Where is approach good about multiple approaches and clearances in the air?

[Andrew Gideon]

I'm no freight dog or corporate pilot with dozens of approaches to minimums
each day. For me, as with many GA pilots I expect, maintaining *real*
currency involves explicit practice.

That's fine; I enjoy it. But I'd like to try some new places.

The issue is that I'd like to try some new places that are friendly about
multiple approaches. For example, at both ABE and STW I've almost never
had a problem terminating an approach in a T&G or low approach and heading
out immediately for another (or picking up a clearance for the next leg).
I've tried TTN, but they always insist upon my landing and picking up my
next clearance on the ground.

It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it eventually
sank<grin>.

So what airports are more like ABE and STW, where approach is willing to
provide a clearance in the air and permit multiple approaches? Of course,
I'm interested in the area around my "home airport" (CDW in Northern NJ),
but I expect that others are interested in the same thing elsewhere.

Thanks...
- Andrew

[Dave Butler]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> I'm no freight dog or corporate pilot with dozens of approaches to minimums
> each day. For me, as with many GA pilots I expect, maintaining *real*
> currency involves explicit practice.
>
> That's fine; I enjoy it. But I'd like to try some new places.
>
> The issue is that I'd like to try some new places that are friendly about
> multiple approaches. For example, at both ABE and STW I've almost never
> had a problem terminating an approach in a T&G or low approach and heading
> out immediately for another (or picking up a clearance for the next leg).
> I've tried TTN, but they always insist upon my landing and picking up my
> next clearance on the ground.

It sounds like you are doing your practicing under IFR. That's probably a good
idea from the POV of working within the system and practicing procedures with a
real controller. I don't feel the need to do that.

I do all my practicing under VFR, unless weather dictates otherwise. Controllers
here (Raleigh, NC) are usually happy to accomodate requests for VFR practice
approaches. Sometimes they get too busy for that, so I terminate radar
advisories and do full procedures (no vectors). I usually do my approaches at
nearby non-towered fields that are under the Raleigh TRACON jurisdiction,
followed by an approach to a full stop at RDU, where I'm based.

But, answering your original question, the Raleigh TRACON is usually a little
more accommodating than Center. We also have some military controllers nearby
(Seymour Johnson) that own some of the approaches and they're usually willing to
accommodate practice approaches.

>
> It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it eventually
> sank<grin>.
>
> So what airports are more like ABE and STW, where approach is willing to
> provide a clearance in the air and permit multiple approaches? Of course,
> I'm interested in the area around my "home airport" (CDW in Northern NJ),
> but I expect that others are interested in the same thing elsewhere.

[Mark Astley]

Andrew,

Besides ABE and STW I've also used AVP for practice. About 5 miles further
than ABE but still close enough and usually very accomodating. In fact, to
build x-country time I like to go N07-AVP-ABE-N07. For a slightly longer
hop you can try RDG.

cheers,
mark

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> I'm no freight dog or corporate pilot with dozens of approaches to
minimums
> each day. For me, as with many GA pilots I expect, maintaining *real*
> currency involves explicit practice.
>
> That's fine; I enjoy it. But I'd like to try some new places.
>
> The issue is that I'd like to try some new places that are friendly about
> multiple approaches. For example, at both ABE and STW I've almost never
> had a problem terminating an approach in a T&G or low approach and heading
> out immediately for another (or picking up a clearance for the next leg).
> I've tried TTN, but they always insist upon my landing and picking up my
> next clearance on the ground.
>
> It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it
eventually
> sank<grin>.
>
> So what airports are more like ABE and STW, where approach is willing to
> provide a clearance in the air and permit multiple approaches? Of course,
> I'm interested in the area around my "home airport" (CDW in Northern NJ),
> but I expect that others are interested in the same thing elsewhere.
>
> Thanks...
> - Andrew
>

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:

> So what airports are more like ABE and STW, where approach is
> willing to provide a clearance in the air and permit multiple approaches?

