If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message ink.net...
"Michael" wrote in message om... "Chip Jones" wrote Try asking for an IFR climb while providing own obstacle clearance sometime. What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day. My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from traffic. I can't be sure what Michael meant, but what I think he meant is straight out of 7110.65, 4-2-8d in the old paper edition I have. "When a VFR aircraft, operating below the minimum altitude for IFR operations, requests an IFR clearance and you are aware that the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions to the minimum IFR altitude: 1. before issuing a clearance, ask if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance during a climb to the minimum IFR altitude 2. if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstacle separation, (give 'em their IFR clearance) 3. if unable to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance, instruct the pilot to maintain VFR and to state intentions (etc)" I haven't had any trouble with it beyond the occasional prompting "Sir, I can maintain my own terrain and obstacle clearance to 4 thousand this heading" "standby" (which I assume covers a little questioning "why did she say that?" on the part of the occasional trainee...) I wouldn't have a clue what someone meant by "VMC climb" myself. If you wanna be VFR, say so, if you wanna be IFR but can maintain your own obstacle clearance during climb say that too. But I've never heard anyone ask for such a beast. Cheers, Sydney |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net...
Hi, guys, sorry to be bringing this up again late. Haven't been able to keep up with the ng for a while. What happens when this pilot never reports his cancellation to FSS? What if he never spots the airport and he's non radar, lost comm, below the MIA? IMO, this is the pilot's error. Whether or not it's legal, the pilot needs to understand that he must never, never, ever accept a visual approach clearance if he isn't positive he can make it in, or climb under VFR back to some altitude where he can contact ATC. Never, no matter how hard his ears are being twisted by ATC. Been there heard that, sorry I don't care how many commuters you have to hold I am in a cloud, if I go visual you'll be the second to know (if I can still talk to you), I"m flying the IAP. Also, so what if you have to "slam dunk" the airport? If that's what you have to do to get into a place under IFR, that's what you have to do. You get down to the MIA, you see the airport, you get the clearance. You descend and land. We're not talking a split-S wingover. If you spiral down, so be it. I don't break the regs to keep pilots from the "slam dunk". IFR aircraft don't get below the MIA until it's legal to get below it. By legal, I'm talking "controller" legal here, not pilot legal. No question in my opinion that the pilot is legal when the controller issues the approach clearance. I don't see the "being an ass" part about it either. I'd rather see the controller doing his job properly because that's the safest thing for him to do, and he's in the safety business. Chip, speaking as a pilot, I guess I don't agree that being kept above MIA until I have the airport in sight is the safest thing for me. We fly into little rural airports a lot. You never know what you're gonna find there. Last weekend at an airport which shall remain nameless, it was a chap in a beautiful XXXXX practicing an aerobatic routine about 2 miles off the runway below a 2500 ft ceiling. No NOTAM about an aerobatic box or anything of the sort natch. I got a low wing plane, vis below me is limited. Think I want to spiral down on top of that kind of thing? No Way Ho Say. I even give up my desire to be able to glide to the runway to descend down to TPA in good time. (and another argument for the "dive and drive" method of flying NP approaches too, IMO). Of course I agree the best thing is to be legal, by issuing a cruise clearance when it seems warranted. In fact next time I'll ask for one. With this controller losing radar contact with an IFR, and then illegally clearing that aircraft for a visual approach to a distant airport the pilot hasn't yet seen, followed by loss of comm between pilot and controller, what chance does the weekend pilot have, indeed? Realistically speaking, Chip, in terms of safety for the pilot, what advantage do you perceive the (legal) cruise clearance to have over the (not legal) visual w/out the field in sight? Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Night over water | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 43 | March 4th 04 01:13 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |