KVUO to KAST & Back IFR 1.8 Act. 2.7 Total "First In Act. IFR X-C"

[NW_PILOT]

KVUO To KAST

Well, After getting my instrument rating 2 months ago and just playing local
in my 150 getting used to Popping in and out of the clouds totally different
than the hood I decided it was a good day for a real IFR X-C not a very far
one but ceilings were 1,300' local and 2,500' at destination reported with 3
to 5 miles visibility and to be around 2,000 all day diminishing late
afternoon .

Well called in and got my clearance took then about 15 min to get to me,
Nice simple Clearance Cleared to KAST, Via BTG Vortac As Filed, Maintain
4,000 expect 6,000 10 Min. Depart Freq 124.35 Code XXXXX, Switch To
Advisory Contact Departure Airborne.

All is going good then oops My PTT Switch Got Stuck at about 2,500' solid
IFR figured it out got back radios about my expected time to climb, was
asked N7676U how do you read told them had a stuck mike they said ok and to
& Climb Maintain 6,000 turn to Heading XXX Cleared Direct KAST resume Own
Navigation direct to KAST. I broke out on top for a bit at about 5,300' what
a feeling and sight. I Was told so long contact center on XXX.XX was told
continue present heading expect radar vectors to the ILS 26 KAST About 15
min later they were vectoring me around, Told me to hold heading until
established report once established on LOC then switch to advisory return
back to this Frequency to cancel IFR.

Now what a sight to see descending through the clouds, at about 1,400'
started to break out 1,100' with airport clearly right infront of us my
indicator looked like it was a set of sights on a rifle!!! Switched back to
Center and told them have the airport cancel IFR they asked me where I broke
out I told them they said thanks Squawk 1200 good day.

Return from KAST to KVUO

Reporting Clear At KVUO Climbed in the airplane Called and got my Clearance
Cleared to KVUO as Filed they gave me 5 Min to get it in the air and contact
them for an expire time, We departed KAST and was told to climb at max climb
hahahahaha I was struggling to do 600fpm as I was pushing gross. Was In the
clouds at about 1,100' Solid until about 5,000 then patchy in and out. Was a
bit more turbulent on the way back to KVUO than on the way to KAST.

OK Now center has been radar vectoring me all over the place for traffic,
good practice of situational awareness (I Have GPS so I Cheated) they told
me to resume my own navigation direct to BTG VOR contact & Portland Approach
On 124.35 good day, I Contacted Portland told me to fly heading XXX Direct
to BTG VOR Expect 4,000 in 10 Min, Continued I am told to hold and maintain
4,000 Expect 3,000 in 10 min. 5 min later told me descend to 3,000, and told
me I cannot have the approach in to KVUO as KPDX is departing in that
direction gave me many options since it was VFR at KVUP I took vectors to
KVUO, fly heading XXX expect radar vectors to KVUO, report when VFR about 5
min later I was told to descend to 2,000 about 2,300' broke out to VFR.
Reported VFR and Lake Vancouver Insight, Canceled IFR went Direct To KVUO.

All I can say is This Instrument Flying Is the ****!!! Way better than using
Foggles or a Hood and Doing Approaches All Day Long. Being surrounded by
white & grey then seeing that airport pop out at you is a rush beyond
rushes. I am slowly making my IFR flight's further and further. But
progressing at my own comfort level, and as stamina & comfort level builds I
will be going further and further in to the soup. I don't think I will ever
fly many places VFR , IFR is way simpler and a whole lot more fun except for
no music!!!!

Learned a Lot On This Little Trip! Just a few Questions For The Pro's???

Portland Approach Was Calling Out Traffic, Traffic 10:00 3,000' I Responded
Portland We are at 5,000' Solid IFR Unable to See Traffic! Dose This Happen
a Lot While IFR???? Was My Response Correct?

5 Min Clearance Void Time, Dose this Happen a Lot, kinda puts the pressure
on ya!

Dose anyone use any products like Visine ect for their eyes for extended
periods of IFR time?

[Robert Chambers]

NW_PILOT wrote:
> KVUO To KAST

> Learned a Lot On This Little Trip! Just a few Questions For The Pro's???
>
> Portland Approach Was Calling Out Traffic, Traffic 10:00 3,000' I Responded
> Portland We are at 5,000' Solid IFR Unable to See Traffic! Dose This Happen
> a Lot While IFR???? Was My Response Correct?

Not a Pro but minimize airtime N12345 is IMC is all you need to get
the point across.


> 5 Min Clearance Void Time, Dose this Happen a Lot, kinda puts the pressure
> on ya!

It's standard. They don't want to tie up the airspace for any longer
than needed. When you put in for your clearance you can give them a
proposed departure time, if you sit there with the engine running after
you've done your run up and last pre-takeoff checks and wait for the
clearance time you won't burn that much hobbs and gas. As you do it
more you get a feel for how long it takes. 5 mins is a long time to
wait if you're all done and ready to go!

>
> Dose anyone use any products like Visine ect for their eyes for extended
> periods of IFR time?
>
>
I've never used it so I wouldn't know. I'd check AOPA or ask an AME.

Enjoy the clouds. much more comfortable without the foggles on isn't it!

Robert

[Peter Duniho]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Portland Approach Was Calling Out Traffic, Traffic 10:00 3,000' I
> Responded
> Portland We are at 5,000' Solid IFR Unable to See Traffic! Dose This
> Happen
> a Lot While IFR???? Was My Response Correct?

ATC has no way to know whether you are in a cloud or not. So they report
any traffic, as they would at any other time. As long as you acknowledge
the traffic report (so ATC knows you heard them), it probably doesn't matter
much what you actually say. Even in VMC, a traffic report may or may not
result in visual contact with the reported traffic, and ATC doesn't seem to
worry much about that.

> 5 Min Clearance Void Time, Dose this Happen a Lot, kinda puts the pressure
> on ya!

Yes, it does. :( I try to avoid IFR clearances from the ground at
uncontrolled airports, but it's sometimes the only reasonable procedure.
Most of the time, I have been successful in either getting a larger window,
or a delayed window, or both. I especially like the delayed window, because
it allows ATC to decide how long to keep the airspace clear, but gives me
enough time to get back to the airplane, start up and get my taxi and runup
done in a relaxed manner.

Basically, just tell them when you think you'll actually be taking off, and
then get a clearance for that time, rather than for the moment at which
you're calling (unless, of course, you are at the runway ready to go,
talking on a cell phone).

> Dose anyone use any products like Visine ect for their eyes for extended
> periods of IFR time?

Um...do you use Visine for VFR flight? If not, you should have no need to
use it during IFR flight. Staying focused on the instruments doesn't mean
you should forget to blink.

Pete

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Even in VMC, a traffic report may or may not
> result in visual contact with the reported traffic, and ATC doesn't seem to
> worry much about that.

Hummm ... When I get a traffic report from ATC and I can't spot the traffic,
the controller usually asks me after a minute or two whether I've spotted it or
not. Wonder if this is an eastcoast/westcoast thing?

This is usually VFR through or into class-C or class-D airspace, so I'm talking
to approach.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:53:22 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <Sg5ue.8201$R6.380@trndny04>::

> When I get a traffic report from ATC and I can't spot the traffic,
>the controller usually asks me after a minute or two whether I've spotted it or
>not. Wonder if this is an eastcoast/westcoast thing?

My experience (west coast) has been, that ATC only continues to point
out the same conflicting traffic if there appears to be any chance of
a collision. Other than in those situations, I usually have to ask
ATC for the current position of the traffic if I haven't spotted it.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Sg5ue.8201$R6.380@trndny04...
> Hummm ... When I get a traffic report from ATC and I can't spot the
> traffic, the controller usually asks me after a minute or two whether I've
> spotted it or > not. Wonder if this is an eastcoast/westcoast thing?

Don't know. I usually am able to find the traffic, and do report being in
IMC if that's the case. But I can't remember a single time ATC prodded me
again to see if I was still looking for the traffic or not. That doesn't
mean it's never happened to me, but it certainly doesn't happen often if it
does.

I do fly primarily on the west coast, but I've made flights with extensive
contact with ATC across the entire country, including a couple of
corner-to-corner flights, one of which even took me over to the Bahamas, and
one of which was actually more of a "Z" shape (*) than a beeline from
Florida to Washington State. At least in the brief periods of time I was
flying on the east coast, I didn't experience anything like that.

I never did wind up farther north than Maryland, so maybe it's a Northeast
thing?

I have had ATC follow up a traffic call with a "traffic no factor" if I
haven't reported the traffic in sight (and sometimes even if I have). But
they've never bugged me about whether I've seen the traffic or not, if I
failed to report back to them about that.

