service terminated squawk 1200

[Robert M. Gary]

I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
radar track if I'm still on the old code??

Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
before landing.

-Robert, CFI

[Ben Hallert]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field.

Just one opinion: I was taught Aviate, Navigate, Communicate (in that
order). Transponder is just a communication, if I felt (as pilot in
command) that squawking VFR while entering the pattern to land would
reduce safety, then I wouldn't do it. I think it'd be important to
switch it before flying again, but I doubt a controller would be that
agitated if you kept it for a minute longer.

I'm also curious to hear what a controller has to say about this.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Stubby]

Suppose you have to do a missed approach or just go around. What does
the controller want to see you as? You "own" the runway until you
terminate the code, so maybe the issue is when can the controller have
another plane start an approach.


Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
> original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
> configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
> etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
> can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
> minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
> radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>
> Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
> before landing.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..
> Suppose you have to do a missed approach or just go around. What does
> the controller want to see you as? You "own" the runway until you
> terminate the code, so maybe the issue is when can the controller have
> another plane start an approach.

I think Robert was talking about VFR flight following, not an IFR approach.
If it were an IFR approach, you'd only be instructed to squawk 1200 if you'd
cancelled IFR--but in that case, you're now VFR and you no longer "own" the
runway (and if you have to go missed, you're still just VFR; if you re-enter
the clouds, you're VFR in IMC).

--Gary

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
>> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
>> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
>> original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
>> configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
>> etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
>> can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
>> minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
>> radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>>
>> Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
>> before landing.
>>
>> -Robert, CFI
>>

[Robert M. Gary]

Stubby wrote:
> Suppose you have to do a missed approach or just go around. What does
> the controller want to see you as? You "own" the runway until you
> terminate the code, so maybe the issue is when can the controller have
> another plane start an approach.

This assumes VFR.

-Robert

[Denny]

If you are close to the airport and busy during the approach don't
worry about changing the squawk code and turn it off once on the
ground...
If you are not busy during the approach, dial in 1200 as convenient..
The controller will not care as you are in the airport traffic area and
no longer his problem...
denny

[NW_PILOT]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
> original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
> configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
> etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
> can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
> minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
> radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>
> Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
> before landing.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

Robert,

If you don't go 1200 for some time and they really want you to they will
tell you so! I understand about some times being to busy with other things
that are going on that prohibit the task of squawking 1200 for a few min.
The new digital transponders with the one touch VFR button is awesome.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
> original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
> configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
> etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
> can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
> minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
> radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>
> Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
> before landing.
>

Remaining on the discrete code for a few minutes is unlikely to cause any
problems.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Suppose you have to do a missed approach or just go around. What does
> the controller want to see you as? You "own" the runway until you
> terminate the code, so maybe the issue is when can the controller have
> another plane start an approach.
>

The controller isn't going to tell you to squawk 1200 if you're still IFR
and your beacon code has nothing to do with "owning" the runway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I think Robert was talking about VFR flight following, not an IFR
> approach. If it were an IFR approach, you'd only be instructed to squawk
> 1200 if you'd cancelled IFR--but in that case, you're now VFR and you no
> longer "own" the runway (and if you have to go missed, you're still just
> VFR; if you re-enter the clouds, you're VFR in IMC).
>

Being IFR or VFR has nothing to do with "owning" the runway.

[Roy Smith]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
>controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
>uncontrolled field.

Aviate, navigate, communicate. Your squawk code comes under
communicate. It shouldn't be a big deal to reset the code to 1200,
but certainly, if you're busy with other tasks, that's pretty low on
the priority list.

Most of the time, when the controller turns you loose, you're about to
drop below radar coverage anyway, so it's a moot point.

[Peter R.]

NW_PILOT > wrote:

> If you don't go 1200 for some time and they really want you to they will
> tell you so!

How will ATC tell you since presumably, ATC also turned you over to another
frequency along with the transponder code change?


--
Peter

[Newps]

Not important at all.



Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
> original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
> configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
> etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
> can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
> minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
> radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>
> Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
> before landing.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

[Newps]

Stubby wrote:

> Suppose you have to do a missed approach or just go around. What does
> the controller want to see you as? You "own" the runway until you
> terminate the code,

Ah, what? The code has nothing to do regarding VFR/IFR. A controller
does not gain the ability to use VFR separation standards on an IFR
aircraft because he told him to squawk VFR, such as going into an
uncontrolled field.

