Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2016, 10:10:58 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  indianapolis atc
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: indianapolis atc  (Read 17134 times)
nd0725
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« on: April 16, 2008, 02:03:47 PM »

I live close to indianapolis and have been listening to the atc online.I was just wondering why are they always doing visual approaches?That's all i hear them say on there when talking about approaches.
Logged
IndyTower
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 325



« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2008, 03:25:21 PM »

The weather's been clear enough to do so...instrument approaches have not been necessary.  If you listen between about 11pm and 1am local you're hear more vectors for ILS approaches during the FedEx rush.
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 967


« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2008, 03:43:12 PM »

I live close to indianapolis and have been listening to the atc online.I was just wondering why are they always doing visual approaches?That's all i hear them say on there when talking about approaches.

A number of reasons here.

First, traffic conditions allot for it. Just because an airport has instrument approaches for runways doesn't mean they must always be used. In most cases in the US, visual approaches are even preferred over instrument approaches. Only places where I've seen instrument approaches used first and foremost are JFK and LAX, and even in LAX's case, they may be given the ILS approach first, but as they get closer to the field, pilots are asked to point out traffic converging. If they see it, they are told to follow the traffic and be cleared for a visual approach.

Second, comes the responsibility of separation on the approach. In an instrument approach, that responsibility lies totally on ATC. With a visual approach, the pilot is responsible for his/her separation. This gives ATC the ability to handle more traffic in the arrival stream/corridor, and sequence them in easier.

Third is weather. if the field is VMC, why not? Most times, you can see the field from a good 20nm out, depending on conditions at the field. There may be times where they may need to use the instrument approach (for example, you're landing west, it's late afternoon, and the sun is in your eye). This happens more times than not at places like LAS or PHX, where they would use the instrument approach at times like that. Or if visibility is the issue, then it's best to go with instrument approaches.

So there's a number of factors to go along with instrument vs. visual, but that's the bulk of it. I'm sure other controllers would love to chime in on this with their experiences.

BL.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2008, 05:35:40 PM »

The greatest reason, other than the weather conditions allowing for it, would be the increased volume of aircraft that can be brought into the airport as a result of granting all inbound IFR aircraft visual approaches. 

Higher volume means that airplanes get on the ground faster, saving airlines money in fuel costs, passengers a few minutes of time, and controllers the headache of having to separate approaching aircraft to a greater standard.

(not a controller but an active IFR pilot)
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
NWA ARJ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Private Pilot, Control Tower Operator


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2008, 11:03:41 AM »

Because controllers are lazy. And visual approaches are real easy to do. And you can do more ops per hour doing the visual approaches versus the ILS and such. Visual Separation is a great tool for controllers!!
Logged

Nightmare 68, Fargo Tower, Runway 36, Fly Runway Heading, Mantain 10,000, Cleared For Takeoff, Change To Departure
Canadian eh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2008, 11:30:06 AM »

it also allows pilots to decend at there own rate and is faster in some cases. ex. a pilot inbound on a heading of 180 looking to land on rwy16, he can intercept final at any point instead of having to fly past the airport to a fix before going inbound.
(not a ifr pilot but an active controller)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 11:31:46 AM by skip » Logged
IndyTower
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 325



« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2008, 11:39:25 AM »

After I posted yesterday I was thinking I should have explained more reasons behind this...nice job of doing that guys.  I'm glad you guys chipped in as my ISP was off and on the rest of the day and I couldn't post anything else.
Logged
ogogog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2008, 12:10:31 PM »

who ever says that running VAs can land more a/c has never run a busy final at ORD or MDW, ive seen controllers put thems selves down the crapper trying to run pure visuals " got en in sight, got en in signt ,got em in sight".its always easer to run ILS and set up your spaceing,if the pilots calls an aircraft ill give a VA but if thay dont my final is established and iam not scrambling.but thats the diffrance between level 3 atc and level 5 atc.iam not saying i dont use VAs but i dont use them stupidly(is that even a word Huh).
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2008, 12:15:56 PM »

who ever says that running VAs can land more a/c has never run a busy final at ORD or MDW, ive seen controllers put thems selves down the crapper trying to run pure visuals " got en in sight, got en in signt ,got em in sight".its always easer to run ILS and set up your spaceing,if the pilots calls an aircraft ill give a VA but if thay dont my final is established and iam not scrambling.but thats the diffrance between level 3 atc and level 5 atc.iam not saying i dont use VAs but i dont use them stupidly(is that even a word Huh).

