Rogue IFR

[Roger Long]

I ran into an old client today and we stumbled on to the flying topic.
Turns out he got his PP a couple years ago and bought a plane.

He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into towered
airports.

Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days? I've asked here
before and seem to find myself asking myself that question a lot. You can'
t teach common sense but the legality of what he's doing didn't even seem to
be on his radar screen.

What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
is solid IMC?

--
Roger Long

[Jim]

Yikes is right! That's about as bad as when one student I was giving a BFR
to related to me that he knows another pilot uses his name a lot as "Safety
Pilot" to stay current!! I about choked and told him that he should put an
end to that before the guys widowed wife's lawyer called him someday saying
how he noticed his name in the other pilots log book a lot.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> I ran into an old client today and we stumbled on to the flying topic.
> Turns out he got his PP a couple years ago and bought a plane.
>
> He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
> instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
> like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into towered
> airports.
>
> Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days? I've asked here
> before and seem to find myself asking myself that question a lot. You
can'
> t teach common sense but the legality of what he's doing didn't even seem
to
> be on his radar screen.
>
> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-10-23 13:51:48 -0700, (null) said:

> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?

They say something like this: "Bugsmasher 225 Heavy, traffic 12 o'clock, 5 miles, opposite direction, mode C indicates 3,500, type unknown."

[David Megginson]

"Roger Long" m> writes:

> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what
> they know is solid IMC?

They probably thank god that he turned on his mode C, at least.


All the best,


David

[Craig Prouse]

Roger Long wrote:

> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?

How would they know, really? I think it's the other way around. I think
ATC sees a 1200 target, and they go, "look, VMC over there."

What's scarier than solid IMC is the case where visibility is perhaps around
two miles, and the IFR pilot is head down flying gauges like a good IFR
pilot, and the VFR pilot is tooling around optimistically claiming that he
can see three miles and change.

Of course most midairs happen in fine VFR weather...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
>
> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?
>

How would ATC know a 1200 target is in solid IMC?

[Roger Long]

Some days in this part of the world, it's pretty obvious.

It occurs to me that this guy would never have been doing this if the GPS
hadn't been invented. He just watches the gauges and follows the little
pointer until he see the airport.

I wonder if we'll be seeing more of this?

--
Roger Long
> >
>
> How would ATC know a 1200 target is in solid IMC?
>
>

[Roger Long]

And,

not having to talk to ATC or worry about those pesky IFR procedures probably
reduces his workload enough that he'll live to be able to do this for a
couple more years.

--
Roger Long

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
>
> Some days in this part of the world, it's pretty obvious.
>

That doesn't answer the question. How would it be obvious?

[Michael 182]

C'mon - if it's solid deck from 300' up to 5000' and he's at 1200', it is
pretty obvious. Maybe not legally enforcable, but obvious.

MIchael

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in
> message ...
> >
> > Some days in this part of the world, it's pretty obvious.
> >
>
> That doesn't answer the question. How would it be obvious?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:U6Ylb.5040$ao4.10373@attbi_s51...
>
> C'mon - if it's solid deck from 300' up to 5000' and he's at 1200', it is
> pretty obvious. Maybe not legally enforcable, but obvious.
>

Yeah, that's obvious, but how can you tell it's solid deck from 300' to
5000' by looking at a radar scope?

[Newps]

Roger Long wrote:


> Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days? I've asked here
> before and seem to find myself asking myself that question a lot. You can'
> t teach common sense but the legality of what he's doing didn't even seem to
> be on his radar screen.
>

Got nothing to do with what's being taught to students today. Flying in
the clouds is not hard to learn.


> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?

Nothing, we don't ever really know that you are illegal.

[Michael 182]

You wouldn't from the scope, but there are plenty of days when the
conditions are well known. Do you mean you have no idea what the cloud
conditions are as a controller? Not such that you can decide if he is
violating VFR, but enough to know, at least in your own head, that there is
no way this guy is VMC...


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:U6Ylb.5040$ao4.10373@attbi_s51...
> >
> > C'mon - if it's solid deck from 300' up to 5000' and he's at 1200', it
is
> > pretty obvious. Maybe not legally enforcable, but obvious.
> >
>
> Yeah, that's obvious, but how can you tell it's solid deck from 300' to
> 5000' by looking at a radar scope?
>
>

[Dale]

In article >,
"Roger Long" m>
wrote:


> It occurs to me that this guy would never have been doing this if the GPS
> hadn't been invented. He just watches the gauges and follows the little
> pointer until he see the airport.

While the GPS may give them more accuracy, this was being done long
before the GPS became available.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:_lYlb.4765$mZ5.23361@attbi_s54...
>
> You wouldn't from the scope, but there are plenty of days when the
> conditions are well known. Do you mean you have no idea what the cloud
> conditions are as a controller? Not such that you can decide if he is
> violating VFR, but enough to know, at least in your own head, that there
is
> no way this guy is VMC...
>

You would need a PIREP from someone at the same spot at the same time.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in

> You would need a PIREP from someone at the same spot at the same time.

*****************************
No, that would be called a NTSB report. ;o
--
Jim in NC

[Roger Long]

> While the GPS may give them more accuracy, this was being done long
> before the GPS became available.
>

But now they live long enough to amaze the rest of us:)

Seriously though, I'm sure the accuracy of the GPS and the cute little
moving map makes this much more tempting, and thus, common.

--
Roger Long

[Happy Dog]

"Roger Long" m>
> I ran into an old client today and we stumbled on to the flying topic.
> Turns out he got his PP a couple years ago and bought a plane.
>
> He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
> instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
> like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into towered
> airports.

Why "towered airports"? Anyway, anyone who does much night XC frequently
experiences brief periods of IMC. And, there are many parts of North
America where, more days than not, XC VFR is "not recommended" by flight
service due to possible patches of IMC en route. People who fly a lot of
VFR XCs get used to figuring out what they're going to do when the weather
starts to close in. The cardinal rule is getting sure knowledge that a VFR
airport is close by. If you have 50NM to go and you know that your
destination is *for sure* VFR and you have flight following, many, if not
most IFR pilots wouldn't bother to file an IFR plan if they're only going to
experience a few minutes of IMC. It's illegal, but people have been doing
it regularly for years.

With moving map GPS, weather in the cockpit and better communications, this
will only increase. There was a good article in AOPA Pilot, I think, about
this. They called it flying "Prentend VFR".
>
> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?

They wouldn't know unless someone flying close by told them.

Le Moo

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Long wrote:
>
> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?

The real problem is when ATC can't see him at all. Then you'd better pray he
doesn't cross paths with someone on an IFR flight plan.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Sridhar Rajagopal]

Happy Dog wrote:

> If you have 50NM to go and you know that your destination is *for
> sure* VFR and you have flight following, many, if not most IFR pilots
> wouldn't bother to file an IFR plan if they're only going to
> experience a few minutes of IMC. It's illegal, but people have been
> doing it regularly for years.


You mean, if there was some cloud cover that you wanted to go through,
to get into the clear above, you cannot do that legally, even if you are
IFR rated, unless you file an IFR plan?

I'm not IFR rated, but my then CFI once did that, so that we could get
some practice in by staying in the clear over the cloud cover.

-Sridhar

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Sridhar Rajagopal > said:
>You mean, if there was some cloud cover that you wanted to go through,
>to get into the clear above, you cannot do that legally, even if you are
>IFR rated, unless you file an IFR plan?

Yes, sort of. You can get on a popup IFR flight plan simply by asking ATC
for an IFR clearance to climb to VFR.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It's free they say, if you can get it to run, the geeks say `hey, that's half
the fun', but I've got a girlfriend and things to get done, the Linux OS sucks"
- Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie, "Every OS Sucks" http://mp3.com/deadtroll/

[Ron Natalie]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message .. .

> Why "towered airports"? Anyway, anyone who does much night XC frequently
> experiences brief periods of IMC.

Probably because he feels he'd get caught if he showed up ersatz-IFR into a
towered field.

[Ron Natalie]

"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message ...

> You mean, if there was some cloud cover that you wanted to go through,
> to get into the clear above, you cannot do that legally, even if you are
> IFR rated, unless you file an IFR plan?

Yes, if you are in less than VFR conditions in controlled airspace you must
be on an instrument flight plan. You can get an abbreviated filing of one, but
you have to be on one.

> I'm not IFR rated, but my then CFI once did that, so that we could get
> some practice in by staying in the clear over the cloud cover.

He was breaking the regs if you were in controlled airspace (just about everywhere
above 1200' in many parts of the country).

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days? I've asked here
> before and seem to find myself asking myself that question a lot. You
can'
> t teach common sense [...]

You said it yourself.

You can teach a person to fly, but you can't take a person with no common
sense and terrible judgment and fix those problems.

> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?

They have no way of knowing one way to the other what the weather is. If
they see a 1200 target, they will generally announce that target to flights
under their control or receiving VFR traffic advisories. If a pilot
requests it, ATC can provide vectors to avoid the traffic.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> You would need a PIREP from someone at the same spot at the same time.

Even in that case, you are relying on the pilot providing the PIREP to do so
accurately. ATC has no way of knowing for sure the PIREP is accurate.

Pete

[Maule Driver]

"Roger Long"
> > While the GPS may give them more accuracy, this was being done long
> > before the GPS became available.
> >
> But now they live long enough to amaze the rest of us:)
>
> Seriously though, I'm sure the accuracy of the GPS and the cute little
> moving map makes this much more tempting, and thus, common.
>
Yeah, but GPS direct flight also takes advantage of the wide open sky and
hopefully keeps all of us off the same airway.

[David Brooks]

"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message
...

> You mean, if there was some cloud cover that you wanted to go through,
> to get into the clear above, you cannot do that legally, even if you are
> IFR rated, unless you file an IFR plan?
>
> I'm not IFR rated, but my then CFI once did that, so that we could get
> some practice in by staying in the clear over the cloud cover.

As others have said, he could have worked it as a popup, and you might have
missed him talking to ATC (it can be done with very little talk) and you may
even have missed him entering a code in the transponder. Otherwise, there is
only a very small chance it was legal, unless your airport is in one of
those few areas where Class G goes up high. Assuming the airport was itself
in CGAS, and even if the Class G ceiling was at 1200ft, he had to be sure
that the *tops* were no higher than 200ft, and how could he know that?
Didn't we just have this discussion? (or maybe that was on r.a.ifr).

Did he use an instrument approach to get back home?