[Newps]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Stubby" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Suppose you have to do a missed approach or just go around. What does
>>the controller want to see you as? You "own" the runway until you
>>terminate the code, so maybe the issue is when can the controller have
>>another plane start an approach.
>
>
> I think Robert was talking about VFR flight following, not an IFR approach.
> If it were an IFR approach, you'd only be instructed to squawk 1200 if you'd
> cancelled IFR--but in that case, you're now VFR and you no longer "own" the
> runway (and if you have to go missed, you're still just VFR; if you re-enter
> the clouds, you're VFR in IMC).

You never owned it in the first place. A third scenario is when you are
practicing IFR approaches while VFR to an uncontrolled field. This just
came up at our place. One of the major college flight schools is based
at an airport 12 miles SW of here. They always do their last practice
approach into that airport. Since our facility over 15 years ago put
out a letter to airmen stating that we would provide separation services
to VFR aircraft on practice approaches we are required to provide that
service, traffic permitting, all the way to the airport. We used to
just terminate you and tell you to squawk VFR about 5-6 miles from the
airport. We can still do that but are on the hook for separation until
you tell us you have completed your approach. If you don't report the
completion we can take our best guess as to when you got to the missed
approach point as that is when separation would end anyways. Only then
can we allow a second aircraft to start the approach. Our other option
is to tell you that the approach is approved, maintain VFR, no
separation provided.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field.

As others have said, if changing the transponder code is at all a problem
with respect to the safety of the flight, don't do it.

It may or may not cause problems for ATC. More likely not, but even if it
does, that's their problem. They should have given you the transponder code
change earlier, when you aren't so busy with your landing prep (I can only
imagine changing the code being a problem on short final...otherwise,
there's plenty of "downtime" during the traffic pattern and approach to do
it).

Pete

[Kingfish]

IIRC flying IFR into an uncontrolled field is a one-in & one-out deal.
In essence you "own" the airspace (not the runway) until you've landed
& cancelled with ATC or flown somewhere else. Only then can ATC bring
in another aircraft for an approach (assuming IMC conditions exist). I
think a parallel to a controlled field would be the local controller
sterilizing the airspace of any special VFRs aircraft when IAPs are in
effect.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Being IFR or VFR has nothing to do with "owning" the runway.

[Roy Smith]

Kingfish > wrote:
>IIRC flying IFR into an uncontrolled field is a one-in & one-out deal.

Is the one-in, one-out deal a function of having a tower, or of radar
coverage? HPN becomes uncontrolled when the tower closes at 10:00 PM,
but there's radar coverage right down to the ground (NY Approach has a
radar sensor on the field). Does HPN become one-in, one-out when the
tower closes? I come in late at night once in a while, but not often
enough to notice how the IFR works.

>In essence you "own" the airspace (not the runway) until you've landed
>& cancelled with ATC or flown somewhere else.

The landing has nothing to do with it. The essential event is
cancelling IFR. You can cancel before you land, which releases the
airspace. On the other hand, if you land and don't cancel, ATC will
continue to protect the airspace until you do cancel (although, I
imagine there must be some timeout).

I had an experience a few years back on an IFR training flight into
BDR (Bridgeport, CT). We were holding at the FAF and I could see the
aircraft in front of us (a commuter flight) had already landed and
taxied off the runway. But they hadn't canceled yet, so ATC couldn't
clear us for the approach yet. It worked out fine, since my student
needed the holding practice :-)

> Only then can ATC bring in another aircraft for an approach
> (assuming IMC conditions exist).

IMC has nothing to do with it. In the BDR example above, it was
severe clear, but if we wanted an approach clearance, we had to wait
until the airspace was released by the flight in front of us
cancelling.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> IIRC flying IFR into an uncontrolled field is a one-in & one-out deal.
> In essence you "own" the airspace (not the runway) until you've landed
> & cancelled with ATC or flown somewhere else. Only then can ATC bring
> in another aircraft for an approach (assuming IMC conditions exist). I
> think a parallel to a controlled field would be the local controller
> sterilizing the airspace of any special VFRs aircraft when IAPs are in
> effect.
>

The surface area does not need to be "sterilized" of SVFR aircraft, they
just need to be separated from IFR or other SVFR aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> That said, I'm not entirely sure about the whole "one-in, one-out"
> thing...as far as I know, ATC protects the airspace for whatever
> operations and time has been approved. Usually that means a single
> landing, until the pilot cancels IFR, or a departure, until the pilot is
> in radar contact. But in reality, I suspect it means whatever ATC needs
> it to mean at the moment.
>

There is no "one in, one out rule". Separation must be provided, of course,
so if an IAP is needed a previous aircraft must cancel IFR before a
following aircraft can be cleared for the approach. But if visual
approaches are being made visual separation can be used and multiple
aircraft can have approach clearances.