Fly on up to Binghamton or Elmira, located in southern central NY state.
Both ATC groups sincerely appreciate the work and will tell you so on the
frequency. I often fly down to their airspace from Syracuse, NY, to
practice approaches because of the fact.

If you go, go IFR since I was told that IFR numbers count towards their
airport activity and help justify their jobs. One of this newsgroups
controllers will correct me if I am wrong, but in the meantime I like to
think I am helping these good folks out, even if it is a mere drop in the
bucket.

--
Peter R.


























----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Henry A. Spellman]

I practice approaches at SPI, Springfield, IL. It is a training
facility for new controllers. After virtually all sessions, after I ask
for clearance back home, the controller will thank me for doing the
approaches with them that day.

Also, at the start of each session, I offer to do a radar surveillance
approach if any of the controllers need one for currency. They are
usually happy to hear that since often times the offer is accepted.

Hank
Henry A. Spellman
Comanche N5903P

Peter R. wrote:

>Fly on up to Binghamton or Elmira, located in southern central NY state.
>Both ATC groups sincerely appreciate the work and will tell you so on the
>frequency. I often fly down to their airspace from Syracuse, NY, to
>practice approaches because of the fact.
>
>If you go, go IFR since I was told that IFR numbers count towards their
>airport activity and help justify their jobs. One of this newsgroups
>controllers will correct me if I am wrong, but in the meantime I like to
>think I am helping these good folks out, even if it is a mere drop in the
>bucket.
>
>
>

[Newps]

Henry A. Spellman wrote:
> I practice approaches at SPI, Springfield, IL. It is a training
> facility for new controllers.

No such thing. All facilities are training facilities because all
facilities get new controllers from time to time.


After virtually all sessions, after I ask
> for clearance back home, the controller will thank me for doing the
> approaches with them that day.

I do that too, we all should.

>
> Also, at the start of each session, I offer to do a radar surveillance
> approach if any of the controllers need one for currency. They are
> usually happy to hear that since often times the offer is accepted.

Not many of those facilities left anymore.

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:


> After virtually all sessions, after I ask
>> for clearance back home, the controller will thank me for doing the
>> approaches with them that day.
>
> I do that too, we all should.

I obviously fly in the wrong places; I've never been thank.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave Butler wrote:


> It sounds like you are doing your practicing under IFR. That's probably a
> good idea from the POV of working within the system and practicing
> procedures with a real controller. I don't feel the need to do that.

Psst...wanna know a secret? I do it because I'm lazy. It's more work if I
have to deal with acquiring Flight Following, at least in my neighborhood.
There's also a fair chance that I'll not be able to speak to anyone while
approaching my "home" airport, which means one less approach.

But I do also like the practice of being in the system.

[...]

> Controllers here (Raleigh, NC) are usually happy to accomodate requests
> for VFR practice approaches. Sometimes they get too busy for that, so I
> terminate radar advisories and do full procedures (no vectors).

I don't know that I'm so comfortable with this idea. Being on an approach
w/o talking to someone because that someone is too busy? What if the
someone is busy because of others on the approach (or perhaps a conflicting
approach)?

> I usually
> do my approaches at nearby non-towered fields that are under the Raleigh
> TRACON jurisdiction, followed by an approach to a full stop at RDU, where
> I'm based.

I dislike practicing approaches to nontowered fields VFR. It's not very
good practice, I've found, because I need to behave in a "non-IFR" way
towards the end of the approach to avoid other traffic.

I'll often have to skip the final stepdown entirely, in fact, to stay
sufficiently high that I can join the pattern.

Practicing in controlled airspace lets me behave more realistically, in my
experience.

I'm curious what others think on this, though.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Mark Astley wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Besides ABE and STW I've also used AVP for practice. About 5 miles
> further
> than ABE but still close enough and usually very accomodating. In fact,
> to
> build x-country time I like to go N07-AVP-ABE-N07. For a slightly longer
> hop you can try RDG.

Okay; thanks.

That might work out well for me. I wanted to give a call to a shop called
(I think) O&N, which is at an airport very near to AVP. So perhaps instead
I'll make a little trip.

