service terminated squawk 1200

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

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

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...

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


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

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


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

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

Ross
KSWI

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Kingfish wrote:

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

Is the one-in, one-out deal a function of having a tower, or of radar
coverage?


Neither. It is a function of having controlled airspace...a Class E surface
area at a non-towered airport. You can have Class E without radar coverage.

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

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Neither. It is a function of having controlled airspace...a Class E
surface area at a non-towered airport. You can have Class E without radar
coverage.


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

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

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Robert M. Gary wrote:

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

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

-Robert, CFI

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
. ..

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


Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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