-- David Brooks

[Maule Driver]

"Michael 182" >
> You wouldn't from the scope, but there are plenty of days when the
> conditions are well known. Do you mean you have no idea what the cloud
> conditions are as a controller? Not such that you can decide if he is
> violating VFR, but enough to know, at least in your own head, that there
is
> no way this guy is VMC...
>
Actually, I'm thinking the other way around. Seems like that are a lot of
days where you might 'know' the guy violated VFR to get there and to get
where ever he's going. But unless you are in it and close by, you really
don't know if the guy might be VMC or IMC at a given momeent.

Scary any way you look at it.

[BTIZ]

at least the "signature" might not be faked.. I'd ask him to stop doing that
right away..

and perhaps a "informant" call to the local FSDO? to protect your own arse

BT

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> Yikes is right! That's about as bad as when one student I was giving a
BFR
> to related to me that he knows another pilot uses his name a lot as
"Safety
> Pilot" to stay current!! I about choked and told him that he should put
an
> end to that before the guys widowed wife's lawyer called him someday
saying
> how he noticed his name in the other pilots log book a lot.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in
> message ...
> > I ran into an old client today and we stumbled on to the flying topic.
> > Turns out he got his PP a couple years ago and bought a plane.
> >
> > He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
> > instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
> > like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into
towered
> > airports.
> >
> > Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days? I've asked
here
> > before and seem to find myself asking myself that question a lot. You
> can'
> > t teach common sense but the legality of what he's doing didn't even
seem
> to
> > be on his radar screen.
> >
> > What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they
know
> > is solid IMC?
> >
> > --
> > Roger Long
> >
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even in that case, you are relying on the pilot providing the PIREP to do
so
> accurately. ATC has no way of knowing for sure the PIREP is accurate.
>

PIREPs are assumed to be accurate.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> PIREPs are assumed to be accurate.

That doesn't mean ATC can rely on them to KNOW something.

Besides, even a PIREP does not imply IFR conditions in the exact spot the
target is flying. The PIREP is valid for a specific point in space at a
specific point in time. Assuming there was no collision, obviously the
target aircraft was not in that specific point in space at that specific
point in time.

It's pretty funny, actually, the way you can't help yourself and insist on
arguing even when someone is supporting the point you're trying to make.
Thanks for the good laugh...

Pete

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-10-23 17:27:46 -0700, (null) said:

> You mean, if there was some cloud cover that you wanted to go through,
> to get into the clear above, you cannot do that legally, even if you are
> IFR rated, unless you file an IFR plan?

You can if you're outside controlled airspace.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> He was breaking the regs if you were in controlled airspace (just about everywhere
> above 1200' in many parts of the country).

The obvious solution, then, is to ignore the instruments and try to
squint through the clouds. That way his tombstone can say that he died
without violating regulations.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[C J Campbell]

Student pilots are still taught cloud clearance requirements and why.
Apparently your friend chooses to forget what he was taught.

[Bob Fry]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > PIREPs are assumed to be accurate.
>
> That doesn't mean ATC can rely on them to KNOW something.

<snip>

Are you the type of guy that wonders every day if the sun will rise?

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Are you the type of guy that wonders every day if the sun will rise?

I have no idea how that in any way relates to the question at hand.

[Sylvain]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in message
> He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
> instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
> like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into towered
> airports.

something that happenened to me a while back: flying in solid IMC with
an instructor (one of these really cool CFI who aren't afraid
of actual IMC...) when ATC told us to watch out for VFR traffic a couple of
miles away on our twelve oclock... we told ATC that, well, we were
in actual (neat layer, there was no way the other guy was just outside
the clouds). Gave us one of these funny sensation in our stomach to think
about it...

--Sylvain

[Jay Honeck]

> Seriously though, I'm sure the accuracy of the GPS and the cute little
> moving map makes this much more tempting, and thus, common.

I'm sure you are correct -- especially for pilots with some IFR training.

Myself, for example. I don't have the IR, due to a myriad of time
constraints -- yet I've got all the flying requirements under my belt. I'm
sure I can keep my wings level in the soup as well as any newly minted
instrument pilot.

That said, could I fly an unauthorized instrument approach into Iowa City
using my giant color AvMap? Sure! In fact, I'd wager that I could fly a
BETTER instrument approach using just the AvMap, as opposed to (for example)
flying the full VOR 36 approach into Iowa City.

Would it be legal? Nope. Would it be safe? Except for the
not-talking-to-ATC part, yup. Would I do it? Nope. My ticket -- and my
family's lives -- are too valuable to me to risk on something so stupid.

But I'm sure there are those who would...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger Long]

We're talking here about a 150-200 hour pilot with no instrument training
other than that required for the PP
intentionally launching into weather that some new IFR ticket holders would
have the sense to avoid.

Being at about that level of experience myself, I can't imagine anyone being
tempted to try this without the very accurate position information provided
by the GPS. I'm sure people did it with Loran, and some even with just
gauges but I bet there were a lot less of them and they didn't get away with
it as long. There is something very seductive about seeing that little
airplane symbol on a full color map.

I'm also pretty sure that, if he weren't flying something as stable as a
Skyhawk, I'd have already read the account of his last flight.
--
Roger Long

[Dan Luke]

"Roger Long":
> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what:
> they know is solid IMC?

Nothing. They don't *know* it's IMC where the VFR target is on the screen.

The only time I've ever heard an ATC comment about something like this was
west of Houston one day. A pilot reported climbing through a solid cloud
deck at the same time another pilot was reporting "jumpers away" from his
meat bomb hauler nearby. The controller said something like "I don't know
who it is for sure, but somebody's fibbing."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Mike Rapoport]

Don't they fly IFR in IMC without radar separation in the UK all the time?

Mike
MU-2


"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> I ran into an old client today and we stumbled on to the flying topic.
> Turns out he got his PP a couple years ago and bought a plane.
>
> He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
> instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
> like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into towered
> airports.
>
> Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days? I've asked here
> before and seem to find myself asking myself that question a lot. You
can'
> t teach common sense but the legality of what he's doing didn't even seem
to
> be on his radar screen.
>
> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Todd Pattist]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

>Don't they fly IFR in IMC without radar separation in the UK all the time?

Glider pilots fly IMC (clouds) in the U.K without radar sep.
As I understand it each pilot broadcasts in the blind on the
designated freq. and says: "I'm [location] at [altitude]."
and they use either/both [altitude] or [location] for
separation.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The obvious solution, then, is to ignore the instruments and try to
> squint through the clouds. That way his tombstone can say that he died
> without violating regulations.

The obvious solution is for him to stay on the ground.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[CriticalMass]

"Craig Prouse" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Long wrote:
>
> > What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they
know
> > is solid IMC?
>
> How would they know, really? I think it's the other way around. I think
> ATC sees a 1200 target, and they go, "look, VMC over there."

ATC doesn't really care. Their concern is to separate the IFRs and call
traffic to IFRs if there's time. It's the pilot's job to comply with
visibility and cloud separation rqmts-not ATC's job to police it.

Only time ATC cares what the pilot sees outside the window is when ATC has
to decide if it's legal to approve a request, or issue a clearance requiring
VMC. In those cases, ATC will ask "say flight conditions".

Cloud layers are another possibility that could make the VFR target entirely
legal. Just the fact that there's a ceiling out there doesn't rule out
legal, and in some situations, sensible, VFR flight above the layer, or
between them. Way too many variables for ATC to spend time worrying about
the VFR target.

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Would it be legal? Nope. Would it be safe? Except for the
> not-talking-to-ATC part, yup.

It might not be safe, either. IFR GPS's have an extra quality/geometry
"monitoring" algorithm called RAIM that VFR units don't have. It's
possible that you'd be OK, but it's also possible that you won't and
wouldn't know about it.

That said, I've had RAIM alarms on my IFR GPS, where my handheld GPSMAP
195 thought everything was OK, and I could see by looking out the window
that we were exactly where both GPSs thought we were.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Jay Honeck]

> It might not be safe, either. IFR GPS's have an extra quality/geometry
> "monitoring" algorithm called RAIM that VFR units don't have. It's
> possible that you'd be OK, but it's also possible that you won't and
> wouldn't know about it.

True enough, but I'm comparing my AvMap to my King VOR -- not to an
IFR-certified GPS.

With my AvMap I am able to taxi to my hangar without looking out the
windows. I wouldn't want to try *that* using my VORs... :-)

Thus, comparing apples to apples, I'm positive I could fly a much safer and
more accurate non-precision instrument approach (which is all we have here)
into Iowa City using my AvMap, even though it's technically illegal. Still,
it's nice to have the capability on board, in case of an emergency.

But I sure wouldn't do it routinely, as was the case of the pilot in Roger's
example.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message nk.net...

>
> PIREPs are assumed to be accurate.

Yes but as far as the FAA "officially" is concerned, they are "anecdotal" when it comes
to enforcement actions.

[Teacherjh]

>> Don't they fly IFR in IMC without radar separation in the UK all the time?

We fily IFR in IMC here in the states all the time. We need to be in contact
with ATC, who clears out a section of airspace for us until we report the next
checkpoint, and clears out the next section ahead of us, all depending on our
position reports but coordinated on the ground. Radar is used in congested
areas (like the entire East coast) but it is not necessary for legal IFR in
IMC.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[PS2727]

Imagine flying an ILS approach in IMC (low vis with heavy rain) when, at 800 ft
the tower says "traffic 12 o'clock less than a mile squawking VFR". It would
have been nice to confront that fellow to find out why he tought it was a good
idea to endanger many lives.
I don't understand how some could support flying rogue IFR without realizing
the hazard they are creating for the masses who follow the rules.

[Dave]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you the type of guy that wonders every day if the sun will rise?
>
> I have no idea how that in any way relates to the question at hand.
>
Answers the question really!

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Masino writes:

> That said, I've had RAIM alarms on my IFR GPS, where my handheld GPSMAP
> 195 thought everything was OK, and I could see by looking out the window
> that we were exactly where both GPSs thought we were.

Even a handheld GPS is more than sufficient for en route navigation.
Only takeoffs and landings require greater accuracy. Remember, typical
accuracies for GPS under an open sky without nearby obstacles (e.g., in
an aircraft) are in the range of a few metres, even with cheap,
handheld, uncertified units. Unless the sky is so crowded that aircraft
are only ten metres apart, this is more accuracy than anyone ever needs
en route. In fact, your commercial airline flights could navigate using
the GPS you're holding next to your window if they needed to, and things
would be just fine (at least outside of takeoff and landing).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

G.R. Patterson III writes:

> The obvious solution is for him to stay on the ground.

