IFR Cancellation Question

[A Lieberma]

Severe clear today, so other then the safety net of ATC services, weather
wasn't an issue.

Coming back from HBG (Hattiesburg MS) to MBO (Madison MS) encountered the
following exchange with ATC. I was already told to expect the visual
approach in my inital contact with approach controller. Frequency, while
not wall to wall traffic, was busier then normal.

ATC Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in sight.
Me 43L will report Madison in sight.
Me Approach 43L, has Madison in sight
ATC 43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR, have a good evening
Me Uh, 43L would like to cancel IFR at this time.
ATC 43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR.
Me, Uh, will assume IFR cancellation received, squawking VFR, good
evening.

I change to Unicom and land as normal. After landing, switch over to
Clearance and Delivery (CD) to see if indeed my IFR cancellation was
received, but it was busy with the controller handling approach and
departure traffic (one guy does all I guess?) so I didn't interrupt the
frequency.

Took my time tying down and hung around for a bit just in case ATC called
the airport, in which they did not (seen this done many times when IFR
traffic forgets to call CD) so I felt comfortable that the airspace was
re-opened for arrivals.

Queston one: I never was cleared for the visual which caught me off
guard on my forth line, and since it was severe clear, I figured go ahead
and cancel my IFR thus negating my need for the visual clearance. No
biggie, but shouldn't I have been cleared for the visual before radar
services are terminated?

Question two: While I wanted on the tapes that IFR cancellation was
received (see last transmission by me), was I truly and properly
cancelled out of the IFR system? Since the frequency was busy, figured
to let sleeping dogs rest, but I wasn't comfortable with the fact that I
didn't hear the buzz words "IFR cancellation received".

Question three: Is this worthy of ASR filing? No safety issue by any
means, but there were areas left wide open for miscommunication (I.E. not
getting the airpsace freed up for the next IFR arrival).

Allen

[Ron Natalie]

A Lieberma wrote:

>
> Queston one: I never was cleared for the visual which caught me off
> guard on my forth line, and since it was severe clear, I figured go ahead
> and cancel my IFR thus negating my need for the visual clearance. No
> biggie, but shouldn't I have been cleared for the visual before radar
> services are terminated?

There seems to be a disconnect as you have noticed. This is not the
way to handle visual approaches for IFR. While "Radar Services
Terminated" doesn't imply IFR cancellation, the squawk VFR would
lead me to wonder if the controller had lost track of the fact that
you were IFR to begin with.

>
> Question two: While I wanted on the tapes that IFR cancellation was
> received (see last transmission by me), was I truly and properly
> cancelled out of the IFR system? Since the frequency was busy, figured
> to let sleeping dogs rest, but I wasn't comfortable with the fact that I
> didn't hear the buzz words "IFR cancellation received".

I wouldn't be too worried about that. There are a lot of checks for
unclosed flight plans and if they find you before they launch search
and rescue I can't imagine the FAA persuing it.
>
> Question three: Is this worthy of ASR filing? No safety issue by any
> means, but there were areas left wide open for miscommunication (I.E. not
> getting the airpsace freed up for the next IFR arrival).
>
It's VERY MUCH WORTY of an ASRS filing. Not just because of the
"Get out of jail free" feature. There is something really non-standard
going on here and checking up on potential safety issues is what
ASRS is really for.

I might even just inquire with the facility QA person as to just
what exactly what is going on.

[Jim Macklin]

I would file the ASR which can now be done on-line.

I think the controller forgot that you were an IFR handoff
an not a VFR getting traffic advisories.



"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
| Severe clear today, so other then the safety net of ATC
services, weather
| wasn't an issue.
|
| Coming back from HBG (Hattiesburg MS) to MBO (Madison MS)
encountered the
| following exchange with ATC. I was already told to expect
the visual
| approach in my inital contact with approach controller.
Frequency, while
| not wall to wall traffic, was busier then normal.
|
| ATC Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report
Madison in sight.
| Me 43L will report Madison in sight.
| Me Approach 43L, has Madison in sight
| ATC 43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR, have a good
evening
| Me Uh, 43L would like to cancel IFR at this time.
| ATC 43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR.
| Me, Uh, will assume IFR cancellation received, squawking
VFR, good
| evening.
|
| I change to Unicom and land as normal. After landing,
switch over to
| Clearance and Delivery (CD) to see if indeed my IFR
cancellation was
| received, but it was busy with the controller handling
approach and
| departure traffic (one guy does all I guess?) so I didn't
interrupt the
| frequency.
|
| Took my time tying down and hung around for a bit just in
case ATC called
| the airport, in which they did not (seen this done many
times when IFR
| traffic forgets to call CD) so I felt comfortable that the
airspace was
| re-opened for arrivals.
|
| Queston one: I never was cleared for the visual which
caught me off
| guard on my forth line, and since it was severe clear, I
figured go ahead
| and cancel my IFR thus negating my need for the visual
clearance. No
| biggie, but shouldn't I have been cleared for the visual
before radar
| services are terminated?
|
| Question two: While I wanted on the tapes that IFR
cancellation was
| received (see last transmission by me), was I truly and
properly
| cancelled out of the IFR system? Since the frequency was
busy, figured
| to let sleeping dogs rest, but I wasn't comfortable with
the fact that I
| didn't hear the buzz words "IFR cancellation received".
|
| Question three: Is this worthy of ASR filing? No safety
issue by any
| means, but there were areas left wide open for
miscommunication (I.E. not
| getting the airpsace freed up for the next IFR arrival).
|
| Allen

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> > Question two: While I wanted on the tapes that IFR cancellation was
> > received (see last transmission by me), was I truly and properly
> > cancelled out of the IFR system? Since the frequency was busy, figured
> > to let sleeping dogs rest, but I wasn't comfortable with the fact that I
> > didn't hear the buzz words "IFR cancellation received".
>
> I wouldn't be too worried about that. There are a lot of checks for
> unclosed flight plans and if they find you before they launch search
> and rescue I can't imagine the FAA persuing it.

If you were concerned that the controller hadn't cancelled your IFR, you
could have called 1-800-WX-BRIEF and cancelled (again) on the phone.

I do agree that something seems to have gone funny here. It could just be
some non-standard phraseology on the part of the controller, or it could be
that he actually thought you were VFR all along (although, the "descend and
maintain 2000" makes me doubt that). An ASRS report couldn't hurt.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
>
> Severe clear today, so other then the safety net of ATC services, weather
> wasn't an issue.
>
> Coming back from HBG (Hattiesburg MS) to MBO (Madison MS) encountered the
> following exchange with ATC. I was already told to expect the visual
> approach in my inital contact with approach controller. Frequency, while
> not wall to wall traffic, was busier then normal.
>
> ATC Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in sight.
> Me 43L will report Madison in sight.
> Me Approach 43L, has Madison in sight
> ATC 43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR, have a good evening
> Me Uh, 43L would like to cancel IFR at this time.
> ATC 43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR.
> Me, Uh, will assume IFR cancellation received, squawking VFR, good
> evening.
>
> I change to Unicom and land as normal. After landing, switch over to
> Clearance and Delivery (CD) to see if indeed my IFR cancellation was
> received, but it was busy with the controller handling approach and
> departure traffic (one guy does all I guess?) so I didn't interrupt the
> frequency.
>
> Took my time tying down and hung around for a bit just in case ATC called
> the airport, in which they did not (seen this done many times when IFR
> traffic forgets to call CD) so I felt comfortable that the airspace was
> re-opened for arrivals.
>
> Queston one: I never was cleared for the visual which caught me off
> guard on my forth line, and since it was severe clear, I figured go ahead
> and cancel my IFR thus negating my need for the visual clearance. No
> biggie, but shouldn't I have been cleared for the visual before radar
> services are terminated?
>

Yes. Somewhere between "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report
Madison in sight." and "43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR, have a
good evening." the controller forgot you were operating IFR.


>
> Question two: While I wanted on the tapes that IFR cancellation was
> received (see last transmission by me), was I truly and properly
> cancelled out of the IFR system? Since the frequency was busy, figured
> to let sleeping dogs rest, but I wasn't comfortable with the fact that I
> didn't hear the buzz words "IFR cancellation received".
>

Properly? No. But you're at the end of the line anyway. If the approach
controller believes you're VFR you're out of the IFR system.


>
> Question three: Is this worthy of ASR filing? No safety issue by any
> means, but there were areas left wide open for miscommunication (I.E. not
> getting the airpsace freed up for the next IFR arrival).
>

Any anomaly is worthy of filing.

[dlevy]

Does "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in sight."
imply the controller thought he was IFR?

Wouldn't he say the same thing with VFR flight following (traffic
advisories)?

you 'da man!

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
><snip> Yes. Somewhere between "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000,
>report Madison in sight." and "43L radar services terminated, squawk VFR,
>have a good evening." the controller forgot you were operating IFR.
><snip>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"dlevy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in
> sight." imply the controller thought he was IFR?
>

Yes.

>
> Wouldn't he say the same thing with VFR flight following (traffic
> advisories)?
>

No. Recall that he was told to expect a visual approach on initial contact
with Jackson approach. Only an IFR arrival would be told to expect a visual
approach. The controller told him to report Madison in sight so that he
could issue the visual approach clearance, so he's still thinking IFR at
that point.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"dlevy" > wrote:

> Does "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in sight."
> imply the controller thought he was IFR?

Assignment of an altitude pretty much means IFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Assignment of an altitude pretty much means IFR.
>

VFR aircraft can be assigned an altitude in Class C airspace, at 2000 MSL
over MBO he'd be in the Jackson Class C airspace.

[A Lieberma]

Ron Natalie > wrote in
:

> It's VERY MUCH WORTY of an ASRS filing. Not just because of the
> "Get out of jail free" feature. There is something really
> non-standard going on here and checking up on potential safety issues
> is what ASRS is really for.

Well, *I think* I submitted a form?????

Downloaded the Adobe form, and at the bottom, has a submit button. Got a
promt warning me I couldn't save the filled out data, push OK, but no
computerized acknowledgement that it was even sent.

Guess time will tell if I get the top part of the form or not...

> I might even just inquire with the facility QA person as to just
> what exactly what is going on.

Since this is a first time occurrence and no safety issue came up, won't
make a big ado of this, just the ASRS report should suffice. I have never
had bad services from ATC, in fact always the other way around, outstanding
service.

I guess the crux of this post was to be sure I wasn't out to lunch
expecting certain phraseology from ATC.

Allen

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
> If you were concerned that the controller hadn't cancelled your IFR, you
> could have called 1-800-WX-BRIEF and cancelled (again) on the phone.


It's a towered airport. There's no actual cancellation that takes
place. Nobody calls anybody, nobody sends a message, etc.

[Newps]

dlevy wrote:

> Does "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in sight."
> imply the controller thought he was IFR?

What else could it mean?



>
> Wouldn't he say the same thing with VFR flight following (traffic
> advisories)?

Possibly in a class B but not usually. Never anywhere else.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:


>
> Since this is a first time occurrence and no safety issue came up, won't
> make a big ado of this, just the ASRS report should suffice. I have never
> had bad services from ATC, in fact always the other way around, outstanding
> service.

Give the facility a call and ask your question there. The data is kept
on a hard drive for approximately three days and the tapes are kept for
45 days. If you were to call tomorrow they could easily find it on the
hard drive. You just need to know the time it happened.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It's a towered airport. There's no actual cancellation that takes place.
> Nobody calls anybody, nobody sends a message, etc.
>

MBO is not a towered airport.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Possibly in a class B but not usually. Never anywhere else.
>

Also in Class C airspace and TRSAs.

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2006-12-08, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "dlevy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Does "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in
>> sight." imply the controller thought he was IFR?
>>
>
> Yes.

Why? You can get an altitude assignment while VFR and Seattle center
usually asks me to report the field in sight (PAE) even when I'm VFR
before terminating radar services.

-Milen

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If you were concerned that the controller hadn't cancelled your IFR,
>> you could have called 1-800-WX-BRIEF and cancelled (again) on the phone.
>
>
> It's a towered airport. There's no actual cancellation that takes
> place. Nobody calls anybody, nobody sends a message, etc.
>

I/m even more confused if it was a towered airport. Approach would
have transfered him to the tower frequency rather than just
RADARSERVICESTERMIANTEDSQUAUKVFRHAVEANICEDAY.

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:

>>
>>
>> It's a towered airport. There's no actual cancellation that takes
>> place. Nobody calls anybody, nobody sends a message, etc.
>>
>
> I/m even more confused if it was a towered airport.

I though an earlier post said he was handed off to the tower.



Approach would
> have transfered him to the tower frequency rather than just
> RADARSERVICESTERMIANTEDSQUAUKVFRHAVEANICEDAY.

Approach can do both. It depends on the service they are able to provide.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Approach can do both. It depends on the service they are able to
> provide.

For VFR handling, I would agree with the above, though in my neck of the
woods, I have never heard approach tell VFR traffic to squawk VFR and
expect them to contact tower on their own.

For IFR handling, approach would hold me to tower frequency and
cancellation of IFR is terminated once wheels touch terra firma is what I
was lead to believe. Surely they wouldn't (or couldn't) terminate radar
services before having me contact tower at a controlled airport?

In my case originally posted, no tower was involved, as I was landing at
KMBO which is an uncontrolled airport.