> This is usually VFR through or into class-C or class-D airspace, so I'm
> talking > to approach.

Well, one thing I wonder is how ATC's obligation changes if you report the
traffic in sight. That is, if they are providing you with separation
services, but you can report some traffic in sight, maybe they then do not
have to provide you with vectors. Of course, for VFR traffic this is a moot
point, but if they're in the habit of doing it for IFR traffic, they might
still do it for VFR traffic.

If that's the case, then I'd expect that habit to be more pronounced in more
congested airspace, such as that found in the Northeast. Even the Southeast
US doesn't have the traffic density, and in that respect is more similar to
the West.

Pete

(*) I hesitate to even bother fixing the "Z" reference, but I will anyway;
it's imprecise and that bugs me. :) The route was more of a "Z" rotated 90
degrees, then flipped about the horizontal axis, and finally stretched so
that the middle segment was nearly horizontal. North from Florida, then
almost due West to Lake Tahoe, then finally North again to Seattle. I
covered a lot more airspace during that trip than I did on my true
"corner-to-corner" flight.

[Dave Butler]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Well, one thing I wonder is how ATC's obligation changes if you report the
> traffic in sight. That is, if they are providing you with separation
> services, but you can report some traffic in sight, maybe they then do not
> have to provide you with vectors. Of course, for VFR traffic this is a moot
> point, but if they're in the habit of doing it for IFR traffic, they might
> still do it for VFR traffic.

ATC maintains the responsibility for IFR-IFR separation unless you hear
"maintain visual separation from that traffic...".

[Peter R.]

Pete wrote:

> Even in VMC, a traffic report may or may not
> result in visual contact with the reported traffic, and ATC doesn't seem to
> worry much about that.

In the northeast US, my experience differs. I have received climbs,
descents, and heading change instructions sooner after reporting visual
contact with reported traffic, whether the other aircraft were VFR or
IFR. While true that ATC may not worry whether I make contact or not,
I am pretty sure I am reducing their workload a bit when I do.

Just last Monday I was IFR and climbing out of my home airport to an
interim altitude assigned by ATC. Looking up ahead, I spotted a Cessna
Caravan at about 2,500 feet above me, crossing my flight path left to
right, that had not yet been announced by ATC. Thinking this might
have been the reason for my interim altitude (and hoping I could
prevent a level-off, which requires a lot of configuration change in
the Bonanza), I took it upon myself to call "unreported traffic at 11
o'clock in sight." ATC responded with, "Thank you. Maintain visual
separation with that aircraft, climb and maintain (my final filed
altitude)."

--
Peter

[John T]

NW_PILOT wrote:
>
> Portland Approach Was Calling Out Traffic, Traffic 10:00 3,000' I
> Responded Portland We are at 5,000' Solid IFR Unable to See Traffic!
> Dose This Happen a Lot While IFR???? Was My Response Correct?

This isn't at all unusual since, as others have noted, ATC has no way of
knowing if you're in the clouds. Check out my recent flight to Richmond, VA
for such an example while I was on the ILS 16 approach (beware of line
wrap):

http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/PermaLink,guid,2b443d3a-525e-46c4-8b75-1b0f612d74b2.aspx

- or -

http://tinyurl.com/82cjv

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I never did wind up farther north than Maryland, so maybe it's a Northeast
> thing?

Not northeast, AFAIK. The two that I remember most clearly were with Knoxville,
TN and Roanoke, VA. With Knoxville, I think the controller was required to
maintain separation until I spotted the traffic, but I never figured the ROA
situation out. A Mooney was IFR going south and I was VFR headed north. We
passed each other separated by at least half a mile laterally and 500'
vertically, but the controller called several times about it.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1119443531.891507@sj-nntpcache-3...
> ATC maintains the responsibility for IFR-IFR separation unless you hear
> "maintain visual separation from that traffic...".

But they are unlikely to make that statement unless you tell them you have
the aircraft in sight. So perhaps that is their motivation for the
follow-up radio calls asking if that's the case.

[Andrew Sarangan]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in
:


>
> Portland Approach Was Calling Out Traffic, Traffic 10:00 3,000' I
> Responded Portland We are at 5,000' Solid IFR Unable to See Traffic!
> Dose This Happen a Lot While IFR???? Was My Response Correct?


This means someone was flying VFR not too far from your position. It
happens often when you are in and out of IMC mixing with other VFR traffic.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
> This means someone was flying VFR not too far from your position.

