Run-in with Chicago Center

[Jay Honeck]

So I'm on my way home from Green Bay today (where Monday night my son and I
saw his first pro-football game, and my first game at Lambeau Field), and
the weather is fairly crappy.

By noon conditions had risen to VFR along our route of flight (KGRB to
KIOW -- Iowa City, IA), with ceilings in Green Bay 2400 broken, visibility
10 miles, and haze. METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear.

For a flatland, Wisconsin-to-Iowa flight, my personal minimums are 2000 feet
for this kind of flight. We were borderline, but conditions were predicted
to improve, so we launched.

As we droned along under a ragged overcast, we settled in for the
almost-two-hour, into-the-headwind flight home. Soon my son was dozing,
exhausted from staying up late and cheering his life-long hero, Brett Favre
(whom we were lucky enough to meet at the FBO, but that's another story),
amidst 70,000 crazed Packer fans. (To no avail, I might add: The
Sea-Pigeons slaughtered them. But it's only pre-season!)

At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the emerald-green
Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us. Atlas was churning the air smoothly,
and we were making 133 knots groundspeed into a 10-knot headwind...

As we would approach the various controlled airspaces, I would pick up
flight following for a time, but they always had to cut me loose, since
Center couldn't "see" us down low. It was a strange feeling flying without
this service, which we always use on long trips.

As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
creates its own little weather pattern. If there are low clouds around,
they are usually lower near the Big Muddy.), and I had to remain at 1900
feet to be legal. This is still plenty high, as long as you've got good
visibility, and that never dropped below 8 miles.

I called KDBQ from 15 miles out, and announced my intention to transition
their airspace. They told me to call back when 3 miles northeast of the
field. A few minutes later I did so, and the magic words "transition
approved" came over the radio. I passed just north of the field, easily
with gliding distance of their runways.

As we crossed the river, the ceilings slowly rose back up to 2500 overcast,
then broken, then scattered. The plane was running great, and we were soon
in more familiar territory. Near Monticello, IA I called up Cedar Rapids
(KCID) and picked up flight following from our favorite controller, a guy
who has known our voices and aircraft for over 6 years.

A couple of minutes later "our" controller called to ask what type of
aircraft we were. I thought this was odd, because I KNOW the guy knows what
we fly, but I told him our type and equipment on board. He thanked me and
went silent.

Two minutes later he called back and politely but tersely announced "N56993,
I just want to give you the 'head's up' that Chicago Center is not happy
about you transitioning the Class Delta airspace around Dubuque at 1900
feet, and will be wanting to talk to you when you land."

I immediately responded "Well you can tell Chicago Center that I was in
contact with Dubuque Tower, and was given permission to transition their
airspace." Upon hearing this my "friend" relaxed completely, clearly
relieved, and stated that "It must be some kind of a miscommunication, and
I'll pass that information along to Center..."

He then went completely silent, as I droned along, waiting for the F-16s to
escort me down. Visions of FAA paperwork, and some sort of disciplinary
action, danced in my head, as I wondered what might be transpiring in those
dimly lit, windowless rooms at Chicago Center in Aurora, IL...

Finally I couldn't stand it anymore, and called KCID to ask if all was well,
or if I was going to have to speak with anyone. My friend responded
jovially that "as far as we're concerned there is no issue, and to my
knowledge Chicago Center isn't concerned with it, either." While I was
glad to hear this, it was that "to my knowledge" part that stuck in my
craw -- so I resolved to call Dubuque Tower after I landed.

Taxiing to my hangar, my son was joking about the FAA Suburbans waiting to
meet us (there weren't any, thankfully!), and I immediately called Dubuque
after putting the plane away.

The Dubuque tower supervisor knew who I was right away, and immediately
began apologizing. It seems that after I transitioned his airspace (and had
switched to another frequency) he had tried to contact me, because he wanted
to make sure I was clear before releasing an IFR departure. When he
couldn't contact me, he called Chicago Center to see if THEY could see me.

Somehow this conversation got misconstrued by someone at Center to mean that
Dubuque was trying to find a VFR pilot who had busted their airspace. They
tracked me on radar (Surprise! I thought they said they couldn't see me
down low???), figured out who I was, and contacted Cedar Rapids approach --
who then called me.

Whew! Imagine if I had simply opted not to call Cedar Rapids Approach for
flight following? This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove) anything.

A weird end to a great overnight trip!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Brad Z]

Jay,

For the life of me I can't understand why you haven't finished your
instrument rating! With the amount of cross country trips you do, an
instrument rating would seem to be quite beneficial. Besides the fact that
you'd fly plenty to maintain proficiency, you've got an automatic safety
pilot to share time with, as well as a helpful co-pilot during those
stressful moments.

Heck, I'll even offer to stay at your hotel and do an accelerated IFR
finish-up program with you.

OK, my quasi rant is over, good write up. Controllers dealing with VFR
traffic seem more likely to get confused than when being handled IFR
(thankfully). Seems that LOAs, radar coverage, workload, controller
attitude, etc. often make asking and keeping a VFR flight following a
challenging task. To me, IFR makes all of that so much simpler.

Brad
(CP, CFII, etc.)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:D2zUc.315580$JR4.141514@attbi_s54...
> So I'm on my way home from Green Bay today (where Monday night my son and
I
> saw his first pro-football game, and my first game at Lambeau Field), and
> the weather is fairly crappy.
>
> By noon conditions had risen to VFR along our route of flight (KGRB to
> KIOW -- Iowa City, IA), with ceilings in Green Bay 2400 broken, visibility
> 10 miles, and haze. METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
> overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear.
>
> For a flatland, Wisconsin-to-Iowa flight, my personal minimums are 2000
feet
> for this kind of flight. We were borderline, but conditions were
predicted
> to improve, so we launched.
>
> As we droned along under a ragged overcast, we settled in for the
> almost-two-hour, into-the-headwind flight home. Soon my son was dozing,
> exhausted from staying up late and cheering his life-long hero, Brett
Favre
> (whom we were lucky enough to meet at the FBO, but that's another story),
> amidst 70,000 crazed Packer fans. (To no avail, I might add: The
> Sea-Pigeons slaughtered them. But it's only pre-season!)
>
> At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
> for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the
emerald-green
> Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us. Atlas was churning the air
smoothly,
> and we were making 133 knots groundspeed into a 10-knot headwind...
>
> As we would approach the various controlled airspaces, I would pick up
> flight following for a time, but they always had to cut me loose, since
> Center couldn't "see" us down low. It was a strange feeling flying
without
> this service, which we always use on long trips.
>
> As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
> their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
> creates its own little weather pattern. If there are low clouds around,
> they are usually lower near the Big Muddy.), and I had to remain at 1900
> feet to be legal. This is still plenty high, as long as you've got good
> visibility, and that never dropped below 8 miles.
>
> I called KDBQ from 15 miles out, and announced my intention to transition
> their airspace. They told me to call back when 3 miles northeast of the
> field. A few minutes later I did so, and the magic words "transition
> approved" came over the radio. I passed just north of the field, easily
> with gliding distance of their runways.
>
> As we crossed the river, the ceilings slowly rose back up to 2500
overcast,
> then broken, then scattered. The plane was running great, and we were
soon
> in more familiar territory. Near Monticello, IA I called up Cedar Rapids
> (KCID) and picked up flight following from our favorite controller, a guy
> who has known our voices and aircraft for over 6 years.
>
> A couple of minutes later "our" controller called to ask what type of
> aircraft we were. I thought this was odd, because I KNOW the guy knows
what
> we fly, but I told him our type and equipment on board. He thanked me and
> went silent.
>
> Two minutes later he called back and politely but tersely announced
"N56993,
> I just want to give you the 'head's up' that Chicago Center is not happy
> about you transitioning the Class Delta airspace around Dubuque at 1900
> feet, and will be wanting to talk to you when you land."
>
> I immediately responded "Well you can tell Chicago Center that I was in
> contact with Dubuque Tower, and was given permission to transition their
> airspace." Upon hearing this my "friend" relaxed completely, clearly
> relieved, and stated that "It must be some kind of a miscommunication, and
> I'll pass that information along to Center..."
>
> He then went completely silent, as I droned along, waiting for the F-16s
to
> escort me down. Visions of FAA paperwork, and some sort of disciplinary
> action, danced in my head, as I wondered what might be transpiring in
those
> dimly lit, windowless rooms at Chicago Center in Aurora, IL...
>
> Finally I couldn't stand it anymore, and called KCID to ask if all was
well,
> or if I was going to have to speak with anyone. My friend responded
> jovially that "as far as we're concerned there is no issue, and to my
> knowledge Chicago Center isn't concerned with it, either." While I was
> glad to hear this, it was that "to my knowledge" part that stuck in my
> craw -- so I resolved to call Dubuque Tower after I landed.
>
> Taxiing to my hangar, my son was joking about the FAA Suburbans waiting to
> meet us (there weren't any, thankfully!), and I immediately called Dubuque
> after putting the plane away.
>
> The Dubuque tower supervisor knew who I was right away, and immediately
> began apologizing. It seems that after I transitioned his airspace (and
had
> switched to another frequency) he had tried to contact me, because he
wanted
> to make sure I was clear before releasing an IFR departure. When he
> couldn't contact me, he called Chicago Center to see if THEY could see me.
>
> Somehow this conversation got misconstrued by someone at Center to mean
that
> Dubuque was trying to find a VFR pilot who had busted their airspace.
They
> tracked me on radar (Surprise! I thought they said they couldn't see me
> down low???), figured out who I was, and contacted Cedar Rapids
approach --
> who then called me.
>
> Whew! Imagine if I had simply opted not to call Cedar Rapids Approach for
> flight following? This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
> proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
> doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
> date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove)
anything.
>
> A weird end to a great overnight trip!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:D2zUc.315580$JR4.141514@attbi_s54...
>
> So I'm on my way home from Green Bay today (where Monday night my son and
I
> saw his first pro-football game, and my first game at Lambeau Field), and
> the weather is fairly crappy.
>
> By noon conditions had risen to VFR along our route of flight (KGRB to
> KIOW -- Iowa City, IA), with ceilings in Green Bay 2400 broken, visibility
> 10 miles, and haze. METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
> overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear.
>
> For a flatland, Wisconsin-to-Iowa flight, my personal minimums are 2000
feet
> for this kind of flight. We were borderline, but conditions were
predicted
> to improve, so we launched.
>
> As we droned along under a ragged overcast, we settled in for the
> almost-two-hour, into-the-headwind flight home. Soon my son was dozing,
> exhausted from staying up late and cheering his life-long hero, Brett
Favre
> (whom we were lucky enough to meet at the FBO, but that's another story),
> amidst 70,000 crazed Packer fans. (To no avail, I might add: The
> Sea-Pigeons slaughtered them. But it's only pre-season!)
>
> At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
> for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the
emerald-green
> Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us.
>

The Horicon, WI, radar site was down for most of the day.


