Boundaries between Approach/Departure and Center

What determines the boundaries between airspace managed by an en-route
ATC center and an approach or departure center? I don't see any clear
indication of which is which on sectionals. There are boxes saying
who to contact for approach, but nothing that shows where the handoffs
between terminal control and center usually occur. Is there a general
rule?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

What determines the boundaries between airspace managed by an en-route
ATC center and an approach or departure center? I don't see any clear
indication of which is which on sectionals. There are boxes saying
who to contact for approach, but nothing that shows where the handoffs
between terminal control and center usually occur. Is there a general
rule?

Typical troller!!!!!!!! He posted the very same question to the IFR
newsgroup.

He is simming not flying, PLEASE DON"T FEED THIS TROLL!

Allen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[ Followups now set to rec.aviation.piloting ONLY ]

In rec.aviation.piloting A Lieberma wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

What determines the boundaries between airspace managed by an en-route
ATC center and an approach or departure center? I don't see any clear
indication of which is which on sectionals. There are boxes saying
who to contact for approach, but nothing that shows where the handoffs
between terminal control and center usually occur. Is there a general
rule?

To answer your first question, there is no such thing as an
'approach or departure center'. As for the boundaries, ATC knows those
and pilots don't really have to concern themselves with airspace
boundaries (Class A/B/C/D/E/G notwithstanding), as it has nothing to do
with the pilot insuring the safety of his aircraft. Also, you are not
going to see those boundaries on sectionals. All that ATC is concerned
with is covered by the SOPs for their sector of their airspace, or the
..65. So there is no general rule.

Typical troller!!!!!!!! He posted the very same question to the IFR
newsgroup.

He is simming not flying, PLEASE DON"T FEED THIS TROLL!

Allen

Yet you've responded to the same posts in all the other
newsgroups as well. I hate to defend the guy, but pot kettle black
here.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFsoVmyBkZmuMZ8L8RAn+uAKDisdQzxl0jrINGHO/m+lZmNlFYIwCg2C+B
2uSoMmuM8tUgUnW9GU0jJ4Y=
=HCTg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote in
. net:

Yet you've responded to the same posts in all the other
newsgroups as well. I hate to defend the guy, but pot kettle black
here.

Then why didn't you heed my advice???? To feed a troll????

If you felt the need to answer him, why not email him or followup your
response to the sim groups?

Most people already know he is a troll and are seeing the light in not
answering him. What's your excuse???

Allen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A Lieberma wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote in
. net:

Yet you've responded to the same posts in all the other
newsgroups as well. I hate to defend the guy, but pot kettle black
here.

Then why didn't you heed my advice???? To feed a troll????

If you felt the need to answer him, why not email him or followup your
response to the sim groups?

Simple logic. His post was not in the sim groups. I don't
frequent those groups in USENET at all. Have a look at your newsgroups
line above, and you'd have only seen 2: r.a.p, and r.a.student.

Most people already know he is a troll and are seeing the light in not
answering him. What's your excuse???

No excuse, as my point in this thread was to a) keep it on
topic, while b) addressing your issue. The issue I'm having with you is
that yes, he's basically spamming multiple groups with the same post.
But to tell us not to feed him, you've done the same exact thing by
spamming those same groups with your response telling us not to do
exactly what you did. In short, "do as I say, not as I do."

Most people already know he's a troll, and have done better, by
killfiling him. What's your excuse as to not? I already have.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFsqFMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnxtAJ9VBabaltPJrgCXNTMslV qXlPaOkACg0vec
zEaOQO4fuzbV89hsHt2t5JE=
=ELl/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Lieberma wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote in
. net:

Yet you've responded to the same posts in all the other
newsgroups as well. I hate to defend the guy, but pot kettle black
here.

Then why didn't you heed my advice???? To feed a troll????

You know, you're getting pretty strident with this "advice". It's
getting old, and it's making the newsgroup a lot less pleasant.

Has it occurred to you that you're paying the same attention to the
alleged troll that you're urging everybody else to eschew? What's it
going to take to get YOU to stop?

If you felt the need to answer him, why not email him or followup your
response to the sim groups?

If you felt the need to criticize him for answering, why not email him
or followup your response to the net-abuse groups?

Most people already know he is a troll and are seeing the light in not
answering him. What's your excuse???

And what's YOURS? For those of us who have killfiled him, your efforts
are raising the noise level even more. I wouldn't have seen this
thread if you hadn't responded -- the original entry was hidden by the
killfile.

Personally, I've avoided responding to him directly, and try to never
even post in a thread he's participating in. By now, everybody has
pretty much made up their minds how they're going to deal with this
situation. Why not just give it a rest?

If you'd limit yourself to correcting inaccuracies and adding
clarifying follow-ups ("he's a simmer!"), it wouldn't be so bad, but
you've pretty much crossed the line yourself -- and in a much more
negative way.

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

To answer your first question, there is no such thing as an
'approach or departure center'.

Well, there are frequencies that call themselves Approach or
Departure, and they are distinct from Center. For example, SoCal
Approach seems to cover an awful lot of ground, despite the "Approach"
in the name, and it's not clear which airport's approach it nominally
covers. At times I've wondered exactly what role Los Angeles Center
plays in the area, since it seems that Center never gets a handoff in
some regions.