Allen

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

A Lieberma wrote:

> was lead to believe. Surely they wouldn't (or couldn't) terminate radar
> services before having me contact tower at a controlled airport?

Surely you meant they wouldn't (or couldn't) terminate your clearance.
Radar services could be cancelled at any time.

D

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Milen Lazarov" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why? You can get an altitude assignment while VFR and Seattle center
> usually asks me to report the field in sight (PAE) even when I'm VFR
> before terminating radar services.
>

Yes, you can get an altitude assignment while VFR, but you can't (properly)
get one from Seattle Center while VFR. Reporting the field serves a purpose
if you're IFR, but not if you're VFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
>
> For IFR handling, approach would hold me to tower frequency and
> cancellation of IFR is terminated once wheels touch terra firma is what I
> was lead to believe. Surely they wouldn't (or couldn't) terminate radar
> services before having me contact tower at a controlled airport?
>

They would if the tower had no radar.

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:10:15 -0800, Milen Lazarov
> wrote:

>On 2006-12-08, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>
>> "dlevy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Does "Sundowner 1943L, descend and maintain 2000, report Madison in
>>> sight." imply the controller thought he was IFR?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Why? You can get an altitude assignment while VFR and Seattle center
>usually asks me to report the field in sight (PAE) even when I'm VFR
>before terminating radar services.

I don't think the above state (descend and maintain) implies IFR.
However, earlier in the post, the controller told the pilot to expect
the visual. That is very much an IFR procedure, and not a VFR one.

So at least at that point the controller thought the original poster
was IFR.

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "A Lieberma" > wrote in message
> . 18...
>>
>> For IFR handling, approach would hold me to tower frequency and
>> cancellation of IFR is terminated once wheels touch terra firma is
>> what I was lead to believe. Surely they wouldn't (or couldn't)
>> terminate radar services before having me contact tower at a
>> controlled airport?
>>
>
> They would if the tower had no radar.

Ok, makes sense on the radar services being terminated, but the IFR
clearance still applies for airspace seperation?

IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???

Allen

[Robert Chambers]

Or unless you cancel in the air which is sometimes easier to do at a
field with no RCO or a tower that is closed.

You can also cancel in the air to help people out, I've been on an IFR
plan (but by the time I was approaching the field was VFR conditions)
and I heard a Jet at the hold short "ready for release" the tower said
"I have one IFR arrival inbound, expect a 3 minute delay" once that was
acknowledged I said "N1234 is cancelling IFR at this time" got the
cancellation and they released the jet to go before I got there. The
jet jockey (which surprised me) threw me a thank you before he got
switched over to approach.

Anything to make the system work that makes sense is ok in my book.

A Lieberma wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>
>>"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
>>
>>>For IFR handling, approach would hold me to tower frequency and
>>>cancellation of IFR is terminated once wheels touch terra firma is
>>>what I was lead to believe. Surely they wouldn't (or couldn't)
>>>terminate radar services before having me contact tower at a
>>>controlled airport?
>>>
>>
>>They would if the tower had no radar.
>
>
> Ok, makes sense on the radar services being terminated, but the IFR
> clearance still applies for airspace seperation?
>
> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
>
> Allen

[Roy Smith]

A Lieberma > wrote:
> > They would if the tower had no radar.
>
> Ok, makes sense on the radar services being terminated, but the IFR
> clearance still applies for airspace seperation?
>
> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???

At a towered airport without radar, you are still IFR until your wheels
touch the ground (assuming you don't cancel on your own). IFR separation
doesn't require radar contact. It doesn't even require radio contact.
Both of those just make it possible to apply more efficient methods of
achieving the required separation.

[Jose[_1_]]

> At a towered airport without radar, you are still IFR until your wheels
> touch the ground (assuming you don't cancel on your own).

If your wheels touch the ground on a Cat IIIc missed approach though,
you ought to still be IFR. That would be one pretty pickle.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/08/06 13:54, Roy Smith wrote:
> A Lieberma > wrote:
>> > They would if the tower had no radar.
>>
>> Ok, makes sense on the radar services being terminated, but the IFR
>> clearance still applies for airspace seperation?
>>
>> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
>
> At a towered airport without radar, you are still IFR until your wheels
> touch the ground (assuming you don't cancel on your own). IFR separation
> doesn't require radar contact. It doesn't even require radio contact.
> Both of those just make it possible to apply more efficient methods of
> achieving the required separation.

So I wonder if the confusion came when ATC told Allen to Squawk VFR?
This just means that you're no longer in radar contact, and not that
you're no longer IFR, right?

Or, are you supposed to maintain your transponder code until changed
by ATC or you cancel IFR - even if radar service is terminated?

I think the only thing that was missing in Allen's case was the
clearance to fly the visual approach.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > At a towered airport without radar, you are still IFR until your wheels
> > touch the ground (assuming you don't cancel on your own).
>
> If your wheels touch the ground on a Cat IIIc missed approach though,
> you ought to still be IFR. That would be one pretty pickle.
>
> Jose

If you're flying a Cat IIIc approach, the tower probably can't see you,
your wheels, or the runway, so it works out.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Approach can do both. It depends on the service they are able to
>>provide.
>
>
> For VFR handling, I would agree with the above, though in my neck of the
> woods, I have never heard approach tell VFR traffic to squawk VFR and
> expect them to contact tower on their own.

That is a regional thing. Some places are famous for terminating
aircraft very close to a class D boundary.



>
> For IFR handling, approach would hold me to tower frequency and
> cancellation of IFR is terminated once wheels touch terra firma is what I
> was lead to believe. Surely they wouldn't (or couldn't) terminate radar
> services before having me contact tower at a controlled airport?

Sure they can. If they don't have radar coverage they will terminate you.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:


>
> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???

ATC takes no overt action to cancel an IFR aircraft landing at a towered
field. You just land.

[Newps]

Robert Chambers wrote:

> Or unless you cancel in the air which is sometimes easier to do at a
> field with no RCO or a tower that is closed.
>
> You can also cancel in the air to help people out, I've been on an IFR
> plan (but by the time I was approaching the field was VFR conditions)
> and I heard a Jet at the hold short "ready for release" the tower said
> "I have one IFR arrival inbound, expect a 3 minute delay" once that was
> acknowledged I said "N1234 is cancelling IFR at this time" got the
> cancellation and they released the jet to go before I got there. The
> jet jockey (which surprised me) threw me a thank you before he got
> switched over to approach.
>
> Anything to make the system work that makes sense is ok in my book.



Three lousy minutes? The tower should have used visual separation and
let the jet go.

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:


>
> So I wonder if the confusion came when ATC told Allen to Squawk VFR?
> This just means that you're no longer in radar contact, and not that
> you're no longer IFR, right?

No, that measn the controller thought you were VFR.



>
> Or, are you supposed to maintain your transponder code until changed
> by ATC or you cancel IFR - even if radar service is terminated?

If you are terminated you still stay on your code unless you are now
going to be VFR.

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> Yes, you can get an altitude assignment while VFR, but you can't (properly)
> get one from Seattle Center while VFR. Reporting the field serves a purpose
> if you're IFR, but not if you're VFR.

When I get flight following from New York Approach, they always ask me to
report the field in sight. (This is for both controlled and uncontrolled
fields.) This is for airports that are NOT in the Bravo airspace --
they're either near or underneath it.

I assume the purpose it serves is it tells them when they can terminate
flight following.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[A Lieberma]

Robert Chambers > wrote in news:p%keh.20495
:

> You can also cancel in the air to help people out, I've been on an IFR
> plan (but by the time I was approaching the field was VFR conditions)
> and I heard a Jet at the hold short "ready for release" the tower said
> "I have one IFR arrival inbound, expect a 3 minute delay" once that was
> acknowledged I said "N1234 is cancelling IFR at this time" got the
> cancellation and they released the jet to go before I got there. The
> jet jockey (which surprised me) threw me a thank you before he got
> switched over to approach.
>
> Anything to make the system work that makes sense is ok in my book.

Absolutely agree Robert. I like to be a "good neighbor" but not at the
cost of safety of course.

Once I get a visual on my airport (KMBO - uncontrolled), I do cancel IFR
as soon as I can.

The very same situation happened to me, and I was on the ground, and I
had really appreciated it myself so because one person did it for me, I
am determine to "pay it forward" any chance I get so long as my skin is
not jeapordized.

I generally can tell approach also appreciates my cancellation by the
sound of their voice when they say "cancellation received" as I am sure
it helps them as well.

One other time, I was on the ground, picking up my clearance on a MVFR
day, and CD was kind enough to clue me in to depart visually (was never
taught this in my IFR training) and pick up my clearance in the air as
there would have been a 15 minute delay for incoming IFR traffic.
Ceilings were 2500, so I had no problem with the choice given.

Allen

[A Lieberma]

Mark Hansen > wrote in
:

> So I wonder if the confusion came when ATC told Allen to Squawk VFR?
> This just means that you're no longer in radar contact, and not that
> you're no longer IFR, right?

Mark,

My experiences operating in areas of no radar coverage (NOT what happened
here in my original post) is that you maintain your transponder code and
work with "reporting points" as required under IFR enroute rules.

I was in Charlie airspace when I was told to squawk VFR in my original
post, thus my confusion

> Or, are you supposed to maintain your transponder code until changed
> by ATC or you cancel IFR - even if radar service is terminated?

For no radar coverage, you maintain your transponder code. I had asked
when this happened to me the first time and Center advised me to retain
the code and when I come out of the non radar environment, he would pick
me up. I'd rather sound dumb on the radio then do something dumb :-))

> I think the only thing that was missing in Allen's case was the
> clearance to fly the visual approach.

EXACTLY right! AND the IFR cancellation received, squawk VFR" buzz words
I learn to know and love.

Those rank up there with "cleared to land" at a controlled airport :-)

Allen

[A Lieberma]

Alan Gerber > wrote in
:

> I assume the purpose it serves is it tells them when they can
> terminate flight following.

Alan,

VFR flight following is workload permitted basis.

So, like you, I have experienced the same, approach asking me to advise
airport in sight. Approach can tell you to squawk VFR, have a good day
well before you have a visual on VFR flight following. In my area, I have
never had that done except once when I was arriving after the ATC shut down
for the night.

Generally IN MY AREA, if it's that busy, approach much rather you squawk
and talk then not. But I am only dealing with C airspace.

For IFR, a visual approach requires sight of the airport / runway
environment, and ATC cannot terminate your IFR until you request it (I.E
cancel IFR like in my case at an uncontrolled airport) or land at a
controlled airport.

Allen

[Alan Gerber]

A Lieberma > wrote:
> Alan Gerber > wrote in
> > I assume the purpose it serves is it tells them when they can
> > terminate flight following.
> VFR flight following is workload permitted basis.

I guess I worded that poorly. Of course they can terminate flight
following whenever they need to. Once the field is in sight, you pretty
much *need* to terminate flight following -- either to contact the tower,
for a towered field, or to start talking on CTAF, otherwise.

> So, like you, I have experienced the same, approach asking me to advise
> airport in sight. Approach can tell you to squawk VFR, have a good day
> well before you have a visual on VFR flight following. In my area, I have
> never had that done except once when I was arriving after the ATC shut down
> for the night.

I've had that done on occasion -- including my long student X-C solo. I
assumed they weren't able to do the handoff, especially since they gave me
the frequency to try myself later.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/08/06 17:50, A Lieberma wrote:
> Alan Gerber > wrote in
> :
>
>> I assume the purpose it serves is it tells them when they can
>> terminate flight following.
>
> Alan,
>
> VFR flight following is workload permitted basis.
>
> So, like you, I have experienced the same, approach asking me to advise
> airport in sight. Approach can tell you to squawk VFR, have a good day
> well before you have a visual on VFR flight following. In my area, I have
> never had that done except once when I was arriving after the ATC shut down
> for the night.
>
> Generally IN MY AREA, if it's that busy, approach much rather you squawk
> and talk then not. But I am only dealing with C airspace.
>
> For IFR, a visual approach requires sight of the airport / runway
> environment,

.... or sight of the airplane ahead of you...

> and ATC cannot terminate your IFR until you request it (I.E
> cancel IFR like in my case at an uncontrolled airport) or land at a
> controlled airport.
>
> Allen



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Robert Chambers]

Newps wrote:

>
> Three lousy minutes? The tower should have used visual separation and
> let the jet go.
>

Our tower is special, there's lots of things they "should" do but don't.

[A Lieberma]

Mark Hansen > wrote in
:

>> For IFR, a visual approach requires sight of the airport / runway
>> environment,
>
> ... or sight of the airplane ahead of you...

For controlled airports, yes you are correct. HOWEVER..... we are
talking about cancelling IFR which is generally speaking is not done at
controlled airports.

If it's an IFR plane in front of you, you won't be cleared for the visual
to an UNcontrolled airport until that plane cancels his IFR.

An uncontrolled airport is literally shut down for IFR arrivals until
that IFR cancellation is received by the plane in front of you. Thus the
courtesy / importance to cancel as soon as you can so the person behind
you won't have to hold.

This happened to me last year, when I was in IMC returning to my airport,
and the plane before me didn't call CD to cancel his IFR after landing.
Having been in IMC for 1 1/2 hours, I was tired and ready to see land.