- Andrew

[Marco Leon]

I guess it's a function of how busy they are. I practice approaches in the
Long Island area of NY and I'm usually trying to squeeze my calls inbetween
the flights into JFK or ISP. Almost always accommodating given their traffic
level but I've also never been thanked. As a matter of fact, the pilots in
our area almost always thank the controllers!

Hey Newps, care to share if and/or how the FAA tracks the number of
approaches you work? I'm curious.

Marco


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Newps wrote:
>
>
> > After virtually all sessions, after I ask
> >> for clearance back home, the controller will thank me for doing the
> >> approaches with them that day.
> >
> > I do that too, we all should.
>
> I obviously fly in the wrong places; I've never been thank.
>
> - Andrew
>




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Andrew Gideon]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:

> I guess it's a function of how busy they are. I practice approaches in the
> Long Island area of NY and I'm usually trying to squeeze my calls
> inbetween the flights into JFK or ISP. Almost always accommodating given
> their traffic level but I've also never been thanked. As a matter of fact,
> the pilots in our area almost always thank the controllers!

That's normally the way it is on our side of Manhatten too.

Into what airport(s) to do practice your approaches? A trip out there would
be fun; it's where I grew up (well...where I spent most of my time before I
could vote, anyway {8^).

Can one speak to approach from the ground at Montauk, or do I need to get my
clearance through a phone call to FSS? I've been told that this is an
airport w/in walking distance to a beach, so I've been meaning to get
there.

- Andrew

[Newps]

Marco Leon wrote:

> Hey Newps, care to share if and/or how the FAA tracks the number of
> approaches you work? I'm curious.

We keep track of the flight strips. IFR aircraft get flight strips
printed out by the computer. VFR planes shooting practice approaches
get the same type of strip but it is handwritten. It is counted as an
IFR operation for traffic count purposes. Each approach that does not
terminate in a full stop is a two count, a full stop is a one count. We
put up and down arrows in the box where the arrival time normally goes
to signify to the guy who counts the traffic to count that one as two.
If an IFR arrival does not land for any reason then the same thing
happens, an up and down arrow gets put on the strip and we request
another one from the computer or hand write it. VFR aircraft are
similar except we use half strips, the right half of the strip is cut
off. All of this data gets entered into a computer at about 10 pm each
night and gets automatically transmitted to DC each morning about 2 am.
In a couple weeks we are switching over to a new computer system where
the muckety mucks will be able to look at any facility and see who is at
work, who is on what position, how much traffic there is, etc. All in
real time.

[airbourne56]

It's not surprising that you don't get clearances "on the go" from TTN
because approaches there are controlled by Philly. In my experience,
they're usually too busy to give such clearances. Someone suggested
RDG. Good suggestion because they're very accommodating. There is a
female controller there who is top notch: Clear, concise, aways on top
of everything going on, and not grumpy if you make a few minor
mistakes. Makes one wonder why she hasn't been bumped up to a higher
profile job. The cafe there is decent so you might want to land rather
than get your clearance in the air. Another suggestion is ACY. They
are typically really good and I've gotten clearances on the go from
them. Farther away is LNS (controlled by Harrisburg App), and if you
don't even want to fuss with clearances in VFR conditions you can fly
ILS approaches at MSV. Another person suggested AVP. Another great ATC
crew. Bottom line: don't expect a lot of flexibility from busy Bravo
controllers, except in the occasional quiet times between airline
arrival/departure gluts.