The problem I have is somewhat unrealistic, because it is in VATSIM.
In real life, there are always controllers on ATC. In VATSIM,
sometimes there aren't (often, actually), and so when you enter an
area that does have a controller, you have to establish contact with
ATC. The part that mystified me is that sometimes Center wants you to
contact them, and sometimes Approach or Departure Control. I suppose
in real life you'd be continuously in contact with ATC, and they would
handle all handoffs, and so you wouldn't have to ask yourself whom to
contact.

However, on charts there are still indications of Approach
frequencies, so if you are not in contact with ATC you can get into
contact with them as required. But the sectionals show only little
boxes, not the limits of ATC coverage. I know I have to establish
communication with ATC in some circumstances (entering Class C, for
example); are these boxes intended to tell me whom to contact when I
do establish contact, or what? There's already a separate list of
frequencies in the legend of the chart, plus the A/FD, so I'm left
scratching my head at times.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
To answer your first question, there is no such thing as an
'approach or departure center'. As for the boundaries, ATC knows those
and pilots don't really have to concern themselves with airspace
boundaries (Class A/B/C/D/E/G notwithstanding), as it has nothing to do
with the pilot insuring the safety of his aircraft. Also, you are not
going to see those boundaries on sectionals. All that ATC is concerned
with is covered by the SOPs for their sector of their airspace, or the
.65. So there is no general rule.


I assume the original question was about the flight following service,
such
as norcal or socal. Pilot calls "norcal approach", but never "norcal
departure". At least never for me. Even though the AFD lists app/dep
separately, I don't ever look to contact the "dep" frequency. Even if
departing from a non-towered airport, I still call "xxx approach...".

P S

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The problem I have is somewhat unrealistic, because it is in VATSIM.
In real life, there are always controllers on ATC. In VATSIM,
sometimes there aren't (often, actually), and so when you enter an
area that does have a controller, you have to establish contact with
ATC. The part that mystified me is that sometimes Center wants you to
contact them, and sometimes Approach or Departure Control. I suppose
in real life you'd be continuously in contact with ATC, and they would
handle all handoffs, and so you wouldn't have to ask yourself whom to
contact.

I agree that the "staffing" in VATSIM is causing some of the confusion.
Normally, an IFR flight from origin to destination is going to be in contact
with ATC from beginning to end and will be handed off from one to another
without ever having to look up a frequency. The lines defining the coverage
areas are complex and not something I care to worry about in the air. Plus
there are letters of agreements that define exceptions and special cases
between them that make it even more complicated.

A real-world analogy to your SIM scenario would be flying VFR and trying to
get flight following or a pop-up IFR clearance. It is not always clear what
frequency to contact. I typically look at a nearby airport and use the
Approach frequency listed there or contact FSS and ask them. My experience
is that FSS is right about 75% of the time.


However, on charts there are still indications of Approach
frequencies, so if you are not in contact with ATC you can get into
contact with them as required. But the sectionals show only little
boxes, not the limits of ATC coverage. I know I have to establish
communication with ATC in some circumstances (entering Class C, for
example); are these boxes intended to tell me whom to contact when I
do establish contact, or what? There's already a separate list of
frequencies in the legend of the chart, plus the A/FD, so I'm left
scratching my head at times.

It is typically not too important where the lines of division are and they
change frequently (even based on the hour of the day). Some of the flight
planning software has an overlay mode to show Center boundaries. Interesting
but not too useful. Most Approach areas have multiple frequencies that are
not always in use. So, we are all left scratching our head. I find those
little squiggly frequncy boxes to be totally unusable. First of all, I can
never find one when I need one. Second, when you do make contact, they want
you to switch to a different frequency. I've stopped using them.

Real-world: Go by the airport listing, Center frequency listing, or there is
always FSS that is supposed to know who is covering what. It might take
several attempts to raise somebody but, unless there is a controller strike,
there should be somebody on one of them.

Good luck!
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Travis Marlatte writes:

I agree that the "staffing" in VATSIM is causing some of the confusion.
Normally, an IFR flight from origin to destination is going to be in contact
with ATC from beginning to end and will be handed off from one to another
without ever having to look up a frequency. The lines defining the coverage
areas are complex and not something I care to worry about in the air. Plus
there are letters of agreements that define exceptions and special cases
between them that make it even more complicated.

Oh well ... maybe someday there will be some full coverage in VATSIM,
although given the hoops one must jump through to become a controller
there, I'm not holding my breath.

It is typically not too important where the lines of division are and they
change frequently (even based on the hour of the day). Some of the flight
planning software has an overlay mode to show Center boundaries. Interesting
but not too useful. Most Approach areas have multiple frequencies that are
not always in use. So, we are all left scratching our head. I find those
little squiggly frequncy boxes to be totally unusable. First of all, I can
never find one when I need one. Second, when you do make contact, they want
you to switch to a different frequency. I've stopped using them.

The GPS gives a frequency for ATC, but I don't know how it decides
which frequency(ies) to list, or how reliable it is.

Real-world: Go by the airport listing, Center frequency listing, or there is
always FSS that is supposed to know who is covering what.

Is FSS fully covered in the real world, or are there areas without it?
VATSIM seems to staff FSS only for overseas flights, if at all.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.