I was put in a hold until ATC could indeed verify the plane had landed.
Since I was doing local approaches, figured holding for 20 minutes
wouldn't be that productive so after a couple of laps in the hold, I
figured I'd try to get smart and do an ILS to a neighboring airport, get
below the cloud deck and try special VFR. No can do, since I was still
IFR, and the weather was below VFR conditions, so I just did a couple of
ILS approaches at the neighboring airport until ATC could re-open my home
airport.

Allen

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:30:56 GMT, A Lieberma > wrote:


>
>Once I get a visual on my airport (KMBO - uncontrolled), I do cancel IFR
>as soon as I can.
>

Perhaps you should reconsider and not cancel IFR until you are legal for
VFR. There have been plenty of times when I've had a "visual" on my
airport, but not been legal VFR.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[A Lieberma]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

>>Once I get a visual on my airport (KMBO - uncontrolled), I do cancel IFR
>>as soon as I can.
>>
>
> Perhaps you should reconsider and not cancel IFR until you are legal for
> VFR. There have been plenty of times when I've had a "visual" on my
> airport, but not been legal VFR.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ahh, yes, I probably should have said when VFR, I cancel as soon as I can
:-)

Though to be honest, I have never encountered your situation where I was
able to even think about cancelling IFR, as less then one mile viz from the
airport or ceilings lower then 1000 feet is pretty crummy conditions to
even consider cancelling IFR in the air. I certainly won't cancel while I
am in the pattern as at that point, what's a few minutes more for the
airplane behind me.

The 3 or 4 times I have gone to minimums at my airport (1 mile viz and 900
ceilings on a VOR Alpha), last thought on my mind was "communicate" Aviate
and Navigate were first and foremost. I just wait and cancel via CD or FSS
if necessary as soon as I can after cleaning up the plane and am cleared
the runway.

I have read cases where a pilot has cancelled IFR in less then VFR
conditions only to meet up with FSDO personell after landing....

Allen

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:
> A Lieberma > wrote:
>>> They would if the tower had no radar.
>> Ok, makes sense on the radar services being terminated, but the IFR
>> clearance still applies for airspace seperation?
>>
>> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
>
> At a towered airport without radar, you are still IFR until your wheels
> touch the ground (assuming you don't cancel on your own). IFR separation
> doesn't require radar contact. It doesn't even require radio contact.
> Both of those just make it possible to apply more efficient methods of
> achieving the required separation.

It doesn't even require a tower. Just a control zo-er um surface area
of controlled airspace.

[Ron Natalie]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> Or, are you supposed to maintain your transponder code until changed
> by ATC or you cancel IFR - even if radar service is terminated?
>
Well in the ADIZ you darn well better keep squawking that discrete
code to the ground even if you cancel IFR (ATC will usually warn
you about this...violations are a pain in the butt for them too).

It's pretty standard everywhere else. I've never been told to
squawk VFR while IFR even without radar service.

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> A Lieberma wrote:
>
>
>>
>> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
>
> ATC takes no overt action to cancel an IFR aircraft landing at a towered
> field. You just land.

Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
approach?

[A Lieberma]

Ron Natalie > wrote in :

> Well in the ADIZ you darn well better keep squawking that discrete
> code to the ground even if you cancel IFR (ATC will usually warn
> you about this...violations are a pain in the butt for them too).

Correct me if I am wrong as I have never been in the ADIZ, but in the ADIZ,
you will hear IFR cancellation received, but you WILL NOT hear "Squawk VFR,
have good day"

Naturally, I could understand the pilot being on "autopilot" and by habit
changing to 1200 once they heard the cancellation received but the legalese
of it would be he was never told to change the transponder if my thoughts
are correct above.

I know I'd appreciate that extra warning from ATC.

Allen

[Robert Chambers]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A Lieberma wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
>>
>>
>> ATC takes no overt action to cancel an IFR aircraft landing at a
>> towered field. You just land.
>
>
> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
> approach?

ATC as in approach takes no overt action. The tower controller hits the
land line to approach and says "N12345 is on the ground" end of IFR flight.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:21:40 GMT, A Lieberma > wrote:

>I have read cases where a pilot has cancelled IFR in less then VFR
>conditions only to meet up with FSDO personell after landing....

Yes, that was my point.

Conditions of 900' 10+mi vis are not that unusual here. And with a dive
and drive approach, you may be at 700-800' with good visibility for a
while, and be tempted to cancel to facilitate traffic behind you.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A Lieberma wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
>>
>>
>> ATC takes no overt action to cancel an IFR aircraft landing at a
>> towered field. You just land.
>
>
> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
> approach?

The tower will know if you landed. What did you think happened?

[Newps]

Robert Chambers wrote:


>>
>> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
>> approach?
>
>
> ATC as in approach takes no overt action. The tower controller hits the
> land line to approach and says "N12345 is on the ground" end of IFR flight.




He does no such thing. No calls, whatsoever. There's no need to.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> A Lieberma wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
> >>
> >>
> >> ATC takes no overt action to cancel an IFR aircraft landing at a
> >> towered field. You just land.
> >
> >
> > Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
> > approach?
>
> The tower will know if you landed. What did you think happened?

What happens (I'm mostly thinking helicopters here) if you land someplace
within the CDSA that's off-airport and out of sight of the tower? For
example, at HPN, we've got a private helipad not far from the airport. I
don't imagine that's too unusual.

[Robert Chambers]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Robert Chambers wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
>>> approach?
>>

>> ATC as in approach takes no overt action. The tower controller hits
>> the land line to approach and says "N12345 is on the ground" end of
>> IFR flight.
>

> He does no such thing. No calls, whatsoever. There's no need to.

I've been in a tower cab when this happened. I've also been there when
they've hit the button, called the tracon and gotten a release.

Were they special occasions? I don't know I don't spend a lot of time
visiting.

Explain how it happens at your location.

[Ron Natalie]

A Lieberma wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong as I have never been in the ADIZ, but in the ADIZ,
> you will hear IFR cancellation received, but you WILL NOT hear "Squawk VFR,
> have good day"

Correct, they usually will remind you to "remain on this squawk until on
the ground" but I don't think there's any obligation that the do this.

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:

>> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
>> approach?
>
> The tower will know if you landed. What did you think happened?


I don't know how it happens, but the requirement is that they're
supposed to notice whether I have arrived at my destination not
whether I was handed off by approach. This means one of two
things:

1. Tower must tell the system that I've landed.
2. Tower must tell the system that I haven't landed.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
> What happens (I'm mostly thinking helicopters here) if you land someplace
> within the CDSA that's off-airport and out of sight of the tower? For
> example, at HPN, we've got a private helipad not far from the airport. I
> don't imagine that's too unusual.

The tower would have you report to them and that would be the end of it.

[Newps]

Robert Chambers wrote:


>> He does no such thing. No calls, whatsoever. There's no need to.
>
>
> I've been in a tower cab when this happened. I've also been there when
> they've hit the button, called the tracon and gotten a release.
>
> Were they special occasions? I don't know I don't spend a lot of time
> visiting.
>
> Explain how it happens at your location.

When I worked at what is now a class D it happens as I said. Airplane
lands and I tell him to contact ground control. No calls to the
facility that was our approach control. There was no need to. For
releases it depends on what you have worked out with your approach
control. At that facility we had to call for each release. There could
just as easily have been a letter of agreement allowing me to release
IFR aircraft on certain headings at my discretion. I work at a class C
now. The tower controller is, by definition, an approach controller
here. Everything is automatic. The only time you call for a release is
when you want to launch someone opposite direction and then only if you
are running standard procedures. Many of us just make a quick verbal
agreement between tower and approach that I as a tower controller can
launch aircraft anytime, anywhere and the approach controller will
accept them.

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
>>> approach?
>>
>>
>> The tower will know if you landed. What did you think happened?
>
>
>
> I don't know how it happens, but the requirement is that they're
> supposed to notice whether I have arrived at my destination not
> whether I was handed off by approach. This means one of two
> things:
>
> 1. Tower must tell the system that I've landed.
> 2. Tower must tell the system that I haven't landed.


The tower is "the system". At a tower without radar the approach
control will call on the landline and tell them about the IFR inbound.
At the agreed upon time/place the approach control tells the aircraft to
contact tower. Aircraft lands. Tower goes back to conversation on how
bad the Bears quarterback really is. The only time the tower calls the
approach control back is if something unusual happens. Aircraft never
calls tower at the expected time, aircraft has some kind of problem that
requires him to manuver unexpectedly thereby possibly affecting
separation of others inbound or outbound, etc. A normal approach and
landing is what's expected.
In a tower with radar all the above happens without a call on the
landline. The transfer of information is automated.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> Ok, makes sense on the radar services being terminated, but the IFR
> clearance still applies for airspace seperation?
>

Still IFR.


>
> IFR would be then cancelled once wheels touch ground???
>

IFR is cancelled upon landing.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Robert Chambers wrote:
>
> Our tower is special, there's lots of things they "should" do but don't.
>

What tower is that?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> Perhaps you should reconsider and not cancel IFR until you are legal for
> VFR. There have been plenty of times when I've had a "visual" on my
> airport, but not been legal VFR.
>

He didn't say he cancels as soon as he has a visual on the airport, he
said once he has a visual on the airport he cancels as soon as he can.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> At a towered airport without radar, you are still IFR until your wheels
> touch the ground (assuming you don't cancel on your own).
>

The same applies at towered airports with radar.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>
> If your wheels touch the ground on a Cat IIIc missed approach though,
> you ought to still be IFR. That would be one pretty pickle.
>

In conditions requiring a Cat IIIc approach the tower can't see your
wheels touch the ground.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Mark Hansen wrote:
>
> So I wonder if the confusion came when ATC told Allen to Squawk VFR?
> This just means that you're no longer in radar contact, and not that
> you're no longer IFR, right?
>

No, the loss of radar contact of an IFR aircraft doesn't call for a
code change, it calls for advising the aircraft that radar contact was
lost.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
> approach?
>

If the tower sees you on the runway they know you didn't crash on
approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> I don't know how it happens, but the requirement is that they're
> supposed to notice whether I have arrived at my destination not
> whether I was handed off by approach. This means one of two
> things:
>
> 1. Tower must tell the system that I've landed.
> 2. Tower must tell the system that I haven't landed.
>

1. Tower is part of the system.
2. Tower sees you land.
3. The system knows you landed.

1. Tower doesn't see you land.
2. Tower calls you on radio.
3. You don't respond to tower.
4. Tower initiates search.

OR

3. You respond "missed approach".
4. Tower says "contact departure".


OR

Several other variations. The point is no action is taken by the tower
to cancel an IFR flight plan for a landing aircraft because there
simply isn't any action that needs to be taken.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Alan Gerber wrote:
>
> When I get flight following from New York Approach, they always ask me to
> report the field in sight. (This is for both controlled and uncontrolled
> fields.) This is for airports that are NOT in the Bravo airspace --
> they're either near or underneath it.
>
> I assume the purpose it serves is it tells them when they can terminate
> flight following.
>

They can't terminate flight following if the aircraft hasn't reported
the field in sight?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Alan Gerber wrote:
>
> I guess I worded that poorly. Of course they can terminate flight
> following whenever they need to. Once the field is in sight, you pretty
> much *need* to terminate flight following -- either to contact the tower,
> for a towered field, or to start talking on CTAF, otherwise.
>

What if you're just a couple of miles from the field but haven't
reported it in sight?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> If it's an IFR plane in front of you, you won't be cleared for the visual
> to an UNcontrolled airport until that plane cancels his IFR.
>
> An uncontrolled airport is literally shut down for IFR arrivals until
> that IFR cancellation is received by the plane in front of you. Thus the
> courtesy / importance to cancel as soon as you can so the person behind
> you won't have to hold.
>

That's not correct. Visual separation can be used between multiple
aircraft conducting visual approaches at uncontrolled airports.

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
s.com:

> What if you're just a couple of miles from the field but haven't
> reported it in sight?

Surely I hope you are not talking from experience on this scenario??? If
so, what exactly did happen?

On a *clear* day where visibility is above marginal VFR, couple miles from
the airport, I am betting what you are describing is a very, very and very
rare occurance.

And would your workload permit VFR flight following on days where MVFR and
IFR traffic are intermingling?

What you describe above would **almost** sound like an emergency situation
for a lost pilot and nothing near the norm???

Allen

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ups.com:

> A Lieberma wrote:
>>
>> If it's an IFR plane in front of you, you won't be cleared for the
>> visual to an UNcontrolled airport until that plane cancels his IFR.
>>
>> An uncontrolled airport is literally shut down for IFR arrivals until
>> that IFR cancellation is received by the plane in front of you. Thus
>> the courtesy / importance to cancel as soon as you can so the person
>> behind you won't have to hold.
>>
>
> That's not correct. Visual separation can be used between multiple
> aircraft conducting visual approaches at uncontrolled airports.

What you say Steve could very well be, but in my three short years working
in the IFR system, I have yet to be cleared for a visual with another IFR
plane in front of me in VMC conditions.

I have been vectored for "separation" which I took it to mean that I would
have to wait until IFR cancellation was received from the plane in front of
me.

Sounds like different handling from different controllers???

Dunno, but the above has been my experiences (can't say if it's
"technically" correct, but my experiences nether the less).

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> s.com:
>
> > What if you're just a couple of miles from the field but haven't
> > reported it in sight?
>
> Surely I hope you are not talking from experience on this scenario???
>

Why?


