,
> B.

WRONG. But that's ok, I'm not the delusional one here.

I fly the real world...... and gave very specific situations

>and there are no particular
> restrictions on what I may do that I wouldn't already have outside
>the Class

You CONTINUE TO PRETEND that you fly in the real world and lie about
your real world experiences by NOT ANSWERING MY DIRECT QUESTIONS.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> WRONG.

Cite the supporting FAR.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 2:57*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > WRONG.
>
> Cite the supporting FAR.

NO!

LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, HOW MANY HOURS HAVE YOU SPENT IN BRAVO AS PIC IN
A REAL PLANE?????????

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> NO!

Because there is no FAR that supports your assertion.

> LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, HOW MANY HOURS HAVE YOU SPENT IN BRAVO AS PIC IN
> A REAL PLANE?????????

You don't have to be a PIC in a real plane to read and understand Federal air
regulations. But if you are a PIC in a real plane, you had better read and
understand them.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 9:54*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You don't have to be a PIC in a real plane to read and understand Federal air
> regulations. *But if you are a PIC in a real plane, you had better read and
> understand them.

WHICH OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REAL WORLD OF FLYING!!!!!

AIM..................

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 9:54*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, HOW MANY HOURS HAVE YOU SPENT IN BRAVO AS PIC IN
> > A REAL PLANE?????????
>
> You don't have to be a PIC in a real plane to read and understand Federal air
> regulations. *

DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO MY QUESTION????

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> AIM..................

The AIM is not the FARs, as you may one day discover the hard way.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 3:13*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > AIM..................
>
> The AIM is not the FARs,

NO **** SHERLOCK.

BUT THE ABOVE REVELATION THAT AIM IS NOT FARS STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE
FACT YOU ARE WRONG IN THAT I CAN DO "IN YOUR WORDS" WHATEVER I WANT IN
BRAVO IN THE REAL WORLD OF FLYING.

DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP.

Rest assured, I do not believe you, in part because I've already looked it up.

You and Brad have some strong common traits, so don't be surprised if I
abruptly discontinue the conversation. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be
much intelligent discussion of aviation on this group at the moment, so I have
a bit of extra time.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 5:06*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP.
> in part because I've already looked it up.

NO YOU DIDN'T

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP.
>
> Rest assured, I do not believe you, in part because I've already looked it up.
>
> You and Brad have some strong common traits, so don't be surprised if I
> abruptly discontinue the conversation. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be
> much intelligent discussion of aviation on this group at the moment, so I have
> a bit of extra time.

What, that we throw documentation supporting our claims
directly at you, yet you don't refute them? I haven't seen a single
post of yours that argues against mine since I started in this thread.
You have asked for regulations to be cited, and I showed you them (and
yes, you can bet your life that the AIM will be treated as regulation,
even though it is a guideline for pilots). Like I told you many times
over, as far as ATC is concerned, the 7110.65T *IS* the be all/end all
for controllers.

I'm still waiting for your response to refute my claim. But
then again, perhaps the Dilbert rule still applies:

"Never argue with an idiot. They will drop you down to your
level, then beat you with experience."

Perhaps your discontinuing this conversation is your following
that rule; it certainly is now for me.

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 v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMqriHyBkZmuMZ8L8RAiuzAJ97lm8NvHQF0CAyciE4nR msFmT93wCgv5PR
xAITvOlqwa6tdMiZAuYkp0c=
=R4L3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[[email protected]]

On Oct 5, 12:32*am, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote:

> * * * * What, that we throw documentation supporting our claims
> directly at you, yet you don't refute them?

FAR / AIM not required for MSFS. LOL.