>
> Atlas was churning the air smoothly,
> and we were making 133 knots groundspeed into a 10-knot headwind...
>
> As we would approach the various controlled airspaces, I would pick up
> flight following for a time, but they always had to cut me loose, since
> Center couldn't "see" us down low. It was a strange feeling flying
without
> this service, which we always use on long trips.
>
> As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
> their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
> creates its own little weather pattern. If there are low clouds around,
> they are usually lower near the Big Muddy.), and I had to remain at 1900
> feet to be legal. This is still plenty high, as long as you've got good
> visibility, and that never dropped below 8 miles.
>
> I called KDBQ from 15 miles out, and announced my intention to transition
> their airspace. They told me to call back when 3 miles northeast of the
> field. A few minutes later I did so, and the magic words "transition
> approved" came over the radio. I passed just north of the field, easily
> with gliding distance of their runways.
>
> As we crossed the river, the ceilings slowly rose back up to 2500
overcast,
> then broken, then scattered. The plane was running great, and we were
soon
> in more familiar territory. Near Monticello, IA I called up Cedar Rapids
> (KCID) and picked up flight following from our favorite controller, a guy
> who has known our voices and aircraft for over 6 years.
>
> A couple of minutes later "our" controller called to ask what type of
> aircraft we were. I thought this was odd, because I KNOW the guy knows
what
> we fly, but I told him our type and equipment on board. He thanked me and
> went silent.
>
> Two minutes later he called back and politely but tersely announced
"N56993,
> I just want to give you the 'head's up' that Chicago Center is not happy
> about you transitioning the Class Delta airspace around Dubuque at 1900
> feet, and will be wanting to talk to you when you land."
>
> I immediately responded "Well you can tell Chicago Center that I was in
> contact with Dubuque Tower, and was given permission to transition their
> airspace." Upon hearing this my "friend" relaxed completely, clearly
> relieved, and stated that "It must be some kind of a miscommunication, and
> I'll pass that information along to Center..."
>
> He then went completely silent, as I droned along, waiting for the F-16s
to
> escort me down. Visions of FAA paperwork, and some sort of disciplinary
> action, danced in my head, as I wondered what might be transpiring in
those
> dimly lit, windowless rooms at Chicago Center in Aurora, IL...
>
> Finally I couldn't stand it anymore, and called KCID to ask if all was
well,
> or if I was going to have to speak with anyone. My friend responded
> jovially that "as far as we're concerned there is no issue, and to my
> knowledge Chicago Center isn't concerned with it, either." While I was
> glad to hear this, it was that "to my knowledge" part that stuck in my
> craw -- so I resolved to call Dubuque Tower after I landed.
>
> Taxiing to my hangar, my son was joking about the FAA Suburbans waiting to
> meet us (there weren't any, thankfully!), and I immediately called Dubuque
> after putting the plane away.
>
> The Dubuque tower supervisor knew who I was right away, and immediately
> began apologizing. It seems that after I transitioned his airspace (and
had
> switched to another frequency) he had tried to contact me, because he
wanted
> to make sure I was clear before releasing an IFR departure. When he
> couldn't contact me, he called Chicago Center to see if THEY could see me.
>
> Somehow this conversation got misconstrued by someone at Center to mean
that
> Dubuque was trying to find a VFR pilot who had busted their airspace.
They
> tracked me on radar (Surprise! I thought they said they couldn't see me
> down low???), figured out who I was, and contacted Cedar Rapids
approach --
> who then called me.
>

DBQ is about 46 miles from the Arlington, IA, radar site.


>
> Whew! Imagine if I had simply opted not to call Cedar Rapids Approach for
> flight following? This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
> proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
> doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
> date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove)
anything.
>
> A weird end to a great overnight trip!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[tony roberts]

Hmmm

Wouldn't have happened if you had been on your way back from a soccer
game.

Those tower guys know class when they see it :):):)

Tony


In article <D2zUc.315580$JR4.141514@attbi_s54>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> So I'm on my way home from Green Bay today (where Monday night my son and I
> saw his first pro-football game, and my first game at Lambeau Field), and
> the weather is fairly crappy.
>
> By noon conditions had risen to VFR along our route of flight (KGRB to
> KIOW -- Iowa City, IA), with ceilings in Green Bay 2400 broken, visibility
> 10 miles, and haze. METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
> overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear.
>
> For a flatland, Wisconsin-to-Iowa flight, my personal minimums are 2000 feet
> for this kind of flight. We were borderline, but conditions were predicted
> to improve, so we launched.
>
> As we droned along under a ragged overcast, we settled in for the
> almost-two-hour, into-the-headwind flight home. Soon my son was dozing,
> exhausted from staying up late and cheering his life-long hero, Brett Favre
> (whom we were lucky enough to meet at the FBO, but that's another story),
> amidst 70,000 crazed Packer fans. (To no avail, I might add: The
> Sea-Pigeons slaughtered them. But it's only pre-season!)
>
> At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
> for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the emerald-green
> Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us. Atlas was churning the air smoothly,
> and we were making 133 knots groundspeed into a 10-knot headwind...
>
> As we would approach the various controlled airspaces, I would pick up
> flight following for a time, but they always had to cut me loose, since
> Center couldn't "see" us down low. It was a strange feeling flying without
> this service, which we always use on long trips.
>
> As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
> their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
> creates its own little weather pattern. If there are low clouds around,
> they are usually lower near the Big Muddy.), and I had to remain at 1900
> feet to be legal. This is still plenty high, as long as you've got good
> visibility, and that never dropped below 8 miles.
>
> I called KDBQ from 15 miles out, and announced my intention to transition
> their airspace. They told me to call back when 3 miles northeast of the
> field. A few minutes later I did so, and the magic words "transition
> approved" came over the radio. I passed just north of the field, easily
> with gliding distance of their runways.
>
> As we crossed the river, the ceilings slowly rose back up to 2500 overcast,
> then broken, then scattered. The plane was running great, and we were soon
> in more familiar territory. Near Monticello, IA I called up Cedar Rapids
> (KCID) and picked up flight following from our favorite controller, a guy
> who has known our voices and aircraft for over 6 years.
>
> A couple of minutes later "our" controller called to ask what type of
> aircraft we were. I thought this was odd, because I KNOW the guy knows what
> we fly, but I told him our type and equipment on board. He thanked me and
> went silent.
>
> Two minutes later he called back and politely but tersely announced "N56993,
> I just want to give you the 'head's up' that Chicago Center is not happy
> about you transitioning the Class Delta airspace around Dubuque at 1900
> feet, and will be wanting to talk to you when you land."
>
> I immediately responded "Well you can tell Chicago Center that I was in
> contact with Dubuque Tower, and was given permission to transition their
> airspace." Upon hearing this my "friend" relaxed completely, clearly
> relieved, and stated that "It must be some kind of a miscommunication, and
> I'll pass that information along to Center..."
>
> He then went completely silent, as I droned along, waiting for the F-16s to
> escort me down. Visions of FAA paperwork, and some sort of disciplinary
> action, danced in my head, as I wondered what might be transpiring in those
> dimly lit, windowless rooms at Chicago Center in Aurora, IL...
>
> Finally I couldn't stand it anymore, and called KCID to ask if all was well,
> or if I was going to have to speak with anyone. My friend responded
> jovially that "as far as we're concerned there is no issue, and to my
> knowledge Chicago Center isn't concerned with it, either." While I was
> glad to hear this, it was that "to my knowledge" part that stuck in my
> craw -- so I resolved to call Dubuque Tower after I landed.
>
> Taxiing to my hangar, my son was joking about the FAA Suburbans waiting to
> meet us (there weren't any, thankfully!), and I immediately called Dubuque
> after putting the plane away.
>
> The Dubuque tower supervisor knew who I was right away, and immediately
> began apologizing. It seems that after I transitioned his airspace (and had
> switched to another frequency) he had tried to contact me, because he wanted
> to make sure I was clear before releasing an IFR departure. When he
> couldn't contact me, he called Chicago Center to see if THEY could see me.
>
> Somehow this conversation got misconstrued by someone at Center to mean that
> Dubuque was trying to find a VFR pilot who had busted their airspace. They
> tracked me on radar (Surprise! I thought they said they couldn't see me
> down low???), figured out who I was, and contacted Cedar Rapids approach --
> who then called me.
>
> Whew! Imagine if I had simply opted not to call Cedar Rapids Approach for
> flight following? This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
> proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
> doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
> date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove) anything.
>
> A weird end to a great overnight trip!




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:D2zUc.315580$JR4.141514@attbi_s54...
> It seems that after I transitioned his airspace (and had
> switched to another frequency) he had tried to contact me, because he
wanted
> to make sure I was clear before releasing an IFR departure.

Are you not supposed to ask for a frequency change before you leave them?

Or just let them know you're leaving the frequency?

Paul

[Ron Natalie]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message news:cfvak3
>
> Are you not supposed to ask for a frequency change before you leave them?
>
Not required. Sometimes towers want to know when your clear their
airspace, sometimes they don't care.

[Rick Durden]

Jay,

First of all, what the devil were you doing going to a football game,
especially in Green Bay, in August? It ain't natural. They shouldn't
even keep score in football if the temperature is above zero.
Football was introduced in the New England states, for COLD weather.
The sport was *******ized to where it is played in the south which has
caused it to be a game for wussies. Once it spread beyond the nort'
woods, the light weights insisted on things like pads and hard shell
helmets. Jeez, it used to be that there would be three or four broken
bones per game, with a couple of fatalities each season. Now that the
game is played by limp wrists, wearing all sorts of pads, in warm
weather, the only fatalities are generally from heat stroke and I'd be
surprised if there are a dozen broken bones in all the NFL games in a
season.

Accordingly, because you saw fit to violate natural law by going to
see warm weather football, you put yourself at serious risk.
Fortunately, what happened was mild. But, it should serve as a
warning.

It also means, you better get your instrument rating as the warm
weather football curse may now be hovering near you. Besides, flight
following is absolutely the lowest ATC priority and it just isn't
available when you are out there on your hands and knees trying to
stay under weather and everything that is flying VFR is compressed
under that cloud layer. Besides, there are some very, very tall
towers out there; that Cherokee of yours may be a boxy, funny-looking
little airplane, but it would look a heck of a lot worse hanging from
a guy wire on one of those 1,500 foot towers that live out in the
flatlands.

Flight following is a low priority item, so when there is a missed
communication such as went on with you, weird things can happen. Get
the rating, file IFR, fly a little higher on those marginal weather
days and get some space between you and those who are buzzing around
in the little bit of sky that is available under the clouds. Besides,
I don't want to lose a friend who is a Packers fan. Not many people
understand that God intended football to be played outside, in the
cold, sleet and snow, so the Packers are God's elite. You may be
forgiven for one slip up in attending a warm weather game, but be
very, very careful. As I said, God just warned you. And She could
really get ****ed.