>
> If so, what exactly did happen?
>

It hasn't happened with me, it will inevitably happen where controllers
do not terminate flight following until pilots report the field in
sight.


>
> On a *clear* day where visibility is above marginal VFR, couple miles from
> the airport, I am betting what you are describing is a very, very and very
> rare occurance.
>

How much are you willing to bet?


>
> And would your workload permit VFR flight following on days where MVFR and
> IFR traffic are intermingling?
>

Yes.


>
> What you describe above would **almost** sound like an emergency situation
> for a lost pilot and nothing near the norm???
>

Why is that?

[Everett M. Greene[_2_]]

Newps > writes:
> Robert Chambers wrote:
> >>
> >> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
> >> approach?
> >
> > ATC as in approach takes no overt action. The tower controller hits the
> > land line to approach and says "N12345 is on the ground" end of IFR flight.
>
> He does no such thing. No calls, whatsoever. There's no need to.

Are you saying that a telephone call isn't made or are
you saying that nobody in the tower closes the flight
plan?

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>> Really, then how does the system know you landed and not crashed on
>>>> approach?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The tower will know if you landed. What did you think happened?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know how it happens, but the requirement is that they're
>> supposed to notice whether I have arrived at my destination not
>> whether I was handed off by approach. This means one of two
>> things:
>>
>> 1. Tower must tell the system that I've landed.
>> 2. Tower must tell the system that I haven't landed.
>
>
>
> The tower is "the system". At a tower without radar the approach
> control will call on the landline and tell them about the IFR inbound.
> At the agreed upon time/place the approach control tells the aircraft to
> contact tower. Aircraft lands. Tower goes back to conversation on how
> bad the Bears quarterback really is. The only time the tower calls the
> approach control back is if something unusual happens. Aircraft never
> calls tower at the expected time, aircraft has some kind of problem that
> requires him to manuver unexpectedly thereby possibly affecting
> separation of others inbound or outbound, etc. A normal approach and
> landing is what's expected.
> In a tower with radar all the above happens without a call on the
> landline. The transfer of information is automated.

In the case of the nonradar tower, does the flight just "expire" in the
computer or does the approach controller kill the flight once the
hand-off to tower has been confirmed? If the pilot misses the approach
and then pops back to approach, do they have to enter the flight back
into the computer?


Matt

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ups.com:

>> On a *clear* day where visibility is above marginal VFR, couple miles
>> from the airport, I am betting what you are describing is a very,
>> very and very rare occurance.
>>
>
> How much are you willing to bet?

Again, from your experiences, sounds like I am right....

>> What you describe above would **almost** sound like an emergency
>> situation for a lost pilot and nothing near the norm???
>>
>
> Why is that?

Ummm lost pilot doesn't bode well for traffic????? Be realistic, clear
day, VMC and the pilot doesn't see the airport within a couple of miles?

Sounds like a problem, not the norm.

Allen

[Ron Natalie]

A Lieberma wrote:

> What you say Steve could very well be, but in my three short years working
> in the IFR system, I have yet to be cleared for a visual with another IFR
> plane in front of me in VMC conditions.

Happened to me yesterday at Dulles. Reported the MD80 ahead of me
in sight, got cleared for the visual even though we were both 5 miles
out or so.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> A Lieberma wrote:
>
> > What you say Steve could very well be, but in my three short years working
> > in the IFR system, I have yet to be cleared for a visual with another IFR
> > plane in front of me in VMC conditions.
>
> Happened to me yesterday at Dulles. Reported the MD80 ahead of me
> in sight, got cleared for the visual even though we were both 5 miles
> out or so.

It might be tough to maintain visual in cruddy weather when the thing
you're trying to watch is moving 60 kts faster than you :-)

[A Lieberma]

Ron Natalie > wrote in
:

> A Lieberma wrote:
>
>> What you say Steve could very well be, but in my three short years
>> working in the IFR system, I have yet to be cleared for a visual with
>> another IFR plane in front of me in VMC conditions.
>
> Happened to me yesterday at Dulles. Reported the MD80 ahead of me
> in sight, got cleared for the visual even though we were both 5 miles
> out or so.

You were landing at a controlled airport which I can fully understand (I.E
me reporting visual of AC in front of me and getting the instructions,
Sundowner 1943L, maintain seperation, cleared for the visual approach).

I have never received that instruction at an UNcontrolled airport. Like I
said in my prior post, I am not saying it can't be done, it's just that I
have never been cleared for the visual without the traffic in front of me
cancelling their IFR at an UNcontrolled airport.

Allen

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:

>>> What you say Steve could very well be, but in my three short years working
>>> in the IFR system, I have yet to be cleared for a visual with another IFR
>>> plane in front of me in VMC conditions.
>> Happened to me yesterday at Dulles. Reported the MD80 ahead of me
>> in sight, got cleared for the visual even though we were both 5 miles
>> out or so.
>
> It might be tough to maintain visual in cruddy weather when the thing
> you're trying to watch is moving 60 kts faster than you :-)

I'm unlikely to hit him :-)

Actually, keeping the Navion in cruise configuration until a half
mile out will keep up with an MD80 on approach.

It was the 767 breathing down my back behind me that was more of a problem.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> In the case of the nonradar tower, does the flight just "expire" in the
> computer or does the approach controller kill the flight once the
> hand-off to tower has been confirmed? If the pilot misses the approach
> and then pops back to approach, do they have to enter the flight back
> into the computer?
>

The computer is used for processing and transmitting flight data. The
destination airport is the end of the line. There's nobody left to
notify.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> In the case of the nonradar tower, does the flight just "expire" in the
> computer or does the approach controller kill the flight once the
> hand-off to tower has been confirmed?


You are thinking it's like a VFR flight plan where somebody has to take
some action to stop SAR from beginning. Nobody is on the clock with an
IFR flight plan.


If the pilot misses the approach
> and then pops back to approach, do they have to enter the flight back
> into the computer?

No.

[Newps]

Everett M. Greene wrote:


>>
>>He does no such thing. No calls, whatsoever. There's no need to.
>
>
> Are you saying that a telephone call isn't made or are
> you saying that nobody in the tower closes the flight
> plan?

Both. Nobody does anything.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:


>
>
> It might be tough to maintain visual in cruddy weather when the thing
> you're trying to watch is moving 60 kts faster than you :-)


Depends on who's flying. The local cargo guys here do that all the
time. Report the guy in sight so you get your visual and the math you
did in your head tells you that the aircraft you are following is far
enough ahead or faster enough that it doesn't matter if you ever see him.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Everett M. Greene wrote:
>
> Are you saying that a telephone call isn't made or are
> you saying that nobody in the tower closes the flight
> plan?
>

What is so hard about this? When you cancel IFR inflight all
controllers down the line from whatever point you cancelled must be
notified that you have cancelled. This is normally done by the
computer, controllers receive a "remove strips" message for your
flight. When you land at a controlled field you're at the end of the
line. There are no controllers down the line to advise that you've
cancelled because you're at the end of the line.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> Again, from your experiences, sounds like I am right....
>

Right about what? You never answered my question.


>
> Ummm lost pilot doesn't bode well for traffic?????
>

No, why does what I describe **almost** sound like an emergency
situation for a lost pilot?


>
> Be realistic, clear
> day, VMC and the pilot doesn't see the airport within a couple of miles?
>
> Sounds like a problem, not the norm.
>

No, not if the the pilot doesn't see the field within a couple of
miles, if he doesn't see it until he is within a couple of miles.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> > A Lieberma wrote:
> >
> > > What you say Steve could very well be, but in my three short years working
> > > in the IFR system, I have yet to be cleared for a visual with another IFR
> > > plane in front of me in VMC conditions.
> > >
> >
> > Happened to me yesterday at Dulles. Reported the MD80 ahead of me
> > in sight, got cleared for the visual even though we were both 5 miles
> > out or so.
> >
>
> It might be tough to maintain visual in cruddy weather when the thing
> you're trying to watch is moving 60 kts faster than you :-)
>

Yes, but you probably won't be following it on a visual approach in
cruddy weather.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Everett M. Greene wrote:
>
>>Are you saying that a telephone call isn't made or are
>>you saying that nobody in the tower closes the flight
>>plan?
>>
>
>
> What is so hard about this? When you cancel IFR inflight all
> controllers down the line from whatever point you cancelled must be
> notified that you have cancelled. This is normally done by the
> computer, controllers receive a "remove strips" message for your
> flight. When you land at a controlled field you're at the end of the
> line. There are no controllers down the line to advise that you've
> cancelled because you're at the end of the line.

Does the last computer to handle your IFR flight simply can it after
some time period has expired? I'm just curious what event removes the
last trace of my IFR flight from the ATC computers.


Matt

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ps.com:

>> Ummm lost pilot doesn't bode well for traffic?????
>>
>
> No, why does what I describe **almost** sound like an emergency
> situation for a lost pilot?

Ummm, situational awareness comes to mind???? A pilot bumbling around a
busy airport and not seeing the airport sure sounds like an emergency
situation developing to me.

Surely you can't see a bumbling pilot poking along through a pattern of
an airport not causing problems or an emergency situation that may
directly affect the safety of flight. Big sky theory will fail.

Note, it may not even be the bumbling pilot, but another pilot that has
to take evasive action due to the lack of situational awareness from the
lost pilot. Yep, a developing emergency.

>> Be realistic, clear
>> day, VMC and the pilot doesn't see the airport within a couple of
miles?
>>
>> Sounds like a problem, not the norm.
>>
>
> No, not if the the pilot doesn't see the field within a couple of
> miles, if he doesn't see it until he is within a couple of miles.

obviously you are playing some type of semantic game as I really have no
clue what you are trying to say above.....

My take for what it's worth, if a pilot does not see an airport within a
couple of miles FROM THE AIRPORT, then you have a potential emergency
situation developing. Loss of situational awareness surely can be
considered an emergency. As stated in an earlier post, this is not
normal that I have seen in my short 5 years of flying.

If you are trying to say that the pilot doesn't see an airport from lets
say 15 miles vs 13 miles out from the airport, then yeah, that isn't a
problem.

Allen

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > Everett M. Greene wrote:
> >
> >>Are you saying that a telephone call isn't made or are
> >>you saying that nobody in the tower closes the flight
> >>plan?
> >>
> >
> >
> > What is so hard about this? When you cancel IFR inflight all
> > controllers down the line from whatever point you cancelled must be
> > notified that you have cancelled. This is normally done by the
> > computer, controllers receive a "remove strips" message for your
> > flight. When you land at a controlled field you're at the end of the
> > line. There are no controllers down the line to advise that you've
> > cancelled because you're at the end of the line.
>
> Does the last computer to handle your IFR flight simply can it after
> some time period has expired? I'm just curious what event removes the
> last trace of my IFR flight from the ATC computers.
>
>
> Matt

There is an anti-flight plan floating around in a parallel universe. When
your wheels touch the ground the two universes come into contact and the
flight plan and the anti-flight plan annihilate each other.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Does the last computer to handle your IFR flight simply can it after
> some time period has expired? I'm just curious what event removes the
> last trace of my IFR flight from the ATC computers.
>

It times out.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> Does the last computer to handle your IFR flight simply can it after
> some time period has expired?


It's the last computer. What else would that computer do? That
computer prints out an arrival strip for me when you are 30 minutes from
my boundary. That's it as far as the computer is concerned. If you're
in a jet you are about 300 miles away and the computer has washed its
hands of you.




I'm just curious what event removes the
> last trace of my IFR flight from the ATC computers.

There is no event. It spits out the last strip and when the system
stops receiving your transponder code you must have landed.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> Ummm, situational awareness comes to mind???? A pilot bumbling around a
> busy airport and not seeing the airport sure sounds like an emergency
> situation developing to me.
>

We're not talking about busy airports. Busy airports have Class B or C
airspace. Since we're talking about flight following we're limited to
airports in Class D, E, and G airspace.


>
> Surely you can't see a bumbling pilot poking along through a pattern of
> an airport not causing problems or an emergency situation that may
> directly affect the safety of flight. Big sky theory will fail.
>
> Note, it may not even be the bumbling pilot, but another pilot that has
> to take evasive action due to the lack of situational awareness from the
> lost pilot. Yep, a developing emergency.
>

Sure can. That's why the pilot should be on tower frequency or CTAF
when he gets close to the field, not on flight following.


>
> obviously you are playing some type of semantic game as I really have no
> clue what you are trying to say above.....
>

I'm trying to say a good controller won't advise aircraft on flight
following to report the field in sight.


>
> My take for what it's worth, if a pilot does not see an airport within a
> couple of miles FROM THE AIRPORT, then you have a potential emergency
> situation developing. Loss of situational awareness surely can be
> considered an emergency. As stated in an earlier post, this is not
> normal that I have seen in my short 5 years of flying.
>

Nonsense. Not seeing the airport doesn't mean you're lost, it just
means you haven't sighted the airport yet.


