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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Non-Radar 6-6-2 Exceptions Assign an altitude to an aircraft only after the aircraft previously at that altitude has reported at or passing through another altitude separated from the first by the appropriate minimum when: ... c. The aircraft previously at the altitude has been: 1. Issued a clearance permitting climb/descent at pilot's discretion. Non-radar separation is not limited to non-radar environments. FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control Chapter 2. General Control Section 1. General 2-1-3. PROCEDURAL PREFERENCE a. Use automation procedures in preference to nonautomation procedures when workload, communications, and equipment capabilities permit. b. Use radar separation in preference to nonradar separation when it will be to an operational advantage and workload, communications, and equipment permit. c. Use nonradar separation in preference to radar separation when the situation dictates that an operational advantage will be gained. NOTE- One situation may be where vertical separation would preclude excessive vectoring. Aways, there is the question, what constitutes an operational advantage? I don't mean it in this particular context, per se, but in all of FAAese. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote: Well, first, the AIM is advisory, not regulatory. However, I also agree that it is good practice to adhere to the AIM suggestions. Oh, here we go again, reinventing the wheel. ;-) When the AIM pontificates what any reasonable person would consider to be directive material, it is just that--directive. The AIM cannot state "thou shall do this" because of countless directives from the Department of Justice and even the federal courts. To do so, would be issuing federal regulations without following the Administrative Procedures Act. Having said all that, if the AIM strongly suggests you do it, and you don't, you can be charged with violating a relevant FAR. It's been done by the FAA many times, and quite successfully. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... That's not true. You can have multiple aircraft cleared for approach at airports not served by radar, you just have to provide separation. Radar isn't the only way to separate traffic. You can have multiple aircraft cleared for visual approaches at non-towered fields. I suppose this depends where one flies -- perhaps controller preference or local letters of agreement have an effect? I know at the unontrolled airports where I fly, I have never been able to get even a visual approach clearance when another airplane is on approach under IFR. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in
news:5cN2c.197384$jk2.708530@attbi_s53: With reference to using Mode C as a defacto report.... 5-5-6 Exceptions {New-2003-15 a. revised August 7, 2003} a. Do not use Mode C to effect vertical separation with an aircraft on a cruise clearance, contact approach, or as specified in paragraph 5-15-4, System Requirements, subparagraph e and f. Maybe not right on point, but a suggestion that controller's do not necessarily buy a Mode C readout all the time. They may buy the Mode C readout, but they can't trust the aircraft to stay at the altitude they're reading. A cruise clearance permits descending and climbing at pilot's discretion. We use it all the time in the Gulf of Mexico, for instrument approaches where we can't talk to center once we start a descent, or often at altitude. We don't often climb back up, but we might if we lose comm with both center and our company flight following, and have to climb to regain contact. On a cruise clearance, the aircraft may either climb or descend, without the controller having any control over it, thus he can't rely on the altitude readout to separate traffic. -- Regards, Stan |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"John Clonts" wrote in
: 1) "N7NZ, cleared direct BMQ cruise 7000". Do I report subsequent descents? E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending 2000"? No. The cruise clearance gives you everything between 7000' and the surface. It's good practice to report leaving an altitude, so ATC can use it, but it's not required. Once you report leaving an altitude on a cruise clearance, you can't go back to it. 2) Its VMC and I'm IFR to Temple, level at 5000. At 25 miles out I report Temple in sight. "N7NZ cleared visual approach to Temple, remain this frequency til you're closer in". At this point I may descend at will, right? When I do decide to descend, do I report leaving 5000? No. An approach clearance clears you for any altitude required by the approach, including landing. A visual approach clearance clears you to the ground. 3) I'm level at 7000. "N7NZ, descend 3000 pilots discretion". Do I report my descent? Can I level off at an intermediate altitude, and if so, do I eventually report leaving that altitude?E.g. "leaving 7000 descending 5000"? Then later "leaving 5000 descending 3000"? You can descend from 7000' to 3000' whenever you're ready, but you need to report when you do. You would report leaving 7000' for 3000', and shouldn't stop at intermediate altitudes. -- Regards, Stan |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Stan Gosnell wrote: No. An approach clearance clears you for any altitude required by the approach, including landing. A visual approach clearance clears you to the ground. An approach clearnace does not clear you to land. The tower has to clear you to land, usually directly but they could relay a landing clearance through approach control. If you're speaking of a non-towered airport, landing clearances are irrelevant. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message s.com... I suppose this depends where one flies -- No doubt, I was speaking of the US. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Stan Gosnell wrote: No. An approach clearance clears you for any altitude required by the approach, including landing. A visual approach clearance clears you to the ground. In that respect there is no difference between a visual approach and any other type of approach. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net... No doubt, I was speaking of the US. More like rural vs. urban US, mountainous vs. flat, busy vs. remote airport, controlled by Center vs. Approach, etc. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message s.com... More like rural vs. urban US, mountainous vs. flat, busy vs. remote airport, controlled by Center vs. Approach, etc. None of that matters, all operations are governed by the same order. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
ALTRAK pitch system flight report | optics student | Home Built | 2 | September 21st 03 11:49 PM |