Warmest regards,
Rick

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<D2zUc.315580$JR4.141514@attbi_s54>...
> So I'm on my way home from Green Bay today (where Monday night my son and I
> saw his first pro-football game, and my first game at Lambeau Field), and
> the weather is fairly crappy.
>
> By noon conditions had risen to VFR along our route of flight (KGRB to
> KIOW -- Iowa City, IA), with ceilings in Green Bay 2400 broken, visibility
> 10 miles, and haze. METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
> overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear.
>
> For a flatland, Wisconsin-to-Iowa flight, my personal minimums are 2000 feet
> for this kind of flight. We were borderline, but conditions were predicted
> to improve, so we launched.
>
> As we droned along under a ragged overcast, we settled in for the
> almost-two-hour, into-the-headwind flight home. Soon my son was dozing,
> exhausted from staying up late and cheering his life-long hero, Brett Favre
> (whom we were lucky enough to meet at the FBO, but that's another story),
> amidst 70,000 crazed Packer fans. (To no avail, I might add: The
> Sea-Pigeons slaughtered them. But it's only pre-season!)
>
> At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
> for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the emerald-green
> Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us. Atlas was churning the air smoothly,
> and we were making 133 knots groundspeed into a 10-knot headwind...
>
> As we would approach the various controlled airspaces, I would pick up
> flight following for a time, but they always had to cut me loose, since
> Center couldn't "see" us down low. It was a strange feeling flying without
> this service, which we always use on long trips.
>
> As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
> their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
> creates its own little weather pattern. If there are low clouds around,
> they are usually lower near the Big Muddy.), and I had to remain at 1900
> feet to be legal. This is still plenty high, as long as you've got good
> visibility, and that never dropped below 8 miles.
>
> I called KDBQ from 15 miles out, and announced my intention to transition
> their airspace. They told me to call back when 3 miles northeast of the
> field. A few minutes later I did so, and the magic words "transition
> approved" came over the radio. I passed just north of the field, easily
> with gliding distance of their runways.
>
> As we crossed the river, the ceilings slowly rose back up to 2500 overcast,
> then broken, then scattered. The plane was running great, and we were soon
> in more familiar territory. Near Monticello, IA I called up Cedar Rapids
> (KCID) and picked up flight following from our favorite controller, a guy
> who has known our voices and aircraft for over 6 years.
>
> A couple of minutes later "our" controller called to ask what type of
> aircraft we were. I thought this was odd, because I KNOW the guy knows what
> we fly, but I told him our type and equipment on board. He thanked me and
> went silent.
>
> Two minutes later he called back and politely but tersely announced "N56993,
> I just want to give you the 'head's up' that Chicago Center is not happy
> about you transitioning the Class Delta airspace around Dubuque at 1900
> feet, and will be wanting to talk to you when you land."
>
> I immediately responded "Well you can tell Chicago Center that I was in
> contact with Dubuque Tower, and was given permission to transition their
> airspace." Upon hearing this my "friend" relaxed completely, clearly
> relieved, and stated that "It must be some kind of a miscommunication, and
> I'll pass that information along to Center..."
>
> He then went completely silent, as I droned along, waiting for the F-16s to
> escort me down. Visions of FAA paperwork, and some sort of disciplinary
> action, danced in my head, as I wondered what might be transpiring in those
> dimly lit, windowless rooms at Chicago Center in Aurora, IL...
>
> Finally I couldn't stand it anymore, and called KCID to ask if all was well,
> or if I was going to have to speak with anyone. My friend responded
> jovially that "as far as we're concerned there is no issue, and to my
> knowledge Chicago Center isn't concerned with it, either." While I was
> glad to hear this, it was that "to my knowledge" part that stuck in my
> craw -- so I resolved to call Dubuque Tower after I landed.
>
> Taxiing to my hangar, my son was joking about the FAA Suburbans waiting to
> meet us (there weren't any, thankfully!), and I immediately called Dubuque
> after putting the plane away.
>
> The Dubuque tower supervisor knew who I was right away, and immediately
> began apologizing. It seems that after I transitioned his airspace (and had
> switched to another frequency) he had tried to contact me, because he wanted
> to make sure I was clear before releasing an IFR departure. When he
> couldn't contact me, he called Chicago Center to see if THEY could see me.
>
> Somehow this conversation got misconstrued by someone at Center to mean that
> Dubuque was trying to find a VFR pilot who had busted their airspace. They
> tracked me on radar (Surprise! I thought they said they couldn't see me
> down low???), figured out who I was, and contacted Cedar Rapids approach --
> who then called me.
>
> Whew! Imagine if I had simply opted not to call Cedar Rapids Approach for
> flight following? This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
> proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
> doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
> date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove) anything.
>
> A weird end to a great overnight trip!

[john smith]

While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.
ATC may or may not keep you updated on weather along your route of
flight, it's not their primary function and is one of those as time
permits things.
I have been instrument rated since 1986, but I won't challenge the
weather gods knowing that there is convective activity along my route.
Better to fly below the clouds and see the weather with the Mark I
Eyeball than fly blindly in the soup.

[Jay Honeck]

> Not required. Sometimes towers want to know when your clear their
> airspace, sometimes they don't care.

Yeah, I used to tell Class D towers when I was clear all the time, till a
controller somewhat sarcastically responded "Uh, okay niner-niner-three."

From his tone of voice it was obvious that he really didn't care (and was,
in fact, somewhat annoyed that I called him), so I no longer bother.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
> guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
> avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel comfortable
with flying IFR.

The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms (which
I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is not
equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so flying in
August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa today,
and you'll see why.)

The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not much
use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> under that cloud layer. Besides, there are some very, very tall
> towers out there; that Cherokee of yours may be a boxy, funny-looking
> little airplane, but it would look a heck of a lot worse hanging from
> a guy wire on one of those 1,500 foot towers that live out in the
> flatlands.

As an aside, my personal minimum of 2000 feet for "flatland cross-country
flight" USED to be 3000 feet.

The main change? The AvMap. It displays towers so clearly on that big
color screen, that you'd have to be a complete dunce to hit one.

That's what I mean when I say that the AvMap has changed the way we fly.

> Not many people
> understand that God intended football to be played outside, in the
> cold, sleet and snow, so the Packers are God's elite.

Yeah, they are a special team, and going to Lambeau was a real treat. That
place is just ROCKING with enthusiasm and adoration for "their" team, and
there simply is not a bad seat in the house. I've been a fan since I was a
kid in West Bend, WI, back in the "Glory Years" of the 1960s, so to be where
Bart Starr and Ray Nitchke played was almost religious.

Best of all, unlike a soccer game, there's no animosity of any kind --
everyone is there for a good time, not to beat the crap out of the opposing
fans.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Corky Scott]

On 18 Aug 2004 06:40:55 -0700, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

> Jeez, it used to be that there would be three or four broken
>bones per game, with a couple of fatalities each season. Now that the
>game is played by limp wrists, wearing all sorts of pads, in warm
>weather, the only fatalities are generally from heat stroke and I'd be
>surprised if there are a dozen broken bones in all the NFL games in a
>season.

Football is still played like this, it's just called Rugby.

Corky Scott

[Jim Weir]

Rick...

ROFLMAO. Nicely done.

Jim


(Rick Durden)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Jay,
->
-> First of all, what the devil were you doing going to a football game,
->especially in Green Bay, in August?



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Maule Driver]

Jay, the time thing is a bear.

But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel comfortable
with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make "more
comfortably" IFR. More safely too.

Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among the
attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.

Com'on Jay, try to make the time!

(but you've heard all that)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
> > While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
> > guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
> > avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.
>
> My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
> of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking
my
> "weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
> flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
comfortable
> with flying IFR.
>
> The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
(which
> I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is not
> equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so flying
in
> August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa
today,
> and you'll see why.)
>
> The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
> aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
much
> use.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> The main change? The AvMap. It displays towers so clearly on that big
> color screen, that you'd have to be a complete dunce to hit one.

Until these databases are and stay perfect...

- Andrew

[Guy Elden Jr.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:oFKUc.182853$eM2.74223@attbi_s51...
> > Not required. Sometimes towers want to know when your clear their
> > airspace, sometimes they don't care.
>
> Yeah, I used to tell Class D towers when I was clear all the time, till a
> controller somewhat sarcastically responded "Uh, okay niner-niner-three."
>
> From his tone of voice it was obvious that he really didn't care (and was,
> in fact, somewhat annoyed that I called him), so I no longer bother.

Well it really depends on where you're at. Around here, two of the busier
Class D airports definitely appreciate a call when you're clear. I just pipe
up very briefly with, "53K is clear to the northeast" and usually get a
"frequency change approved good day" response. Can't hurt.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[Guy Elden Jr.]

I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless there's a
clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud tops,
and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if there
are clouds near or above the freezing level.

I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could be
_much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games later
in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a year,
I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very clear
and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to Atlanta
twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct versus
flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each leg.
Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR offers.
You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about VFR
traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR pilots who
fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those who fly
closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a traffic
call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising altitude of
4,000 ft.

Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still be
able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better fuel
economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on direction,
a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve your
skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our "licenses
to learn".

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
r.com...
> Jay, the time thing is a bear.
>
> But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel comfortable
> with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make
"more
> comfortably" IFR. More safely too.
>
> Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among the
> attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.
>
> Com'on Jay, try to make the time!
>
> (but you've heard all that)
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
> > > While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not
a
> > > guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
> > > avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.
> >
> > My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a
lack
> > of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking
> my
> > "weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare
VFR
> > flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
> comfortable
> > with flying IFR.
> >
> > The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
> (which
> > I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is not
> > equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
flying
> in
> > August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa
> today,
> > and you'll see why.)
> >
> > The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
> > aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
> much
> > use.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >
>
>

[Guy Elden Jr.]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > The main change? The AvMap. It displays towers so clearly on that big
> > color screen, that you'd have to be a complete dunce to hit one.
>
> Until these databases are and stay perfect...

I'll second that. I noticed while flying in Atlanta a few weeks ago that the
GPS (KLN 89B w/moving map) in the plane I rented did not display the Class D
around Dobbins AFB correctly. My sectional showed the SE cutout extension
which I presume is there for ILS approaches, but the moving map did not
display it at all. And the database was current! Guess it might be a
limitation of the software, but I'm leaning toward the "data being
innacurate" explanation.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[kage]

""weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel comfortable
with flying IFR."

Jay,

As you just found out, weather many times has nothing to do with filing IFR.
It is just far simpler to file IFR and let the controllers worry about the
airspace ahead.

