Tower to tower

[keepitrunning]

This is my first post to this rec.aviation.piloting so forgive me if this
has been discussed before.

A friend of mine who is IFR rated said there used to be a term called tower
to tower to allow for an IFR clearance from one towered airport to another.
This type of clearance wasn't as complicated as a full blown clearance. He
thought that the name had been changed or that it was now called something
else. I googled some but could not find any reference and not being IFR
myself have no clue.

Any comments are appreciated.

[Montblack]

("keepitrunning" wrote)
> A friend of mine who is IFR rated said there used to be a term called
> tower to tower to allow for an IFR clearance from one towered airport to
> another. This type of clearance wasn't as complicated as a full blown
> clearance. He thought that the name had been changed or that it was now
> called something else. I googled some but could not find any reference
> and not being IFR myself have no clue.


Not IFR but how about ...Special VFR Clearance?

When normal VFR flight wouldn't be advised, a tower can give you Special VFR
Clearance to get over to another field, next door. That's how it was
explained to me.

Is this what you're thinking about?


Montblack

[Jon Woellhaf]

According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary,

TOWER EN ROUTE CONTROL SERVICE - The control of IFR en route traffic within
delegated airspace between two or more adjacent approach control facilities.
This service is designed to expedite traffic and reduce control and pilot
communication requirements.

TOWER TO TOWER-
(See TOWER EN ROUTE CONTROL SERVICE.)


"keepitrunning" > wrote in message
. com...
> This is my first post to this rec.aviation.piloting so forgive me if this
> has been discussed before.
>
> A friend of mine who is IFR rated said there used to be a term called
> tower to tower to allow for an IFR clearance from one towered airport to
> another. This type of clearance wasn't as complicated as a full blown
> clearance. He thought that the name had been changed or that it was now
> called something else. I googled some but could not find any reference
> and not being IFR myself have no clue.
>
> Any comments are appreciated.
>

[[email protected]]

>>>>I think you might be thinking of "tower enroute", which essentially kept
the airplanes out of center airspace.<<<<

IIRC TEC routings (tower enroute clearance) are canned IFR routes
between departure & destination airports you get which have specific
altitude limits (which makes sense given Jose's center airspace
rationale). A controller pal of mine explained this once to me that
it's intended to expedite traffic flow. Around here (Connecticut) TEC
routings only go up to 7k, after that... I have no idea as I don't go
higher than that - yet.

[Robert M. Gary]

We still have it. Its a prearranged agreement between local airports
how they will route IFR traffic. The cool part for a pilot is you don't
need to prefile an IFR flight plan. When you call ground you just ask
for a "tower enroute" to your destination. Works great for local IFR
trips.

-Robert

[Dan]

Does anyone know if this is avaliable in the Phoenix area?

--Dan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"keepitrunning" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> This is my first post to this rec.aviation.piloting so forgive me if this
> has been discussed before.
>
> A friend of mine who is IFR rated said there used to be a term called
> tower to tower to allow for an IFR clearance from one towered airport to
> another. This type of clearance wasn't as complicated as a full blown
> clearance. He thought that the name had been changed or that it was now
> called something else. I googled some but could not find any reference
> and not being IFR myself have no clue.
>
> Any comments are appreciated.

You're probably thinking about Tower Enroute Control. It's not worth the
ink devoted to it in the AIM, if it's still in there. There was no
difference in the clearance, all it meant was the flight stayed in approach
control airspace. Big deal.

[Grumman-581]

"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does anyone know if this is avaliable in the Phoenix area?

I didn't think that Phoenix ever had IFR conditions... <grin>

[Morgans]

"Dan" > wrote in message

> Does anyone know if this is avaliable in the Phoenix area?

Good question, but let's take it one further. How does one find out about
such arrangements, anywhere-other than knowing the local tower?
--
Jim in NC

[nooneimportant]

Hehe... Phoenix Approach has a damn heart attack when a cloud is within
fifty miles of the class Bravo airspace..... Doubt PHX will ever have TEC,
no real need for it, and all of the airports can be reached VFR easilly
enough via the "valley hop", and i hear the new airspace configuration that
goes online when the new TRACON opens includes a new transition from DVT
down towards FFZ or IWA, after they lower a shelf effectively blocking off
an easy way to "duck under here, and zigzag around that pond over there"
enroute from SDL to FFZ. I do know it is available in the LA basin, and up
in the NE, If i remember correctly the AFD has outlines of areas served by
TEC and preffered routings within the TEC system.