For what it's worth, there was nothing in the original post that suggested
that the traffic being reported was VFR versus IFR, and at 3000' IFR was a
very real possibility. Even when separation services are being provided
between two airplanes, ATC may report one as traffic to the other (and often
does).

Pete

[M]

Congrats on your instrument rating and your IFR flight.

BTW, in case you fly IFR into KAST during the spring and fall times,
bear in mind that the ILS into KAST seems to take you right thru some
bad icing spot in the entire area. The mountains east of AST lifts the
wet ocean air and creates icing condition very easily. Summer time is
fine with icing levels higher.

NW_PILOT wrote:
> KVUO To KAST
>
> Well, After getting my instrument rating 2 months ago and just playing local
> in my 150 getting used to Popping in and out of the clouds totally different
> than the hood I decided it was a good day for a real IFR X-C not a very far
> one but ceilings were 1,300' local and 2,500' at destination reported with 3
> to 5 miles visibility and to be around 2,000 all day diminishing late
> afternoon .
>
> Well called in and got my clearance took then about 15 min to get to me,
> Nice simple Clearance Cleared to KAST, Via BTG Vortac As Filed, Maintain
> 4,000 expect 6,000 10 Min. Depart Freq 124.35 Code XXXXX, Switch To
> Advisory Contact Departure Airborne.
>
> All is going good then oops My PTT Switch Got Stuck at about 2,500' solid
> IFR figured it out got back radios about my expected time to climb, was
> asked N7676U how do you read told them had a stuck mike they said ok and to
> & Climb Maintain 6,000 turn to Heading XXX Cleared Direct KAST resume Own
> Navigation direct to KAST. I broke out on top for a bit at about 5,300' what
> a feeling and sight. I Was told so long contact center on XXX.XX was told
> continue present heading expect radar vectors to the ILS 26 KAST About 15
> min later they were vectoring me around, Told me to hold heading until
> established report once established on LOC then switch to advisory return
> back to this Frequency to cancel IFR.
>
> Now what a sight to see descending through the clouds, at about 1,400'
> started to break out 1,100' with airport clearly right infront of us my
> indicator looked like it was a set of sights on a rifle!!! Switched back to
> Center and told them have the airport cancel IFR they asked me where I broke
> out I told them they said thanks Squawk 1200 good day.
>
> Return from KAST to KVUO
>
> Reporting Clear At KVUO Climbed in the airplane Called and got my Clearance
> Cleared to KVUO as Filed they gave me 5 Min to get it in the air and contact
> them for an expire time, We departed KAST and was told to climb at max climb
> hahahahaha I was struggling to do 600fpm as I was pushing gross. Was In the
> clouds at about 1,100' Solid until about 5,000 then patchy in and out. Was a
> bit more turbulent on the way back to KVUO than on the way to KAST.
>
> OK Now center has been radar vectoring me all over the place for traffic,
> good practice of situational awareness (I Have GPS so I Cheated) they told
> me to resume my own navigation direct to BTG VOR contact & Portland Approach
> On 124.35 good day, I Contacted Portland told me to fly heading XXX Direct
> to BTG VOR Expect 4,000 in 10 Min, Continued I am told to hold and maintain
> 4,000 Expect 3,000 in 10 min. 5 min later told me descend to 3,000, and told
> me I cannot have the approach in to KVUO as KPDX is departing in that
> direction gave me many options since it was VFR at KVUP I took vectors to
> KVUO, fly heading XXX expect radar vectors to KVUO, report when VFR about 5
> min later I was told to descend to 2,000 about 2,300' broke out to VFR.
> Reported VFR and Lake Vancouver Insight, Canceled IFR went Direct To KVUO.
>
> All I can say is This Instrument Flying Is the ****!!! Way better than using
> Foggles or a Hood and Doing Approaches All Day Long. Being surrounded by
> white & grey then seeing that airport pop out at you is a rush beyond
> rushes. I am slowly making my IFR flight's further and further. But
> progressing at my own comfort level, and as stamina & comfort level builds I
> will be going further and further in to the soup. I don't think I will ever
> fly many places VFR , IFR is way simpler and a whole lot more fun except for
> no music!!!!
>
> Learned a Lot On This Little Trip! Just a few Questions For The Pro's???
>
> Portland Approach Was Calling Out Traffic, Traffic 10:00 3,000' I Responded
> Portland We are at 5,000' Solid IFR Unable to See Traffic! Dose This Happen
> a Lot While IFR???? Was My Response Correct?
>
> 5 Min Clearance Void Time, Dose this Happen a Lot, kinda puts the pressure
> on ya!
>
> Dose anyone use any products like Visine ect for their eyes for extended
> periods of IFR time?