Usually in any kind of high density area, east coast, Los Angeles, Etc. IFR
is just way easier, faster, more relaxing and safer. Even in severe clear!

Karl

[kage]

Jay,

Dream On! if you think you can rely on AvMap to have all the current
obstacles.

I have a great story about Clyde Wells hitting the wires that weren't there
yesterday.

You are getting desperate in your justification of not getting the other 75%
of your training.


Karl


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TSKUc.320508$JR4.111734@attbi_s54...
> > under that cloud layer. Besides, there are some very, very tall
> > towers out there; that Cherokee of yours may be a boxy, funny-looking
> > little airplane, but it would look a heck of a lot worse hanging from
> > a guy wire on one of those 1,500 foot towers that live out in the
> > flatlands.
>
> As an aside, my personal minimum of 2000 feet for "flatland cross-country
> flight" USED to be 3000 feet.
>
> The main change? The AvMap. It displays towers so clearly on that big
> color screen, that you'd have to be a complete dunce to hit one.
>
> That's what I mean when I say that the AvMap has changed the way we fly.

[Rick Durden]

John,

I said nothing about flying blindly in the soup.

There are indeed days when it is better to go VFR than IFR in marginal
weather, such as when the bases are high enough and there is ice in
the clouds, however, as Jay lives in the upper Midwest, those days are
a minority.

I've known Jay long enough to pull his chain pretty hard about getting
his instrument rating for the type of flying he does and because of
the capabilities of the airplane he flies.

All the best,

Rick

john smith > wrote in message >...
> While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
> guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
> avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.
> ATC may or may not keep you updated on weather along your route of
> flight, it's not their primary function and is one of those as time
> permits things.
> I have been instrument rated since 1986, but I won't challenge the
> weather gods knowing that there is convective activity along my route.
> Better to fly below the clouds and see the weather with the Mark I
> Eyeball than fly blindly in the soup.

[Maule Driver]

And if you file/request direct - you'll fly direct. When I go from Raleigh
to Florida, I tend to flyer a straighter line IFR than VFR - I'll tend to
avoid the MOAs and stuff VFR.

It's easier to get radar weather help too.

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless there's a
> clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud
tops,
> and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
> broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if there
> are clouds near or above the freezing level.
>
> I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could be
> _much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games later
> in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a
year,
> I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very clear
> and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to Atlanta
> twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct versus
> flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each leg.
> Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR
offers.
> You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about VFR
> traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR pilots
who
> fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those who
fly
> closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a traffic
> call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising altitude
of
> 4,000 ft.
>
> Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still be
> able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better fuel
> economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on
direction,
> a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve your
> skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our
"licenses
> to learn".
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
>
>
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> r.com...
> > Jay, the time thing is a bear.
> >
> > But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel comfortable
> > with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make
> "more
> > comfortably" IFR. More safely too.
> >
> > Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among
the
> > attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.
> >
> > Com'on Jay, try to make the time!
> >
> > (but you've heard all that)
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
> > > > While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is
not
> a
> > > > guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
> > > > avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded
cells.
> > >
> > > My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a
> lack
> > > of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been
tracking
> > my
> > > "weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare
> VFR
> > > flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
> > comfortable
> > > with flying IFR.
> > >
> > > The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
> > (which
> > > I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is
not
> > > equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
> flying
> > in
> > > August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa
> > today,
> > > and you'll see why.)
> > >
> > > The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
> > > aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but
not
> > much
> > > use.
> > > --
> > > Jay Honeck
> > > Iowa City, IA
> > > Pathfinder N56993
> > > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > > "Your Aviation Destination"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jeremy Lew]

Really, they have no business "approving" a frequency change if you're not
in their airspace. Do they have radar there?

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:oFKUc.182853$eM2.74223@attbi_s51...
> > > Not required. Sometimes towers want to know when your clear their
> > > airspace, sometimes they don't care.
> >
> > Yeah, I used to tell Class D towers when I was clear all the time, till
a
> > controller somewhat sarcastically responded "Uh, okay
niner-niner-three."
> >
> > From his tone of voice it was obvious that he really didn't care (and
was,
> > in fact, somewhat annoyed that I called him), so I no longer bother.
>
> Well it really depends on where you're at. Around here, two of the busier
> Class D airports definitely appreciate a call when you're clear. I just
pipe
> up very briefly with, "53K is clear to the northeast" and usually get a
> "frequency change approved good day" response. Can't hurt.
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you not supposed to ask for a frequency change before you leave them?
>
> Or just let them know you're leaving the frequency?
>

You don't have to do either. You just have to maintain radio communications
while within the Class D airspace.

[Bill Denton]

Would it be improper to ask for a frequency change or to advise that you are
leaving the frequency, or just not necessary?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Are you not supposed to ask for a frequency change before you leave
them?
> >
> > Or just let them know you're leaving the frequency?
> >
>
> You don't have to do either. You just have to maintain radio
communications
> while within the Class D airspace.
>
>

[john smith]

Corky Scott wrote:
> Football is still played like this, it's just called Rugby.

"In rugby, there are no winners or losers, only survivors."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would it be improper to ask for a frequency change or to advise that
> you are leaving the frequency, or just not necessary?
>

Asking for something that cannot be denied? There's nothing strictly wrong
with advising that you're leaving the frequency, it's just not necessary.

[john smith]

Rick Durden wrote:
> I said nothing about flying blindly in the soup.
> There are indeed days when it is better to go VFR than IFR in marginal
> weather, such as when the bases are high enough and there is ice in
> the clouds, however, as Jay lives in the upper Midwest, those days are
> a minority.
> I've known Jay long enough to pull his chain pretty hard about getting
> his instrument rating for the type of flying he does and because of
> the capabilities of the airplane he flies.

It's fine to jerk someones chain every now and then.
In previous postings, I too, have recommended Jay get his instrument ticket.
I believe we have to be a little more careful when we extol the virtures
of a rating in this forum. There are low time lurkers who read a post
such as yours and recognize you name from your AvWeb columns. Some may
mistaken your scriblings as gospel and proclaim, "Well, Durden said it
was possible, so it must be true. I'll go give it a try."
I'll admit that I was once young, low time and stupid. I have also had
the good fortune of flying with some greybeards who set me straight on
some bad habits I had in my early aviation days.
Experience has a way of illuminating the lightbulb over one's head now
and then.

[Andrew Gideon]

Bill Denton wrote:

> Would it be improper to ask for a frequency change or to advise that you
> are leaving the frequency, or just not necessary?

You only *need* to ask for this if you want to switch while in their
airspace. I've hit this case occasionally, and I cannot recall it being a
problem.

For a class D w/o real RADAR (ie. CDW or MMU in my neighborhood), I'll call
when clear just to let them know. For better equiped class Ds, ie. TEB or
RDG, they get rid of me one way ("contact departure") or another ("squawk
VFR").

- Andrew

[Newps]

Paul Sengupta wrote:


>
>
> Are you not supposed to ask for a frequency change before you leave them?

Not necessary, especially with a class D.



>
> Or just let them know you're leaving the frequency?

Don't even have to do that.

[Bob Noel]

In article <TSKUc.320508$JR4.111734@attbi_s54>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> The main change? The AvMap. It displays towers so clearly on that big
> color screen, that you'd have to be a complete dunce to hit one.

Getting vertical obstructions into databases is a huge huge problem.
Please don't assume that AvMap has them all.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[William W. Plummer]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <TSKUc.320508$JR4.111734@attbi_s54>, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The main change? The AvMap. It displays towers so clearly on that big
>>color screen, that you'd have to be a complete dunce to hit one.
>
>
> Getting vertical obstructions into databases is a huge huge problem.
> Please don't assume that AvMap has them all.
>
Why is it a huge problem. At worst the FAA database can be used.

[Hankal]

>This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
>proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
>doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
>date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove) anything.

Would not have happened if you filed IFR.

[ISLIP]

>METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
>overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear


>As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
>their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
>creates its own little weather pattern.

> I had to remain at 1900
>feet to be legal.

How did you stay legal (500' below clouds) at 1900" if ceilings were 220' and
sometimes lower?


John

[Guy Elden Jr.]

Actually one of the Class D's does (Morristown), though it's just a feed
from KJFK.

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
...
> Really, they have no business "approving" a frequency change if you're not
> in their airspace. Do they have radar there?
>
> "Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:oFKUc.182853$eM2.74223@attbi_s51...
> > > > Not required. Sometimes towers want to know when your clear their
> > > > airspace, sometimes they don't care.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I used to tell Class D towers when I was clear all the time,
till
> a
> > > controller somewhat sarcastically responded "Uh, okay
> niner-niner-three."
> > >
> > > From his tone of voice it was obvious that he really didn't care (and
> was,
> > > in fact, somewhat annoyed that I called him), so I no longer bother.
> >
> > Well it really depends on where you're at. Around here, two of the
busier
> > Class D airports definitely appreciate a call when you're clear. I just
> pipe
> > up very briefly with, "53K is clear to the northeast" and usually get a
> > "frequency change approved good day" response. Can't hurt.
> >
> > --
> > Guy Elden Jr.
> >
> >
>
>

[Guy Elden Jr.]

Heh, maybe as far south as Raleigh you can fly direct, but I have yet to
ever receive a clearance in the northeast that didn't involve a fairly
complicated, circuitous route. Normally I can negotiate once I get outside
the NY Class B and get some better routings, but it's nigh impossible to
file and fly direct around here.

I was very surprised on the way back from Raleigh a few weeks ago, however,
when I was negotiating with clearance at RDU on the ground. Lots of bad
weather around Richmond and D.C. meant only a narrow line through the
storms, and the route I originally got took me right through the bad stuff.
I called up a couple minutes later (while still parked at the ramp) and
asked if I could get a better route. They asked what I wanted, so I said
"direct Reading", and they approved it! (well, the computer did at least).
Of course as soon as I was handed off to Potomac approach things got a
little dicey, and no more direct Reading, but fortunately the controller had
steered some planes through a gap in the weather, all reporting smooth
sailing, so I took his advice and got around the nasty stuff. Always good to
have the better radar of approach guiding you through weather than center
(at least that's what I learned by watching the ASF DVD about thunderstorm
avoidance I got in the mail a few weeks ago).

