Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2016, 04:38:18 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  IFR flight to Tupelo MS (KTUP) with ATC COMS
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: IFR flight to Tupelo MS (KTUP) with ATC COMS  (Read 14091 times)
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« on: March 14, 2009, 10:42:20 AM »

Flight last Friday to KTUP. GPS 18 approach with procedure turn conducted in actual conditions. 



Video best viewed full screen.

Video really shows the need for an IA rating if you want to go anywhere as you will see my departure weather and destination weather were poles apart and flight was just over 1 1/4 hour..

Jackson Approach, Memphis Center, Columbus Approach and Tupelo Tower in video.

Something magical about maneuvering in clouds and instruments just guide you to the runway!
Logged

sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2009, 05:50:56 PM »

ah good old Columbus approach. I used to work there Smiley
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2009, 07:41:08 PM »

Nice video.  A couple of observations:

The controller on Memphis Center EWA Low 125.97 is probably one of the best controllers in the building.  He came up from Houston Center years ago and it's really a treat to watch him work busy traffic.  The CBM Low controller on 128.5 is finishing up his radar training.  He's an aviation enthusiast and knows more about GA airplanes that most GA pilots.  He never would have mistaken a Sundowner for a Musketeer. grin

The citation that was delayed at TUP while you were landing really illustrates the constraints of a one-in/one-out IFR system.  They were obviously holding the departure for N770FL who was following you into the airport.  It really stinks but unfortunately it's all we have in an IFR enviroment.  Had it been better weather the tower may have been able to see the arrival early and provide visual separation, or the Citation could have departed VFR and picked up his clearance in the air.

Anyway nice job, keep 'em coming.
Logged

Regards
JD
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2009, 07:58:12 PM »

The CBM Low controller on 128.5 is finishing up his radar training.  He's an aviation enthusiast and knows more about GA airplanes that most GA pilots.  He never would have mistaken a Sundowner for a Musketeer. grin

You are too funny.   cheesy

The citation that was delayed at TUP while you were landing really illustrates the constraints of a one-in/one-out IFR system.  They were obviously holding the departure for N770FL who was following you into the airport.  It really stinks but unfortunately it's all we have in an IFR enviroment.  Had it been better weather the tower may have been able to see the arrival early and provide visual separation, or the Citation could have departed VFR and picked up his clearance in the air.

Wow, great insight on this as this probably explains why I was cleared to the published hold rather then for the approach.  I was wondering why that clearance first even though the controller said expect no delay.  I assume now this gave him the tool to have me continue to hold until he heard from KTUP Tower?

I am sure It didn't help traffic flow that winds were 35 knots right off the nose down to 2000 feet on the final approach course for KTUP.  Best ground speed I could pedal down final was 60 knots until I got below 2000.
Logged

sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2009, 03:13:39 AM »

From what I remember Memphis center provides approach service into TUP, (obviously still the case). But I didn't think they had radar coverage down to the ground at the airport.  I think they used to have a radar site near Holly Springs, which is a bit far to have reliable radar coverage to the ground at TUP. That would explain one-in-one-out, but I never heard the controller say radar contact lost or radar service terminated when he switched you to tower. Was part that edited out?

Everything I said could be way off since it's been almost 5 years since I last stepped foot in Mississippi.
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2009, 09:24:34 AM »

From what I remember Memphis center provides approach service into TUP, (obviously still the case). But I didn't think they had radar coverage down to the ground at the airport.  I think they used to have a radar site near Holly Springs, which is a bit far to have reliable radar coverage to the ground at TUP. That would explain one-in-one-out, but I never heard the controller say radar contact lost or radar service terminated when he switched you to tower. Was part that edited out?

I never got that radar services terminated or radar contact lost, but he kept me perched way up high,  Even within 10 miles of YUMHA I was still above 4000 feet.

Looking at the Flight Aware log http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L/history/20090306/1515Z/KMBO/KTUP/tracklog

It looks to me "coast reports" began just before I made my five mile final call into KTUP?  This begs the question, for the last seven minutes of flight, at the end of seven minutes, who marked my arrival, Memphis Center or Tupelo Tower?