[Kingfish]

My assumption comes from observations in BDR's tower with a controller
pal of mine on a marginal VFR day. A Caravan amphib requested a special
VFR departure and while he was still inside the class D, NY Approach
called with an inbound bizjet. My friend said something about special
VFR aircraft couldn't share the airspace with IFR aircraft (details are
foggy here) It wasn't an issue as the amphib cleared the Delta before
the jet made its initial call to the tower.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > IIRC flying IFR into an uncontrolled field is a one-in & one-out deal.
> > In essence you "own" the airspace (not the runway) until you've landed
> > & cancelled with ATC or flown somewhere else. Only then can ATC bring
> > in another aircraft for an approach (assuming IMC conditions exist). I
> > think a parallel to a controlled field would be the local controller
> > sterilizing the airspace of any special VFRs aircraft when IAPs are in
> > effect.
> >
>
> The surface area does not need to be "sterilized" of SVFR aircraft, they
> just need to be separated from IFR or other SVFR aircraft.

[Kingfish]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> There is no "one in, one out rule". Separation must be provided, of course,
>> so if an IAP is needed a previous aircraft must cancel IFR before a
>> following aircraft can be cleared for the approach.

Isn't that essentially the same as one in, one out?

>>But if visual approaches are being made visual separation can be used and multiple
>> aircraft can have approach clearances.

Even when flying a visual approach under IFR the pilot still must
cancel upon landing and ATC can't clear the next acft in until that
cancellation is received, right? (uncontrolled field)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> My assumption comes from observations in BDR's tower with a controller
> pal of mine on a marginal VFR day. A Caravan amphib requested a special
> VFR departure and while he was still inside the class D, NY Approach
> called with an inbound bizjet. My friend said something about special
> VFR aircraft couldn't share the airspace with IFR aircraft (details are
> foggy here) It wasn't an issue as the amphib cleared the Delta before
> the jet made its initial call to the tower.
>

Your pal is either mistaken or you misunderstood him. FAA Order 7110.65
requires controllers to apply approved separation between SVFR aircraft and
also between SVFR aircraft and IFR aircraft. Clearly, there'd be no
requirement for separation between SVFR aircraft and IFR aircraft if Special
VFR aircraft couldn't share the airspace with IFR aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Your pal is either mistaken or you misunderstood him. FAA Order 7110.65
> requires controllers to apply approved separation between SVFR aircraft
> and also between SVFR aircraft and IFR aircraft. Clearly, there'd be no
> requirement for separation between SVFR aircraft and IFR aircraft if
> Special VFR aircraft couldn't share the airspace with IFR aircraft.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0705.html#7-5-3

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> There is no "one in, one out rule". Separation must be provided, of
>>> course,
>>> so if an IAP is needed a previous aircraft must cancel IFR before a
>>> following aircraft can be cleared for the approach.
>
> Isn't that essentially the same as one in, one out?
>

That is, what follows is not.



>>>But if visual approaches are being made visual separation can be used and
>>>multiple
>>> aircraft can have approach clearances.
>
> Even when flying a visual approach under IFR the pilot still must
> cancel upon landing and ATC can't clear the next acft in until that
> cancellation is received, right? (uncontrolled field)
>

Wrong. ATC can clear the next aircraft using visual separation before the
first one cancels.

[.Blueskies.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message oups.com...
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
> original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
> configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
> etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
> can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
> minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
> radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>
> Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
> before landing.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

Squawk standby....

[BTIZ]

the digital "push button" VFR code makes it so much easier
BT

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If you are close to the airport and busy during the approach don't
> worry about changing the squawk code and turn it off once on the
> ground...
> If you are not busy during the approach, dial in 1200 as convenient..
> The controller will not care as you are in the airport traffic area and
> no longer his problem...
> denny
>

[Kingfish]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > Even when flying a visual approach under IFR the pilot still must
> > cancel upon landing and ATC can't clear the next acft in until that
> > cancellation is received, right? (uncontrolled field)
> >
>
> Wrong. ATC can clear the next aircraft using visual separation before the
> first one cancels.

I talked to my ATC pal tonight about this and he referenced the 7110.
You're absolutely right about the visual approach. The scenario I had
in mind was an uncontrolled field just above minimums (no visual
approach possible). In that case ATC can't clear another acft for an
approach until the previous acft has canceled as they can't provide
separation if the first acft is on another frequency. That was what I
meant by one in, one out.

[GeorgeC]

I don't think they care. When coming home with VFR flight following, sometimes
approach control will tell me to squeak 1200 and some times they don't. The only
time the tower tells me to squawk 1200 is if I stay in the pattern.