If he's already in the air when the bad weather develops, what does he
do then?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Answers the question really!

What "answers the question really"? My reply to the question answers it?
Then please, tell me...am I the type of guy that wonders every day if the
sun will rise?

For extra credit, explain how ANY answer to that question has anything to do
with the reliability of a PIREP.

Pete

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >,
Roger Long m> wrote:
>> While the GPS may give them more accuracy, this was being done long
>> before the GPS became available.
>
>But now they live long enough to amaze the rest of us:)
>
>Seriously though, I'm sure the accuracy of the GPS and the cute little
>moving map makes this much more tempting, and thus, common.

Yep, not like the old days when people knew better right :) The real
problem is maps of any kind, and autopilots...

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Even a handheld GPS is more than sufficient for en route navigation.

RAIM isn't about additional accuracy, that's WAAS. A receiver with
RAIM can't give you a better position fix, but it can tell you when the
the possible error in the position fix has gotten unacceptably large.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> If he's already in the air when the bad weather develops, what does he
> do then?

Several people have suggested a popup IFR flight plan.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Mxsmanic]

Ben Jackson writes:

> RAIM isn't about additional accuracy, that's WAAS. A receiver with
> RAIM can't give you a better position fix, but it can tell you when the
> the possible error in the position fix has gotten unacceptably large.

How large is unacceptable? For en route navigation you don't have to be
that accurate. Older forms of navigation are considerably less
accurate, and people still use those.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[David Megginson]

Mxsmanic > writes:

>> RAIM isn't about additional accuracy, that's WAAS. A receiver with
>> RAIM can't give you a better position fix, but it can tell you when the
>> the possible error in the position fix has gotten unacceptably large.
>
> How large is unacceptable?

Most of the time my handheld GPS receiver is fine, but sometimes
(extremely rarely) it loses signal or has an inadequate coverage.
RAIM is essentially a requirement for the GPS to let you know when
something has gone wrong. If you're in VMC, presumably, you can tell
just by looking out the window, but in IMC, if the GPS is your sole
means (rather than just a cross-check on VOR and ADF), you have to
know. You could be talking about an error of dozens or even hundreds
of miles.

It's a lot like electricity. For your home, the electricity works
99.[multiple 9's] percent of the time, and on the very rare occasions
when it goes out, you just pull out the flashlights and battery
radio. In a hospital, the electricity *cannot* stop working, so there
are monitoring systems and backup generators.

The VOR and LOC/GS also have an error-monitoring system in the form of
the flags on the NAV head, for precisely the same reason -- if the
flags drop, you cannot trust the instrument. Ditto for some newer
AI's and TC's. The ADF is grandparented without any such error
indicator, which makes it a bit more dangerous: some snap to 90 deg
when they lose signal (which is hard to miss), and many people just
leave the ident volume on low. I have to admit that I occasionally
change course 10 degrees for 10 or 20 seconds to make sure that the
ADF is still working, since I frequently fly Romeo (LF/MF) airways
between Ottawa and Kingston.

> For en route navigation you don't have to be that accurate. Older
> forms of navigation are considerably less accurate, and people still
> use those.

I don't think people are usually worried about being a mile or two off
course enroute.


All the best,


David

[David Gunter]

I'm approaching the completion of basic private pilot certificate but I
already know I want to go ahead and pursue an instrument rating. I've
found this discussion quite enlightening.

I do have a question: What would happen if this rogue pilot who is
flying VFR in solid IMC were to land at a towered airport such as we
have in Santa Fe? SAF has no radar but the controller is in front of the
windows and knows for certain what the weather is like around the airport.

If this pilot were to call in to request a landing would the controller
be obligated to report this? I know where to find the regs governing
pilots but don't think my AIM/FAR manual has the controller's regs.

Thanks,
david
--
Replace spam with david in the email address if you want to send email
to me personally.

Roger Long wrote:
> I ran into an old client today and we stumbled on to the flying topic.
> Turns out he got his PP a couple years ago and bought a plane.
>
> He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
> instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
> like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into towered
> airports.
>
> Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days? I've asked here
> before and seem to find myself asking myself that question a lot. You can'
> t teach common sense but the legality of what he's doing didn't even seem to
> be on his radar screen.
>
> What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what they know
> is solid IMC?
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[David Megginson]

David Gunter > writes:

> If this pilot were to call in to request a landing would the
> controller be obligated to report this? I know where to find the
> regs governing pilots but don't think my AIM/FAR manual has the
> controller's regs.

I think that they'd simply deny the VFR aircraft clearance to enter
the control zone.


All the best,


David

[Julian Scarfe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Don't they fly IFR in IMC without radar separation in the UK all the time?

Without *any* ATC separation, in uncontrolled (class G) airspace. Yes, we
do, though it's worth bearing in mind that it's usually only done when there
is no ATC service or advisory service available.

The issue with flight in IMC is supposedly that you can't see and avoid
other traffic. The converse assumption that underpins the concept of class
E airspace is that in VMC you *will* see and avoid other traffic, even
without help from ATC or TCAS. Success in that game has been shown by both
accident reports and scientific research to be very much less than perfect,
perhaps even less than 50%. Given that the density of uncontrolled traffic
in IMC is likely to be much lower than in VMC, the relative levels of risk
are not obvious.

Julian Scarfe

[Happy Dog]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> David Gunter > writes:
>
> > If this pilot were to call in to request a landing would the
> > controller be obligated to report this? I know where to find the
> > regs governing pilots but don't think my AIM/FAR manual has the
> > controller's regs.
>
> I think that they'd simply deny the VFR aircraft clearance to enter
> the control zone.

I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR clearance
into the zone. (Unless the weather at the field was below IFR minimums.)
Maybe a controller here can comment.

le moo

[No Such User]

In article >, Roger Long wrote:
>
>It occurs to me that this guy would never have been doing this if the GPS
>hadn't been invented. He just watches the gauges and follows the little
>pointer until he see the airport.
>
This has been going on long before GPS. Check out this sad story:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X43777&key=1

And that's just one example.

[Mxsmanic]

David Megginson writes:

> I don't think people are usually worried about being a mile or two off
> course enroute.

It's pretty easy to be off by that when using VOR navigation, unless one
is careful. The further away the VOR station, the easier it becomes.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[David Megginson]

"Happy Dog" > writes:

>> I think that they'd simply deny the VFR aircraft clearance to enter
>> the control zone.
>
> I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR
> clearance into the zone. (Unless the weather at the field was below
> IFR minimums.) Maybe a controller here can comment.

That's what I had understood as the original question -- what would
happen when the rouge IFR tried to land at a towered airport in IMC.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

Mxsmanic > writes:

>> I don't think people are usually worried about being a mile or two off
>> course enroute.
>
> It's pretty easy to be off by that when using VOR navigation, unless one
> is careful. The further away the VOR station, the easier it becomes.

Exactly my point -- the reason for RAIM enroute is not to find out if
you're a mile or two off course, but to have assurance that the GPS is
working. If you have some other means of navigation (looking out the
window, VOR, ADF, etc.) then it's not a big concern; if the GPS is
sole means, you want some way to be sure it's working.


All the best,


David

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-10-25 06:21:05 -0700, (null) said:

> If this pilot were to call in to request a landing would the controller
> be obligated to report this? I know where to find the regs governing
> pilots but don't think my AIM/FAR manual has the controller's regs.

The controller will handle it in accordance with the usual rules for the conditions that exist - VFR or SFVR. It's up to the pilot to adhere to the minimum visibility and cloud clearance requirements. Controllers are not cops.

[Newps]

David Gunter wrote:

> I do have a question: What would happen if this rogue pilot who is
> flying VFR in solid IMC were to land at a towered airport such as we
> have in Santa Fe?

Without talking to the tower? Sounds like the tower controller will
have some paperwork to do.


SAF has no radar but the controller is in front of the
> windows and knows for certain what the weather is like around the airport.

Around the airport is irrelavant. At the airport is the only thing that
matters.


>
> If this pilot were to call in to request a landing would the controller
> be obligated to report this?

The controller would say "the field is IFR say intentions." This is the
pilots warning that you can't land VFR, in case you somehow didn't get
the weather. If he comes back and says "I want to land." then I get to
treat him like the idiot he is. He will not get a landing clearance.
He will have to ask for either a SVFR or an instrument clearance. I have
never seen this situation happen at a towered field because these guys
know this is what happens. So they stick to the uncontrolled fields.

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:


>>I think that they'd simply deny the VFR aircraft clearance to enter
>>the control zone.
>
>
> I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR clearance
> into the zone. (Unless the weather at the field was below IFR minimums.)
> Maybe a controller here can comment.

You have to have a mile viz to get a SVFR. Class D's normally do not
have radar so you have to get your SVFR from whoever runs the approach
control, although I have gotten SVFR's from class D towers immediately
upon request so I could tell they had some kind of agreement with the
approach control. A controller wouldn't hesitate to deny a SVFR
clearance if traffic won't permit it. The minimums for any instrument
approach do not factor into the equation.

[Newps]

David Megginson wrote:


>
> That's what I had understood as the original question -- what would
> happen when the rouge IFR tried to land at a towered airport in IMC.

He wouldn't get a clearance.

[Newps]

Larry Fransson wrote:

> On 2003-10-25 06:21:05 -0700, (null) said:
>
>
>>If this pilot were to call in to request a landing would the controller
>>be obligated to report this? I know where to find the regs governing
>>pilots but don't think my AIM/FAR manual has the controller's regs.
>
>
> The controller will handle it in accordance with the usual rules for the conditions that exist - VFR or SFVR.

No. There are no SVFR conditions as far as the controller is concerned.
It is either VFR or IFR. The pilot has to ask for a SVFR clearance,
and one may be issued if traffic allows and the viz is a mile. Less viz
is required for a helicopter.


It's up to the pilot to adhere to the minimum visibility and cloud
clearance requirements. Controllers are not cops.

If a guy is flying around VFR in the clouds and trying to land at my
airport and I am working, I will personally call FSDO.

[Snowbird]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in message >...
> I ran into an old client today and we stumbled on to the flying topic.
> Turns out he got his PP a couple years ago and bought a plane.

> He said with a completely straight face that he's thinking of getting an
> instrument rating because he "flies in IMC a lot." He does OK but would
> like to be able to ask ATC where the other planes are and fly into towered
> airports.
What did you say to all this, out of curiousity?

> Yikes! What are they teaching student pilots these days?