"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does anyone know if this is avaliable in the Phoenix area?
>
> --Dan
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

SVFR does not allow flight into IMC , just VFR as though the
Class B-E was G airspace. SVFR would interfere with IFR and
is only allowed when there is no IFR traffic conflict.

IFR clearances that stay within the airspace controlled by
the tower [including TRACON] are available for such purposes
as local IFR training and may be issued for enroute if the
airspace letters of agreement between adjoining towers does
not require Center airspace.

To learn about your local IFR options, visit the tower and
ask.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.





"Montblack" > wrote in
message ...
| ("keepitrunning" wrote)
| > A friend of mine who is IFR rated said there used to be
a term called
| > tower to tower to allow for an IFR clearance from one
towered airport to
| > another. This type of clearance wasn't as complicated as
a full blown
| > clearance. He thought that the name had been changed or
that it was now
| > called something else. I googled some but could not
find any reference
| > and not being IFR myself have no clue.
|
|
| Not IFR but how about ...Special VFR Clearance?
|
| When normal VFR flight wouldn't be advised, a tower can
give you Special VFR
| Clearance to get over to another field, next door. That's
how it was
| explained to me.
|
| Is this what you're thinking about?
|
|
| Montblack
|

[Jim Macklin]

It will only be available where the tower controlled areas
abut, or in some established routes where a letter of
agreement between Center and the towers has been signed when
Center gives control to their airspace below a certain
altitude.
http://www.faa.gov/ats/aglzob/Lesson%2011%20-%20%20Tower%20Enroute%20Control.ppt#1


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Dan" > wrote in message
|
| > Does anyone know if this is avaliable in the Phoenix
area?
|
| Good question, but let's take it one further. How does
one find out about
| such arrangements, anywhere-other than knowing the local
tower?
| --
| Jim in NC
|

[The Visitor]

When I subscribed to Jeppesen stuff there was informations about it it
in the front of the book.

Morgans wrote:

> "Dan" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Does anyone know if this is avaliable in the Phoenix area?
>
>
> Good question, but let's take it one further. How does one find out about
> such arrangements, anywhere-other than knowing the local tower?

[[email protected]]

>>>> Good question, but let's take it one further. How does one find out about
> such arrangements, anywhere-other than knowing the local tower?



AFD<<<

Either that, or FDC Notams?

[Matt Barrow]

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
> According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary,
>
> TOWER EN ROUTE CONTROL SERVICE - The control of IFR en route traffic
> within delegated airspace between two or more adjacent approach control
> facilities. This service is designed to expedite traffic and reduce
> control and pilot communication requirements.
>
> TOWER TO TOWER-
> (See TOWER EN ROUTE CONTROL SERVICE.)
>

Also see AIM 4-1-18
/excerpt

4-1-18. Tower En Route Control (TEC)

a. TEC is an ATC program to provide a service to
aircraft proceeding to and from metropolitan areas. It
links designated Approach Control Areas by a
network of identified routes made up of the existing
airway structure of the National Airspace System.

The FAA initiated an expanded TEC program to
include as many facilities as possible. The program’s
intent is to provide an overflow resource in the low
altitude system which would enhance ATC services.

A few facilities have historically allowed turbojets to
proceed between certain city pairs, such as
Milwaukee and Chicago, via tower en route and these
locations may continue this service. However, the
expanded TEC program will be applied, generally,
for nonturbojet aircraft operating at and below
10,000 feet. The program is entirely within the
approach control airspace of multiple terminal
facilities. Essentially, it is for relatively short flights.

Participating pilots are encouraged to use TEC for
flights of two hours duration or less. If longer flights
are planned, extensive coordination may be required
within the multiple complex which could result in
unanticipated delays.

b. Pilots requesting TEC are subject to the same
delay factor at the destination airport as other aircraft
in the ATC system. In addition, departure and en route
delays may occur depending upon individual facility
workload. When a major metropolitan airport is
incurring significant delays, pilots in the TEC
program may want to consider an alternative airport
experiencing no delay.

c. There are no unique requirements upon pilots to
use the TEC program. Normal flight plan filing
procedures will ensure proper flight plan processing.
Pilots should include the acronym “TEC” in the
remarks section of the flight plan when requesting
tower en route control.

d. All approach controls in the system may not
operate up to the maximum TEC altitude of
10,000 feet. IFR flight may be planned to any
satellite airport in proximity to the major primary
airport via the same routing.