[Andrew Sarangan]

If the other traffic were IFR, then what is the purpose of ATC pointing out
that traffic?


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> 1...
>> This means someone was flying VFR not too far from your position.
>
> For what it's worth, there was nothing in the original post that
> suggested that the traffic being reported was VFR versus IFR, and at
> 3000' IFR was a very real possibility. Even when separation services
> are being provided between two airplanes, ATC may report one as
> traffic to the other (and often does).
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
> If the other traffic were IFR, then what is the purpose of ATC pointing
> out
> that traffic?

Huh?

The purpose is the same reason they would point out VFR traffic: so that you
are aware of other traffic in your vicinity.

Pete

[Andrew Sarangan]

I thought the purpose was to maintain visual separation from the other
traffic. If both traffic are under IFR, then separation is automatically
provided, so I still don't see what the purpose of pointing out the other
traffic is.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> 1...
>> If the other traffic were IFR, then what is the purpose of ATC
>> pointing out
>> that traffic?
>
> Huh?
>
> The purpose is the same reason they would point out VFR traffic: so
> that you are aware of other traffic in your vicinity.
>
> Pete
>
>
>

[Robert Chambers]

ATC doesn't know all the time if you're IMC or VMC. Even if the traffic
in your area is also IFR and therefore under their control they still
may point it out to you so it doesn't come as a surprise when you get
within visual distance of each other. I was flying IFR in the northeast
a few years back at 5000' ATC called out "a string of sixes 4 miles 12
O'clock". As it turned out we were between layers of clouds between
4500 and 6000' or so. In a minute or so I saw 3 Dash-8's going the
opposite direction a couple of thousand feet above me. There was no
collision hazard of course but it was good that the controller told me
because I might have been surprised to see them otherwise.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I thought the purpose was to maintain visual separation from the other
> traffic. If both traffic are under IFR, then separation is automatically
> provided, so I still don't see what the purpose of pointing out the other
> traffic is.
>
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
>>
>>>If the other traffic were IFR, then what is the purpose of ATC
>>>pointing out
>>>that traffic?
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>>The purpose is the same reason they would point out VFR traffic: so
>>that you are aware of other traffic in your vicinity.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jose]

> ATC called out "a string of sixes 4 miles 12 O'clock"

What is a "six"?

Jose
r.a.student stripped - I don't follow it.
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Butler]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> If the other traffic were IFR, then what is the purpose of ATC pointing out
> that traffic?

If you report the traffic in sight ATC can tell you to maintain visual
separation, thus relieving him or her of separation duties and allowing less
separation distance. Otherwise, it's also an enhancement to safety if you and
ATC are both assuring separation.

[Andrew Sarangan]

Why would you be surprised to see airplanes flying a couple of thousand
ft above you? I never had a controller point out a traffic 2000' above
except in unusual circumstances - ie heavy C130 crossing above my flight
path etc..


Robert Chambers > wrote in
:

> ATC doesn't know all the time if you're IMC or VMC. Even if the
> traffic in your area is also IFR and therefore under their control
> they still may point it out to you so it doesn't come as a surprise
> when you get within visual distance of each other. I was flying IFR
> in the northeast a few years back at 5000' ATC called out "a string
> of sixes 4 miles 12 O'clock". As it turned out we were between layers
> of clouds between 4500 and 6000' or so. In a minute or so I saw 3
> Dash-8's going the opposite direction a couple of thousand feet above
> me. There was no collision hazard of course but it was good that the
> controller told me because I might have been surprised to see them
> otherwise.
>
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>> I thought the purpose was to maintain visual separation from the
>> other traffic. If both traffic are under IFR, then separation is
>> automatically provided, so I still don't see what the purpose of
>> pointing out the other traffic is.
>>
>>
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
>>>
>>>>If the other traffic were IFR, then what is the purpose of ATC
>>>>pointing out
>>>>that traffic?
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>>
>>>The purpose is the same reason they would point out VFR traffic: so
>>>that you are aware of other traffic in your vicinity.
>>>
>>>Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>