Much the same as they've always taught.

This doesn't sound to me like an issue of what's been
taught.

It sounds to me like an issue of moral failings.

Sydney (on a restrained day; next week maybe I'll say what
I really think)

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" >
> > I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR
clearance
> > into the zone. (Unless the weather at the field was below IFR
minimums.)
> > Maybe a controller here can comment.
>
> You have to have a mile viz to get a SVFR.

Yes, but conditions can vary wildly in a control zone area. Particularly
around bodies of water.

> Class D's normally do not
> have radar so you have to get your SVFR from whoever runs the approach
> control, although I have gotten SVFR's from class D towers immediately
> upon request so I could tell they had some kind of agreement with the
> approach control. A controller wouldn't hesitate to deny a SVFR
> clearance if traffic won't permit it. The minimums for any instrument
> approach do not factor into the equation.

So a controller would issue an SVFR clearance even if the field is below IFR
minimums?

le moo

[Peter Duniho]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
> So a controller would issue an SVFR clearance even if the field is below
IFR
> minimums?

What does "below IFR minimums" mean? Do you mean the minimums for an
instrument approach at the airport? If so, which approach would apply,
assuming more than one approach at the airport? Why should a VFR flight be
required to use reported weather when an IFR flight is not?

It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the FARs.
If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller should
approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions are met).

Pete

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:


>>You have to have a mile viz to get a SVFR.
>
>
> Yes, but conditions can vary wildly in a control zone area. Particularly
> around bodies of water.

While that is true, if the official airport viz is not a mile you ain't
gettin' a SVFR.


>
>
>>Class D's normally do not
>>have radar so you have to get your SVFR from whoever runs the approach
>>control, although I have gotten SVFR's from class D towers immediately
>>upon request so I could tell they had some kind of agreement with the
>>approach control. A controller wouldn't hesitate to deny a SVFR
>>clearance if traffic won't permit it. The minimums for any instrument
>>approach do not factor into the equation.
>
>
> So a controller would issue an SVFR clearance even if the field is below IFR
> minimums?

Like I said the SVFR rules are not tied to what the minimums for any
approach happen to be.

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


> It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the FARs.
> If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller should
> approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions are met).

That would only apply if there were no weather reporting at the field.
If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
least a mile, no matter what you say.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR clearance
> into the zone.

It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an instrument
rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[David Reinhart]

No instrument rating is required to get a SVFR clearance during the day. You only
need an IFR rating to do SVFR at night, when the regs say the aircraft must be
equipped for instrument flight and the pilot must be instrument qualified.

Dave Reinhart


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> Happy Dog wrote:
> >
> > I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR clearance
> > into the zone.
>
> It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an instrument
> rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.
>
> George Patterson
> You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[David Reinhart]

That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though I think
the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.

Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think they
try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large pieces of
real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting visibility
different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think what
will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed for the
runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.

Dave Reinhart


Newps wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the FARs.
> > If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller should
> > approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions are met).
>
> That would only apply if there were no weather reporting at the field.
> If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
> least a mile, no matter what you say.

[Kobra]

Pete,

Beating a dead horse...

I'm with you on this issue that ATC doesn't care too much about VFR ac in
IMC and can't go after someone based on a PIREP of an ac near the same point
in space. But I understood Dave's comment. He's trying to say you're being
way too technical. It's like someone saying, "We all know the sun will come
up tomorrow" and you arguing, "Well, technically you're incorrect. You
really can't say that with 100% accuracy. There is a mathematical
possibility that it will not."


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Answers the question really!
>
> What "answers the question really"? My reply to the question answers it?
> Then please, tell me...am I the type of guy that wonders every day if the
> sun will rise?
>
> For extra credit, explain how ANY answer to that question has anything to
do
> with the reliability of a PIREP.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Kobra]

Why would a "meat bomb" flight be announcing on an Approach frequency?
That's usually done on CTAF isn't it? And when did it become standard
procedure to let ATC know, on an IFR flight plan, that while you are
climbing it's, oh btw, solid IMC?


"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> "Roger Long":
> > What does ATC do when they see a 1200 target boring through what:
> > they know is solid IMC?
>
> Nothing. They don't *know* it's IMC where the VFR target is on the screen.
>
> The only time I've ever heard an ATC comment about something like this was
> west of Houston one day. A pilot reported climbing through a solid cloud
> deck at the same time another pilot was reporting "jumpers away" from his
> meat bomb hauler nearby. The controller said something like "I don't know
> who it is for sure, but somebody's fibbing."
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[David Megginson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an
> instrument rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.

Is that a U.S. rule, or are you mixing SVFR with contact approaches?


All the best,


David

[Newps]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR clearance
>>into the zone.
>
>
> It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an instrument
> rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.

Sure he can, no instrument rating required.

[Newps]

David Reinhart wrote:

> That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though I think
> the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.
>
> Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think they
> try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large pieces of
> real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting visibility
> different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think what
> will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed for the
> runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.
>

At my airport it is common to get a fog bank over the eastern half of
the airport, the half that includes the ASOS. The western half will be
CAVU, which includes the full length of the small runway I normally use.
There I sit in the full sun unable to get a clearance for takeoff.

[Dan Luke]

"Kobra" wrote:
> That's usually done on CTAF isn't it?

Jumper planes use VFR traffic advisories a lot when they're near a
radar terminal area . I hear them nearly every weekend over Trent Lott
airport SW of Mobile.

> And when did it become standard
> procedure to let ATC know, on an IFR flight plan, that while
> you are climbing it's, oh btw, solid IMC?

Did I say it was? What's your point?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
> [...] But I understood Dave's comment. He's trying to say you're being
> way too technical. It's like someone saying, "We all know the sun will
come
> up tomorrow" and you arguing, "Well, technically you're incorrect. You
> really can't say that with 100% accuracy. There is a mathematical
> possibility that it will not."

It's not just an academic possibility. Anyone who thinks that weather, and
reports of weather, are anywhere close to being as reliable as the sun
coming up each morning is fooling themselves. You can have one airplane in
solid IMC, and another just 500' below, and one can be legally VFR while the
other is legally IFR.

In fact, for any random target on radar in controlled airspace not on an IFR
flight plan and under ATC control, the most likely explanation is that the
airplane is in VFR conditions, regardless of weather reported in the area by
other aircraft.

There are numerous other possibilities, but the bottom line is that a pilot
in solid IMC has no way of knowing what flight conditions an airplane only
hundreds or thousands of feet away is experiencing, nevermind can a report
from that pilot be useful in knowing what flight conditions another airplane
is experiencing.

People need to give up their fallacious idea that weather is uniform in time
and space. It's not. One of the reasons it's such a hard element of flying
to come to terms with is that it's highly variable. The views expressed in
this thread and others by pilots who seem to think that a single pilot
report of IMC conditions is sufficient for knowing what conditions another
pilot is flying in are just plain wrong, and not just in a "technicality"
sense.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:R9Smb.34321$Fm2.13493@attbi_s04...
> If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
> least a mile, no matter what you say.

That's true. I still don't see where "IFR minimums" comes into it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Reinhart wrote:
>
> No instrument rating is required to get a SVFR clearance during the day.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Happy Dog]

"Peter Duniho" >

> > So a controller would issue an SVFR clearance even if the field is below
> IFR minimums?
>
> What does "below IFR minimums" mean? Do you mean the minimums for an
> instrument approach at the airport?
> Why should a VFR flight be
> required to use reported weather when an IFR flight is not?
>
> It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the
FARs.

I agree. Could the flight be cleared into the CZ but not cleared to land
due to visibility?

le moo

[Happy Dog]

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
> That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though
I think
> the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.
>
> Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think
they
> try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large
pieces of
> real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting
visibility
> different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think
what
> will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed for
the
> runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.

I've seen fog obscure one otherwise usable runway but not another.

le moo

>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
> Newps wrote:
>
> > Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > > It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the
FARs.
> > > If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller
should
> > > approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions are
met).
> >
> > That would only apply if there were no weather reporting at the field.
> > If the field has an ASOS, for example, then it would have to report at
> > least a mile, no matter what you say.
>

[Happy Dog]

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
> No instrument rating is required to get a SVFR clearance during the day.
You only
> need an IFR rating to do SVFR at night, when the regs say the aircraft
must be
> equipped for instrument flight and the pilot must be instrument qualified.

In Canada, you can get SVFR at night for the purpose of landing only. A
night rating is all that's required.

le moo



>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> > Happy Dog wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR
clearance
> > > into the zone.
> >
> > It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an
instrument
> > rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.
> >
> > George Patterson
> > You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the
mud.
>

[Kobra]

> It's not just an academic possibility. Anyone who thinks that weather,
and
> reports of weather, are anywhere close to being as reliable as the sun
> coming up each morning is fooling themselves. You can have one airplane
in
> solid IMC, and another just 500' below, and one can be legally VFR while
the
> other is legally IFR.

Understood.

Kobra

[Snowbird]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Happy Dog wrote:
> >
> > I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR clearance
> > into the zone.
>
> It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an instrument
> rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.

Huh?

Since when is an IR necessary to get an sVFR clearance during
daylight hours (in US, where I know you fly George)?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Newps > wrote in message news:<OXDmb.21587$mZ5.80201@attbi_s54>...

> The controller would say "the field is IFR say intentions." This is the
> pilots warning that you can't land VFR, in case you somehow didn't get
> the weather. If he comes back and says "I want to land." then I get to
> treat him like the idiot he is.

Y'know, I sure hope this isn't exactly your SOP.

I was flying along, minding my own business VFR over a layer
one day, getting flight following from ZKC while heading for
southern MO. The layer was already broken, and the ASOS at
our destination airport was reporting clear so I wasn't too
worried about getting down.

I was listening to the female controller work a couple flights
over by Lake of the Ozarks. One plane, VFR evidently, was
asking for info about VFR wx conditions in sort of a strange way.
Suddenly a male voice took over and asked the pilot "say
your conditions of flight" then directly "are you IMC?" He
was very gentle and non-judgemental and provided a vector towards
a nearby airport, then rerouted a couple of IFR planes a bit.

Evidently it was a trainee controller working a pilot who'd
blundered into clouds and was trying to get out. The female
controller had kind of been "treating him like an idiot" but
something clued her superviser to a different possibility.
After a couple minutes the female voice took back over,
sounding a little flustered.

So, someone calls up and says "I want to land" when you've
told him the field is IFR. Now maybe he's a scofflaw idiot.