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> I'm no freight dog or corporate pilot with dozens of approaches to minimums
> each day. For me, as with many GA pilots I expect, maintaining *real*
> currency involves explicit practice.
>
> That's fine; I enjoy it. But I'd like to try some new places.
>
> The issue is that I'd like to try some new places that are friendly about
> multiple approaches. For example, at both ABE and STW I've almost never
> had a problem terminating an approach in a T&G or low approach and heading
> out immediately for another (or picking up a clearance for the next leg).
> I've tried TTN, but they always insist upon my landing and picking up my
> next clearance on the ground.
>
> It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it eventually
> sank<grin>.
>
> So what airports are more like ABE and STW, where approach is willing to
> provide a clearance in the air and permit multiple approaches? Of course,
> I'm interested in the area around my "home airport" (CDW in Northern NJ),
> but I expect that others are interested in the same thing elsewhere.
>
> Thanks...
> - Andrew

[Doug]

Good points, there is an airline "rush hour" 7-10 am and 4-8 pm or so.
Don't expect much in the way of VFR services from busy commercial
airports during these times.

(airbourne56) wrote in message >...
> It's not surprising that you don't get clearances "on the go" from TTN
> because approaches there are controlled by Philly. In my experience,
> they're usually too busy to give such clearances. Someone suggested
> RDG. Good suggestion because they're very accommodating. There is a
> female controller there who is top notch: Clear, concise, aways on top
> of everything going on, and not grumpy if you make a few minor
> mistakes. Makes one wonder why she hasn't been bumped up to a higher
> profile job. The cafe there is decent so you might want to land rather
> than get your clearance in the air. Another suggestion is ACY. They
> are typically really good and I've gotten clearances on the go from
> them. Farther away is LNS (controlled by Harrisburg App), and if you
> don't even want to fuss with clearances in VFR conditions you can fly
> ILS approaches at MSV. Another person suggested AVP. Another great ATC
> crew. Bottom line: don't expect a lot of flexibility from busy Bravo
> controllers, except in the occasional quiet times between airline
> arrival/departure gluts.
>
> Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> > I'm no freight dog or corporate pilot with dozens of approaches to minimums
> > each day. For me, as with many GA pilots I expect, maintaining *real*
> > currency involves explicit practice.
> >
> > That's fine; I enjoy it. But I'd like to try some new places.
> >
> > The issue is that I'd like to try some new places that are friendly about
> > multiple approaches. For example, at both ABE and STW I've almost never
> > had a problem terminating an approach in a T&G or low approach and heading
> > out immediately for another (or picking up a clearance for the next leg).
> > I've tried TTN, but they always insist upon my landing and picking up my
> > next clearance on the ground.
> >
> > It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it eventually
> > sank<grin>.
> >
> > So what airports are more like ABE and STW, where approach is willing to
> > provide a clearance in the air and permit multiple approaches? Of course,
> > I'm interested in the area around my "home airport" (CDW in Northern NJ),
> > but I expect that others are interested in the same thing elsewhere.
> >
> > Thanks...
> > - Andrew

[Dave Butler]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>>It sounds like you are doing your practicing under IFR. That's probably a
>>good idea from the POV of working within the system and practicing
>>procedures with a real controller. I don't feel the need to do that.
>
>
> Psst...wanna know a secret? I do it because I'm lazy. It's more work if I
> have to deal with acquiring Flight Following, at least in my neighborhood.

Hmmm. If I recall your original post you were complaining about having to do
full stop landings and getting a new clearance for each approach. That's easier
than getting flight following? Anyway, flight following is optional, of course.

> There's also a fair chance that I'll not be able to speak to anyone while
> approaching my "home" airport, which means one less approach.

I don't understand this statement. Your home airport has an approach control? If
you can't speak to them, how are you going to get home at all? If your home
airport has no approach control, how does not being able to speak prevent you
from doing an approach? Anyway, why are you unable to speak?

>
> But I do also like the practice of being in the system.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Controllers here (Raleigh, NC) are usually happy to accomodate requests
>>for VFR practice approaches. Sometimes they get too busy for that, so I
>>terminate radar advisories and do full procedures (no vectors).
>
>
> I don't know that I'm so comfortable with this idea. Being on an approach
> w/o talking to someone because that someone is too busy? What if the
> someone is busy because of others on the approach (or perhaps a conflicting
> approach)?

Well, that's life. VFR services are on a workload-permitting basis for
controllers. What you are saying is that you are not comfortable flying VFR, I
guess.