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
r.com...
> And if you file/request direct - you'll fly direct. When I go from
Raleigh
> to Florida, I tend to flyer a straighter line IFR than VFR - I'll tend to
> avoid the MOAs and stuff VFR.
>
> It's easier to get radar weather help too.
>
> "Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> > I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless there's
a
> > clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud
> tops,
> > and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
> > broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if
there
> > are clouds near or above the freezing level.
> >
> > I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could be
> > _much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games
later
> > in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a
> year,
> > I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very
clear
> > and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to
Atlanta
> > twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct
versus
> > flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each
leg.
> > Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR
> offers.
> > You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about VFR
> > traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR pilots
> who
> > fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those who
> fly
> > closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a
traffic
> > call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising altitude
> of
> > 4,000 ft.
> >
> > Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still
be
> > able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better
fuel
> > economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on
> direction,
> > a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve
your
> > skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our
> "licenses
> > to learn".
> >
> > --
> > Guy Elden Jr.
> >
> >
> > "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> > r.com...
> > > Jay, the time thing is a bear.
> > >
> > > But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel
comfortable
> > > with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make
> > "more
> > > comfortably" IFR. More safely too.
> > >
> > > Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among
> the
> > > attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.
> > >
> > > Com'on Jay, try to make the time!
> > >
> > > (but you've heard all that)
> > >
> > > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > > news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
> > > > > While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is
> not
> > a
> > > > > guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
> > > > > avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded
> cells.
> > > >
> > > > My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been
a
> > lack
> > > > of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been
> tracking
> > > my
> > > > "weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a
rare
> > VFR
> > > > flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
> > > comfortable
> > > > with flying IFR.
> > > >
> > > > The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
> > > (which
> > > > I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is
> not
> > > > equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
> > flying
> > > in
> > > > August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for
Iowa
> > > today,
> > > > and you'll see why.)
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more
capable
> > > > aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but
> not
> > > much
> > > > use.
> > > > --
> > > > Jay Honeck
> > > > Iowa City, IA
> > > > Pathfinder N56993
> > > > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > > > "Your Aviation Destination"
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Jeremy Lew wrote:

> Really, they have no business "approving" a frequency change if you're not
> in their airspace. Do they have radar there?

Some yes, some no.

MMU and CDW "sort of" do, but they don't really use it. More accurately,
they don't assign squawks and differentiate traffic that way. CDW, at
least, cannot. Both MMU and CDW get feeds of RADAR from EWR.
Unfortunately, there's this ridge which creates a shadow that blocks at
least some of the pattern at CDW.

Further, the system at CDW doesn't show transponder codes. It'll
differentiate between VFR and IFR (one slash or two) and it'll show idents.
But nothing else. I've never visited the MMU tower, so I don't know
whether they've a better feed.

Other D airports have and use RADAR: TEB and RDG come to mind. In those
airspaces, you get a squawk.

- Andrew

[Maule Driver]

You're right, I forgot. Freedom to fly direct ends at Richmond for me. But
it all makes sense given the density and restricted space I guess.

I'm going up to Saratoga this weekend - hope the weather agrees.

Can anyone suggest a good fuel stop in NJ? Price with a restaurant perhaps
(Solberg(?) and Blairstown come to mind.

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> Heh, maybe as far south as Raleigh you can fly direct, but I have yet to
> ever receive a clearance in the northeast that didn't involve a fairly
> complicated, circuitous route. Normally I can negotiate once I get outside
> the NY Class B and get some better routings, but it's nigh impossible to
> file and fly direct around here.
>
> I was very surprised on the way back from Raleigh a few weeks ago,
however,
> when I was negotiating with clearance at RDU on the ground. Lots of bad
> weather around Richmond and D.C. meant only a narrow line through the
> storms, and the route I originally got took me right through the bad
stuff.
> I called up a couple minutes later (while still parked at the ramp) and
> asked if I could get a better route. They asked what I wanted, so I said
> "direct Reading", and they approved it! (well, the computer did at least).
> Of course as soon as I was handed off to Potomac approach things got a
> little dicey, and no more direct Reading, but fortunately the controller
had
> steered some planes through a gap in the weather, all reporting smooth
> sailing, so I took his advice and got around the nasty stuff. Always good
to
> have the better radar of approach guiding you through weather than center
> (at least that's what I learned by watching the ASF DVD about thunderstorm
> avoidance I got in the mail a few weeks ago).
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
>
>
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> r.com...
> > And if you file/request direct - you'll fly direct. When I go from
> Raleigh
> > to Florida, I tend to flyer a straighter line IFR than VFR - I'll tend
to
> > avoid the MOAs and stuff VFR.
> >
> > It's easier to get radar weather help too.
> >
> > "Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless
there's
> a
> > > clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud
> > tops,
> > > and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
> > > broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if
> there
> > > are clouds near or above the freezing level.
> > >
> > > I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could
be
> > > _much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games
> later
> > > in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a
> > year,
> > > I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very
> clear
> > > and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to
> Atlanta
> > > twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct
> versus
> > > flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each
> leg.
> > > Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR
> > offers.
> > > You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about
VFR
> > > traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR
pilots
> > who
> > > fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those
who
> > fly
> > > closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a
> traffic
> > > call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising
altitude
> > of
> > > 4,000 ft.
> > >
> > > Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still
> be
> > > able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better
> fuel
> > > economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on
> > direction,
> > > a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve
> your
> > > skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our
> > "licenses
> > > to learn".
> > >
> > > --
> > > Guy Elden Jr.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> > > r.com...
> > > > Jay, the time thing is a bear.
> > > >
> > > > But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel
> comfortable
> > > > with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do
make
> > > "more
> > > > comfortably" IFR. More safely too.
> > > >
> > > > Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than
among
> > the
> > > > attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.
> > > >
> > > > Com'on Jay, try to make the time!
> > > >
> > > > (but you've heard all that)
> > > >
> > > > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > > > news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
> > > > > > While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it
is
> > not
> > > a
> > > > > > guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
> > > > > > avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded
> > cells.
> > > > >
> > > > > My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has
been
> a
> > > lack
> > > > > of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been
> > tracking
> > > > my
> > > > > "weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a
> rare
> > > VFR
> > > > > flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
> > > > comfortable
> > > > > with flying IFR.
> > > > >
> > > > > The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of
thunderstorms
> > > > (which
> > > > > I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder
is
> > not
> > > > > equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
> > > flying
> > > > in
> > > > > August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for
> Iowa
> > > > today,
> > > > > and you'll see why.)
> > > > >
> > > > > The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more
> capable
> > > > > aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster,
but
> > not
> > > > much
> > > > > use.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jay Honeck
> > > > > Iowa City, IA
> > > > > Pathfinder N56993
> > > > > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > > > > "Your Aviation Destination"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ISLIP" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
> > overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear
> > As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped
> > to their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley
usually
> > creates its own little weather pattern.
>
> > I had to remain at 1900
> >feet to be legal.
> >
>
> How did you stay legal (500' below clouds) at 1900" if ceilings were
> 220' and sometimes lower?
>

Field elevation at DBQ is 1076' MSL. A ceiling of 1900' would put the cloud
bases at about 3000' MSL.

[SeeAndAvoid]

I'm betting an IFR ticket would be way more than an ego booster. I dont
think about it as an ego booster or go around bragging about it, but more
along the lines of like minimum equipment. Wouldnt your insurance
come down a little with that rating? That's pretty useful. The currency
required in itself every 6 months, whether with a safety pilot or a CFII,
is pretty useful. The IFR chart service and updates are more than a
strictly VFR pilot deals with, is useful. The fact ATC, while youre
IFR, just cant get rid of you if they feel busy, is useful. The service
beyond flight following when it comes to updated airspace activity,
weather, and traffic, is pretty useful. Yes, they'd do that for you
VFR too, if they can see you and if they have time. The continuity
of having your flight plan pass from facility to facility instead of
being terminated and telling your life story every other freq, is
useful.

Scud running just isnt worth it. Not with all the money tied up
into an owned aircraft, and not with your family on board. It wouldnt
instill confidence in me as a passenger if my pilot didnt do all he/she
could do in the way of training and preparation, whether it be a
rating, an onboard weather system, and a well maintained airplane.

That all being said, I mostly fly day VFR and only file IFR when
I need to. But at least it's there if/when I need it. And theres been
times where I wouldnt have gone VFR, a low thin layer that an
IFR clearance enabled me to pop through, or a detereorating condition
at an airport that an IFR approach was fine, but a VFR or SVFR
approach would be dicey. As far as embedded thunderstorms,
someday soon no one will have any excuse for not having some
form of onboard weather capability. More and more small aircraft
like yours and mine Jay are telling me "yeah, I see it on radar, too".
After some shoptalk on freq it's usually some nexrad download
system, or maybe just a stormscope. Certain types I expect to have
onboard radar, or are not surprised they have it. Other smaller
single engine types that normally dont have a radome on their wing,
that are way ahead of their airplane weatherwise, now that's nice
to see.

Lastly, IFR usually doesnt take you that far out of your way. Compare
with a flight planner the difference in miles/time/gallons. And many
times those airways take you away from high terrain (I'm talking out
west here), put you over/near airports enroute, and in case of GPS failure,
keep you in range of VORs.

It's just a no brainer for the type of flying it sounds like you do. You're
paying for it in avgas taxes whether you use the system or not, use it.

Later, Chris

[Bob Noel]

In article <BbRUc.42104$TI1.17388@attbi_s52>, "William W. Plummer"
> wrote:

> > Getting vertical obstructions into databases is a huge huge problem.
> > Please don't assume that AvMap has them all.
> >
> Why is it a huge problem. At worst the FAA database can be used.

Because vertical obstructions change over time, not all towers
or other obstructions are reported, and who is going to verify
the accuracy of the reported location and height?

(btw - the FAA database would come from NIMA - or whatever they
are called now).

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
> of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking my
> "weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
> flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel comfortable
> with flying IFR.

In addition to that, there is the need to keep current. That basically means that a
few hours of the flying you do for fun every year becomes a bit more like work.
Probably the only IFR flights I would ever make would be taken within 6 months of
getting the rating.

At least you have Mary to serve as a safety pilot.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> Can anyone suggest a good fuel stop in NJ? Price with a restaurant perhaps
> (Solberg(?) and Blairstown come to mind.

Solberg has no restaurant. Blairstown is ok for a fast burger or something, but I
would recommend either Sky Manor (near Alexandria) or Central Jersey. Sky Manor has
good prices on gas and a nice restaurant. If you're in the mood for Italian food,
stop at Central Jersey (47N). The restaurant is a short walk (end of the driveway)
but is excellent. Fuel prices were so-so last time I checked. Both have self-service
pumps. Central Jersey also had fuel trucks the last time I was there.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> Solberg has no restaurant. Blairstown is ok for a fast burger or something, but I
> would recommend either Sky Manor (near Alexandria) or Central Jersey.

If you do go to Sky Manor, be a bit careful about the runway. It runs downhill to the
west. If you're landing to the east, you get the distinct impression that you're high
on final when you aren't. Landing to the west, the numbers are on flat land. Hit
right after the numbers, and everything's fine. Try to land 100' further down, and
you're likely to plant the mains about midfield. Takeoffs to the east present no
problem, other than the long ground roll you'd expect from an uphill run. For some
reason, my plane gets squirrely if I try to raise the tail at the usual airspeed (~40
mph) when taking off downhill. You might want to keep the tail down a bit longer than
usual when departing to the west.