But maybe he's a relatively honest idiot -- someone who made
a mistake and got wx'd over his head and just doesn't remember
what "sVFR" is or how you ask for it. I know I've had those
"wheel spinning but the hamster's dead" moments myself, not in
this regard but in others.

In those circs, sure seems like a better SOP to ask "do you
require assistance?" or "are you requesting special VFR clearance?"
and ask the pilot to phone from the ground to suss him out and
decide if you're dealing with an honest idiot or a scofflaw jerk
then just "treat him like the idiot he is" and maybe have him
go away flustered and bend something.

Anyway, if I get into trouble someday I sure hope I draw the
male supe with the nice voice and not the "treat him like an
idiot until proven otherwise" trainee controller.

JMO of course.
Sydney

[Newps]

The difference here is that the field you were flying to is reporting
good VFR and you had that weather. My guy either didn't bother to get
the ATIS, which is why I told him the field is IFR, or he got the
weather and either didn't understand or didn't care. Either way saying
"the field is IFR say intentions" covers it.
I can tell the difference between someone who is in over their head
and someone who isn't. It is obvious on the radio, just like you heard
with that other aircraft.

Snowbird wrote:

>
> Y'know, I sure hope this isn't exactly your SOP.
>
> I was flying along, minding my own business VFR over a layer
> one day, getting flight following from ZKC while heading for
> southern MO. The layer was already broken, and the ASOS at
> our destination airport was reporting clear so I wasn't too
> worried about getting down.
>
> I was listening to the female controller work a couple flights
> over by Lake of the Ozarks. One plane, VFR evidently, was
> asking for info about VFR wx conditions in sort of a strange way.
> Suddenly a male voice took over and asked the pilot "say
> your conditions of flight" then directly "are you IMC?" He
> was very gentle and non-judgemental and provided a vector towards
> a nearby airport, then rerouted a couple of IFR planes a bit.
>
> Evidently it was a trainee controller working a pilot who'd
> blundered into clouds and was trying to get out. The female
> controller had kind of been "treating him like an idiot" but
> something clued her superviser to a different possibility.
> After a couple minutes the female voice took back over,
> sounding a little flustered.
>
> So, someone calls up and says "I want to land" when you've
> told him the field is IFR. Now maybe he's a scofflaw idiot.
>
> But maybe he's a relatively honest idiot -- someone who made
> a mistake and got wx'd over his head and just doesn't remember
> what "sVFR" is or how you ask for it. I know I've had those
> "wheel spinning but the hamster's dead" moments myself, not in
> this regard but in others.
>
> In those circs, sure seems like a better SOP to ask "do you
> require assistance?" or "are you requesting special VFR clearance?"
> and ask the pilot to phone from the ground to suss him out and
> decide if you're dealing with an honest idiot or a scofflaw jerk
> then just "treat him like the idiot he is" and maybe have him
> go away flustered and bend something.
>
> Anyway, if I get into trouble someday I sure hope I draw the
> male supe with the nice voice and not the "treat him like an
> idiot until proven otherwise" trainee controller.
>
> JMO of course.
> Sydney

[Ditch]

>Why would a "meat bomb" flight be announcing on an Approach frequency?

When you let loose meat bombs, you have to notify the controlling agency of the
airspace you are in, usually approach or Center. They usually like to hear a a
one minute call and also a jumpers away call.

-John
Former Skydiver Driver or Elevator.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Roger Long m>
posted:

> We're talking here about a 150-200 hour pilot with no instrument
> training other than that required for the PP
> intentionally launching into weather that some new IFR ticket holders
> would have the sense to avoid.
>
> Being at about that level of experience myself, I can't imagine
> anyone being tempted to try this without the very accurate position
> information provided by the GPS.
>
I'm not so sure that the biggest problem is one's location. Take a look at
the numbers of accidents which involve pilots losing their orientation
references. GPS isn't fast enough to be a good substitute for the gauges.
Also, take a look at the numbers involving impact with obstacles while in
IMC, which most GPS units don't give information about. Then, take a look
at the flying time those involved in such accidents have. Playing around
in the soup is just not safe flying, regardless of how many hours a pilot
has.

Regards,

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> That doesn't mean ATC can rely on them to KNOW something.
>

Of course it does. If a pilot says he's in the clouds ATC knows he's in
IMC.


>
> Besides, even a PIREP does not imply IFR conditions in the exact spot the
> target is flying. The PIREP is valid for a specific point in space at a
> specific point in time. Assuming there was no collision, obviously the
> target aircraft was not in that specific point in space at that specific
> point in time.
>

The airplanes don't have to be at exactly the same point. If a pilot
reports he's in the clouds then any other aircraft within 2000 feet
horizontally, 1000 feet above, or 500 feet below of the reporting aircraft
is in IMC.


>
> It's pretty funny, actually, the way you can't help yourself and insist on
> arguing even when someone is supporting the point you're trying to make.
> Thanks for the good laugh...
>

I was responding only to the part of your message that was incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes but as far as the FAA "officially" is concerned, they are "anecdotal"
> when it comes to enforcement actions.
>

We're not talking about enforcement actions.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I think that a controller would be very reluctant to deny an SVFR
> clearance into the zone. (Unless the weather at the field was below
> IFR minimums.) Maybe a controller here can comment.
>

The question concerns an arriving VFR aircraft, no mention of a request for
a SVFR clearance. I'm not sure what you mean by "below IFR minimums". A
fixed-wing SVFR clearance requires a minimum of one mile surface visibility.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's what I had understood as the original question -- what would
> happen when the rouge IFR tried to land at a towered airport in IMC.
>

The controller would likely just inform the pilot the field was below VFR
minimums.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:z5Emb.21607$mZ5.80956@attbi_s54...
>
> No. There are no SVFR conditions as far as the controller is concerned.
> It is either VFR or IFR. The pilot has to ask for a SVFR clearance,
> and one may be issued if traffic allows and the viz is a mile. Less viz
> is required for a helicopter.
>

Small point, the surface visibility must be at least one mile for fixed-wing
SVFR, not "a mile".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Yes, but conditions can vary wildly in a control zone area. Particularly
> around bodies of water.
>

It doesn't matter. A SVFR clearance is issued on the basis of weather
conditions reported at the airport. If the weather observation site is
enveloped in fog while the rest of the surface area is CAVU, then fixed-wing
SVFR is not available.


>
> So a controller would issue an SVFR clearance even if the field is below
IFR
> minimums?
>

Possibly. If the available SIAPs all have minimums greater than one mile
visibility. There is no direct connection between SVFR and IFR minimums.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not the controller's job to ensure that the pilot is obeying the
FARs.
> If the pilot claims that flight visibility is 1 mile, the controller
should
> approve SVFR (assuming the necessary traffic separation conditions
> are met).
>

A SVFR clearance requires surface visibility of at least one mile for
fixed-wing aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's a contentious point that I don't know has been settled yet, though
> I think the rulings so far are leaning the way you describe.
>
> Since the ASOS/AWOS is usually not located at the end of a runway (I think
> they try for a spot close to airport center) and airports are pretty large
pieces
> of real estate, it's entirely possible for the system to be reporting
visibility
> different from what the pilot is seeing from the air on approach. I think
> what will certainly cause the FAA to jump on you is if an RVR is installed
for
> the runway you used and it was reporting visibility less than minimums.
>

What's the point of contention? A SVFR clearance is issued on the basis of
weather conditions reported at the airport of intended landing/departure.
If the weather observation site is enveloped in fog while the rest of the
surface area is CAVU, then fixed-wing SVFR is not available. Flight
visibility doesn't come into play at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an
> instrument rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.
>

That restriction applies only between sunset and sunrise.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why would a "meat bomb" flight be announcing on an Approach frequency?
> That's usually done on CTAF isn't it?
>

Not "announcing, "reporting". Part 105 requires a radio for jump operations
in controlled airspace, one of the required reports to ATC is notice of
jumpers away.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree. Could the flight be cleared into the CZ but not cleared to land
> due to visibility?
>

Not if he's operating VFR. There are no clearances for entry of Class D
airspace by VFR aircraft in the US.

[Kobra]

OT, I know...I wasn't contesting Dan's story, I was very confused though
reading the comment because in my short flying experience I have never heard
a skydiving call on approach, center or in a radar terminal area (which
comprises about 80% of my radio listening time). I do hear them *very*
regularly on CTAF. I humbly stand corrected.

Kobra





"Ditch" > wrote in message
...
> >Why would a "meat bomb" flight be announcing on an Approach frequency?
>
> When you let loose meat bombs, you have to notify the controlling agency
of the
> airspace you are in, usually approach or Center. They usually like to hear
a a
> one minute call and also a jumpers away call.
>
> -John
> Former Skydiver Driver or Elevator.

[Roger Long]

No, but being able to just follow the little airplane symbol on the GPS to
your destination reduces the work load significantly. This lets you
concentrate more on the gauges and minimizes the head movement and
distraction that lead to spatial disorientation.

Think of flying rogue and NORDO before GPS (or Loran), even with the VOR's
you'd be juggling charts, plotters, looking up new frequencies, retuning the
VOR. One dropped pencil and you'd be dead.

I'm not saying it's safe, just that technology has made it significantly
easier and therefore enough safer to be more tempting.

--
Roger Long

> I'm not so sure that the biggest problem is one's location. Take a look at
> the numbers of accidents which involve pilots losing their orientation
> references. GPS isn't fast enough to be a good substitute for the gauges.

[Squirrel]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:<w8%lb.72583$La.58656@fed1read02>...
> at least the "signature" might not be faked.. I'd ask him to stop doing that
> right away..

The signature of the safety pilot is not required.

SM

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > That doesn't mean ATC can rely on them to KNOW something.
>
> Of course it does. If a pilot says he's in the clouds ATC knows he's in
> IMC.

Sorry. I thought the "...about the VFR target" was implied obviously enough
for you to pick up on it. Apparently not. I'll try to keep things simpler
for you in the future, so you can keep up.

> The airplanes don't have to be at exactly the same point. If a pilot
> reports he's in the clouds then any other aircraft within 2000 feet
> horizontally, 1000 feet above, or 500 feet below of the reporting aircraft
> is in IMC.

ATC doesn't have enroute radar capable of determining when another aircraft
is within those limits. Furthermore, that assumes accurate reporting by the
VFR target's transponder. Again, an unidentified target would not qualify
for that assumption.

> I was responding only to the part of your message that was incorrect.

There was no such part.