As for others on the approach, well you can monitor the approach control
frequency, and you have a safety pilot looking out the window.

In the Raleigh-Durham area, if the RDU controllers are busy enough to say
"unable VFR practice approaches", it's usually because they are busy with
traffic into and out of RDU. The satellite fields are not equally busy.

When you're IFR in VMC, you still have a responsibility to see and avoid, that
doesn't change just because you're on an instrument flight plan. You still can
have others (VFR) on the approach or on a conflicting approach.

>
>
>>I usually
>>do my approaches at nearby non-towered fields that are under the Raleigh
>>TRACON jurisdiction, followed by an approach to a full stop at RDU, where
>>I'm based.
>
>
> I dislike practicing approaches to nontowered fields VFR. It's not very
> good practice, I've found, because I need to behave in a "non-IFR" way
> towards the end of the approach to avoid other traffic.

Must be a difference in the traffic density where you live versus piedmont NC.
That happens occasionally, but it beats having to land and get a new clearance
as you described in your original posting.

>
> I'll often have to skip the final stepdown entirely, in fact, to stay
> sufficiently high that I can join the pattern.
>
> Practicing in controlled airspace lets me behave more realistically, in my
> experience.

I'm practicing in controlled airspace, too.

>
> I'm curious what others think on this, though.

Me too.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave

[Marco Leon]

Andrew,
I'm based at Republic (FRG) and I usually practice at Brookhaven (HWV),
Islip (ISP), Bridgeport (BDR), and New Haven (HVN). Nice cross section of
approach types and sometimes I go to Bradley, CT (BDL) for the LDA. Montauk
is a bit of a trip (for practice approaches anyway) and I actually have
never been there. I don't know if you can contact approach on the ground but
you can always get a void time from FSS. I hear that you CAN walk to the
beach and that there's a $16 landing fee as well. I should try to get out
there one day.

Marco
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > I guess it's a function of how busy they are. I practice approaches in
the
> > Long Island area of NY and I'm usually trying to squeeze my calls
> > inbetween the flights into JFK or ISP. Almost always accommodating given
> > their traffic level but I've also never been thanked. As a matter of
fact,
> > the pilots in our area almost always thank the controllers!
>
> That's normally the way it is on our side of Manhatten too.
>
> Into what airport(s) to do practice your approaches? A trip out there
would
> be fun; it's where I grew up (well...where I spent most of my time before
I
> could vote, anyway {8^).
>
> Can one speak to approach from the ground at Montauk, or do I need to get
my
> clearance through a phone call to FSS? I've been told that this is an
> airport w/in walking distance to a beach, so I've been meaning to get
> there.
>
> - Andrew
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Marco Leon]

So if I read ya right, every VFR practice approach actually counts as two
operations and looks like two IFR flights coming in for a full stop?
Therefore the muckity mucks will see an airport busy with practice
approaches as having high-volume IFR operations and plan accordingly.
Interesting. No wonder those out-of-the-way airports thank the pilot for
practicing there!

Thanks,

Marco


"Newps" > wrote in message
news:AKAWb.10043$jk2.31349@attbi_s53...
> We keep track of the flight strips. IFR aircraft get flight strips
> printed out by the computer. VFR planes shooting practice approaches
> get the same type of strip but it is handwritten. It is counted as an
> IFR operation for traffic count purposes. Each approach that does not
> terminate in a full stop is a two count, a full stop is a one count. We
> put up and down arrows in the box where the arrival time normally goes
> to signify to the guy who counts the traffic to count that one as two.
> If an IFR arrival does not land for any reason then the same thing
> happens, an up and down arrow gets put on the strip and we request
> another one from the computer or hand write it. VFR aircraft are
> similar except we use half strips, the right half of the strip is cut
> off. All of this data gets entered into a computer at about 10 pm each
> night and gets automatically transmitted to DC each morning about 2 am.
> In a couple weeks we are switching over to a new computer system where
> the muckety mucks will be able to look at any facility and see who is at
> work, who is on what position, how much traffic there is, etc. All in
> real time.
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Newps]

Marco Leon wrote:
> So if I read ya right, every VFR practice approach actually counts as two
> operations and looks like two IFR flights coming in for a full stop?