>
> If you are trying to say that the pilot doesn't see an airport from lets
> say 15 miles vs 13 miles out from the airport, then yeah, that isn't a
> problem.
>

I'm trying to say there's no reason for a controller to advise aircraft
on flight following to report the field in sight. Such a report has no
purpose. When you get close to the field, say ten miles or so, you
should be talking to the tower or on CTAF, not on flight following.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> You were landing at a controlled airport which I can fully understand (I.E
> me reporting visual of AC in front of me and getting the instructions,
> Sundowner 1943L, maintain seperation, cleared for the visual approach).
>
> I have never received that instruction at an UNcontrolled airport. Like I
> said in my prior post, I am not saying it can't be done, it's just that I
> have never been cleared for the visual without the traffic in front of me
> cancelling their IFR at an UNcontrolled airport.
>

Odd, I seem to recall you saying in a prior post that it couldn't be
done.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> You were landing at a controlled airport which I can fully understand (I.E
> me reporting visual of AC in front of me and getting the instructions,
> Sundowner 1943L, maintain seperation, cleared for the visual approach).
>
> I have never received that instruction at an UNcontrolled airport. Like I
> said in my prior post, I am not saying it can't be done, it's just that I
> have never been cleared for the visual without the traffic in front of me
> cancelling their IFR at an UNcontrolled airport.
>

Odd, I seem to recall you saying in a prior post that it couldn't be
done.

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> A Lieberma wrote:
>>
>> You were landing at a controlled airport which I can fully understand
>> (I.E me reporting visual of AC in front of me and getting the
>> instructions, Sundowner 1943L, maintain seperation, cleared for the
>> visual approach).
>>
>> I have never received that instruction at an UNcontrolled airport.
>> Like I said in my prior post, I am not saying it can't be done, it's
>> just that I have never been cleared for the visual without the
>> traffic in front of me cancelling their IFR at an UNcontrolled
>> airport.
>>
>
> Odd, I seem to recall you saying in a prior post that it couldn't be
> done.

Lets go this route and put the ball in your court :-)

Can you show me a reference that you can clear an IFR plane into an
UNCONTROLLED airport without receiving a cancellation from the IFR traffic
in front?

Allen

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> A Lieberma wrote:
>>
>> Ummm, situational awareness comes to mind???? A pilot bumbling around
a
>> busy airport and not seeing the airport sure sounds like an emergency
>> situation developing to me.
>>
>
> We're not talking about busy airports. Busy airports have Class B or C
> airspace. Since we're talking about flight following we're limited to
> airports in Class D, E, and G airspace.

Plenty of busy UNcontrolled and D class airports underlay the shelfs of B
and C....

> Nonsense. Not seeing the airport doesn't mean you're lost, it just
> means you haven't sighted the airport yet.

From my point of view, if you have not sighted the airport from a few
miles out (my definition of a few is 2 to 3 miles), either you are in
conditions that you shouldn't be in (below VFR) or you are situationally
lost. As you know, in a typical C172 speed, that is only 1 to 1 1/2
minutes to the airport, far too short to be properly entering a pattern
(especially if the airport has non standard patterns, such as right
turns).

> I'm trying to say there's no reason for a controller to advise aircraft
> on flight following to report the field in sight. Such a report has no
> purpose. When you get close to the field, say ten miles or so, you
> should be talking to the tower or on CTAF, not on flight following.

Now, we are getting somewhere, and yes, I do agree with you.

Unfortunately, when KJAN is busy, releasing me 10 miles out from KMBO in
Charlie airpsace when traffic is using 16L is not exactly a good idea. I
have been held on frequency by approach up to 5 miles to the airport when
approaching KMBO from the east or north east. Coming from the south, you
won't be released by approach until you are passed the final approach
courses for 16R and 16L.

Personally, knowing where my own airport is, I don't have any problems
being released early, but when I go to airports I am not familiar with,
then I'd rather have the controller hold on to me until I get a visual.
Airport advisories such as xxxx 8 miles 12 o'clock are always appreciated
even though I already may have this info on my GPS.

So, while you may not see the reason for a controller to ask a VFR
traffic to report airport in sight, doesn't mean it's a useless request.

Plus, it may be a confort factor to the controller knowing the pilot does
have the airport in sight before turning him over to CTAF (or tower).

Allen

[Ron Natalie]

Roy Smith wrote:

> There is an anti-flight plan floating around in a parallel universe. When
> your wheels touch the ground the two universes come into contact and the
> flight plan and the anti-flight plan annihilate each other.

And a photon is emitted (either that or the end of the universe occurs).

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> Lets go this route and put the ball in your court :-)
>
> Can you show me a reference that you can clear an IFR plane into an
> UNCONTROLLED airport without receiving a cancellation from the IFR traffic
> in front?
>

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0702.html

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0704.html

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> Plenty of busy UNcontrolled and D class airports underlay the shelfs of B
> and C....
>

Can you name some of them?


>
> From my point of view, if you have not sighted the airport from a few
> miles out (my definition of a few is 2 to 3 miles), either you are in
> conditions that you shouldn't be in (below VFR) or you are situationally
> lost. As you know, in a typical C172 speed, that is only 1 to 1 1/2
> minutes to the airport, far too short to be properly entering a pattern
> (especially if the airport has non standard patterns, such as right
> turns).
>

Sounds like your point of view is based on rather limited experience,
but let's get back on point. If you're two or three miles from the
airport should you be on flight following or should you be on CTAF or
tower frequency?


>
> Now, we are getting somewhere, and yes, I do agree with you.
>

Finally.


>
> Unfortunately, when KJAN is busy, releasing me 10 miles out from KMBO in
> Charlie airpsace when traffic is using 16L is not exactly a good idea. I
> have been held on frequency by approach up to 5 miles to the airport when
> approaching KMBO from the east or north east. Coming from the south, you
> won't be released by approach until you are passed the final approach
> courses for 16R and 16L.
>

If you're in Charlie airspace you're not on flight following, you're
receiving Class C services. Even so, controllers are required to
terminate Class C services to aircraft landing at secondary airports at
a point that will allow them to obtain airport and traffic information.


http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html#7-8-8


>
> Personally, knowing where my own airport is, I don't have any problems
> being released early, but when I go to airports I am not familiar with,
> then I'd rather have the controller hold on to me until I get a visual.
> Airport advisories such as xxxx 8 miles 12 o'clock are always appreciated
> even though I already may have this info on my GPS.
>

Is that because you lack confidence in your GPS?


>
> So, while you may not see the reason for a controller to ask a VFR
> traffic to report airport in sight, doesn't mean it's a useless request.
>

No, but if there was a reason for a controller to ask a VFR aircraft on
flight following to report the field in sight I would see it. It's a
useless request because it has no useful purpose.


>
> Plus, it may be a confort factor to the controller knowing the pilot does
> have the airport in sight before turning him over to CTAF (or tower).
>

How might that affect the controller's comfort?

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

A Lieberma wrote:

> Ummm lost pilot doesn't bode well for traffic????? Be realistic, clear
> day, VMC and the pilot doesn't see the airport within a couple of miles?
>
> Sounds like a problem, not the norm.

Ever approach an airport with no beacon at night, from the side, not
looking directly down the runway?

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message ...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> There is an anti-flight plan floating around in a parallel universe. When
>> your wheels touch the ground the two universes come into contact and the
>> flight plan and the anti-flight plan annihilate each other.
>
> And a photon is emitted (either that or the end of the universe occurs).

Ha!
And if something other than wheels touch ground, that photon is LARGER.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> A Lieberma wrote:
>> Plenty of busy UNcontrolled and D class airports underlay the shelfs of B
>> and C....
>>
>
> Can you name some of them?
>

I can spot a few on the top 50 towers list put out by the FAA.
All are class D outside, but under the floor of class C/B airspace.

VNY is the busiest GA airport in the country. It's far busier by
any measure than BUR whose class C it underlies.

APA is the 25th busiest airport in the country and is under DEN's
shelf.

DVT is the 27th (under PHX).

LGB at #30 is under LAX.

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Natalie wrote:

>>
>
> I can spot a few on the top 50 towers list put out by the FAA.
> All are class D outside, but under the floor of class C/B airspace.
>
> VNY is the busiest GA airport in the country. It's far busier by
> any measure than BUR whose class C it underlies.
>
Well not by any measure. It has zero scheduled air service.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> I can spot a few on the top 50 towers list put out by the FAA.
> All are class D outside, but under the floor of class C/B airspace.
>
> VNY is the busiest GA airport in the country. It's far busier by
> any measure than BUR whose class C it underlies.
>
> APA is the 25th busiest airport in the country and is under DEN's
> shelf.
>
> DVT is the 27th (under PHX).
>
> LGB at #30 is under LAX.
>

What would you do as you approached them while on flight following,
assuming you do not yet have the field in sight and the controller
instructed you to report the field?

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
oups.com:

> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/
> ATC/Chp7/atc0702.html
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/
> ATC/Chp7/atc0704.html

Thank you....

Sheez, this was like extracting a tooth.... Would have been nice for you to
say hey Allen, check out yada yada yada to correct the error of my ways.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> Thank you....
>

You're welcome.


>
> Sheez, this was like extracting a tooth....
>

I know the feeling well.


>
> Would have been nice for you to
> say hey Allen, check out yada yada yada to correct the error of my ways.
>

Why wasn't my word good enough?

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Why wasn't my word good enough?

I live by the words, trust but verify.....

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > Why wasn't my word good enough?
>
> I live by the words, trust but verify.....
>

Is that a recently acquired trait? Three days ago you wrote:

"If it's an IFR plane in front of you, you won't be cleared for the
visual to an UNcontrolled airport until that plane cancels his IFR. An
uncontrolled airport is literally shut down for IFR arrivals until that
IFR cancellation is received by the plane in front of you."

But that's not true, so it would appear you took somebody's word
without verification.

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>> DVT is the 27th (under PHX).
>>
> What would you do as you approached them while on flight following,
> assuming you do not yet have the field in sight and the controller
> instructed you to report the field?

Well since this is my home base, I would terminate flight following and request a frequency change when
about 10 miles from the airport, so I could give the tower a call. That is, if approach hadn't dropped me
before that.

Mike

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ps.com:

> Is that a recently acquired trait? Three days ago you wrote:
>
> "If it's an IFR plane in front of you, you won't be cleared for the
> visual to an UNcontrolled airport until that plane cancels his IFR. An
> uncontrolled airport is literally shut down for IFR arrivals until that
> IFR cancellation is received by the plane in front of you."
>
> But that's not true, so it would appear you took somebody's word
> without verification.

This was based on MY eperiences, quite frankly spelled out in another post.

I never said that somebody told me the above.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Mike Adams wrote:
>
> Well since this is my home base, I would terminate flight following and request a frequency change when
> about 10 miles from the airport, so I could give the tower a call. That is, if approach hadn't dropped me
> before that.
>

What about the report of the field in sight? Isn't safety compromised
if you terminate flight following before reporting the field in sight?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> This was based on MY eperiences, quite frankly spelled out in another post.
>
> I never said that somebody told me the above.
>

I must have missed that post. In the message where you declared a
visual approach shuts down an uncontrolled field until the aircraft
cancels IFR you spoke of an unrelated experience when you arrived in
IMC. So what was the experience that led to your erroneous conclusion?

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> Mike Adams wrote:
>>
>> Well since this is my home base, I would terminate flight following
>> and request a frequency change when about 10 miles from the airport,
>> so I could give the tower a call. That is, if approach hadn't dropped
>> me before that.
>>
>
> What about the report of the field in sight? Isn't safety compromised
> if you terminate flight following before reporting the field in sight?
>

How so? I can find the airport without ATC's help.

At this particular airport, radar coverage is pretty crummy, so approach is more likely to terminate me
before the 10 mile point anyway, and visibility is usually not an issue.

Mike

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ps.com:

> A Lieberma wrote:
>>
>> This was based on MY eperiences, quite frankly spelled out in another
>> post.
>>
>> I never said that somebody told me the above.
>>
>
> I must have missed that post. In the message where you declared a
> visual approach shuts down an uncontrolled field until the aircraft
> cancels IFR you spoke of an unrelated experience when you arrived in
> IMC. So what was the experience that led to your erroneous
> conclusion?

It was probably my mixing apples with oranges, thinking that the IMC
approaches where I couldn't get a SVFR clearance back to MBO (2 times I
tried this) so I could do a visual approach.

Controller said he was unable because the preceding traffic did not cancel
IFR.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> It was probably my mixing apples with oranges, thinking that the IMC
> approaches where I couldn't get a SVFR clearance back to MBO (2 times I
> tried this) so I could do a visual approach.
>
> Controller said he was unable because the preceding traffic did not cancel
> IFR.
>

SVFR to MBO? SVFR isn't available to MBO as MBO lacks a surface area.

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ps.com:

> SVFR to MBO? SVFR isn't available to MBO as MBO lacks a surface area.

I guess I should have requested a contact approach instead, but SVFR came
to my head at the time :-)

Allen

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2006-12-12, A Lieberma > wrote:
> I guess I should have requested a contact approach instead, but SVFR came
> to my head at the time :-)
>
> Allen

You need 1 SM reported visibility at the airport. With no controlled airspace
down to the surface, you probably won't have that either, so you won't be
able to get clearance for a contact approach.

-Milen

[A Lieberma]

Milen Lazarov > wrote in
:

> You need 1 SM reported visibility at the airport. With no controlled
> airspace down to the surface, you probably won't have that either, so
> you won't be able to get clearance for a contact approach.

In both approaches, viz wasn't the problem so much as the 900 foot
ceilings.