Pete

[Greg Goodknight]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It wouldn't matter. The pilot under discussion here doesn't have an
> > instrument rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.
> >
>
> That restriction applies only between sunset and sunrise.

More like between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise,
roughly, the rule of thumb for night ops in the continental US, not to be
confused with the one hour after sundown rule for logging night flight time.

The ICAO definition is when the center the sun is 6 degrees or more below
the horizon which is about 24 minutes after dusk/before dawn at the equator,
sometimes much longer than that above the arctic circle or below the
antarctic circle ;)

[Ben Jackson]

In article et>,
Greg Goodknight > wrote:
>> > instrument rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.
>>
>> That restriction applies only between sunset and sunrise.
>
>More like between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise,
>roughly, the rule of thumb for night ops in the continental US, not to be
>confused with the one hour after sundown rule for logging night flight time.

Err, 'night' in the FAR is defined in 14 CFR Part 1 and it's based on
civil twilight.

The SVFR regulations in 91.157(b)(4) says sunset-sunrise, not "night",
so the other poster was exactly right.

It's 61.57(b) (night currency) that uses the "hour after sunset".

>The ICAO definition is when the center the sun is 6 degrees or more below
>the horizon

Which is the definition of the end of civil twilight.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Snowbird]

Newps > wrote in message news:<Jw0nb.28169$275.50566@attbi_s53>...
> The difference here is that the field you were flying to is reporting
> good VFR and you had that weather. My guy either didn't bother to get
> the ATIS, which is why I told him the field is IFR, or he got the
> weather and either didn't understand or didn't care. Either way saying
> "the field is IFR say intentions" covers it.

It does to someone who knows the drill. It doesn't to someone
who badly wants to land but can't remember whatcha ask for --
special something?

> I can tell the difference between someone who is in over their head
> and someone who isn't. It is obvious on the radio, just like you heard
> with that other aircraft.

Well, I guess my point is, it was obvious to one controller -- but
not to the first controller, and not to me.

I don't know if you've been around long enough to read Greg Travis'
story of being hijacked, but one of his problems was, HE SOUNDED
SO CALM flying around with a shotgun pointed at him, that the
controllers didn't take him seriously at first and jeopardized
his safety by repeatedly questioning him.
(the story is here if anyone didn't see it and is interested:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Personal/travis.txt and btw Greg has
an awesome, informative site in general)

So clearly there's a margin of error in what's obvious and to whom,
even taking into account differences in personality and training.

Seems like cause for a bit of "benefit of the doubt" in the air,
to me.

YMMV.

Ciao,
Sydney

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> More like between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise,
> roughly, the rule of thumb for night ops in the continental US, not to be
> confused with the one hour after sundown rule for logging night flight
time.
>

No, it's between sunset and sunrise, except for Alaska.


§91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.

(a) Except as provided in appendix D, section 3, of this part, special VFR
operations may be conducted under the weather minimums and requirements of
this section, instead of those contained in §91.155, below 10,000 feet MSL
within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral
boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an
airport.

(b) Special VFR operations may only be conducted --

(1) With an ATC clearance;

(2) Clear of clouds;

(3) Except for helicopters, when flight visibility is at least 1 statute
mile; and

(4) Except for helicopters, between sunrise and sunset (or in Alaska, when
the sun is 6 degrees or more below the horizon) unless --

(i) The person being granted the ATC clearance meets the applicable
requirements for instrument flight under part 61 of this chapter; and

(ii) The aircraft is equipped as required in §91.205(d).

(c) No person may take off or land an aircraft (other than a helicopter)
under special VFR --

(1) Unless ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile; or

(2) If ground visibility is not reported, unless flight visibility is at
least 1 statute mile. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term flight
visibility includes the visibility from the cockpit of an aircraft in
takeoff position if:

(i) The flight is conducted under this part 91; and

(ii) The airport at which the aircraft is located is a satellite airport
that does not have weather reporting capabilities.

(d) The determination of visibility by a pilot in accordance with paragraph
(c)(2) of this section is not an official weather report or an official
ground visibility report.

[Amdt. 91-235, 58 FR 51968, Oct. 5, 1993, as amended by Amdt. 91-247, 60 FR
66874, Dec. 27, 1995; Amdt. 91-262, 65 FR 16116, Mar. 24, 2000]

[Newps]

Snowbird wrote:

>> I can tell the difference between someone who is in over their head
>>and someone who isn't. It is obvious on the radio, just like you heard
>>with that other aircraft.
>
>
> Well, I guess my point is, it was obvious to one controller

Yep, the one not being trained.


-- but
> not to the first controller, and not to me.

I wouldn't think so.


>
> Seems like cause for a bit of "benefit of the doubt" in the air,
> to me.

There are other factors too. Is he flying a single engine like a 172 or
a cherokee? Does he sound young or old, etc?

[Snowbird]

Newps > wrote in message news:<5Nvnb.50619$e01.125474@attbi_s02>...
> Snowbird wrote:
> >> I can tell the difference between someone who is in over their head
> >>and someone who isn't. It is obvious on the radio, just like you heard
> >>with that other aircraft.

> > Well, I guess my point is, it was obvious to one controller

> Yep, the one not being trained.

I don't think any of the controllers working Greg Travis
were trainees.

Clearly even experienced ATCS are not infalliable in their
abilities to tell whether or not a pilot is really in trouble.

> > Seems like cause for a bit of "benefit of the doubt" in the air,
> > to me.

> There are other factors too.

Maybe. I think it boils down to this: you believe you can
always tell what's really going on in the cockpit when you're
sitting in a chair behind a mic, so you get to make judgements
and "treat (pilots) like the idiots they are".

I think everyone is falliable, *particularly* when they're
sitting in a chair on the ground and not up in the furball,
so it's better not to treat anyone like an idiot. Even if
they really are.

Not for the first time, we disagree.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I agree. Could the flight be cleared into the CZ but not cleared to
>> land due to visibility?
>>
>
> Not if he's operating VFR. There are no clearances for entry of Class
> D airspace by VFR aircraft in the US.

What about a transition clearance?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> What about a transition clearance?
>

It does not exist.

[Ron Natalie]

"Judah" > wrote in message ...

> >
> > Not if he's operating VFR. There are no clearances for entry of Class
> > D airspace by VFR aircraft in the US.
>
> What about a transition clearance?
>
There ain't no such thing.

[Judah]

I stand corrected... Two-way radio communications must be established, but
a "clearance" is not required.

Somehow the difference momentarily eluded me... After all, if an ATC
authority can deny you the privilege of entering his/her airspace (either
by requesting that you "Remain Clear the Class Delta", or by not
acknowledging your tail number), it implies he is implicitly clearing you
into his airspace when acknowledging your tail number and not restricting
you from his airspace.

That said, technically speaking, you are correct. There is no VFR clearance
into Class D...

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What about a transition clearance?
>>
>
> It does not exist.
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:57:43 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Judah" > wrote in message ...
>
>> >
>> > Not if he's operating VFR. There are no clearances for entry of Class
>> > D airspace by VFR aircraft in the US.
>>
>> What about a transition clearance?
>>
>There ain't no such thing.
>
>
So when the guys in the choppers call up Lebanon tower up here in NH
and request clearance through the class D airspace, they're just being
thoughtful?

Without that call, they'd be cruising through the traffic pattern at
500 feet unannounced. That's straight over the runways. It happens
fairly regularly, and they call in and ask permission every time.

What am I missing?

Corky Scott

[Ron Natalie]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message ...

> So when the guys in the choppers call up Lebanon tower up here in NH
> and request clearance through the class D airspace, they're just being
> thoughtful?

Nope, they're just using the wrong terms. All you need to do wo enter the
class D airspace is this:

27K: Lebanon Tower, Navion 5327K
TWR: Navion 5327K, LebanonTower

> Without that call, they'd be cruising through the traffic pattern at
> 500 feet unannounced. That's straight over the runways. It happens
> fairly regularly, and they call in and ask permission every time.
>
> What am I missing?
>
You're missing that it is not a clearance. All you need to be is in communication
with them. While it's generally accepted procedure to tell the tower what you're
doing, you're not asking their permission. If they need you to do otherwise, they
can instruct you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I stand corrected... Two-way radio communications must be established, but
> a "clearance" is not required.
>
> Somehow the difference momentarily eluded me... After all, if an ATC
> authority can deny you the privilege of entering his/her airspace (either
> by requesting that you "Remain Clear the Class Delta", or by not
> acknowledging your tail number), it implies he is implicitly clearing you
> into his airspace when acknowledging your tail number and not restricting
> you from his airspace.
>
A clearance is an authorization by air traffic control, for the purpose of
preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed
under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace. Clearances,
for the most part, imply separation. ATC does not separate VFR aircraft in
Class D airspace so a clearance is not required.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> So when the guys in the choppers call up Lebanon tower up here in NH
> and request clearance through the class D airspace, they're just being
> thoughtful?
>

No, they're just misusing the word "clearance".

[David Reinhart]

When I go through Worcester's airspace going to and from FIT (MA), I call up them up and say
something like "Worcester tower, Cardinal 18738 is ten miles North, VFR Groton, transitioning your
airspace at 2,000". There response is "transition approved", not "cleared through".

Dave Reinhart


Corky Scott wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:57:43 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Judah" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> >
> >> > Not if he's operating VFR. There are no clearances for entry of Class
> >> > D airspace by VFR aircraft in the US.
> >>
> >> What about a transition clearance?
> >>
> >There ain't no such thing.
> >
> >
> So when the guys in the choppers call up Lebanon tower up here in NH
> and request clearance through the class D airspace, they're just being
> thoughtful?
>
> Without that call, they'd be cruising through the traffic pattern at
> 500 feet unannounced. That's straight over the runways. It happens
> fairly regularly, and they call in and ask permission every time.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Corky Scott

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> If they need you to do otherwise, they can instruct you.

And if they want you to stay out, they will refuse to answer you.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATC doesn't have enroute radar capable of determining when another
> aircraft is within those limits.
>

Enroute radar? Do you mean Air Route Surveillance Radar? Why are we
suddenly limited to ARSR for discussion purposes? Please, Pete, tell us
about the capabilities of ATC radar.


>
> Furthermore, that assumes accurate reporting by the VFR target's
> transponder. Again, an unidentified target would not qualify for
> that assumption.
>

It assumes nothing at all. If a pilot reports he's in the clouds, then any
other
aircraft that is within 2000 feet horizontally, 1000 feet above, or 500 feet
below
the reporting aircraft MUST be in IMC.