Only if you don't land. That's because you get radar service on the
missed. If an airliner comes in and goes missed or has to go around for
any reason and then lands on his next attempt he is a three count. All
traffic is counted the same.


> Therefore the muckity mucks will see an airport busy with practice
> approaches as having high-volume IFR operations and plan accordingly.

There are differences between airline airports and the approach controls
at class C and D airports. You'll never get an opposite direction
approach at DFW unless it's the middle of the night. We do it all the
time here with all traffic. Many times the jets will be given a takeoff
clearance with a requirement to start a turn prior to the end of the
runway because there is a spamcan practicing an opposite direction
approach or another jet on final nose to nose. If you've got props
you'll be turning no later than midfield. That's our normal. We make
our tower guys work here, you don't just stand there and say cleared to
land. And when it gets busy with departures you don't call down to
approach and tell them to "give me 5 miles between arrivals."


> Interesting. No wonder those out-of-the-way airports thank the pilot for
> practicing there!

Yes, the pay raises in the last 5 or so years has been nice.

[Peter R.]

Newps ) wrote:

> Yes, the pay raises in the last 5 or so years has been nice.

Sorry, in its form above I cannot tell if you are serious or sarcastic.
Have you received steady raises or has there been a moratorium, like most
of the the private sector?

--
Peter R.


























----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Newps]

We have gotten significant raises every year. Last month the raise was
a little over 4%. I'll gross over $100K in a couple years.

Peter R. wrote:
> Newps ) wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, the pay raises in the last 5 or so years has been nice.
>
>
> Sorry, in its form above I cannot tell if you are serious or sarcastic.
> Have you received steady raises or has there been a moratorium, like most
> of the the private sector?
>

[Peter R.]

Newps ) wrote:

> We have gotten significant raises every year. Last month the raise was
> a little over 4%. I'll gross over $100K in a couple years.

Congratulations.

--
Peter R.
























----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Marco Leon]

Nice raises! Are the raises directly related to the amount of IFR traffic
your area works?

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:07QWb.15015$yE5.68151@attbi_s54...
> We have gotten significant raises every year. Last month the raise was
> a little over 4%. I'll gross over $100K in a couple years.
>
> Peter R. wrote:
> > Newps ) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes, the pay raises in the last 5 or so years has been nice.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, in its form above I cannot tell if you are serious or sarcastic.
> > Have you received steady raises or has there been a moratorium, like
most
> > of the the private sector?
> >
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Newps]

Marco Leon wrote:
> Nice raises! Are the raises directly related to the amount of IFR traffic
> your area works?

We all got our pay reclassified about 6 years ago. This was based on
traffic and some other factors like crossing runways, mountainous
terrain, secondary airports, etc. Traffic doesn't figure into the
yearly raises. We get the same as any government employee with some
adjustments for cost of living. This years raise was 4.1%. Most of
that was the regular raise and the rest was based on where you live.
People in the expensive areas got a higher raise.

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave Butler wrote:


>> Psst...wanna know a secret? I do it because I'm lazy. It's more work if
>> I have to deal with acquiring Flight Following, at least in my
>> neighborhood.
>
> Hmmm. If I recall your original post you were complaining about having to
> do full stop landings and getting a new clearance for each approach.
> That's easier than getting flight following? Anyway, flight following is
> optional, of course.

Ah, I see where're you're going with this. It's a good point you're making.
I'm hoping, though, to find places where I can be IFR *and* not have to
land.

I VFRed a flight today (given the temperature and a warning about "ice in
clouds", I wanted the freedom to avoid...and I deliberately headed towards
clouds because I'd questions about the forecast). I picked up advisories
immediately outside of CDW's airspace. But I got dropped once during each
leg, instead of getting the handoff that would be my right as an IFRer.

<Ugh> All that extra talking <laugh>.

But at least I did get advisories inbound back to CDW. I don't, always.