Had the viz been bad, it wouldn't have even crossed my mind to request a
SVFR.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> I guess I should have requested a contact approach instead, but SVFR came
> to my head at the time :-)
>

Where's the advantage in that? You'd still have to wait for the
previous aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Milen Lazarov wrote:
>
> You need 1 SM reported visibility at the airport. With no controlled airspace
> down to the surface, you probably won't have that either, so you won't be
> able to get clearance for a contact approach.
>

Weather reporting is a requirement for a surface area, but the absence
of a surface area does not mean the absence of weather reporting. MBO
has an AWOS.

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2006-12-13, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> Weather reporting is a requirement for a surface area, but the absence
> of a surface area does not mean the absence of weather reporting. MBO
> has an AWOS.

That's why I said 'probably'.

Do all AWOSes report weather to US NWS/ATC?

-Milen

[Newps]

Milen Lazarov wrote:

>
> Do all AWOSes report weather to US NWS/ATC?

No, all these new Super AWOS's that are sprouting up everywhere are not
reported at all to the system. And from the ones I've seen here you
have to be within 10 miles to even receive the braodcast.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Milen Lazarov wrote:

>
> That's why I said 'probably'.
>

Your statement was incorrect.


>
> Do all AWOSes report weather to US NWS/ATC?
>

Probably.

[Newps]

Milen Lazarov wrote:

>
>
>>Do all AWOSes report weather to US NWS/ATC?

No.

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> Alan Gerber wrote:
> > I assume the purpose it serves is it tells them when they can terminate
> > flight following.
> They can't terminate flight following if the aircraft hasn't reported
> the field in sight?

Well, sure, of course they can. They can terminate it whenever they want.
I had assumed that my sighting the field was the trigger for ending it --
because then I'd be ready to switch to the tower or CTAF.

And if I had any doubt about my ability to find the airport, then I'd
certainly want to keep flight following going until I *did* have the field
in sight.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> What if you're just a couple of miles from the field but haven't
> reported it in sight?

I'm not sure. I wouldn't want to drop from the frequency without flight
following being terminated. If I didn't report it because I didn't see
it, I'd ask for help finding it. If I didn't report it because I just
dropped from the frequency, what would happen? Would it trigger S&R
procedures?

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> A Lieberma wrote:
> > Plenty of busy UNcontrolled and D class airports underlay the shelfs of B
> > and C....
> Can you name some of them?

Underneath the New York Class B airspace: TEB (Teterboro), MMU
(Morristown), CDW (Caldwell), HPN (Westchester), and FRG (Farmingdale) -
all pretty busy Class D airports.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Gerber writes:

> Underneath the New York Class B airspace: TEB (Teterboro), MMU
> (Morristown), CDW (Caldwell), HPN (Westchester), and FRG (Farmingdale) -
> all pretty busy Class D airports.

Underneath KPHX, Deer Valley, Scottsdale, Williams Gateway, Falcon
Field, Chandler. Scottsdale is very popular for GA, Williams handles
a lot of the overload from KPHX and is thus very busy for a Class D.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, sure, of course they can. They can terminate it whenever they want.
> I had assumed that my sighting the field was the trigger for ending it --
> because then I'd be ready to switch to the tower or CTAF.
>

Shouldn't you be terminated when it's time to switch to tower or CTAF even
if you don't have the field in sight?


>
> And if I had any doubt about my ability to find the airport, then I'd
> certainly want to keep flight following going until I *did* have the field
> in sight.
>

Why?

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> Shouldn't you be terminated when it's time to switch to tower or CTAF even
> if you don't have the field in sight?

I don't know. How do you mean "should" here: as what's best, or as
what's standard procedure? I've only experienced having them wait to
terminate until I had the field in sight.

When *is* "time to switch"? Again, I had thought - by inferring from how
I've been handled - that it's time to switch when I actually have the
field in sight.

> > And if I had any doubt about my ability to find the airport, then I'd
> > certainly want to keep flight following going until I *did* have the field
> > in sight.

> Why?

Because if I'm having trouble spotting the field, either I need help
because it's hard to find, or I'm just not in the right place (i.e.,
"lost"), and need help finding it because I'm lost.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> Underneath the New York Class B airspace: TEB (Teterboro), MMU
> (Morristown), CDW (Caldwell), HPN (Westchester), and FRG (Farmingdale) -
> all pretty busy Class D airports.
>

When you're in any of that Class D airspace, do you feel you should be
talking to the tower or still on flight following?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know. How do you mean "should" here: as what's best, or as
> what's standard procedure? I've only experienced having them wait to
> terminate until I had the field in sight.
>

Instructing VFR aircraft on flight following to advise when they have the
field in sight is not standard procedure and does not have any useful
purpose.


>
> When *is* "time to switch"? Again, I had thought - by inferring from how
> I've been handled - that it's time to switch when I actually have the
> field in sight.
>

It's time to switch at a point that will allow the aircraft to contact the
tower before entering Class D airspace.


>
> Because if I'm having trouble spotting the field, either I need help
> because it's hard to find, or I'm just not in the right place (i.e.,
> "lost"), and need help finding it because I'm lost.
>

How is keeping flight following, by itself, beneficial in those cases?

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/18/06 15:04, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Underneath the New York Class B airspace: TEB (Teterboro), MMU
>> (Morristown), CDW (Caldwell), HPN (Westchester), and FRG (Farmingdale) -
>> all pretty busy Class D airports.
>>
>
> When you're in any of that Class D airspace, do you feel you should be
> talking to the tower or still on flight following?
>

Is there a reason why the pilot should not be on flight following once he
enters Class D airspace?

The controller will hand you off to the tower when both are ready for you.

To the original poster: Sighting the field is not what is needed to have
the FF controller hand you off to the tower controller. I think because
this has happened to you a few times, you may have gotten the wrong
impression.

The FF controller is not waiting for you to find the field. He assumes you
know where you're going. He is not providing directions to you (unless
you ask for it, of course).

Telling the FF controller that you have the field in sight is just a polite
way of letting the controller know that you're ready to be handed off to
the tower. It is not necessary. The FF controller will hand you off when
he and the tower controller are ready for you. If you want it sooner, just
ask: "XXX Approach, Cessna XXXX, Request frequency change to XXX tower",
or just terminate flight following.

As to whether or not you've spotted the field, this has little to do with
either controller - again, they assume you know where you're going. If you
need help, ask either one.

Hope this helps,

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is there a reason why the pilot should not be on flight following once he
> enters Class D airspace?
>

Yes, if he's not talking to the tower when he enters Class D airspace he's
busted FAR 91.129(c)(1).


>
> The controller will hand you off to the tower when both are ready for you.
>

How does that work?


>
> Telling the FF controller that you have the field in sight is just a
> polite
> way of letting the controller know that you're ready to be handed off to
> the tower. It is not necessary. The FF controller will hand you off when
> he and the tower controller are ready for you. If you want it sooner, just
> ask: "XXX Approach, Cessna XXXX, Request frequency change to XXX tower",
> or just terminate flight following.
>

As I recall the issue was why do some controllers tell VFR aircraft on
flight following to report the field in sight.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/18/06 15:42, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Is there a reason why the pilot should not be on flight following once he
>> enters Class D airspace?
>>
>
> Yes, if he's not talking to the tower when he enters Class D airspace he's
> busted FAR 91.129(c)(1).

No, his communication requirements are met by maintaining communication
with the ATC facility providing flight following.

>
>
>>
>> The controller will hand you off to the tower when both are ready for you.
>>
>
> How does that work?
>
>
>>
>> Telling the FF controller that you have the field in sight is just a
>> polite
>> way of letting the controller know that you're ready to be handed off to
>> the tower. It is not necessary. The FF controller will hand you off when
>> he and the tower controller are ready for you. If you want it sooner, just
>> ask: "XXX Approach, Cessna XXXX, Request frequency change to XXX tower",
>> or just terminate flight following.
>>
>
> As I recall the issue was why do some controllers tell VFR aircraft on
> flight following to report the field in sight.

I was responding to your question, which was:

When you're in any of that Class D airspace, do you feel you should be
talking to the tower or still on flight following?


>
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, his communication requirements are met by maintaining communication
> with the ATC facility providing flight following.
>

How is that done?

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/18/06 17:35, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, his communication requirements are met by maintaining communication
>> with the ATC facility providing flight following.
>>
>
> How is that done?
>
>

What do you mean "how is it done?" The pilot is in communication
with ATC, the reg says the pilot must be in communication with
ATC.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> What do you mean "how is it done?" The pilot is in communication
> with ATC, the reg says the pilot must be in communication with
> ATC.
>

Communication with any ATC facility satisfies the requirements of the reg?
Doesn't the reg specify communication with the ATC facility providing air
traffic services in that airspace?

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/18/06 18:21, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What do you mean "how is it done?" The pilot is in communication
>> with ATC, the reg says the pilot must be in communication with
>> ATC.
>>
>
> Communication with any ATC facility satisfies the requirements of the reg?
> Doesn't the reg specify communication with the ATC facility providing air
> traffic services in that airspace?

Yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/18/06 18:21, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> What do you mean "how is it done?" The pilot is in communication
>>> with ATC, the reg says the pilot must be in communication with
>>> ATC.
>>>
>>
>> Communication with any ATC facility satisfies the requirements of the
>> reg?
>> Doesn't the reg specify communication with the ATC facility providing air
>> traffic services in that airspace?
>>
>
> Yes.
>

Which question are you answering?

[A Lieberma]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
k.net:

>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What do you mean "how is it done?" The pilot is in communication
>> with ATC, the reg says the pilot must be in communication with
>> ATC.
>>
>
> Communication with any ATC facility satisfies the requirements of the
> reg? Doesn't the reg specify communication with the ATC facility
> providing air traffic services in that airspace?

You should know of all people Steven that it may not be necessary to talk
to class D tower if there is a letter of agreement between ATC components.

Just like Mark said, pilot is in communication with ATC.

I have been in HKS airspace many a times without talking to tower while
manuevering around downtown Jackson at 2000 feet. I have always been in
contact with JAN during these times and never switched over to HKS.

Allen

[Jose[_1_]]

> When *is* "time to switch"? Again, I had thought - by inferring from how
> I've been handled - that it's time to switch when I actually have the
> field in sight.

IMHO, It's time to switch when you're close enough in for a position
report to be helpful to local traffic, and far enough out for there to
be time to listen, to give it, and have an appropriate response (which
you may or may not not hear). Three miles is probably too close, ten is
probably not necessary. You can of course elect to terminate FF any
time you want, especially if you are confident in finding the runway.
You can always come back on freq. and ask for help.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[A Lieberma]

Jose > wrote in
:

> You can of course elect to terminate FF
> any time you want, especially if you are confident in finding the
> runway. You can always come back on freq. and ask for help.

If you have to go back on frequency to ask for help in finding an airport,
I'd say you are way behind the airplane or less then VFR conditions.

Allen

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you have to go back on frequency to ask for help in finding an airport,
> I'd say you are way behind the airplane or less then VFR conditions.

Maybe, and that's a time to ask for help. But maybe the airport is
actually hard to spot. Many grass strips are like that, especially if
unfamiliar, a little hazy, and not very prominent to begin with.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What if you're just a couple of miles from the field but haven't
>> reported it in sight?
>>
>
> I'm not sure. I wouldn't want to drop from the frequency without flight
> following being terminated.
>

Why not?


>
> If I didn't report it because I didn't see
> it, I'd ask for help finding it.
>

Would you make that request when you were just a couple of miles from the
field, or would you make it a bit earlier than that?


>
> If I didn't report it because I just
> dropped from the frequency, what would happen?
>

Probably nothing. It's not uncommon for VFR pilots to do just that.


>
> Would it trigger S&R procedures?
>

No. Loss of radio and radar contact in an area where the controller would
expect to have both would trigger a search, but not lass of radio contact
alone.

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> Instructing VFR aircraft on flight following to advise when they have the
> field in sight is not standard procedure and does not have any useful
> purpose.

I didn't know that. I've always received that instruction; maybe it's a
regional thing?

> > When *is* "time to switch"? Again, I had thought - by inferring from how
> > I've been handled - that it's time to switch when I actually have the
> > field in sight.

> It's time to switch at a point that will allow the aircraft to contact the
> tower before entering Class D airspace.

Is that really a necessary demarcation if approach is going to hand me off
to the tower?

> > Because if I'm having trouble spotting the field, either I need help
> > because it's hard to find, or I'm just not in the right place (i.e.,
> > "lost"), and need help finding it because I'm lost.

> How is keeping flight following, by itself, beneficial in those cases?

It's not particularly necessary, but it sure does save time. I got lost
on my first student cross-country solo, and it was a lot easier to ask
Approach for help, since I already had a squawk code, and, even though *I*
didn't know where I was, *they* already did. I could have contacted them
and gotten the same help, but it was faster since I was already - pardon
the expression - on their radar.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> > I'm not sure. I wouldn't want to drop from the frequency without flight
> > following being terminated.

> Why not?

Because I assumed it would be smoother to formally terminate it. I also
thought that it could trigger S&R, depending on the circumstances.

From your response below, though, I see my assumptions are unfounded.

> > If I didn't report it because I didn't see
> > it, I'd ask for help finding it.
> >

> Would you make that request when you were just a couple of miles from the
> field, or would you make it a bit earlier than that?