>
> There was no such part.
>

Yes there was. You said ATC can't rely on PIREPs to KNOW something. That's
obviously incorrect.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> It assumes nothing at all. If a pilot reports he's in the clouds, then
any
> other aircraft that is within 2000 feet horizontally, 1000 feet above, or
> 500 feet below the reporting aircraft MUST be in IMC.

ATC has no way of knowing that the VFR target in question is within those
limits.

> Yes there was. You said ATC can't rely on PIREPs to KNOW something.
That's
> obviously incorrect.

Wow. With the "...about the VFR target" implied, your misunderstanding was
understandable, if a bit surprising. But with it being called out
explicitly to you, your ignorance is downright shocking.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATC has no way of knowing that the VFR target in question is within those
> limits.
>

Irrelevant.


>
> Wow. With the "...about the VFR target" implied, your misunderstanding
was
> understandable, if a bit surprising. But with it being called out
> explicitly to you, your ignorance is downright shocking.
>

There was no "...about the VFR target" implied.

Where's your dissertation on ATC radar capabilities?

[Robert Moore]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

> It assumes nothing at all. If a pilot reports he's in the
> clouds, then any other
> aircraft that is within 2000 feet horizontally, 1000 feet above,
> or 500 feet below
> the reporting aircraft MUST be in IMC.

ATC's definition may be different, but I found these defined on
the web.


From FAR Part 1
IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for
flight under visual flight rules.

This seems to be the definition that you are using for IMC.



From http://www.visi.com/~lindowdy/aviation/glossary.htm
Glossary of Aviation Terms
IMC instrument meteorlogical conditions; unable to see visual
references outside the plane

This seems to be the definition that most mortal pilots use.

Bob Moore

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > ATC has no way of knowing that the VFR target in question is within
those
> > limits.
>
> Irrelevant.

You wish it was. Unfortunately for you, it's exactly the point.

> There was no "...about the VFR target" implied.

You presume to tell me what is or is not implied by my own post?

> Where's your dissertation on ATC radar capabilities?

What dissertation?

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> You presume to tell me what is or is not implied by my own post?
>

Yup.


>
> What dissertation?
>

The one in which you explain the capabilities of ATC radar.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > You presume to tell me what is or is not implied by my own post?
>
> Yup.

Not that your arrogance surprises me.

> The one in which you explain the capabilities of ATC radar.

Isn't that something you, as a controller, already ought to be familiar
with?

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not that your arrogance surprises me.
>

Pot... Kettle...


>
> Isn't that something you, as a controller, already ought to be familiar
> with?
>

Most people would probably think so. You apparently don't share that
opinion.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Pot... Kettle...

Yeah, you're right. It's incredibly arrogant of me to think that I know
what my own words mean.

> Most people would probably think so. You apparently don't share that
> opinion.

What makes you say that?

Pete

[Tom S.]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
...
> ATC's definition may be different, but I found these defined on
> the web.
>
>
> From FAR Part 1
> IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for
> flight under visual flight rules.
>
> This seems to be the definition that you are using for IMC.
>
>
>
> From http://www.visi.com/~lindowdy/aviation/glossary.htm
> Glossary of Aviation Terms
> IMC instrument meteorlogical conditions; unable to see visual
> references outside the plane
>
> This seems to be the definition that most mortal pilots use.

So is that "IN CLOULDS" only considered IMC, or is ON TOP considered IMC?

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > If they need you to do otherwise, they can instruct you.
>
> And if they want you to stay out, they will refuse to answer you.

They'll get less frequency congestion if they tell me to stay out.
If they ignore me, I'll just keep calling. Fortunately the FAA pulled
a plug on this subterfuge in the class C's some time ago.

[Teacherjh]

>>
They'll get less frequency congestion if they tell me to stay out.
If they ignore me, I'll just keep calling. Fortunately the FAA pulled
a plug on this subterfuge in the class C's some time ago.
<<

How?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Natalie]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> They'll get less frequency congestion if they tell me to stay out.
> If they ignore me, I'll just keep calling. Fortunately the FAA pulled
> a plug on this subterfuge in the class C's some time ago.
> <<
>
> How?
>
By telling them they could tell people explcitly to remain clear. They were
using the "nonresponse" tactic to get around the fact that they were told not
to deny service.

[Snowbird]

(Corky Scott) wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:57:43 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Judah" > wrote in message ...
> >> What about a transition clearance?

> >There ain't no such thing.

> So when the guys in the choppers call up Lebanon tower up here in NH
> and request clearance through the class D airspace, they're just being
> thoughtful?

No, they're missing a critical distinction between a requirement
to communicate, and a need for clearance.

They're required to communicate, and to follow any ATC instructions
or obtain amendment (true of any airspace, E included). But *clearance*
is not required.

"Whatsits Tower, Grumman 12345"
"Grumman 12345, Whatsits tower, go ahead" is all the permission I
need to enter the class D. Of course, part of communicating is
telling someone what you want, so I'm going to say "request transition
NE to SW at 2 thousand five hundred".

> Without that call, they'd be cruising through the traffic pattern at
> 500 feet unannounced. That's straight over the runways. It happens
> fairly regularly, and they call in and ask permission every time.

> What am I missing?

That it's not a clearance. The VFR tower isn't providing any services
besides separation on the runway and traffic advisories as able. They
can not issue a vector. They aren't providing radar services. They
aren't providing separation in the air.

When you're cleared to enter the Class B airspace, along with that
clearance comes an *obligation* on the part of ATC to separate you
from other traffic, and an obligation on your part to comply with
specific headings and altitudes (so that you can be separated).
When you're cleared for an approach, or given an IFR clearance, again,
both sides assume obligations.

That's the difference and IMO it's not a trivial one.

Cheers,
Sydney

[David Reinhart]

I don't think this is right. In Class B airspace, the only requirement is to be
clear of clounds. That means that an aircraft could be in the clouds at (for
example) 5,000 ft. and other aircraft could be VFR at 4,500 or 5,500, be clear
of the clouds and be quite legal.

Dave Reinhart


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > ATC doesn't have enroute radar capable of determining when another
> > aircraft is within those limits.
> >
>
> Enroute radar? Do you mean Air Route Surveillance Radar? Why are we
> suddenly limited to ARSR for discussion purposes? Please, Pete, tell us
> about the capabilities of ATC radar.
>
> >
> > Furthermore, that assumes accurate reporting by the VFR target's
> > transponder. Again, an unidentified target would not qualify for
> > that assumption.
> >
>
> It assumes nothing at all. If a pilot reports he's in the clouds, then any
> other
> aircraft that is within 2000 feet horizontally, 1000 feet above, or 500 feet
> below
> the reporting aircraft MUST be in IMC.
>
> >
> > There was no such part.
> >
>
> Yes there was. You said ATC can't rely on PIREPs to KNOW something. That's
> obviously incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't think this is right. In Class B airspace, the only requirement is
to be
> clear of clounds. That means that an aircraft could be in the clouds at
(for
> example) 5,000 ft. and other aircraft could be VFR at 4,500 or 5,500, be
clear
> of the clouds and be quite legal.
>

True, but since most airspace is other than Class B it is right in most
airspace.

[David Reinhart]

BTW, this kind of scenario is a potential "gotcha" when leaving Class B airspace.
You can be flying along in Class B airspace, just above or below a cloud deck, exit
the Class Bravo and be instantly illegal when it comes to cloud clearance.

Dave Reinhart


David Reinhart wrote:

> I don't think this is right. In Class B airspace, the only requirement is to be
> clear of clounds. That means that an aircraft could be in the clouds at (for
> example) 5,000 ft. and other aircraft could be VFR at 4,500 or 5,500, be clear
> of the clouds and be quite legal.
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > ATC doesn't have enroute radar capable of determining when another
> > > aircraft is within those limits.
> > >
> >
> > Enroute radar? Do you mean Air Route Surveillance Radar? Why are we
> > suddenly limited to ARSR for discussion purposes? Please, Pete, tell us
> > about the capabilities of ATC radar.
> >
> > >
> > > Furthermore, that assumes accurate reporting by the VFR target's
> > > transponder. Again, an unidentified target would not qualify for
> > > that assumption.
> > >
> >
> > It assumes nothing at all. If a pilot reports he's in the clouds, then any
> > other
> > aircraft that is within 2000 feet horizontally, 1000 feet above, or 500 feet
> > below
> > the reporting aircraft MUST be in IMC.
> >
> > >
> > > There was no such part.
> > >
> >
> > Yes there was. You said ATC can't rely on PIREPs to KNOW something. That's
> > obviously incorrect.

[David Reinhart]

Also true, but one thing I've learned about the FARs is that it's the "unusual"
that can either get you grounded or help you get where you're going. It's sad
that pilots need to know the law as much or more than they need to know about
stick and rudder.

Dave Reinhart


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "David Reinhart" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't think this is right. In Class B airspace, the only requirement is
> to be
> > clear of clounds. That means that an aircraft could be in the clouds at
> (for
> > example) 5,000 ft. and other aircraft could be VFR at 4,500 or 5,500, be
> clear
> > of the clouds and be quite legal.
> >
>
> True, but since most airspace is other than Class B it is right in most
> airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW, this kind of scenario is a potential "gotcha" when leaving Class B
airspace.
> You can be flying along in Class B airspace, just above or below a cloud
deck, exit
> the Class Bravo and be instantly illegal when it comes to cloud clearance.
>

The same "gotcha" exists when leaving a surface area under SVFR.

[Newps]

We were always told that if you don't want someone in the airspace you
tell them to remain outside the class D/C airspace.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message ...
>
>>They'll get less frequency congestion if they tell me to stay out.
>>If they ignore me, I'll just keep calling. Fortunately the FAA pulled
>>a plug on this subterfuge in the class C's some time ago.
>><<
>>
>>How?
>>
>
> By telling them they could tell people explcitly to remain clear. They were
> using the "nonresponse" tactic to get around the fact that they were told not
> to deny service.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> They'll get less frequency congestion if they tell me to stay out.
> If they ignore me, I'll just keep calling.

Absolutely.

> Fortunately the FAA pulled
> a plug on this subterfuge in the class C's some time ago.

The last time I tried to get through the Bristol, TN airspace, they were still
doing it. I don't remember exactly when that was, though.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Ron Natalie]

"Newps" > wrote in message news:nohob.50763$ao4.131616@attbi_s51...
> We were always told that if you don't want someone in the airspace you
> tell them to remain outside the class D/C airspace.