If you're coming through on a Saturday, there are frequently enough unusual aircraft
parked around the place to make it worth the stop for that alone. There are two of
those Russian amphibian aircraft based there.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Rosspilot]

>> My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
>> of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking my
>> "weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
>> flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
>comfortable
>> with flying IFR.
>
>In addition to that, there is the need to keep current. That basically means
>that a
>few hours of the flying you do for fun every year becomes a bit more like
>work.
>Probably the only IFR flights I would ever make would be taken within 6
>months of
>getting the rating.
>

Seldom would I disagree so vehemently with TWO of my best buds on the 'net at
the same time :-)

Just yesterday, I had to depart the NY area early (8am) for Providence to pick
up an Angel Flight patient and fly her to Teterboro. Flight Service advised
airmets for IMC along the entire route, and from my home airport I could tell
the ceiling was low. I had signed up for the flight a few weeks ago, and knew I
was not current because, well, I'm a photographer and 90% of my flying is on
beautiful VFR days. But I knew the possibility that I'd have to go IFR was
real (and likely) so I scheduled an Instrument Proficiency Check last week, and
got signed off. Did 3 approaches, some partial panel, and some unusual
attitude recovery, and holding. Flight was 1.6, and afterward I looked the
CFII in the eye and asked, "am I safe?". He answered, "absolutely".
So yesterday, after getting my clearance, I departed into a 600 ft ceiling and
was IMC until I got above the overcast at 7000.
Flew the ILS to 23 at PVD, picked up the patient, filed IFR for the return
flight, and headed back to NY. Anyone in NY knows that yesterday was about as
soupy as it gets . . . visibility 3 miles in haze. We were IMC for the last 75
miles of the flight.
We were at 6000 ft. Even on descent, from 3000 feet, you could not see the
ground. Point is the IFR rating makes a flight like this possible, safe, and
increases the utility of your airplane significantly. (BTW, I do have weather
detection on board--a Strikefinder).


www.Rosspilot.com

[Maule Driver]

Thanks! I was thinking Sky Manor when I said Solberg - that's where we
stopped last time but didn't eat. Blairstown sounds like it hasn't changed
but we used to be based there.

Central Jersey sounds like a good candidate - may try it.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Maule Driver wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone suggest a good fuel stop in NJ? Price with a restaurant
perhaps
> > (Solberg(?) and Blairstown come to mind.
>
> Solberg has no restaurant. Blairstown is ok for a fast burger or
something, but I
> would recommend either Sky Manor (near Alexandria) or Central Jersey. Sky
Manor has
> good prices on gas and a nice restaurant. If you're in the mood for
Italian food,
> stop at Central Jersey (47N). The restaurant is a short walk (end of the
driveway)
> but is excellent. Fuel prices were so-so last time I checked. Both have
self-service
> pumps. Central Jersey also had fuel trucks the last time I was there.
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:01:52 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Are you not supposed to ask for a frequency change before you leave them?
>>
>> Or just let them know you're leaving the frequency?
>>
>
>You don't have to do either. You just have to maintain radio communications
>while within the Class D airspace.
>

The problem is determining when you are clear of the controlled
airspace. I've heard more than a few horror stories about pilots
being clear by more than just a few miles (verified by GPS) and the
tower did not concur. I don't always "announce" my frequency change
but if not, I make sure I'm plenty far away before changing channels.
Rich Russell

[Tom Fleischman]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> Jeremy Lew wrote:
>
> > Really, they have no business "approving" a frequency change if you're not
> > in their airspace. Do they have radar there?
>
> Some yes, some no.
>
> MMU and CDW "sort of" do, but they don't really use it. More accurately,
> they don't assign squawks and differentiate traffic that way. CDW, at
> least, cannot. Both MMU and CDW get feeds of RADAR from EWR.
> Unfortunately, there's this ridge which creates a shadow that blocks at
> least some of the pattern at CDW.
>
> Further, the system at CDW doesn't show transponder codes. It'll
> differentiate between VFR and IFR (one slash or two) and it'll show idents.
> But nothing else. I've never visited the MMU tower, so I don't know
> whether they've a better feed.
>
> Other D airports have and use RADAR: TEB and RDG come to mind. In those
> airspaces, you get a squawk.

Ditto for HPN.

[Bob Chilcoat]

I was at Sky Manor Tuesday. They have a self-service pump and fuel was
(IIRC) around $2.65/gal. I believe the self-service pumps @ Central Jersey
are about the same. If you go to Sky Manor, be aware that the Sky Manor and
Alexandria CTAF changed from 122.8 to 122.975 in June. I got a surprise
when I got there Tuesday (old sectional) :-( The Restaurant at Sky Manor is
closed Tuesday and Wednesday. Another surprise.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
r.com...
> Thanks! I was thinking Sky Manor when I said Solberg - that's where we
> stopped last time but didn't eat. Blairstown sounds like it hasn't
changed
> but we used to be based there.
>
> Central Jersey sounds like a good candidate - may try it.
>
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Maule Driver wrote:
> > >
> > > Can anyone suggest a good fuel stop in NJ? Price with a restaurant
> perhaps
> > > (Solberg(?) and Blairstown come to mind.
> >
> > Solberg has no restaurant. Blairstown is ok for a fast burger or
> something, but I
> > would recommend either Sky Manor (near Alexandria) or Central Jersey.
Sky
> Manor has
> > good prices on gas and a nice restaurant. If you're in the mood for
> Italian food,
> > stop at Central Jersey (47N). The restaurant is a short walk (end of the
> driveway)
> > but is excellent. Fuel prices were so-so last time I checked. Both have
> self-service
> > pumps. Central Jersey also had fuel trucks the last time I was there.
> >
> > George Patterson
> > If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> > he gives it to.
>
>

[Nathan Young]

On 18 Aug 2004 23:50:58 GMT, (ISLIP) wrote:

>>METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
>>overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear
>
>
>>As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
>>their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
>>creates its own little weather pattern.
>
>> I had to remain at 1900
>>feet to be legal.
>
>How did you stay legal (500' below clouds) at 1900" if ceilings were 220' and
>sometimes lower?

Could bases are reported in AGL not MSL.

[Andrew Gideon]

Rosspilot wrote:

> (BTW, I do have
> weather detection on board--a Strikefinder).

So, what do you avoid using your Strikefinder? Clusters of hits, obviously.
But what about "static"?

I turned away from "static" a couple of days ago. Later (using the NOAA web
site), I noted a cell in that area. Was the "static" a precursor? Just a
coincidence?

I have seen "static" before, and not noted anything coming of it.

- Andrew

[Scott D.]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:23 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
>for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the emerald-green
>Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us.

It has been my experience flying thru Chicago's airspace that if you
are VFR and want flight following, you are likely not going to get it.
I have flown thru there many times and 9-10 times while VFR they would
drop me. In fact the few times that I have received flight following
thru thier airspace, I have gotten a comment from the controler that
this must be my lucky day, Chicago has agreed to accept you. I have
always wondered if I should land and buy a lottery ticket when this
does happen.

Scott D.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Scott D." wrote:

> In fact the few times that I have received flight following
> thru thier airspace, I have gotten a comment from the controler that
> this must be my lucky day, Chicago has agreed to accept you. I have
> always wondered if I should land and buy a lottery ticket when this
> does happen.

No -- you've already used up all your luck for the next month! :-)

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Michael]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
> aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not much
> use.

You know, lots of people are going to try to convince you that's not
true - only it is.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> It's just a no brainer for the type of flying it sounds like you do.
You're
> paying for it in avgas taxes whether you use the system or not, use it.

Mary and I use "the System" to the fullest extent allowed for VFR flight.
We fly over 200 hours per year, all VFR, much of it long cross-country
flights, 95% of it with flight-following.

When you fly high enough (say, 4500 feet around here), you are guaranteed
continuous radar coverage and traffic advisories in pretty much any
direction. One controlled airspace seamlessly meshes with another, and the
controllers smoothly hand us off for all of our flights -- just the same as
on an IFR flight plan. The only time this doesn't work is when we fly
beneath their radar coverage. (Or when we simply want to enjoy a short
flight without the bother and interruption of ATC.)

While I would like to have the rating in my pocket for those rare times when
we can't go VFR, it would take months for me to get back up to speed for the
test. (Which, two years ago, before we bought the inn, I was signed off to
take.) With my time at such a premium, and so little added utility realized
for the effort expended, there is little incentive for me to get my
instrument ticket at this time.

But it's in the "5-year plan"! (Along with adding our own restaurant,
remodeling another 17 suites, putting a dome on our pool, etc.-- all of
which I plan to do in my "spare time"...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Seldom would I disagree so vehemently with TWO of my best buds on the 'net
at
> the same time :-)

I hear you, Lee -- and for an Angel Flight you absolutely HAD to go at that
time. An instrument rating was essential.

But I don't ever fly like that. I don't ever "have" to fly somewhere -- I
can drive (if it's close enough) or I can cancel, even if it's for business.
(Yet another reason to own your own business -- what're they gonna do, fire
me? :-)

Actually, the more we discuss this, the more I believe that if I'm going to
sacrifice the time and money, it's going to be for aerobatic training. Now
THAT is something I can sink my teeth into!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <%a8Vc.17185$Fg5.15202@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> I hear you, Lee -- and for an Angel Flight you absolutely HAD to go at
> that
> time.

You never HAVE to fly an Angel Flight.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >You don't have to do either. You just have to maintain radio
communications
> >while within the Class D airspace.
> >
>
> The problem is determining when you are clear of the controlled
> airspace.
>

Why is that a problem?


>
> I've heard more than a few horror stories about pilots
> being clear by more than just a few miles (verified by GPS) and the
> tower did not concur.
>

What is the tower basing that call on?

[SFM]

I found that an altitude of 7500'MSL right around the ring of class B will
get you flight following. Mostly because this is almost the same altitude
all the heavy metal is at near that point and ATC want to keep an eye on you
then.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott F. Migaldi, K9PO
MI-150972
PP-ASEL-IA

Are you a PADI Instructor or DM? Then join the PADI
Instructor Yahoo Group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PADI-Instructors/join
-----------------------------------
Catch the wave!
www.hamwave.com


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

-------------------------------------
<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:21:23 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
> >for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the
emerald-green
> >Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us.
>
> It has been my experience flying thru Chicago's airspace that if you
> are VFR and want flight following, you are likely not going to get it.
> I have flown thru there many times and 9-10 times while VFR they would
> drop me. In fact the few times that I have received flight following
> thru thier airspace, I have gotten a comment from the controler that
> this must be my lucky day, Chicago has agreed to accept you. I have
> always wondered if I should land and buy a lottery ticket when this
> does happen.
>
> Scott D.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Maule Driver wrote:

> Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than
among the
> attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.

