I like my privatized airport :)

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

MGW Tower routinely seems to not know where I am located when I call in on
the approach. They will sometimes, for example, ask me to "Report DIXIN
Inbound" when I am already inside DIXIN; if they saw me on radar they
would
not ask for such a report.


You said pilots are not told "Radar Service Terminated" on the ILS 18 to
MGW. If Morgantown does not have radar then pilots should be told that
radar service is terminated.



The MVA is indeed 3000 MSL in the WAY area.


How do you know?



So as mentioned in an earlier
posting IFR traffic could be at 3000 MSL in the MGW area and thus
conflicting with the departure procedure from MGW runway 18.


Enroute traffic is typically kept higher for that very reason.



One reason why I might execute an approach at MGW to get into WAY would be
in the winter if I anticipate possible icing in the descent and I want the
option to land at MGW if I accumulate ice vs. continue to WAY if I am
ice-free. Full flaps are not permitted on my airplane after I have
encountered icing conditions, and I would much prefer to execute such a
landing straight-in out of an ILS to the 5000 foot runway at MGW rather
than
to fly a traffic pattern around WAY and land on its 3500 foot, slightly
sloping runway.

Another reason why I might execute an approach at MGW to get into WAY is
to
get a sense of whether I am likely to be able to complete a visual
approach
to WAY. Circling WAY at 3000 feet I might be able to see straight down to
the airport yet forward visibility might be reduced when I start a visual
approach to WAY; the only way to get below 3000 feet at WAY is to cancel
IFR, so I could find myself IMC on a VFR flight plan below radar and radio
reception altitudes. I have found that a better plan is to execute the
ILS
into MGW and then decide if the weather will allow me to proceed IFR to
WAY
or if I should instead land at MGW.


So executing an instrument approach at MGW has nothing to do with proceeding
IFR to WAY then? It's just to get a check on the weather? You fly the
approach, miss, and then climb to the MVA and proceed to WAY?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news
You said pilots are not told "Radar Service Terminated" on the ILS 18 to
MGW. If Morgantown does not have radar then pilots should be told that
radar service is terminated.

That is a valid point and something which I agree would be helpful for me to
clarify.... I will ask Morgantown tower directly next time I get a chance.

Either way, it does not get away from the initial topic of discussion which
is that an IFR clearance on takeoff from MGW runway 18 should never contain
the words "On Takeoff Turn Left ...."


The MVA is indeed 3000 MSL in the WAY area.
How do you know?


I have asked ATC (Clarksburgh Approach) this question many times on IFR
flight plans approaching WAY.


Enroute traffic is typically kept higher for that very reason.

Yes, but for all I know enroute traffic was landing at a nearby airport and
thus kept lower or maybe wanted lower to avoid winds or icing or wanted
lower by request to stay IMC or had an emergency or any number of reasons.


So executing an instrument approach at MGW has nothing to do with
proceeding
IFR to WAY then? It's just to get a check on the weather? You fly the
approach, miss, and then climb to the MVA and proceed to WAY?

If the weather is marginal VFR for WAY, say minimum ceiling for a visual
approach into WAY with 3 miles visibility, I might well go missed on the ILS
to MGW and then continue IFR from MGW to WAY by my preference to help with
separation from other aircraft.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

That is a valid point and something which I agree would be helpful for me
to clarify.... I will ask Morgantown tower directly next time I get a
chance.


I phoned Morgantown tower, they have no BRITE.



Either way, it does not get away from the initial topic of discussion
which is that an IFR clearance on takeoff from MGW runway 18
should never contain the words "On Takeoff Turn Left ...."


There are many things an IFR clearance should not contain, but without a
transcript we do not know what it did contain.



I have asked ATC (Clarksburgh Approach) this question many times on IFR
flight plans approaching WAY.


Okay, but remember this is the same facility that apparently cleared you for
an approach when another IFR aircraft would be conflicting with the missed
approach segment.



Yes, but for all I know enroute traffic was landing at a nearby airport
and thus kept lower or maybe wanted lower to avoid winds or icing or
wanted
lower by request to stay IMC or had an emergency or any number of reasons.


Separation is the first priority. You don't grant a request that
compromises separation.



If the weather is marginal VFR for WAY, say minimum ceiling for a visual
approach into WAY with 3 miles visibility, I might well go missed on the
ILS to MGW and then continue IFR from MGW to WAY by my preference
to help with separation from other aircraft.


How do you know what the weather is at WAY? What does an approach at MGW
have to do with proceeding IFR to WAY?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

How do you know what the weather is at WAY? What does an approach at MGW
have to do with proceeding IFR to WAY?

WAY is close enough to MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate
of whether I can get into WAY based on weather in MGW... it is not perfect
but it is a pretty effective plan considering I have done this for years and
thus know the local weather patterns very well. Since I am IFR, if I cannot
get into WAY then no harm is done -- I could just ask for a clearance back
to MGW and land.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

WAY is close enough to MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate
of whether I can get into WAY based on weather in MGW... it is not perfect
but it is a pretty effective plan considering I have done this for years
and thus know the local weather patterns very well. Since I am IFR, if I
cannot get into WAY then no harm is done -- I could just ask for a
clearance
back to MGW and land.


I don't follow. If you're assuming the weather at WAY is similar to the
weather at MGW, then just the need to do an approach at MGW should tell you
that an approach is needed at WAY. Since WAY has no approach you won't be
able to get in.

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

I don't follow. If you're assuming the weather at WAY is similar to
the weather at MGW, then just the need to do an approach at MGW should
tell you that an approach is needed at WAY. Since WAY has no approach
you won't be able to get in.

He didn't say that the weather is similar. He said "WAY is close enough to
MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate of whether I can get
into WAY based on weather in MGW..."

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...

He didn't say that the weather is similar. He said "WAY is close enough
to
MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate of whether I can get
into WAY based on weather in MGW..."


What's the difference?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:fD0ab.6502
:

What's the difference?

In our area, for example, if LVK reports overcast, there's a very good
chance that all the airports skirting the SF bay are too. On the
otherhand, LVK can report clear and the bay airports may STILL be socked
in.

There are several microclimates here and locals can gauge one area based on
an other but understand that the prevailing weather may not necessarily be
similar.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...

In our area, for example, if LVK reports overcast, there's a very good
chance that all the airports skirting the SF bay are too. On the
otherhand, LVK can report clear and the bay airports may STILL be socked
in.

There are several microclimates here and locals can gauge one area based
on
an other but understand that the prevailing weather may not necessarily be
similar.


That's all very interesting, but what's the difference between assuming the
weather at WAY is similar to the weather at MGW, and saying "WAY is close
enough to MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate of whether I
can get into WAY based on weather in MGW..."?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

I don't follow. If you're assuming the weather at WAY is similar to the
weather at MGW, then just the need to do an approach at MGW should tell
you
that an approach is needed at WAY. Since WAY has no approach you won't be
able to get in.

There are 2 possible situations where it makes sense to do the approach to
MGW and then go IFR to WAY:


(1) If I need to descend through an icing layer or potential icing layer to
get down to VFR conditions, I would rather do that descent to the longer,
ILS-equipped runway at MGW than to WAY. If I get any icing on the descent,
I will land at MGW. If I get no icing on descent, I will proceed to WAY,
but if visibility is margainal (say 3 miles) I would prefer to proceed IFR
to WAY.

(2) If reported weather is such that I do not think I will get into WAY (say
1500-2) but I break out at MGW and realize the weather is better than
expected (say 2500-3 in light rain), I would give it a try at WAY but I
would still want to proceed IFR from MGW to WAY if visibility is legal but
marginal for VFR.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com