It depends. If I were looking for a field inside a B or C airspace, or
with somewhere I didn't want to go on the other side, I'd probably ask for
help sooner, rather than risk being in the wrong place. Otherwise, I'd
probably make the request *later*, after trying to find it on my own.

(In case anybody forgets the context, we're talking VFR here, not IFR.)

> > If I didn't report it because I just
> > dropped from the frequency, what would happen?

> Probably nothing. It's not uncommon for VFR pilots to do just that.

That's good to know. Not that I'd do it on purpose, but it's nice to know
it's acceptable.

> > Would it trigger S&R procedures?

> No. Loss of radio and radar contact in an area where the controller would
> expect to have both would trigger a search, but not lass of radio contact
> alone.

Again, that's good to know.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
>
> You should know of all people Steven that it may not be necessary to talk
> to class D tower if there is a letter of agreement between ATC components.
>
> Just like Mark said, pilot is in communication with ATC.
>
> I have been in HKS airspace many a times without talking to tower while
> manuevering around downtown Jackson at 2000 feet. I have always been in
> contact with JAN during these times and never switched over to HKS.
>

We're not talking about those kinds of flights. We're talking about a
flight that intends to land at a towered field at the center of Class D
airspace

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/26/06 11:41, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "A Lieberma" > wrote in message
> . 18...
>>
>> You should know of all people Steven that it may not be necessary to talk
>> to class D tower if there is a letter of agreement between ATC components.
>>
>> Just like Mark said, pilot is in communication with ATC.
>>
>> I have been in HKS airspace many a times without talking to tower while
>> manuevering around downtown Jackson at 2000 feet. I have always been in
>> contact with JAN during these times and never switched over to HKS.
>>
>
> We're not talking about those kinds of flights. We're talking about a
> flight that intends to land at a towered field at the center of Class D
> airspace
>
>

But earlier in this thread, you said:

> Yes, if he's not talking to the tower when he enters Class D airspace he's
> busted FAR 91.129(c)(1).


Now, you say that applies only if the pilot intends to land at the Class D
airport? Where is that distinction mentioned in the regs?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is that really a necessary demarcation if approach is going to hand me off
> to the tower?
>

What do you mean by hand you off to the tower? A handoff is a radar
function.


>
> It's not particularly necessary, but it sure does save time. I got lost
> on my first student cross-country solo, and it was a lot easier to ask
> Approach for help, since I already had a squawk code, and, even though *I*
> didn't know where I was, *they* already did. I could have contacted them
> and gotten the same help, but it was faster since I was already - pardon
> the expression - on their radar.
>

Flight following, by itself, is just traffic advisories.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> It depends. If I were looking for a field inside a B or C airspace, or
> with somewhere I didn't want to go on the other side, I'd probably ask for
> help sooner, rather than risk being in the wrong place. Otherwise, I'd
> probably make the request *later*, after trying to find it on my own.
>

That risk is acceptable in the case of Class D airspace?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> But earlier in this thread, you said:
>
>> Yes, if he's not talking to the tower when he enters Class D airspace
>> he's
>> busted FAR 91.129(c)(1).
>
>
> Now, you say that applies only if the pilot intends to land at the Class D
> airport? Where is that distinction mentioned in the regs?
>

In FAR 91.129(c)(1).


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of
foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic
services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those
communications while within that airspace.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>But earlier in this thread, you said:
>>> Yes, if he's not talking to the tower when he enters Class D airspace
>>> he's
>>> busted FAR 91.129(c)(1).
>> Now, you say that applies only if the pilot intends to land at the Class D
>> airport? Where is that distinction mentioned in the regs?
> In FAR 91.129(c)(1).
> § 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
> (c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
> must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
>
> (1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
> communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of
> foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic
> services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those
> communications while within that airspace.

There's nothing here about "intent to land". Only "operating an
aircraft in Class D"

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> > It depends. If I were looking for a field inside a B or C airspace, or
> > with somewhere I didn't want to go on the other side, I'd probably ask for
> > help sooner, rather than risk being in the wrong place. Otherwise, I'd
> > probably make the request *later*, after trying to find it on my own.

> That risk is acceptable in the case of Class D airspace?

You make a good point -- I was thinking about non-towered fields when I
wrote that. It sort of came out wrong; I wouldn't want to bust a D
airspace either.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> > Is that really a necessary demarcation if approach is going to hand me off
> > to the tower?

> What do you mean by hand you off to the tower? A handoff is a radar
> function.

I mean tell the tower I'm coming and have me keep my squawk code when I
contact the tower. Does this have another name? Is this not normally
done at class D airports?

> > It's not particularly necessary, but it sure does save time. I got lost
> > on my first student cross-country solo, and it was a lot easier to ask
> > Approach for help, since I already had a squawk code, and, even though *I*
> > didn't know where I was, *they* already did. I could have contacted them
> > and gotten the same help, but it was faster since I was already - pardon
> > the expression - on their radar.

> Flight following, by itself, is just traffic advisories.

Well, sure. But, as I said, if you're already in communication with ATC,
you can get assistance faster if you get lost.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/26/06 13:53, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But earlier in this thread, you said:
>>
>>> Yes, if he's not talking to the tower when he enters Class D airspace
>>> he's
>>> busted FAR 91.129(c)(1).
>>
>>
>> Now, you say that applies only if the pilot intends to land at the Class D
>> airport? Where is that distinction mentioned in the regs?

So you dodged my question. I'll assume that means that you realized you
were wrong ;-)

>>
>
> In FAR 91.129(c)(1).
>
>
> � 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
> (c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
> must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
>
> (1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
> communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of
> foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic
> services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those
> communications while within that airspace.
>
>

And why do you think the approach controller handing the area does not
meet this regulation?




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> I mean tell the tower I'm coming and have me keep my squawk code when I
> contact the tower. Does this have another name? Is this not normally
> done at class D airports?
>

What's the advantage in having the radar controller call the tower with that
information?

I used to be a controller at Chicago Center, we provided services at
Oshkosh, OSH tower has no radar. When providing flight following I would
give a final traffic advisory and terminate radar service about ten miles
out. Something like, "Skylane 1234A, radar service terminated squawk VFR, I
have no targets between you and the field, contact Oshkosh tower 118.5."
There's no need to call the tower since the pilot will provide all the
information in his initial call that I could have passed anyway, no reason
to keep the beacon code as the tower had no radar.
I now work at Green Bay Approach, we provide services at Appleton, ATW tower
has a BRITE radar scope. For VFR arrivals ATW will see a full data block
showing the call sign, type aircraft, speed, altitude, and an "A" that
indicates the aircraft is landing at ATW. I just ship the aircraft to the
tower about ten miles out. I don't terminate radar service since the tower
can still issue traffic advisories.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you dodged my question. I'll assume that means that you realized you
> were wrong ;-)
>

I didn't dodge your question, I thought the distinction you were seeking was
in what ATC facility to call. I never said it applies only if the pilot
intends to land at the Class D airport.


>
> And why do you think the approach controller handing the area does not
> meet this regulation?
>

Because approach control has no authority over VFR operations in Class D
airspace.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I mean tell the tower I'm coming and have me keep my squawk code when I
>> contact the tower. Does this have another name? Is this not normally
>> done at class D airports?
>>
>
> What's the advantage in having the radar controller call the tower with that
> information?

Perhaps you should use your connections and ask that very same
question to San Carlos Tower (KSQL), as they have pilots coming in
exactly like this, and they *ARE* a Class D airport.

In fact, it isn't only the TRACON that is doing this, KSFO
Tower does this as well. Constantly and Consistently, the following
is given to pilots:

"N123CM, leaving Class Bravo airspace to the south, radar services
terminated, maintain your present beacon code, contact San Carlos
Tower, 119.0."

Want proof of it, hit up the KSFO Tower feed at LiveATC. Now, I
haven't visited KSQL so I don't know if they have BRITE, but from my
tour of NCT, controllers there told us that it is done so the tower
knows who is who as they drop below the Class B floor. For some they do
call the tower to let them know who is coming in (pending how the
traffic load is), some they don't. But it is a standard practice
happening at one of the busiest centralized TRACONs in the airspace.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFkez3yBkZmuMZ8L8RAuDmAJ4z+npZ1p6FNHg06hAJsN PRrmNdUACfTG8s
k8TH1tQ/czgmiL9P0xrOSC0=
=PjrQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/26/06 19:41, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So you dodged my question. I'll assume that means that you realized you
>> were wrong ;-)
>>
>
> I didn't dodge your question, I thought the distinction you were seeking was
> in what ATC facility to call. I never said it applies only if the pilot
> intends to land at the Class D airport.

I'll try to lay it out for you.

Allen said:

> Just like Mark said, pilot is in communication with ATC.
>
> I have been in HKS airspace many a times without talking to tower while
> manuevering around downtown Jackson at 2000 feet. I have always been in
> contact with JAN during these times and never switched over to HKS.
>

to which you said:

> We're not talking about those kinds of flights. We're talking about a
> flight that intends to land at a towered field at the center of Class D
> airspace

Doesn't that mean that you believe flights intending to land at the Class
D airport must be in communication with the tower before entering the
Class D airspace, while through-flights do not?

Otherwise, what did you mean by "We're not talking about those kinds of
flights..."?



>
>
>>
>> And why do you think the approach controller handing the area does not
>> meet this regulation?
>>
>
> Because approach control has no authority over VFR operations in Class D
> airspace.


What does VFR operations have to do with it? This is not a distinction made
by the regulations (if I'm wrong, please cite the reg).


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Perhaps you should use your connections and ask that very same
> question to San Carlos Tower (KSQL), as they have pilots coming in
> exactly like this, and they *ARE* a Class D airport.
>

No need to, I already know the answer. What makes you think NORCAL approach
makes a phone call to San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals?


>
> In fact, it isn't only the TRACON that is doing this, KSFO
> Tower does this as well. Constantly and Consistently, the following
> is given to pilots:
>
> "N123CM, leaving Class Bravo airspace to the south, radar services
> terminated, maintain your present beacon code, contact San Carlos
> Tower, 119.0."
>

That instruction tells you that San Francisco tower makes a phone call to
San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals?


>
> Want proof of it, hit up the KSFO Tower feed at LiveATC.
>

Interfacility phone calls are on LiveATC?


>
> Now, I haven't visited KSQL so I don't know if they have BRITE, but from
> my
> tour of NCT, controllers there told us that it is done so the tower
> knows who is who as they drop below the Class B floor.
>

What would be the point in telling aircraft to maintain their present beacon
code if SQL tower had no radar?


>
> For some they do
> call the tower to let them know who is coming in (pending how the
> traffic load is), some they don't. But it is a standard practice
> happening at one of the busiest centralized TRACONs in the airspace.
>

More likely a misunderstanding on your part.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll try to lay it out for you.
>

Appreciate it.


>
> Allen said:
>
>> Just like Mark said, pilot is in communication with ATC.
>>
>> I have been in HKS airspace many a times without talking to tower while
>> manuevering around downtown Jackson at 2000 feet. I have always been in
>> contact with JAN during these times and never switched over to HKS.
>>
>
> to which you said:
>
>> We're not talking about those kinds of flights. We're talking about a
>> flight that intends to land at a towered field at the center of Class D
>> airspace
>
> Doesn't that mean that you believe flights intending to land at the Class
> D airport must be in communication with the tower before entering the
> Class D airspace, while through-flights do not?
>

That's correct. The radar controller can coordinate flights through Class D
airspace with the tower but flights that are landing at the towered field
must be shipped to the tower prior to entering Class D airspace. See FAAO
7110.65 paragraphs 2-1-16.b. and c. below. If you're landing and you're
still on flight following when you cross the Class D boundary it's probably
because the radar controller forgot about you, but his error does not
absolve you of compliance with FAR 91.129(c)(1). Compliance with applicable
FARs is your responsibility.


FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach control tower on an
individual aircraft basis before issuing a clearance which would require
flight within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility unless
otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Letters of Agreement, Para 4-3-1.
14 CFR Section 91.127, Operating on or in the Vicinity of an Airport in
Class E Airspace.
P/CG Term- Surface Area.

b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization
when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that
will enter another facility's airspace.

NOTE-
The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each
area when in contact with a radar facility.

c. Transfer communications to the appropriate facility, if required, prior
to operation within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Radio Communications Transfer, Para 2-1-17.
FAAO 7110.65, Surface Area Restrictions, Para 3-1-11.
FAAO 7110.65, Application, Para 7-6-1.
14 CFR Section 91.129, Operations in Class D Airspace.


>
> What does VFR operations have to do with it? This is not a distinction
> made by the regulations (if I'm wrong, please cite the reg).
>

You're wrong, I'll cite the regulation for you again:

§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of
foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic
services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those
communications while within that airspace.


The regulation requires two-way radio communications to be established with
*the* ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering that
airspace. It's specific, it doesn't say *an* ATC facility providing
services. As you interpret the regulation, establishing radio
communications with ARR tower would authorize entry into the JVL Class D
airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/18/06 18:21, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean "how is it done?" The pilot is in communication
>>>> with ATC, the reg says the pilot must be in communication with
>>>> ATC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Communication with any ATC facility satisfies the requirements of the
>>> reg?
>>> Doesn't the reg specify communication with the ATC facility providing
>>> air
>>> traffic services in that airspace?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> Which question are you answering?
>

You never answered that question. Are you dodging it?