:-)

I landed at GRR yesterday with a 200 foot ceiling and RVR of 4200 ft.

The new-ish lineman saw my sunglasses and commented on finding better
weather. I told him, "it's bright and sunny about 2000 feet from here."

[Rosspilot]

>for an Angel Flight you absolutely HAD to go at
>> that
>> time.
>
>You never HAVE to fly an Angel Flight.


Well, of course . . . that's the whole point of having the rating. Because I
have it, I *can* fly the mission. I don't have to cancel it because VFR flight
is "not recommended".

Lots of IFR time is spent on top, where the sun is shining brightly and the sky
is deep blue. And you look down and see the gray muck that is the reason
nobody wants to go to the beach. :-) All you have to do is get up through it,
and then back down with the runway in front of your airplane where it belongs.
Sometimes you can depart IFR and fly 20 minutes away and be in perfect VFR
conditions for the rest of your route and destination. But you can't depart
without the rating.



www.Rosspilot.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> You never HAVE to fly an Angel Flight.

Yeah, but my experience has been that you *have* to have an IFR rating to fly one.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Marty Shapiro]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bob Noel wrote:
>>
>> You never HAVE to fly an Angel Flight.
>
> Yeah, but my experience has been that you *have* to have an IFR rating
> to fly one.
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the
> people he gives it to.
>

Angel Flight West does not require an IFR rating. The various Angel Flight
regions each have their own pilot criteria.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Jay Honeck]

> I appreciate the contibutions that you have made to these aviation
> groups, but I don't really understand your position here. It seems to
> me that if you spent half the time you must spend reading and posting
> to Usenet you'd have the rating done very quickly.

Probably true. However, one difference is that I *enjoy* this kind of
educational exercise, while I find training for instrument flight to be like
watching paint dry.

In short, this is fun, while training for the instrument rating is like high
school geometry -- a chore that must be slogged through, with no apparent
reward at the end.

It also helps that I can do Usenet in 5 minute chunks here and there
throughout the day. I am not the type who can retain complex material by
studying in such a haphazard way -- and I simply don't have any open 30
minute (or greater) chunks of time in my day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> In short, this is fun, while training for the instrument rating is like
> high school geometry -- a chore that must be slogged through, with no
> apparent reward at the end.

Well, that should pretty well end the discussion. I found the rating fun
(if work), so I did it. If I'd not found it fun, I doubt I'd have kept
going.

Why bother, unless one is doing (or planning on doing) this for a living?

- Andrew

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:
> > The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
> > aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
much
> > use.
>
> You know, lots of people are going to try to convince you that's not
> true - only it is.

Aw, jeez; I was biting my keyboard but now you force me to post, Mike. ;)

Jay does not need a more capable aircraft to make the i rating useful to
him, he just needs to change his flying needs.

By no means am I urging that he do this; he seems to have reached an
accomodation with his circumstances that works well for him.

But what if he opens another couple of inns 300 miles away in opposite
directions? In that case the airplane could become a useful business tool
and, IMO, the rating would make it a more reliable one. Would he need to
replace the -235 to make this so? I don't think so. There would always be
those days when he'd need to be at the other hotel but marginal conditions
would make a VFR flight highly inadvisable, yet such conditions are no sweat
for an IFR flight.

Yes, if he wants to fly over CBs or through ice he needs a lot more
airplane, but there's plenty of IMC and near-IMC flying to be done when
those things aren't factors. Oh, yeah, and there's the inescapable fact
that one gets better radar service when flying IFR, viz. Jay's recent
experience with Chicago Center.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Tom Fleischman]

In article <ygmVc.22648$Fg5.7581@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> > I appreciate the contibutions that you have made to these aviation
> > groups, but I don't really understand your position here. It seems to
> > me that if you spent half the time you must spend reading and posting
> > to Usenet you'd have the rating done very quickly.
>
> Probably true. However, one difference is that I *enjoy* this kind of
> educational exercise, while I find training for instrument flight to be like
> watching paint dry.
>
> In short, this is fun, while training for the instrument rating is like high
> school geometry -- a chore that must be slogged through, with no apparent
> reward at the end.
>
> It also helps that I can do Usenet in 5 minute chunks here and there
> throughout the day. I am not the type who can retain complex material by
> studying in such a haphazard way -- and I simply don't have any open 30
> minute (or greater) chunks of time in my day.

Ok, so in light of that I can certainly understand you not going for
the rating.

I found my instrument training very challenging and very rewarding. For
me, it was always an interesting test to see how well i could maintain
my positional awareness while under the hood. I found it fascinating
that in spite of the fact that I could not see where I was going I
usually always knew exactly where I was. And when the hood comes off
and the runway is right there in front of me I always get a charge out
of that. I would not have made it to OSH this year without the rating
as I had to fly through an area of rain and low ceilings in
Pennsylavania on the way out. And whenever I make a cross country
flight of any length of more than about an hour I will file IFR even in
VFR weather because I enjoy working within the system. I find it keeps
me on my toes and gives my flying skills the excercise that keeps them
sharp.

Keeping abreast of the Usenet threads, OTOH, is a chore for me. I do
it though because every once in a while there is a choice thread that I
either find very interesting or learn something from.

[Rosspilot]

I agree with previous 2 posts in that if it ain't fun, at this point in your
life, why do it?

But I loved it. I had already done it when I was 25 in UH-1s, so I had a
strong foundation. But I couldn't wait to get another lesson. I loved the
Frasca, too . . . seeing the line plotted over a chart or approach plate . . .
seeing my holding patterns, etc.

I started having fun when I got Trevor Thom's "Instrument Flying".
Once I picked it up and started reading it, everything just flowed. I couldn't
put it down.

And I have to echo this comment:

> when the hood comes off
>and the runway is right there in front of me I always get a charge out
>of that.


So do I . . . and the only BIGGER charge is when you are on the ILS for real,
and you get down to 300-500 ft before those lights are right before your eyes
where they belong. It's WAY up there in the gratification dept.




www.Rosspilot.com

[Rosspilot]

One other comment then I'll shut up about it . . .

Achieving the Instrument Rating will make you a better VFR pilot. It will
improve your communication skills, your concentration and discipline in the
cockpit, your multi-tasking ability, and (IMO one of the most essential
components of being a good pilot) your self-confidence.

www.Rosspilot.com

[Newps]

Rosspilot wrote:

> One other comment then I'll shut up about it . . .
>
> Achieving the Instrument Rating will make you a better VFR pilot.

Not universally true. It certainly will if you start right after
getting your private, hell any flying will make you better. But if
you're sitting there with about 1000 hours of VFR time and then get your
rating you will gain nothing for VFR purposes and actually lose some
skills as the two are different types of flying.

[Rosspilot]

>
>> (BTW, I do have
>> weather detection on board--a Strikefinder).
>
>So, what do you avoid using your Strikefinder? Clusters of hits, obviously.
>
>But what about "static"?



I have never picked up "static" to my knowledge. I set the radius to 100 nm
and if I see activity, I close it to 50nm, and keep watching. That gives me
plenty of time to make the calls to FSS or ATC to figure out what's going on,
and to land or divert as necessary.

Sometimes the electrical activity is up in the flight levels and has no effect
down where I am.




www.Rosspilot.com

[Andrew Gideon]

Rosspilot wrote:

> I have never picked up "static" to my knowledge.

By "static", I mean a collection of "hits" spaced relatively far apart.
That is, a dot here, a dot there, a dot somewhere else, with perhaps 10 or
20 total in a fairly wide area.

- Andrew

[Rosspilot]

>
>> I have never picked up "static" to my knowledge.
>
>By "static", I mean a collection of "hits" spaced relatively far apart.
>That is, a dot here, a dot there, a dot somewhere else, with perhaps 10 or
>20 total in a fairly wide area.
>

Well, maybe I have and just didn't recognize it as such. What I look for (in
order) are:

1. How close to my airplane is the activity?

2. How fast are the stikes occurring?
(sometimes I clear it, and watch it from a clear screen just to see how fast
the orange dots are appearing)

3. Is it in my flight path?

What I do next depends on what these 3 items are telling me.



www.Rosspilot.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Not universally true. It certainly will if you start right after
> getting your private, hell any flying will make you better. But if
> you're sitting there with about 1000 hours of VFR time and then get your
> rating you will gain nothing for VFR purposes and actually lose some
> skills as the two are different types of flying.

Interesting comment, Newps -- one I've never heard before.

I did not find that my VFR skills deteriorated during my IFR training --
although I did discover that my ability to maintain altitude and heading
precisely certainly improved. In fact, I became a sharper pilot all around
during my training.

What aspects deteriorate, in your opinion?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Hankal]

>I did not find that my VFR skills deteriorated during my IFR training --
>although I did discover that my ability to maintain altitude and heading
>precisely certainly improved. In fact, I became a sharper pilot all around
>during my training.
>
I can honestly say that if I fly IFR most of the time. My VFR skills
deteriorate.
IFR flying is so much easier. I get vetors and clearances, if clouds appear I
fly through them. If it is convective I ask to deviate.
One reason why when going for my $100 hambuger on sunday I fly VFR. Other times
I file IFR.
Just my thoughts.
Hank 172 driver

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> I did not find that my VFR skills deteriorated during my IFR training --
> although I did discover that my ability to maintain altitude and heading
> precisely certainly improved. In fact, I became a sharper pilot all around
> during my training.

Everybody's different I guess but when I fly VFR it is almost totally
seat of the pants, which is nearly the exact opposite of flying IFR. I
fly final to dirt strips beneath the stall horn, fly below the tops of
the mountains up against the downwind side for lift. I fly by sight and
sound. The sound of the air and the engine, not by any numbers on the
airspeed indicator. I can maintain any airspeed, altitude or attitude
to fairly precise limits, but why?


>
> What aspects deteriorate, in your opinion?

Flying IFR gets you out of tune with the plane. It simply becomes a
transportation vehicle because it is drilled into you to never get
anywhere near the flight envelope edges. Othen than popping out and
having the runway right in front of you where you expect it to be IFR
flying sucks all the fun out of flying

[vincent p. norris]

With my WX 10 Stomrscope, I have sometimes seen "lightning strikes"
immediately behind me, in CAVU air I just flew through. Nothing
like the cluster a real storm creates, of course.

I always assumed the SS was picking up some ionization in the
atmosphere.

vince norris

[Rosspilot]

>> I did not find that my VFR skills deteriorated during my IFR training --
>> although I did discover that my ability to maintain altitude and heading
>> precisely certainly improved. In fact, I became a sharper pilot all
>around
>> during my training.
>
>Everybody's different I guess but when I fly VFR it is almost totally
>seat of the pants, which is nearly the exact opposite of flying IFR.