/end
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jim Macklin]

Sorry, I intended to say, it is an FAA training PowerPoint
presentation. If you don't have OFFICE, you can get the
free PowerPoint viewer from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=428d5727-43ab-4f24-90b7-a94784af71a4&displaylang=en

or
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/officeupdate/default.aspx


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:utANf.109292$QW2.67315@dukeread08...
| > It will only be available where the tower controlled
areas
| > abut, or in some established routes where a letter of
| > agreement between Center and the towers has been signed
when
| > Center gives control to their airspace below a certain
| > altitude.
| >
|
http://www.faa.gov/ats/aglzob/Lesson%2011%20-%20%20Tower%20Enroute%20Control.ppt#1
|
| What type of file is this, or what program opens this
file?
| --
| Jim in NC
|

[Robert M. Gary]

But for a pilot it means you don't need to pre-file. Know that is there
is nice.

-Robert

[Morgans]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:utANf.109292$QW2.67315@dukeread08...
> It will only be available where the tower controlled areas
> abut, or in some established routes where a letter of
> agreement between Center and the towers has been signed when
> Center gives control to their airspace below a certain
> altitude.
>
http://www.faa.gov/ats/aglzob/Lesson%2011%20-%20%20Tower%20Enroute%20Control.ppt#1

What type of file is this, or what program opens this file?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Natalie]

keepitrunning wrote:
> This is my first post to this rec.aviation.piloting so forgive me if this
> has been discussed before.
>
> A friend of mine who is IFR rated said there used to be a term called tower
> to tower to allow for an IFR clearance from one towered airport to another.
> This type of clearance wasn't as complicated as a full blown clearance. He
> thought that the name had been changed or that it was now called something
> else. I googled some but could not find any reference and not being IFR
> myself have no clue.
>

Tower Enroute Clearance. There's essentially two flavors of this.
In California it is as you describe. They have special TEC routes
published.

In the northeast the publications call it Tower Enroute, but essentially
it's just the routling you get at low levels in the overlapping airspaces.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> But for a pilot it means you don't need to pre-file. Know that is there
> is nice.
>

Tower Enroute Control changes nothing in regard to filing flight plans.

[Jim Macklin]

Actually it does, you call clearance/ground control and ask
for "IFR to "nearby place" and they come back with "ATC
clears Nxxxx to nearby place via ______ ________ maintain
4,000, squawk 2456."

They don't ask fuel, SOB or even alternate.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >
| > But for a pilot it means you don't need to pre-file.
Know that is there
| > is nice.
| >
|
| Tower Enroute Control changes nothing in regard to filing
flight plans.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Js0Pf.115984$QW2.26774@dukeread08...
>
> Actually it does, you call clearance/ground control and ask
> for "IFR to "nearby place" and they come back with "ATC
> clears Nxxxx to nearby place via ______ ________ maintain
> 4,000, squawk 2456."
>

Actually, since Tower Enroute Control by definition is within approach
control airspace and that "nearby place" need not be within approach control
airspace, it doesn't.

By the way, "ATC clears" is used when a clearance is relayed to an aircraft
through a non-ATC facility. Control towers are ATC facilities.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:w8zNf.108917$QW2.10563@dukeread08...
>
> SVFR does not allow flight into IMC , just VFR as though the
> Class B-E was G airspace. SVFR would interfere with IFR and
> is only allowed when there is no IFR traffic conflict.
>

SVFR operations are not prohibited when IFR aircraft are present. If the
SVFR and IFR aircraft can be provided with approved separation and if
arriving and departing IFR aircraft are not delayed then SVFR operations may
be conducted.

[Jim Macklin]

see the word "conflict" in the dictionary.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:w8zNf.108917$QW2.10563@dukeread08...
| >
| > SVFR does not allow flight into IMC , just VFR as though
the
| > Class B-E was G airspace. SVFR would interfere with IFR
and
| > is only allowed when there is no IFR traffic conflict.
| >
|
| SVFR operations are not prohibited when IFR aircraft are
present. If the
| SVFR and IFR aircraft can be provided with approved
separation and if
| arriving and departing IFR aircraft are not delayed then
SVFR operations may
| be conducted.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:HOlPf.116146$QW2.52213@dukeread08...
>
> see the word "conflict" in the dictionary.
>

You're welcome.