Everything I said could be way off since it's been almost 5 years since I last stepped foot in Mississippi.

Gee, who gave you that T6 ride to get you out of dodge so quickly  cheesy cheesy cheesy

I really appreciate all this input, as this explains a lot about the ATC system and also what I am looking at in Flight Aware.
Logged

kea001
Guest
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2009, 11:13:49 AM »

According to this,

"TRACKING TERMINATED. The pilot cancelled his IFR flight plan in flight."

If you want, you can create a 3-D picture of any of your flights by downloading a kml file to open in Google Earth.

http://fboweb.com/track/n1943l

Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2009, 11:23:08 AM »

From what I remember Memphis center provides approach service into TUP, (obviously still the case). But I didn't think they had radar coverage down to the ground at the airport.  I think they used to have a radar site near Holly Springs, which is a bit far to have reliable radar coverage to the ground at TUP. That would explain one-in-one-out, but I never heard the controller say radar contact lost or radar service terminated when he switched you to tower. Was part that edited out?

There is decent radar coverage in the TUP area.  The primary Long-range radar sight for the area is in Byhalia MS which is between OLV and HLI.  But the radar coverage has nothing to do with the one-in/one-out requirement.  TUP tower does have a tower radar display but I'm not sure what type of automation they use or which radar it is slaved frrom.  They're also not able to use the display for separation services - hence the one-in/one-out.  Radar service should have been terminated when you were switched to tower, the controller probably just forgot to say it.

5-1-13 RADAR SERVICE TERMINATION

3.
At tower-controlled airports where radar coverage does not exist to within 1/2 mile of the end of the runway, arriving aircraft shall be informed when radar service is terminated.
Logged

Regards
JD
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2009, 02:34:23 PM »

According to this,

"TRACKING TERMINATED. The pilot cancelled his IFR flight plan in flight."


You can be rest assured, I didn't cancel IFR  grin  Ceilings were too low for a visual approach.  My guess on the above is that maybe Center showed arrived before I arrived?


If you want, you can create a 3-D picture of any of your flights by downloading a kml file to open in Google Earth.

http://fboweb.com/track/n1943l


One of the huge benefits of FBOWEB over Flight Aware I love, especially when you pan to the edge of earth

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/H-HKc09ATKvydsjZ8wewNg?feat=directlink

Also the zoomable maps within FBOWeb is real nice as I get to see what cities I flew over.

Logged

keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2009, 02:48:52 PM »

This info will not come as news to many people, but just in case, here's an overview of one-in, one-out, and options for getting around it: http://pilotcerts.laartcc.org/object/non-towered-operations.html
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2009, 03:09:17 PM »

This info will not come as news to many people, but just in case, here's an overview of one-in, one-out, and options for getting around it: http://pilotcerts.laartcc.org/object/non-towered-operations.html

I do exactly the above at my non towered airport (KMBO), depart VFR when able or cancel IFR early under VFR conditions, but does this also work the same for towered airports such as KTUP? 

I fully understand I can depart VFR and pick up my clearance in the air, but won't things work smoother (easier on the pilot as well) for hand offs and such for ATC if I talk and squawk sooner at a towered airport?

Since I have to talk to ground / tower, why not get everything coordinated from the comforts of the ground would be my thoughts?  My experience with controlled airports are limited, so all of this insight being provided is a huge learning experience for me especially when it comes to how each component of ATC coordinates and works together!!!
Logged

beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2009, 08:28:54 PM »

IFR trip from KTUP to KMBO with ATC COMS and music - Video

Return trip from Tupelo MS.  KTUP ground / tower and KJAN approach in video.



First 1 1/2 minutes focused on me picking up my clearance from Tupelo Ground and my departure on runway 18, middle of the video focused on what's outside of the plane to music and the end has me canceling my IFR and landing.
Logged

kea001
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2009, 08:49:44 PM »

Excellent! Love the music.
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2009, 09:21:15 PM »

Gee, who gave you that T6 ride to get you out of dodge so quickly  cheesy cheesy cheesy

Actually they had T37's still when I was there. Smiley I spent 3 1/2 years out for a 4 year enlistment there so I was more then ready to leave.
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2009, 01:51:11 PM »

Quote
I do exactly the above at my non towered airport (KMBO), depart VFR when able or cancel IFR early under VFR conditions, but does this also work the same for towered airports such as KTUP?

For reasons I still do not understand, my closest towered airport (KCDW) won't let you 'depart VFR' on an IFR flight plan. Their SOP, apparently, specifically tells them to remove the plan from the system (I kid you not) if a guy who was going to be IFR elects to depart under VFR.

"Depart VFR," however, can mean many things. 

Here are some SPECIFICS you can try, neither of which can be solicited by ATC (kinda like a contact approach), so you won't hear it unless you ask for it.

If there are IFR delays out of a non-radar, towered field, you could tell the controller, "request a VFR climb to [altitude where you will be sure you can still maintain VFR]", or "request VFR climb until passing [VOR/fix/NDB]."  I have not yet tried this, I've only read about it.

It would be helpful to hear from local controllers if the above techniques are considered to be more helpful than a generic "we'll depart VFR." 
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
beechsundowner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2009, 02:13:11 PM »


If there are IFR delays out of a non-radar, towered field, you could tell the controller, "request a VFR climb to [altitude where you will be sure you can still maintain VFR]", or "request VFR climb until passing [VOR/fix/NDB]."  I have not yet tried this, I've only read about it.

I never have done this but wouldn't something "special" be the same as above until you can get your IFR clearance?

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/FSS/fss0405.html
Logged

davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2009, 02:20:50 PM »

If there are IFR delays out of a non-radar, towered field, you could tell the controller, "request a VFR climb to [altitude where you will be sure you can still maintain VFR]", or "request VFR climb until passing [VOR/fix/NDB]."  I have not yet tried this, I've only read about it.

That's actually a good idea.  It's a seldom used procedure and may get some awkward pauses from the controller but it's also a perfectly legitamate and efficient use of VFR.  Airport operations aside, here's a perfect example:

You're operating on an IFR flight plan and you've been given an initial clearance to 4000 on climb-out due to traffic.  The controller tells you to expect higher in 4 minutes.  The weather is CAVU and you want to climb now, not in 4 minutes.  You could request a VFR climb to say 6000 or 8000 or whatever you think you can make VFR.  The controller can then climb you VFR to an altitude past the traffic where you can resume normal IFR flight.  Here is the section in the 7110.65 governing those procedures.

7-1-2. VFR CONDITIONS

a
. You may clear aircraft to maintain "VFR conditions" if one of the following conditions exists:

1.
The pilot of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan requests a VFR climb/descent.

2. TERMINAL. The clearance will result in noise abatement benefits where part of the IFR departure route does not conform to an FAA- approved noise abatement route or altitude.

PHRASEOLOGY-
MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS.

MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS UNTIL (time or fix).

MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS ABOVE/BELOW
(altitude).

CLIMB/DESCEND VFR,

and if required,

BETWEEN (altitude) AND (altitude)

or

ABOVE/BELOW (altitude).


b. When, in your judgment, there is reason to believe that flight in VFR conditions may become impractical, issue an alternative clearance which will ensure separation from all other aircraft for which you have separation responsibility.

PHRASEOLOGY-
IF UNABLE, (alternative procedure), AND ADVISE.

That's thinking outside the box Keith.  Keep in mind though airport operations and LOAs may prevent these procedures from being applied.
Logged

Regards
JD
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2009, 09:55:15 AM »

I've never seen this used, but it doesn't sound like it releases the the controller from IFR separation requirements.

Quote
a. You may clear aircraft to maintain "VFR conditions" if one of the following conditions exists:

1. The pilot of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan requests a VFR climb/descent.

I highlighted a couple portions of the paragraph that stuck out to me. The pilot is maintaining vfr conditions, and he is already on an IFR flight plan. It doesn't sound like the pilot's IFR clearance is suspended which leads me to believe IFR separation is still needed.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 11:57:18 AM by sykocus » Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2009, 02:16:48 PM »

skyocus, I have to disagree.  When you are VFR-on-top on an IFR flight plan, you are no longer afforded IFR separation.  If IFR separation had to be applied, there would not be a single operational advantage I could think of for a pilot requesting a VFR climb.


Quote
Keep in mind though airport operations and LOAs may prevent these procedures from being applied.

That tracks with what I'd heard about Caldwell. What I truly don't understand, though, is the spirit behind such an LOA.

Case in point, you can be stuck at CDW waiting for 15 mins for an IFR release while they launch jets out of nearby MMU, and props out of N07 (Lincoln Park, non-towered). If it's a nice day, why NOT let the IFR guy launch out of CDW with a VFR climb if he says he can do it.

Instead, the pilot is literally trapped on the ground, not allowed to go. If he does opt to launch VFR, the LOA (apparently) states that the IFR plan should be REMOVED from the system.  I just don't get it.

It's actually EASIER to depart from N07 under such circumstances (I do VFR release on IFR flight plan 1/3 times).

My original question, though, is whether ATC was happier to have a specific constraint on the VFR climb (ie. "I can maintain VFR until reaching 4000", or "I can maintain VFR until [first fix on flight plan]") versus a generic "I'll depart VFR").  It seems like it's not anymore helpful, though, as the reason for the denial is not for lack of specifics, but more to do with the presence of an LOA which prevents the action flat out.

Fascinating stuff! I'm always looking to learn more about the most efficient way to get in/out of N90 airports.
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2009, 09:40:21 PM »

skyocus, I have to disagree.  When you are VFR-on-top on an IFR flight plan, you are no longer afforded IFR separation.  If IFR separation had to be applied, there would not be a single operational advantage I could think of for a pilot requesting a VFR climb.
Since haven't used a "vfr until" clearance I reserve the right to be wrong, but I was thinking the same thing: there doesn't seem to be any advantage for the controller. If you look at the paragraph it states it only to be used at pliot request or for noise abatement so the conditions are very limited. For the first condition it sounds useful for a pilot that wants to stay in good wx but stay IFR. It doesn't seem to help the controller out. I've never had to work under strict noise abatement rules so I'm not sure how the second condition applies.

VFR on top is something I haven't had to use before either, but going on memory the phraseology is "Climb to and report reaching VFR on top. If not on top by XXX maintain YYY and advise." That means to me once the pilot reports "VFR on top" they are maintaining VFR (on top). Compare that to: "MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS UNTIL (time or fix)". or "MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS ABOVE/BELOW (altitude)."
Quote
Keep in mind though airport operations and LOAs may prevent these procedures from being applied.

That tracks with what I'd heard about Caldwell. What I truly don't understand, though, is the spirit behind such an LOA.

Case in point, you can be stuck at CDW waiting for 15 mins for an IFR release while they launch jets out of nearby MMU, and props out of N07 (Lincoln Park, non-towered). If it's a nice day, why NOT let the IFR guy launch out of CDW with a VFR climb if he says he can do it.

Instead, the pilot is literally trapped on the ground, not allowed to go. If he does opt to launch VFR, the LOA (apparently) states that the IFR plan should be REMOVED from the system.  I just don't get it.

It's actually EASIER to depart from N07 under such circumstances (I do VFR release on IFR flight plan 1/3 times).

I would call the tower to try and find out why they remove the flight plan when an airplane departs VFR. The only reason I can think of is to keep the radar controller from getting swamped with VFR a/c airborne requesting IFR clearance. If you're busy and 1 or 2 planes depart VFR requesting IFR that's one thing, but if all of a sudden you have 5+ that can be a headache by its self.


My original question, though, is whether ATC was happier to have a specific constraint on the VFR climb (ie. "I can maintain VFR until reaching 4000", or "I can maintain VFR until [first fix on flight plan]") versus a generic "I'll depart VFR").  It seems like it's not anymore helpful, though, as the reason for the denial is not for lack of specifics, but more to do with the presence of an LOA which prevents the action flat out.

Assuming "maintain vfr conditions until 4000" can be used to side step IFR separation until you reach 4000 I would think some controller might balk at it because it kind of handcuffs them. When you simply depart VFR the controller can wait until workload permits and they have already established the necessary IFR separation. With "maintain vfr until" it takes both those factors out of the controllers hands.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 11:59:37 PM by sykocus » Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!