I have to jump back in <G>

OK . . . I agree so far. Totally different kind of flying. IFR is "in
addition to" not "in lieu of". One can do both--just not simultaneously.

I
>fly final to dirt strips beneath the stall horn, fly below the tops of
>the mountains up against the downwind side for lift. I fly by sight and
>sound. The sound of the air and the engine, not by any numbers on the
>airspeed indicator. I can maintain any airspeed, altitude or attitude
>to fairly precise limits, but why?
>

One reason is because to do so (well) is a flying skill. And once in a while,
one likes to demonstrate mastery of his skills. And like all skills, it
deteriorates unless it is practiced.

Sometimes a musician will pick up the sheet and play the piece exactly as
written . . . and once in a while, he'll just jam and improvise. Different
skills.


>> What aspects deteriorate, in your opinion?
>
>Flying IFR gets you out of tune with the plane.


Completely not true. Me and my plane have more than 700 hrs together, both VFR
and IFR. We're damn tight.


It simply becomes a
>transportation vehicle because it is drilled into you to never get
>anywhere near the flight envelope edges.


Only during IFR flight. And for sound reasons having to do with human
physiology, and the precision required
of good IFR skills.

If you are VFR, you can do all the steep turns and loops and aerobatics that
your aircraft and skills allow.

Othen than popping out and
>having the runway right in front of you where you expect it to be IFR
>flying sucks all the fun out of flying


Oh, Lordy! My poor ears :-(

Dude, it sounds like you just don't enjoy the cerebral exercize of flying. The
intense concentration and focus, the ability to multi-task and stay ahead of
things, the self-discipline required . . .
It's like meditation in a way. It's a very cleansing experience for me. It's a
mental challenge, and I like the stimulation.

Yes, it's work. And it's fun. Nirvana.



www.Rosspilot.com

[Newps]

Rosspilot wrote:

> It simply becomes a
>
>>transportation vehicle because it is drilled into you to never get
>>anywhere near the flight envelope edges.
>
>
>
> Only during IFR flight.

Yeah, that's what the it is.


And for sound reasons having to do with human
> physiology, and the precision required
> of good IFR skills.
>
> If you are VFR, you can do all the steep turns and loops and aerobatics that
> your aircraft and skills allow.

Skills that stay much sharper the more VFR you do. IFR flight does
exactly nothing for these skills except to allow them to deteriorate.


>
> Othen than popping out and
>
>>having the runway right in front of you where you expect it to be IFR
>>flying sucks all the fun out of flying
>
>
>
> Oh, Lordy! My poor ears :-(
>
> Dude, it sounds like you just don't enjoy the cerebral exercize of flying.

Different strokes for different folks.



The
> intense concentration and focus, the ability to multi-task and stay ahead of
> things, the self-discipline required . . .

I get 40 hours a week of all that at work in the tower.

[Jay Honeck]

> > The
> > intense concentration and focus, the ability to multi-task and stay
ahead of
> > things, the self-discipline required . . .
>
> I get 40 hours a week of all that at work in the tower.

Maybe that's it, Newps.

We both spend our time in high stress (though for totally different
reasons!) environments, and IFR flying is simply too much like work to be
fun.

I spend a zillion hours agonizing over every aspect of the inn, working
contacts, paying bills, assessing opportunities -- the LAST thing I want to
do is subject myself to more "intense concentration" and "self-discipline"
in my off hours.

For me, flying is a true release into the realm of absolute freedom, a place
where I can completely lose myself in the glories of flight. I am 100% in
the moment, feeling the wind, the engine, the controls, wheeling and soaring
as I wish. When I'm flying, all stress simply evaporates. Getting
somewhere is almost a by-product.

Working under the hood, tracking a VOR, reading an approach plate -- those
are all things that have there place, but perhaps not in my life.

At least not now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> We both spend our time in high stress (though for totally different
> reasons!) environments, and IFR flying is simply too much like work to be
> fun.

There ya go! On the rare occasions when I leave the ground these days, the last thing
I want to do is worry over the idiosyncrasies of holding patterns and the like.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > We both spend our time in high stress (though for totally different
> > reasons!) environments, and IFR flying is simply too much like work
to be
> > fun.
>
> There ya go! On the rare occasions when I leave the ground these days,
the last thing
> I want to do is worry over the idiosyncrasies of holding patterns and
the like.

Aw shoot, all these hours I've been flying IFR I thought I was having
fun.

Silly me; guess I'll have to give it up, now.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Philip Sondericker]

in article xEvVc.25771$Fg5.13033@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck at
wrote on 8/20/04 4:17 PM:


> I did not find that my VFR skills deteriorated during my IFR training --
> although I did discover that my ability to maintain altitude and heading
> precisely certainly improved. In fact, I became a sharper pilot all around
> during my training.
>
> What aspects deteriorate, in your opinion?

I'm about 20 hours into my IFR training, and just speaking for myself, I've
found that my landings have suffered. I find it very difficult to be under
the hood for an hour or more, then be told to "look up" just short of the
threshhold, and execute a decent landing. The sudden transition from IFR to
VFR is jarring to me, though I've been slowly improving.

[Rosspilot]

>On the rare occasions when I leave the ground these days,
>the last thing
>> I want to do is worry over the idiosyncrasies of holding patterns and
>the like.

Well, you've just let the real meat of it all slip out. If flying is such a
rare occasion, then by all means spend it VFR,
and enjoying being where you are, and doing what you do.

Flying isn't a rare occasion for me--I am up
flying VFR at least 3 times a week . . . whenever weather is suitable for me to
work.



www.Rosspilot.com

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm about 20 hours into my IFR training, and just speaking for myself,
I've
> found that my landings have suffered. I find it very difficult to be under
> the hood for an hour or more, then be told to "look up" just short of the
> threshhold, and execute a decent landing. The sudden transition from IFR
to
> VFR is jarring to me, though I've been slowly improving.

Yeah, I remember that.

That problem ultimately went away -- although I'm sure it would happen to me
now again, if I were to get back into instrument training.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:txMVc.15749$9d6.9018@attbi_s54...
> > I'm about 20 hours into my IFR training, and just speaking for myself,
> I've
> > found that my landings have suffered. I find it very difficult to be
under
> > the hood for an hour or more, then be told to "look up" just short of
the
> > threshhold, and execute a decent landing. The sudden transition from IFR
> to
> > VFR is jarring to me, though I've been slowly improving.
>
> Yeah, I remember that.
>
> That problem ultimately went away -- although I'm sure it would happen to
me
> now again, if I were to get back into instrument training.

If you're being told to look up "just short" of the threshold, something's
not right.

[Andrew Gideon]

Both styles of flying can be fun. If you're worried about the loss of VFR
skills after the IA rating (and I was, as it happens), then you've nothing
to fear: just hop into commercial maneuvers.

Who has as much fun as we do?

- Andrew

[C Kingsbury]

(Hankal) wrote in message >...
> >This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
> >proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
> >doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
> >date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove) anything.
>
> Would not have happened if you filed IFR.

Now there's a good one!

No question you're generally much better covered under IFR than VFR
flight following, but if you think that voice on the radio never goofs
up and loses track of what's going on...

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<D2zUc.315580$JR4.141514@attbi_s54>...

> Whew! Imagine if I had simply opted not to call Cedar Rapids Approach for
> flight following? This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
> proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
> doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
> date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove) anything.

If thy're that motivated to screw with you, one would think they'd
make sure to put the tapes aside, and then you're home free.

OTOH, my old CFII did have a run-in transitioning Norwood MA (OWD) at
1800' under the Boston Class B 2000' shelf. OWD cleared him but BOS
called when he landed at BED 15 miles away. They said, "You can't do
that, it's Class D." He said, "OWD cleared me, so yes I can." They
said, "there's big towers out there you could hit, he said, "yeah, but
I've been flying here for 20 years and know right where they all are."
They said, "well, we don't think people should be doing that," to
which he replied, "you're the FAA, if you don't like the way the
airspace is set up up, then go ahead and change it."

-cwk.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom S. at
wrote on 8/21/04 2:37 PM:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:txMVc.15749$9d6.9018@attbi_s54...
>>> I'm about 20 hours into my IFR training, and just speaking for myself,
>> I've
>>> found that my landings have suffered. I find it very difficult to be
> under
>>> the hood for an hour or more, then be told to "look up" just short of
> the
>>> threshhold, and execute a decent landing. The sudden transition from IFR
>> to
>>> VFR is jarring to me, though I've been slowly improving.
>>
>> Yeah, I remember that.
>>
>> That problem ultimately went away -- although I'm sure it would happen to
> me
>> now again, if I were to get back into instrument training.
>
> If you're being told to look up "just short" of the threshold, something's
> not right.

Please elaborate.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>
>>I get 40 hours a week of all that at work in the tower.
>
>
> Maybe that's it, Newps.
>
> We both spend our time in high stress (though for totally different
> reasons!) environments,

Gotta stop you there. The last thing I have is stress. I can't believe
I get paid so much for such an easy job. Want stress? Go be a fourth
grade teacher.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
news:BD4CA6B0.E9920%>
> I find it very difficult to be under
> the hood for an hour or more, then be told to "look up" just short of the
> threshhold, and execute a decent landing. The sudden transition from IFR
to
> VFR is jarring to me, though I've been slowly improving.

As an examiner once said to me on an IMC rating renewal test:
"You know that in order to pass, you've got to get both of us
back on the ground alive..."

:-)

Paul

[John Gaquin]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message

> >
> > If you're being told to look up "just short" of the threshold,
something's
> > not right.
>
> Please elaborate.


If your instructor is having you go visual at or near minimums, that would
place you about a half mile from touchdown, more or less. At typical SE
approach speeds, this should give you about 15-20 seconds or so to
transition to visual flight, which ought to be enough.

If you find the transition visually jarring, you're probably unconsciously
applying some control input as an instinctive reaction. Remember, when you
break out your craft should be in a relatively stable condition, continuing
down the approach. The craft is where it is supposed to be. Let it ride
for a couple of seconds while your brain transitions. Make a conscious
effort to *not* apply any input for those few seconds, until your brain is
in gear. It'll work out. Good luck.

[Andrew Gideon]

John Gaquin wrote:

> Remember, when
> you break out your craft should be in a relatively stable condition,
> continuing
> down the approach. The craft is where it is supposed to be. Let it ride
> for a couple of seconds while your brain transitions. Make a conscious
> effort to *not* apply any input for those few seconds, until your brain is
> in gear. It'll work out. Good luck.

This doesn't necessarily work for nonprecision approaches using a "dive and
drive" model. However, the input(s) necessary for to transition from the
level "drive" to a visual descent should be well known. That's just a
matter of practice.

- Andrew