On 13 Jun 2006 08:35:04 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
>controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
>uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
>original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
>configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
>etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
>can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
>minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
>radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>
>Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
>before landing.
>
>-Robert, CFI

GeorgeC

[Kingfish]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>Your pal is either mistaken or you misunderstood him. FAA Order 7110.65
>>requires controllers to apply approved separation between SVFR aircraft and
>> also between SVFR aircraft and IFR aircraft.

Even if both acft are on tower freq, if the tower doesn't have radar
and visual separation is impossible how can ATC maintain separation for
SVFR and IFR aircraft?

[Brien K. Meehan]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
> original code.

You're violating FAR 91.123(b) by not complying with his instruction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Even if both acft are on tower freq, if the tower doesn't have radar
> and visual separation is impossible how can ATC maintain separation for
> SVFR and IFR aircraft?
>

Depends on the situation. Are the aircraft arriving, departing, or
overflying? Vertical separation may be available if at least one of them is
an overflight. If they're departing in opposite directions they can be
launched one minute apart.

[B A R R Y]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
>
> You're violating FAR 91.123(b) by not complying with his instruction.
>

Unless diverting your attention compromises safety of flight at the
moment, which means the PIC decides what's important.

Since I can hear the replies being typed already, I will add that the
instruction should be complied with at the first opportunity.

[Jim Macklin]

When they terminate service and say squawk VFR/1200 the
discrete code they had you using is released. It could be
assigned to another aircraft within the area, that could
cause trouble.
What is important to remember, you just were dumped with
zero traffic advisories and you should be looking outside.
Good pilots can tune their radios/transponders without
looking, just count the clicks.

The issue of squawk code changes is more important on
departures from radar service areas and the caution about no
traffic advisories is still the most important issue.

A reasonable time to make such a code change is 1-2 minutes
IMHO.


--
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.


"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Robert M. Gary wrote:
| > I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200
as soon as the
| > controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for
landing at an
| > uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just
landed with my
| > original code.
|
| You're violating FAR 91.123(b) by not complying with his
instruction.
|

[Ross Richardson]

I had a situtation when I went to practice in actual conditions. Two
uncontrolled airports 7 nm apart. I called for my clearence and was told
to call back in 10 minutes as he was handling another aircraft at the
other airport. We do not have surface radar coverage at either airport.
They have an RCO but I cannot reach it from my airport. Be nice if they
raised the antenna.

Ross
KSWI

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Kingfish > wrote:
>>
>>>IIRC flying IFR into an uncontrolled field is a one-in & one-out deal.
>>
>>Is the one-in, one-out deal a function of having a tower, or of radar
>>coverage?
>
>
> Neither. It is a function of having controlled airspace...a Class E surface
> area at a non-towered airport. You can have Class E without radar coverage.
>
> That said, I'm not entirely sure about the whole "one-in, one-out"
> thing...as far as I know, ATC protects the airspace for whatever operations
> and time has been approved. Usually that means a single landing, until the
> pilot cancels IFR, or a departure, until the pilot is in radar contact. But
> in reality, I suspect it means whatever ATC needs it to mean at the moment.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Neither. It is a function of having controlled airspace...a Class E
> surface area at a non-towered airport. You can have Class E without radar
> coverage.
>

There doesn't have to be a surface area. A Class E airspace floor at 700
AGL would present the same potential conflict.

[Jon Kraus]

I thought that if you didn't instantly punch in 1200 that ATC could do
something that would cause your plane to crash... Am I wrong? ;-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I'm curious how important it really is to punch in 1200 as soon as the
> controller instructs squawk 1200 as you approach for landing at an
> uncontrolled field. I've always blown it off and just landed with my
> original code. My thinking is 1) Of the things I need to do to
> configure for landing, watch for traffic, get the plane slowed down,
> etc this is way, way down on my important to-do list 2) What the heck
> can ATC care anyway, are they going to reuse that code in the next 2
> minutes 3) If something did happen to me, maybe they'd have a better
> radar track if I'm still on the old code??
>
> Im just curious from controllers how important is this change in code
> before landing.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I thought that if you didn't instantly punch in 1200 that ATC could do
> something that would cause your plane to crash... Am I wrong? ;-)
>

Nope.

[Jose]

> I thought that if you didn't instantly punch in 1200 that ATC could do something that would cause your plane to crash... Am I wrong? ;-)

I don't understand. Don't they punch 1200 for you? I mean, they're
=controllers=, right? :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[B A R R Y]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> I thought that if you didn't instantly punch in 1200 that ATC could do
> something that would cause your plane to crash... Am I wrong? ;-)

Not following the instruction allows Stephen M., and the other ATC
folks, to take full control, leaving you riding in a UAV. <G>

We wrap our avionics in tin foil to protect them from ATC control.