>
>> There's also a fair chance that I'll not be able to speak to anyone while
>> approaching my "home" airport, which means one less approach.
>
> I don't understand this statement. Your home airport has an approach
> control?

NY approach covers the airspace outside of CDW's little Delta-space.

> If you can't speak to them, how are you going to get home at all?

W/o speaking to approach, I have to stay below the class B shelf.

> If your home airport has no approach control, how does not being able to
> speak prevent you from doing an approach? Anyway, why are you unable to
> speak?

Sometimes, NY won't take VFR traffic.

As to whether or not I can fly an approach...I *could*. But the approaches
at CDW conflict with approaches to (depending upon which approach) either
TEB or MMU. I'm not thrilled about following one of those w/o speaking to
Approach.

[...]
>> I don't know that I'm so comfortable with this idea. Being on an
>> approach
>> w/o talking to someone because that someone is too busy? What if the
>> someone is busy because of others on the approach (or perhaps a
>> conflicting approach)?
>
> Well, that's life. VFR services are on a workload-permitting basis for
> controllers. What you are saying is that you are not comfortable flying
> VFR, I guess.

Not at all...but I am uncomfortable with the idea that I'm effectively NORDO
on an approach potentially in use (or conflicting with another approach in
use) by a busy approach control. That's too close to "asking for trouble"
for me.

>
> As for others on the approach, well you can monitor the approach control
> frequency, and you have a safety pilot looking out the window.

Monitoring is good. Safety pilot is good. Being w/in the system, plus
those two, is better.

> In the Raleigh-Durham area, if the RDU controllers are busy enough to say
> "unable VFR practice approaches", it's usually because they are busy with
> traffic into and out of RDU. The satellite fields are not equally busy.

Do the approaches at the satellites conflict with RDU? The approaches into
CDW conflict with approaches into MMU and TEB. The TEB approach is one
that is used a *lot*...and it's an alpha, so it is wind-independent.

> When you're IFR in VMC, you still have a responsibility to see and avoid,

Of course.

> that doesn't change just because you're on an instrument flight plan. You
> still can have others (VFR) on the approach or on a conflicting approach.

I was on an approach a few weeks ago, and there was a growing traffic
conflict. We never saw the traffic, and were getting ready to
deviate...when approach told us to move.

Of course, you're absolutely right in what you're saying. But I do like
having that extra set of eyes. There's a lot that I as PIC can
see/do/judge better than they...but they've a view I lack.

>>
>>>I usually
>>>do my approaches at nearby non-towered fields that are under the Raleigh
>>>TRACON jurisdiction, followed by an approach to a full stop at RDU, where
>>>I'm based.
>>
>>
>> I dislike practicing approaches to nontowered fields VFR. It's not very
>> good practice, I've found, because I need to behave in a "non-IFR" way
>> towards the end of the approach to avoid other traffic.
>
> Must be a difference in the traffic density where you live versus piedmont
> NC. That happens occasionally, but it beats having to land and get a new
> clearance as you described in your original posting.

It depends upon the weather...and is *much* more of a problem on weekends
than weekdays.

- Andrew

[Michael]

Dave Butler > wrote
> > I don't know that I'm so comfortable with this idea. Being on an approach
> > w/o talking to someone because that someone is too busy? What if the
> > someone is busy because of others on the approach (or perhaps a conflicting
> > approach)?
>
> Well, that's life. VFR services are on a workload-permitting basis for
> controllers. What you are saying is that you are not comfortable flying VFR, I
> guess.

I don't see it that way at all.

Approach control tends to be busy when a lot of people are filing and
flying IFR. You would think that would be due to weather below VFR
minimums, but that has not been my experience. I find that when the
weather is below VFR minimums, approach is not too terribly busy.
Very few instrument rated pilots do much flying when weather is below
VFR minimums (one would hope those not rated do none at all). My
experience is that approach is busiest when the weather is marginal
VFR, especially due to low vis. That's when the instrument rated
private pilots come out of the woodwork and file.