That wasn't universally the case. Some of the ARSA's (this predates the lettered namespace)
were specifically using the "I can't hear you" approach in lieu of explicitly denying service.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> That wasn't universally the case. Some of the ARSA's (this predates the lettered namespace)
> were specifically using the "I can't hear you" approach in lieu of explicitly denying service.

Yep. Last time I tried to talk to them, Bristol, TN was one if these.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Greg Goodknight]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > More like between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise,
> > roughly, the rule of thumb for night ops in the continental US, not to
be
> > confused with the one hour after sundown rule for logging night flight
> time.
> >
>
> No, it's between sunset and sunrise, except for Alaska.

>(4) Except for helicopters, between sunrise and sunset (or in Alaska, when
> the sun is 6 degrees or more below the horizon)

The 30 minutes after the sun is half obscured is the estimate for six
degrees in the continental US outside of Alaska. I believe that's the
working definition for sunrise and sunset mentioned here for Alaska and is
the ICAO definition repeated in the FAR or AIM (I forget which)

At the equator, with the Earth rotating 360 degrees in 24*60minutes, 6
degrees is 24 minutes.

It really is the time when there is no longer enough natural light to land
at an unlit airport, in good weather.

-Greg

>
>
> §91.157 Special VFR weather minimums.
>
> (a) Except as provided in appendix D, section 3, of this part, special VFR
> operations may be conducted under the weather minimums and requirements of
> this section, instead of those contained in §91.155, below 10,000 feet MSL
> within the airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral
> boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an
> airport.
>
> (b) Special VFR operations may only be conducted --
>
> (1) With an ATC clearance;
>
> (2) Clear of clouds;
>
> (3) Except for helicopters, when flight visibility is at least 1 statute
> mile; and
>
> (4) Except for helicopters, between sunrise and sunset (or in Alaska,
when
> the sun is 6 degrees or more below the horizon) unless --
>
> (i) The person being granted the ATC clearance meets the applicable
> requirements for instrument flight under part 61 of this chapter; and
>
> (ii) The aircraft is equipped as required in §91.205(d).
>
> (c) No person may take off or land an aircraft (other than a helicopter)
> under special VFR --
>
> (1) Unless ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile; or
>
> (2) If ground visibility is not reported, unless flight visibility is at
> least 1 statute mile. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term flight
> visibility includes the visibility from the cockpit of an aircraft in
> takeoff position if:
>
> (i) The flight is conducted under this part 91; and
>
> (ii) The airport at which the aircraft is located is a satellite
airport
> that does not have weather reporting capabilities.
>
> (d) The determination of visibility by a pilot in accordance with
paragraph
> (c)(2) of this section is not an official weather report or an official
> ground visibility report.
>
> [Amdt. 91-235, 58 FR 51968, Oct. 5, 1993, as amended by Amdt. 91-247, 60
FR
> 66874, Dec. 27, 1995; Amdt. 91-262, 65 FR 16116, Mar. 24, 2000]
>
>

[Greg Goodknight]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:RYfnb.44209$HS4.185004@attbi_s01...
> In article et>,
> Greg Goodknight > wrote:
> >> > instrument rating, so he can't get an SVFR clearance anyway.
> >>
> >> That restriction applies only between sunset and sunrise.
> >
> >More like between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise,
> >roughly, the rule of thumb for night ops in the continental US, not to be
> >confused with the one hour after sundown rule for logging night flight
time.
>
> Err, 'night' in the FAR is defined in 14 CFR Part 1 and it's based on
> civil twilight.
>
> The SVFR regulations in 91.157(b)(4) says sunset-sunrise, not "night",
> so the other poster was exactly right.
>
> It's 61.57(b) (night currency) that uses the "hour after sunset".
>
> >The ICAO definition is when the center the sun is 6 degrees or more below
> >the horizon
>
> Which is the definition of the end of civil twilight.

6 degrees, at the equator, is 24 minutes, do the math (remember, 360 degrees
in 24 hours) but that's at the equator. When Grass Valley (O17) had a night
closure a few years ago over a trees and obstruction light snafu, I pressed
the issue with the local FSDO; they came back with 30 minutes being the rule
of thumb they use in the 48 states.

-Greg


>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> It really is the time when there is no longer enough natural light to land
> at an unlit airport, in good weather.
>

No, it really is sunset and sunrise. I posted the regulation, I suggest you
read it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> 6 degrees, at the equator, is 24 minutes, do the math (remember, 360
> degrees in 24 hours) but that's at the equator.
>

No math required, read the regulation.


>
> When Grass Valley (O17) had a night
> closure a few years ago over a trees and obstruction light snafu,
>

SVFR is not available at O17.


>
> I pressed the issue with the local FSDO; they came back with
> 30 minutes being the rule of thumb they use in the 48 states.
>


The US has fifty states.

It's not a "rule of thumb", it's a regulation. The regulation clearly
states that fixed-wing Special VFR operations may only be conducted between
sunrise and sunset (or in Alaska, when the sun is 6 degrees or more below
the horizon) unless the pilot and airplane are capable of IFR flight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> What makes you say that?
>

Your response on 10/27:

"ATC doesn't have enroute radar capable of determining when another aircraft
is within those limits."

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > What makes you say that?
>
> Your response on 10/27:
>
> "ATC doesn't have enroute radar capable of determining when another
aircraft
> is within those limits."

What about that statement makes you think that I don't think a controller
would be familiar with ATC's radar capabilities?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> What about that statement makes you think that I don't think a controller
> would be familiar with ATC's radar capabilities?
>

It was a response to someone you knew to be a radar controller.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> It was a response to someone you knew to be a radar controller.

That fact that I don't understand why YOU appear to not be familiar with
ATC's radar capabilities in no way reflects on my opinion regarding
controller's in general. I'm sure most controllers are much better informed
than you appear to be.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> That fact that I don't understand why YOU appear to not be familiar with
> ATC's radar capabilities in no way reflects on my opinion regarding
> controller's in general. I'm sure most controllers are much better
informed
> than you appear to be.
>

How do YOU know I'm not familiar with ATC's radar capabilities? What makes
YOU think most controllers are much better informed than I am?

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
> How do YOU know I'm not familiar with ATC's radar capabilities?

I don't. Note the use of "appear" in my post. All I can comment on is what
appears to be the case. Obviously I cannot comment on the actual facts.

That's why I used the word "appear".

> What makes YOU think most controllers are much better informed than I am?

If you mean why does it appear most controllers are much better informed
than you are, if you'll read back in this thread, you'll see why. The other
controllers aren't asking for detailed explanations of how ATC radar works
and what its capabilities are.

If you literally mean "what makes me think..." that's no more valid a
question then "have you stopped beating your wife?" I never said what I
think. I simply said how things appear.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't. Note the use of "appear" in my post. All I can comment on is
> what appears to be the case. Obviously I cannot comment on the actual
facts.
>
> That's why I used the word "appear".
>

You didn't use the word "appear" when you wrote; "ATC doesn't have enroute
radar capable of determining when another aircraft is within those limits."
You stated it as a fact.


>
> If you mean why does it appear most controllers are much better informed
> than you are, if you'll read back in this thread, you'll see why.
>

That cannot be ascertained by reviewing this thread.


>
> The other controllers aren't asking for detailed explanations of how ATC
radar
> works and what its capabilities are.
>

And the other non-controllers are not making statements about the
capabilities of ATC radar. You are.


>
> If you literally mean "what makes me think..." that's no more valid a
> question then "have you stopped beating your wife?" I never said what I
> think. I simply said how things appear.
>

Actually, with regard to ATC radar, you said how things are. What made you
think you knew something about ATC radar?

[Greg Goodknight]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > 6 degrees, at the equator, is 24 minutes, do the math (remember, 360
> > degrees in 24 hours) but that's at the equator.
> >
>
> No math required, read the regulation.

I did. What is the working definition of "sunrise" and "sunset" here?

>
>
> >
> > When Grass Valley (O17) had a night
> > closure a few years ago over a trees and obstruction light snafu,
> >
>
> SVFR is not available at O17.

I didn't say it was. I *was* relating how the local FSDO popped up with 30
minutes for a local regulatory issue.

>
>
> >
> > I pressed the issue with the local FSDO; they came back with
> > 30 minutes being the rule of thumb they use in the 48 states.
> >
>
>
> The US has fifty states.

Ya don't say! Brilliant observation, Sherlock. Trying to be snotty, are we?
The US has 50 plus some occupied territory (including D.C.) but I was
talking about 48 of them. You can guess which ones if you try. I probably
could have said 49 but I wasn't sure if Hawaii was included in the factoid.

>
> It's not a "rule of thumb", it's a regulation. The regulation clearly
> states that fixed-wing Special VFR operations may only be conducted
between
> sunrise and sunset (or in Alaska, when the sun is 6 degrees or more below
> the horizon) unless the pilot and airplane are capable of IFR flight.

Yes, Alaska sometimes doesn't have a sunrise or sunset.

The ICAO has the 6 degree rule to define twilight; not the sun 6 degrees
below the horizon, but the midpoint of the sun being 6 degrees below the
horizon. For some of that time the sun is showing, and around here there is
light good enough for unlit airport operations until about 30 minutes after
the sun's midpoint is on the ideal horizon, or 30 minutes before for
"sunup". Since that reg calls it sunrise and sunset for 49 states but in
essence quotes the ICAO definition for twilight for Alaska, I'm going to
believe they were not defining a lower standard for Alaska but rather
letting Alaska's aviators figure it out for themselves when they don't have
most would call a daily sunrise and sunset, and when you can see sunlight in
the morning (which is six degrees) it's sunrise, and in the evening and you
can't see sunlight that's sunset.

If controllers really do stop day SVFR operations in California when it's
still light enough to see, I stand corrected; and it could be a lower light
standard in Alaska because the light levels change slowly there. You may
have caught me this time, Steven. It's about time you got one right! ;)

-Greg

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> You didn't use the word "appear" when you wrote; "ATC doesn't have enroute
> radar capable of determining when another aircraft is within those
limits."

Why would I have?

> That cannot be ascertained by reviewing this thread.

Of course it can.

> And the other non-controllers are not making statements about the
> capabilities of ATC radar. You are.

What do non-controllers have to do with it?

> Actually, with regard to ATC radar, you said how things are. What made
you
> think you knew something about ATC radar?

How is that relevant to the question of what YOU know (or appear to know)
about ATC radar?

If you want to change the subject, start a new thread. Otherwise, try to
stick to what we were actually talking about.

Pete