Run-in with Chicago Center

Jay,

First of all, what the devil were you doing going to a football game,
especially in Green Bay, in August? It ain't natural. They shouldn't
even keep score in football if the temperature is above zero.
Football was introduced in the New England states, for COLD weather.
The sport was *******ized to where it is played in the south which has
caused it to be a game for wussies. Once it spread beyond the nort'
woods, the light weights insisted on things like pads and hard shell
helmets. Jeez, it used to be that there would be three or four broken
bones per game, with a couple of fatalities each season. Now that the
game is played by limp wrists, wearing all sorts of pads, in warm
weather, the only fatalities are generally from heat stroke and I'd be
surprised if there are a dozen broken bones in all the NFL games in a
season.

Accordingly, because you saw fit to violate natural law by going to
see warm weather football, you put yourself at serious risk.
Fortunately, what happened was mild. But, it should serve as a
warning.

It also means, you better get your instrument rating as the warm
weather football curse may now be hovering near you. Besides, flight
following is absolutely the lowest ATC priority and it just isn't
available when you are out there on your hands and knees trying to
stay under weather and everything that is flying VFR is compressed
under that cloud layer. Besides, there are some very, very tall
towers out there; that Cherokee of yours may be a boxy, funny-looking
little airplane, but it would look a heck of a lot worse hanging from
a guy wire on one of those 1,500 foot towers that live out in the
flatlands.

Flight following is a low priority item, so when there is a missed
communication such as went on with you, weird things can happen. Get
the rating, file IFR, fly a little higher on those marginal weather
days and get some space between you and those who are buzzing around
in the little bit of sky that is available under the clouds. Besides,
I don't want to lose a friend who is a Packers fan. Not many people
understand that God intended football to be played outside, in the
cold, sleet and snow, so the Packers are God's elite. You may be
forgiven for one slip up in attending a warm weather game, but be
very, very careful. As I said, God just warned you. And She could
really get ****ed.

Warmest regards,
Rick

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:D2zUc.315580$JR4.141514@attbi_s54...
So I'm on my way home from Green Bay today (where Monday night my son and I
saw his first pro-football game, and my first game at Lambeau Field), and
the weather is fairly crappy.

By noon conditions had risen to VFR along our route of flight (KGRB to
KIOW -- Iowa City, IA), with ceilings in Green Bay 2400 broken, visibility
10 miles, and haze. METARS showed some reporting stations in the 1900
overcast range, but most were at 2200 or better, and radar was clear.

For a flatland, Wisconsin-to-Iowa flight, my personal minimums are 2000 feet
for this kind of flight. We were borderline, but conditions were predicted
to improve, so we launched.

As we droned along under a ragged overcast, we settled in for the
almost-two-hour, into-the-headwind flight home. Soon my son was dozing,
exhausted from staying up late and cheering his life-long hero, Brett Favre
(whom we were lucky enough to meet at the FBO, but that's another story),
amidst 70,000 crazed Packer fans. (To no avail, I might add: The
Sea-Pigeons slaughtered them. But it's only pre-season!)

At my low-ish altitudes, Green Bay couldn't hand me off to Chicago Center
for flight following, so we were soon on our own, watching the emerald-green
Wisconsin landscape unfold beneath us. Atlas was churning the air smoothly,
and we were making 133 knots groundspeed into a 10-knot headwind...

As we would approach the various controlled airspaces, I would pick up
flight following for a time, but they always had to cut me loose, since
Center couldn't "see" us down low. It was a strange feeling flying without
this service, which we always use on long trips.

As we approached Dubuque's Class Delta airspace, the ceilings dropped to
their expected low-point of the trip (the Mississippi River valley usually
creates its own little weather pattern. If there are low clouds around,
they are usually lower near the Big Muddy.), and I had to remain at 1900
feet to be legal. This is still plenty high, as long as you've got good
visibility, and that never dropped below 8 miles.

