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

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

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

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

It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it eventually
sankgrin.

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

Thanks...
- Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

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


It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it eventually
sankgrin.

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

Dave Butler wrote:


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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:

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


Psst...wanna know a secret? I do it because I'm lazy. It's more work if I
have to deal with acquiring Flight Following, at least in my neighborhood.

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

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

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


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

[...]


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


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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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


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

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

I'm practicing in controlled airspace, too.


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

Me too.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave

Dave Butler wrote:


Psst...wanna know a secret? I do it because I'm lazy. It's more work if
I have to deal with acquiring Flight Following, at least in my
neighborhood.

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

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

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

Ugh All that extra talking laugh.

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


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

I don't understand this statement. Your home airport has an approach
control?

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

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

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

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

Sometimes, NY won't take VFR traffic.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Of course.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:

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

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

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

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

--
Peter















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

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

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

I don't see it that way at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

Andrew,

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

cheers,
mark

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

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

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

It took several tries at TTN before I got the message, but in it
eventually
sankgrin.

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

Thanks...
- Andrew

Mark Astley wrote:

Andrew,

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

Okay; thanks.

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

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:

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

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

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

--
Peter R.


























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