Normally, I don't worry all that much about flying VFR in 3-5 miles in
haze. In fact, I generally prefer it to filing IFR. I don't have a
lot of faith in ATC separation - the closest near miss I've ever had
was on an IFR flight plan. I think I get more benefit out of being at
a VFR altitude and well clear of cloud than I do from ATC looking out
for me. Of course both is best, but VFR services are not always
available.

Sure, it's significantly harder to see other airplanes, but there are
simply not too many of them to see. Big sky theory. Statistics bear
this out - most midairs occur in good VMC, when lots of people are
flying, rather than in marginal conditions when planes are hard to
see. Anyway, most midairs occur close to airports, where you
generally don't get RADAR services anyway.

However, flying an approach defeats the big sky theory, and ATC is
better than nothing. If approach is busy, it's because lots of people
are flying approaches - maybe the one you're flying.

> As for others on the approach, well you can monitor the approach control
> frequency, and you have a safety pilot looking out the window.

If you happen to know the area well, that works. My experience has
been that about 20% of the time the approach frequency I get vectored
on is not the frequency printed on the plate.

So what it comes down to is that I too am not too terribly comfortable
flying approaches under the hood at untowered fields on most days when
approach control is too busy to handle me even VFR. The risk of
midair definitely increases over and above what is normal for VFR,
even VFR in marginal vis.

Not saying I won't do it - the risk is not extreme - but I prefer not
to unless there is a good reason. I find that generally there is not
- on days like that, I go to a towered field. At a towered field, the
tower controllers are pretty good about advising me of other aircraft
on the approach and in the pattern, and besides talking is an
important part of flying IFR so the practice is of higher quality.

Michael

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:

> I'm hoping, though, to find places where I can be IFR *and* not have to
> land.

Most times when I want to practice some approaches, I will file IFR "round-
robin," with my home airport as the departing and arriving airport, and a
VOR near the intended class C or D airport as the route. I also include
"multiple approach practice at Kxxx" in the comments.

When I am handed off to the approach facility that coordinates approaches
into that airport, I request multiple approaches. Often the tower at class
D airports where I go will clear me for the option, allowing me to touch
down if I want to practice going off instruments to land.

Again, Binghamton (KBGM) and Elmira (KELM) are two class D airport a little
to your north that have their own approach facilities (TRSA) and are very
accommodating.

--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter R. wrote:

> Andrew Gideon ) wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping, though, to find places where I can be IFR *and* not have to
>> land.
>
> Most times when I want to practice some approaches, I will file IFR
> "round-
> robin," with my home airport as the departing and arriving airport, and a
> VOR near the intended class C or D airport as the route. I also include
> "multiple approach practice at Kxxx" in the comments.

Hmm. I do put "multiple approaches" in the remarks, but I've always used
two separate flight plans. Your idea is a new one to me.

> Again, Binghamton (KBGM) and Elmira (KELM) are two class D airport a
> little to your north that have their own approach facilities (TRSA) and
> are very accommodating.

Thanks.

- Andrew

[Dave Butler]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Hmm. I do put "multiple approaches" in the remarks, but I've always used
> two separate flight plans. Your idea is a new one to me.

There's a limitation on how many text characters (15?) from the remarks field
are actually seen by ATC. Try using the acronym PLA for practice low approaches,
for example "PLA FAY" for practice approaches at Fayetteville.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Mike Z.]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message online.com...
> Peter R. wrote:
>
> Hmm. I do put "multiple approaches" in the remarks, but I've always used
> two separate flight plans. Your idea is a new one to me.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Andrew

My CFII was yapping on like they do and filed two flight plans the other day. One to. One From. We never needed the second one and I
finally figured out it was because we were local IFR and they controlled the approach to our home field. So they could have cared
less whether we landed here or there.

Mike Z

[lardsoup]

I've done some practice approaches at TTN, VFR and IFR and never had to
land. Although they seemed a little confused about my IFR clearance a
couple of times. Aren't they a private control tower? Maybe that has
something to do with it?