I called KDBQ from 15 miles out, and announced my intention to transition
their airspace. They told me to call back when 3 miles northeast of the
field. A few minutes later I did so, and the magic words "transition
approved" came over the radio. I passed just north of the field, easily
with gliding distance of their runways.

As we crossed the river, the ceilings slowly rose back up to 2500 overcast,
then broken, then scattered. The plane was running great, and we were soon
in more familiar territory. Near Monticello, IA I called up Cedar Rapids
(KCID) and picked up flight following from our favorite controller, a guy
who has known our voices and aircraft for over 6 years.

A couple of minutes later "our" controller called to ask what type of
aircraft we were. I thought this was odd, because I KNOW the guy knows what
we fly, but I told him our type and equipment on board. He thanked me and
went silent.

Two minutes later he called back and politely but tersely announced "N56993,
I just want to give you the 'head's up' that Chicago Center is not happy
about you transitioning the Class Delta airspace around Dubuque at 1900
feet, and will be wanting to talk to you when you land."

I immediately responded "Well you can tell Chicago Center that I was in
contact with Dubuque Tower, and was given permission to transition their
airspace." Upon hearing this my "friend" relaxed completely, clearly
relieved, and stated that "It must be some kind of a miscommunication, and
I'll pass that information along to Center..."

He then went completely silent, as I droned along, waiting for the F-16s to
escort me down. Visions of FAA paperwork, and some sort of disciplinary
action, danced in my head, as I wondered what might be transpiring in those
dimly lit, windowless rooms at Chicago Center in Aurora, IL...

Finally I couldn't stand it anymore, and called KCID to ask if all was well,
or if I was going to have to speak with anyone. My friend responded
jovially that "as far as we're concerned there is no issue, and to my
knowledge Chicago Center isn't concerned with it, either." While I was
glad to hear this, it was that "to my knowledge" part that stuck in my
craw -- so I resolved to call Dubuque Tower after I landed.

Taxiing to my hangar, my son was joking about the FAA Suburbans waiting to
meet us (there weren't any, thankfully!), and I immediately called Dubuque
after putting the plane away.

The Dubuque tower supervisor knew who I was right away, and immediately
began apologizing. It seems that after I transitioned his airspace (and had
switched to another frequency) he had tried to contact me, because he wanted
to make sure I was clear before releasing an IFR departure. When he
couldn't contact me, he called Chicago Center to see if THEY could see me.

Somehow this conversation got misconstrued by someone at Center to mean that
Dubuque was trying to find a VFR pilot who had busted their airspace. They
tracked me on radar (Surprise! I thought they said they couldn't see me
down low???), figured out who I was, and contacted Cedar Rapids approach --
who then called me.

Whew! Imagine if I had simply opted not to call Cedar Rapids Approach for
flight following? This whole thing could have easily blown way out of
proportion, with the "left hand not knowing what the right hand was
doing" -- and I might well have gotten a letter about it at some later
date -- when it would have been MUCH harder to prove (or disprove) anything.

A weird end to a great overnight trip!

While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.
ATC may or may not keep you updated on weather along your route of
flight, it's not their primary function and is one of those as time
permits things.
I have been instrument rated since 1986, but I won't challenge the
weather gods knowing that there is convective activity along my route.
Better to fly below the clouds and see the weather with the Mark I
Eyeball than fly blindly in the soup.

While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel comfortable
with flying IFR.

The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms (which
I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is not
equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so flying in
August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa today,
and you'll see why.)

The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not much
use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay, the time thing is a bear.

But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel comfortable
with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make "more
comfortably" IFR. More safely too.

Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among the
attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.

Com'on Jay, try to make the time!

(but you've heard all that)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking
my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
comfortable
with flying IFR.

The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
(which
I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is not
equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so flying
in
August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa
today,
and you'll see why.)

The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
much
use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless there's a
clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud tops,
and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if there
are clouds near or above the freezing level.

I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could be
_much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games later
in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a year,
I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very clear
and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to Atlanta
twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct versus
flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each leg.
Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR offers.
You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about VFR
traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR pilots who
fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those who fly
closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a traffic
call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising altitude of
4,000 ft.

Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still be
able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better fuel
economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on direction,
a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve your
skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our "licenses
to learn".

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Maule Driver" wrote in message
r.com...
Jay, the time thing is a bear.

But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel comfortable
with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make
"more
comfortably" IFR. More safely too.

Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among the
attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.

Com'on Jay, try to make the time!

(but you've heard all that)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not
a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a
lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking
my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare
VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
comfortable
with flying IFR.

The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
(which
I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is not
equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
flying
in
August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa
today,
and you'll see why.)

The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
much
use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

And if you file/request direct - you'll fly direct. When I go from Raleigh
to Florida, I tend to flyer a straighter line IFR than VFR - I'll tend to
avoid the MOAs and stuff VFR.

It's easier to get radar weather help too.

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
news
I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless there's a
clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud
tops,
and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if there
are clouds near or above the freezing level.

I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could be
_much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games later
in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a
year,
I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very clear
and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to Atlanta
twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct versus
flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each leg.
Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR
offers.
You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about VFR
traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR pilots
who
fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those who
fly
closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a traffic
call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising altitude
of
4,000 ft.

Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still be
able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better fuel
economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on
direction,
a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve your
skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our
"licenses
to learn".

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Maule Driver" wrote in message
r.com...
Jay, the time thing is a bear.

But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel comfortable
with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make
"more
comfortably" IFR. More safely too.

Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among
the
attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.

Com'on Jay, try to make the time!

(but you've heard all that)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is
not
a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded
cells.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a
lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been
tracking
my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare
VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
comfortable
with flying IFR.

The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
(which
I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is
not
equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
flying
in
August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa
today,
and you'll see why.)

The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but
not
much
use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Heh, maybe as far south as Raleigh you can fly direct, but I have yet to
ever receive a clearance in the northeast that didn't involve a fairly
complicated, circuitous route. Normally I can negotiate once I get outside
the NY Class B and get some better routings, but it's nigh impossible to
file and fly direct around here.

I was very surprised on the way back from Raleigh a few weeks ago, however,
when I was negotiating with clearance at RDU on the ground. Lots of bad
weather around Richmond and D.C. meant only a narrow line through the
storms, and the route I originally got took me right through the bad stuff.
I called up a couple minutes later (while still parked at the ramp) and
asked if I could get a better route. They asked what I wanted, so I said
"direct Reading", and they approved it! (well, the computer did at least).
Of course as soon as I was handed off to Potomac approach things got a
little dicey, and no more direct Reading, but fortunately the controller had
steered some planes through a gap in the weather, all reporting smooth
sailing, so I took his advice and got around the nasty stuff. Always good to
have the better radar of approach guiding you through weather than center
(at least that's what I learned by watching the ASF DVD about thunderstorm
avoidance I got in the mail a few weeks ago).

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Maule Driver" wrote in message
r.com...
And if you file/request direct - you'll fly direct. When I go from
Raleigh
to Florida, I tend to flyer a straighter line IFR than VFR - I'll tend to
avoid the MOAs and stuff VFR.

It's easier to get radar weather help too.

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
news
I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless there's
a
clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud
tops,
and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if
there
are clouds near or above the freezing level.

I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could be
_much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games
later
in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a
year,
I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very
clear
and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to
Atlanta
twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct
versus
flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each
leg.
Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR
offers.
You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about VFR
traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR pilots
who
fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those who
fly
closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a
traffic
call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising altitude
of
4,000 ft.

Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still
be
able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better
fuel
economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on
direction,
a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve
your
skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our
"licenses
to learn".

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Maule Driver" wrote in message
r.com...
Jay, the time thing is a bear.

But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel
comfortable
with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make
"more
comfortably" IFR. More safely too.

Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among
the
attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.

Com'on Jay, try to make the time!

(but you've heard all that)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is
not
a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded
cells.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been
a
lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been
tracking
my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a
rare
VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
comfortable
with flying IFR.