[Jose[_1_]]

>>What does VFR operations have to do with it? This is not a distinction
>> made by the regulations (if I'm wrong, please cite the reg).
> You're wrong, I'll cite the regulation for you again:
>
> § 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
> [snip]
> The regulation requires two-way radio communications to be established with
> *the* ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering that
> airspace. It's specific, it doesn't say *an* ATC facility providing
> services.

Nothing there says anything about IFR or VFR. As for =the= ATC
facility, there is no distinction in the regs that pilots are presumed
to be familiar with for through flights vs terminating flights.

I see your point:
> The radar controller can coordinate flights through Class D
> airspace with the tower but flights that are landing at the towered field
> must be shipped to the tower prior to entering Class D airspace.

After all, the tower's specific authority is over the runways, not over
over the runways, and this would require communication with the actual
tower if one is landing there. But 91.129 says "with the ATC facility
([...]) providing air traffic services", and this doesn't (as you state
above) require it to be the tower, if there is some letter of agreement
that some other ATC facility will provide the services. Pilots are not
expected to be aware of all the letters of agreement, are they?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/27/06 11:38, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'll try to lay it out for you.
>>
>
> Appreciate it.
>
>
>>
>> Allen said:
>>
>>> Just like Mark said, pilot is in communication with ATC.
>>>
>>> I have been in HKS airspace many a times without talking to tower while
>>> manuevering around downtown Jackson at 2000 feet. I have always been in
>>> contact with JAN during these times and never switched over to HKS.
>>>
>>
>> to which you said:
>>
>>> We're not talking about those kinds of flights. We're talking about a
>>> flight that intends to land at a towered field at the center of Class D
>>> airspace
>>
>> Doesn't that mean that you believe flights intending to land at the Class
>> D airport must be in communication with the tower before entering the
>> Class D airspace, while through-flights do not?
>>
>
> That's correct. The radar controller can coordinate flights through Class D
> airspace with the tower but flights that are landing at the towered field
> must be shipped to the tower prior to entering Class D airspace. See FAAO
> 7110.65 paragraphs 2-1-16.b. and c. below.

Pilots don't operate under 7110.65. We use Part 91. Show me where, under
Part 91, it says that intending to land at a Class D airport requires
communication with the Class D tower before entering Class D airspace.

> If you're landing and you're
> still on flight following when you cross the Class D boundary it's probably
> because the radar controller forgot about you, but his error does not
> absolve you of compliance with FAR 91.129(c)(1).

In this case, 91.129(c)(1) has been fully complied with.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You just keep
regurgitating the same FAR.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/27/06 11:38, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 12/18/06 18:21, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean "how is it done?" The pilot is in communication
>>>>> with ATC, the reg says the pilot must be in communication with
>>>>> ATC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Communication with any ATC facility satisfies the requirements of the
>>>> reg?
>>>> Doesn't the reg specify communication with the ATC facility providing
>>>> air
>>>> traffic services in that airspace?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>
>> Which question are you answering?
>>
>
> You never answered that question. Are you dodging it?

It seemed pointless to continue trying, so I stopped.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Nothing there says anything about IFR or VFR. As for =the= ATC facility,
> there is no distinction in the regs that pilots are presumed to be
> familiar with for through flights vs terminating flights.
>

I agree the regs are rather poorly written. If you can think of some
services provided inside the Class D airspace to VFR arrivals by the radar
controller I'll agree there is no distinction in the regs between the tower
and radar controller.


>
> I see your point:
>> The radar controller can coordinate flights through Class D airspace with
>> the tower but flights that are landing at the towered field must be
>> shipped to the tower prior to entering Class D airspace.
>
> After all, the tower's specific authority is over the runways, not over
> over the runways, and this would require communication with the actual
> tower if one is landing there. But 91.129 says "with the ATC facility
> ([...]) providing air traffic services", and this doesn't (as you state
> above) require it to be the tower, if there is some letter of agreement
> that some other ATC facility will provide the services. Pilots are not
> expected to be aware of all the letters of agreement, are they?
>

I'm not familiar with any letters of agreement like that. Can you provide
an example? What services would be provided to VFR arrivals inside the
Class D airspace by the radar controller at the overlying facility?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pilots don't operate under 7110.65. We use Part 91. Show me where, under
> Part 91, it says that intending to land at a Class D airport requires
> communication with the Class D tower before entering Class D airspace.
>

I have, three times now.


>
> In this case, 91.129(c)(1) has been fully complied with.
>
> We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You just keep
> regurgitating the same FAR.
>

And you keep misinterpreting it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> It seemed pointless to continue trying, so I stopped.
>

The point in asking the question was to help you understand the regulation.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/27/06 14:15, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It seemed pointless to continue trying, so I stopped.
>>
>
> The point in asking the question was to help you understand the regulation.
>

Okay. Thanks for the help.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/27/06 14:12, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Pilots don't operate under 7110.65. We use Part 91. Show me where, under
>> Part 91, it says that intending to land at a Class D airport requires
>> communication with the Class D tower before entering Class D airspace.
>>
>
> I have, three times now.
>
>
>>
>> In this case, 91.129(c)(1) has been fully complied with.
>>
>> We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You just keep
>> regurgitating the same FAR.
>>
>
> And you keep misinterpreting it.
>
>

Well, one of us is, that's for sure ;-)

[Jose[_1_]]

> I agree the regs are rather poorly written.

We agree on =something=! :)

> I'm not familiar with any letters of agreement like that.

I have never seen letters of agreement. I do know that letters of
agreement exist which allow me to perform some operations which would
normally be expected to require communication with one facility by
communicating with a different one. Not having seen any of these
letters of agreement, I don't really know which operations are covered,
and when, and under what circumstances. I know this because I have
requested that one controller coordinate my transit through another's
airspace, and been granted that request. (Yes, I am trusting that the
controller is operating properly in doing so).

Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for
letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your
contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport (sorry
- "a towered airport within class D airspace" :) is a service or
operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that would
allow a different facility to provide those services.

However, nothing in part 91 or 61 with which I am familiar makes that
distinction. In fact, I've yet to find anything in part 91 or 61 that
even mentions letters of agreement.

If I am approaching a Class D airport and the approach controller gives
me an actual landing clearance instead of "contact the tower...", maybe
the controller made an error. But maybe there is some sort of letter of
agreement that I don't know about. I'd ask, if I could get a word in
edgewise. But as a practical matter, if the field really is IFR, I'm
the only one that should be there anyway, and I'd have no reason to
assume that the clearance is invalid.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>
> Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for
> letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your
> contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport (sorry
> - "a towered airport within class D airspace" :) is a service or
> operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that would
> allow a different facility to provide those services.

Well not "cleared to land." But it is not required that a controller
terminate an aircraft before he enters a class D area. That's
ridiculous. Both Denver and Minneapolis will tell you to contact the
tower after you are clear of all other traffic ande you may or may not
be in the class D. Either way the tower knows you're inbound.




>
> If I am approaching a Class D airport and the approach controller gives
> me an actual landing clearance instead of "contact the tower...", maybe
> the controller made an error.

Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape.


But maybe there is some sort of letter of
> agreement that I don't know about.

All TRACON's will have a letter of agreement with class D's under their
airspace.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

>> Now the question really becomes =which= services are elegible for
>> letters of agreement, and which are not. It appears to be your
>> contention (with which I agree) that landing at a Class D airport
>> (sorry - "a towered airport within class D airspace" :) is a service
>> or operation which is not elegible for a letter of agreement that
>> would allow a different facility to provide those services.
>
> Well not "cleared to land." But it is not required that a controller
> terminate an aircraft before he enters a class D area. That's
> ridiculous. Both Denver and Minneapolis will tell you to contact the
> tower after you are clear of all other traffic ande you may or may not
> be in the class D. Either way the tower knows you're inbound.

Thank you Newps,

Based on Steven's responses, I'd be busting FARS all the time.....

I have been in KHKS Delta airspace many times without talking to tower,
but only to approach controllers,

I have been cleared for the approach with landing INSTRUCTIONS by
approach while doing approaches (both VFR and IFR handling).

After all, VFR traffic doesn't get cleared for approaches.

And yes, within Delta airspace, I have been switched to tower (via prompt
by me - like a gentle reminder N1943L 2 miles inside Brenz) so I could
get the magic words cleared to land by tower.

Allen

[Jose[_1_]]

> Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape.

Maybe. The rules can change, and I might not be aware of such a change.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> Maybe? I'd like to hear that tape.
>
>
> Maybe. The rules can change, and I might not be aware of such a change.

Actually now that I think about it we have had the approach controller
clear an aircraft to land. Approach tells aircraft to contact tower.
He never does. On real short final tower calls down and tells approach
controller to clear him to land. Guy probably never makes that mistake
again. Another way to get the point across is to let the guy land
without a clearance and then have the approach controller tell him where
to turn off and contact ground. He'll know then. There have been tower
radio problems and we have just had the tower controller tell the
approach controller over the landline to tell the pilot cleared to land.

[KP[_1_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Actually now that I think about it we have had the approach controller
> clear an aircraft to land. Approach tells aircraft to contact tower. He
> never does. On real short final tower calls down and tells approach
> controller to clear him to land. Guy probably never makes that mistake
> again. Another way to get the point across is to let the guy land without
> a clearance and then have the approach controller tell him where to turn
> off and contact ground. He'll know then. There have been tower radio
> problems and we have just had the tower controller tell the approach
> controller over the landline to tell the pilot cleared to land.

A VFR aircraft making a practice ASR or PAR approach, monitored ILS, or
flight-followed approach will enter the Class D airspace and continue to
receive ATC services while remaining in contact with approach control.
Switching to tower won't happen until after the aircraft has landed.

This happens around the clock, every day, all over the country. No FARs are
being violated by anyone involved.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> Perhaps you should use your connections and ask that very same
>> question to San Carlos Tower (KSQL), as they have pilots coming in
>> exactly like this, and they *ARE* a Class D airport.
>>
>
> No need to, I already know the answer. What makes you think NORCAL approach
> makes a phone call to San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals?

I asked you the question. Provide the answer, and your
rationale on why NCT does this. If you want to hear them doing this
very thing, listen to the LiveATC feed. Then come back to us. I'm not
on the spot here, You are.

>>
>> In fact, it isn't only the TRACON that is doing this, KSFO
>> Tower does this as well. Constantly and Consistently, the following
>> is given to pilots:
>>
>> "N123CM, leaving Class Bravo airspace to the south, radar services
>> terminated, maintain your present beacon code, contact San Carlos
>> Tower, 119.0."
>>
>
> That instruction tells you that San Francisco tower makes a phone call to
> San Carlos tower to coordinate VFR arrivals?

You're putting words in my mouth. You're the controller. Answer
the question.

>>
>> Want proof of it, hit up the KSFO Tower feed at LiveATC.
>>
>
> Interfacility phone calls are on LiveATC?

Did I ever say they were? you're putting words in my mouth
again. You really do love to avoid answering questions posed to you,
don't you?

>>
>> Now, I haven't visited KSQL so I don't know if they have BRITE, but from
>> my
>> tour of NCT, controllers there told us that it is done so the tower
>> knows who is who as they drop below the Class B floor.
>>
>
> What would be the point in telling aircraft to maintain their present beacon
> code if SQL tower had no radar?

You definitely misunderstand and misconstrue. Read my quote
again. I say again, I have not visited SQL Tower, so I do not know if
they have radar or not. there's only so many times in which I will
repeat myself before I apply the Dilbert rule. you're coming close to
it.

So I say again. Why don't you ask them, as they are actively
doing this. I've supplied you the proof they do it, and the question is
being asked. You're the controller who says he has the answers. Well,
Britannica, let's have them.. Or should what you're saying go by the
way of Wikipedia as well?

>>
>> For some they do
>> call the tower to let them know who is coming in (pending how the
>> traffic load is), some they don't. But it is a standard practice
>> happening at one of the busiest centralized TRACONs in the airspace.
>>
>
> More likely a misunderstanding on your part.

What I stated came from the controller working that airspace at
that time. But you would already know that, all the way from Green Bay,
wouldn't you. I'm sorry. Do us this then. I'll provide you the name of
the controller. Call up NCT, and have the ATM there fire the
controller. That will do that airspace a world of good. While you're at
it, since he more than likely came from OKC, fire everyone providing
the training as well.

Steven, for a long time, you've sounded like the typical ATC
pompous idiot, and you really have to wonder why people question you.
If you were to leave your attitude at work, where Green Bay TRACON is
rather busy, you'd get a better response, and provide a much better
understanding to pilots and controllers around these groups. In short,
grow up.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFlC1myBkZmuMZ8L8RAkD9AKDQ3CHTPXQJI422HQvQ7/HW0MNgMgCbBY61
dLX9Vyj259hkt5akYdUg/II=
=YvxB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/28/06 12:47, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>

[ snip ]

>
> Steven, for a long time, you've sounded like the typical ATC
> pompous idiot, and you really have to wonder why people question you.
> If you were to leave your attitude at work, where Green Bay TRACON is
> rather busy, you'd get a better response, and provide a much better
> understanding to pilots and controllers around these groups. In short,
> grow up.

It's clear (to me) that Steven's purpose on the news groups is not the
advancement of knowledge.

It's fun to watch the jousting, though. I missed it while he was away.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA