Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2014, 05:27:15 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  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 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: IFR flight to Tupelo MS (KTUP) with ATC COMS  (Read 9165 times)
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: 548


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: 272


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 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!