The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
(which
I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is
not
equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
flying
in
August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for
Iowa
today,
and you'll see why.)

The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more
capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but
not
much
use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

""weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel comfortable
with flying IFR."

Jay,

As you just found out, weather many times has nothing to do with filing IFR.
It is just far simpler to file IFR and let the controllers worry about the
airspace ahead.

Usually in any kind of high density area, east coast, Los Angeles, Etc. IFR
is just way easier, faster, more relaxing and safer. Even in severe clear!

Karl

I'm betting an IFR ticket would be way more than an ego booster. I dont
think about it as an ego booster or go around bragging about it, but more
along the lines of like minimum equipment. Wouldnt your insurance
come down a little with that rating? That's pretty useful. The currency
required in itself every 6 months, whether with a safety pilot or a CFII,
is pretty useful. The IFR chart service and updates are more than a
strictly VFR pilot deals with, is useful. The fact ATC, while youre
IFR, just cant get rid of you if they feel busy, is useful. The service
beyond flight following when it comes to updated airspace activity,
weather, and traffic, is pretty useful. Yes, they'd do that for you
VFR too, if they can see you and if they have time. The continuity
of having your flight plan pass from facility to facility instead of
being terminated and telling your life story every other freq, is
useful.

Scud running just isnt worth it. Not with all the money tied up
into an owned aircraft, and not with your family on board. It wouldnt
instill confidence in me as a passenger if my pilot didnt do all he/she
could do in the way of training and preparation, whether it be a
rating, an onboard weather system, and a well maintained airplane.

That all being said, I mostly fly day VFR and only file IFR when
I need to. But at least it's there if/when I need it. And theres been
times where I wouldnt have gone VFR, a low thin layer that an
IFR clearance enabled me to pop through, or a detereorating condition
at an airport that an IFR approach was fine, but a VFR or SVFR
approach would be dicey. As far as embedded thunderstorms,
someday soon no one will have any excuse for not having some
form of onboard weather capability. More and more small aircraft
like yours and mine Jay are telling me "yeah, I see it on radar, too".
After some shoptalk on freq it's usually some nexrad download
system, or maybe just a stormscope. Certain types I expect to have
onboard radar, or are not surprised they have it. Other smaller
single engine types that normally dont have a radome on their wing,
that are way ahead of their airplane weatherwise, now that's nice
to see.

Lastly, IFR usually doesnt take you that far out of your way. Compare
with a flight planner the difference in miles/time/gallons. And many
times those airways take you away from high terrain (I'm talking out
west here), put you over/near airports enroute, and in case of GPS failure,
keep you in range of VORs.

It's just a no brainer for the type of flying it sounds like you do. You're
paying for it in avgas taxes whether you use the system or not, use it.

Later, Chris

It's just a no brainer for the type of flying it sounds like you do.
You're
paying for it in avgas taxes whether you use the system or not, use it.

Mary and I use "the System" to the fullest extent allowed for VFR flight.
We fly over 200 hours per year, all VFR, much of it long cross-country
flights, 95% of it with flight-following.

When you fly high enough (say, 4500 feet around here), you are guaranteed
continuous radar coverage and traffic advisories in pretty much any
direction. One controlled airspace seamlessly meshes with another, and the
controllers smoothly hand us off for all of our flights -- just the same as
on an IFR flight plan. The only time this doesn't work is when we fly
beneath their radar coverage. (Or when we simply want to enjoy a short
flight without the bother and interruption of ATC.)

While I would like to have the rating in my pocket for those rare times when
we can't go VFR, it would take months for me to get back up to speed for the
test. (Which, two years ago, before we bought the inn, I was signed off to
take.) With my time at such a premium, and so little added utility realized
for the effort expended, there is little incentive for me to get my
instrument ticket at this time.

But it's in the "5-year plan"! (Along with adding our own restaurant,
remodeling another 17 suites, putting a dome on our pool, etc.-- all of
which I plan to do in my "spare time"...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"