Yes, I was thinking about pointing out that fact, too.  Despite CAVU weather at Boston Logan, I noticed when I go there that they almost always use the ILS for the big jets to keep them nicely sequenced to the airport.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Canadian eh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2008, 09:10:06 PM »

CAVU??? i assume thats the same as what we call CAVOK (CAV-ok) which stand for Ceiling And Visiblity OKay. to use the term cavok when reading weather you need, no cloud below 5000 ft, or below the highest min sector alt, whichever is higher, and no CB's, vis of 6sm or more and no precip, thunderstorms, shallow fog or drifting snow
Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2008, 10:35:02 PM »

It used to mean Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited.  Apparently they've changed the meaning according to the 7340.1 Contractions Manual.

Quote from: 7340.1 Contractions
CAVOK
 cloud and visibility OK
 
CAVU
 clear or scattered clouds and visibility greater than ten miles

Technically, "Clear or Scattered clounds" (along with FEW clouds) still consitutes an unlimited ceiling since there is no broken, overcast, or vertical visibility into an indefinite ceiling present for the condition.  But the official definition here is straight from the book and it appears to have been translated into more "plain" language.

The only time I ever see the term CAVU used anymore is in older NTSB reports or in flying magazines.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 10:37:45 PM by davolijj » Logged

Regards
JD
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2008, 10:45:11 PM »

The only time I ever see the term CAVU used anymore is in older NTSB reports or in flying magazines.

Pass me the Metamucil, sonny.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2008, 10:52:27 PM »

[Pass me the Metamucil, sonny.

Woops, sorry PJ, didn't mean to imply that.  Trust me I'm no spring chicken myself....especially on these boards.
Logged

Regards
JD
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2008, 11:07:23 PM »

Woops, sorry PJ, didn't mean to imply that.  Trust me I'm no spring chicken myself....especially on these boards.

No worries -  I was just messin' around.    Smiley  Smiley

Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339



« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2008, 01:57:11 PM »

[Pass me the Metamucil, sonny.

Woops, sorry PJ, didn't mean to imply that.  Trust me I'm no spring chicken myself....especially on these boards.

Hey JD,

I remember when you asked me what w0x0f meant too.  Trust me, you are still a spring chicken my friend.  That's a good thing.

PJ, can you spare some Metamucil?

w0x0f

Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2008, 02:05:21 PM »

Good point.  And I if I recall, you wouldn't tell me either.  I had to go ask another member of the "old guy" club to get the answer.

And as for the spring chicken comment, I was really just trying to make PJ feel better. wink
« Last Edit: April 18, 2008, 02:09:56 PM by davolijj » Logged

Regards
JD
mk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94



« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2008, 12:19:19 AM »

Because controllers are lazy. And visual approaches are real easy to do. And you can do more ops per hour doing the visual approaches versus the ILS and such. Visual Separation is a great tool for controllers!!

disagree...you often talk twice as much pointing out aircraft to other aircraft to follow.  it takes some work off of the controller b/c you don't have to space a/c that are landing parallel runways (depending on how close the runways are).   Also a C560(small) can land 3 or 4 miles behind a heavy versus the 6 miles a controller shall provide on an instrument approach.   

you still have to have enough room for the first a/c to get clear of the runway...which is why nextgen is a rediculous "tool" that have plp who don't control believeing it will save the NAS.  who cares if it reduces separation???  there will always be wake turbulence, and there will always be delays until we build more runways. end of rant on nextgen
Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2008, 09:40:38 AM »

disagree...you often talk twice as much pointing out aircraft to other aircraft to follow.  it takes some work off of the controller b/c you don't have to space a/c that are landing parallel runways (depending on how close the runways are).   Also a C560(small) can land 3 or 4 miles behind a heavy versus the 6 miles a controller shall provide on an instrument approach.

Where are you coming up with this?  As far as I can tell 6 miles is ALWAYS the minimum for a small landing behind a heavy without exception:

7110.65S  5-5-4
f. TERMINAL. In addition to subpara e, separate an aircraft landing behind another aircraft on the same runway, or one making a touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach by ensuring the following minima will exist at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold:

NOTE-
Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.


1. Small behind large- 4 miles.

2. Small behind B757- 5 miles.

3. Small behind heavy- 6 miles.
Logged

Regards
JD
MIAMIATC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 660



« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2008, 10:25:35 AM »

I dont know if this is being followed here in TPA but RWY 18L/18R are less than 2500 feet apart and landings are simultaneously operated  on each runway at a half a mile spacing.
Logged
NWA ARJ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Private Pilot, Control Tower Operator


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2008, 12:35:36 AM »

Because controllers are lazy. And visual approaches are real easy to do. And you can do more ops per hour doing the visual approaches versus the ILS and such. Visual Separation is a great tool for controllers!!

disagree...you often talk twice as much pointing out aircraft to other aircraft to follow.  it takes some work off of the controller b/c you don't have to space a/c that are landing parallel runways (depending on how close the runways are).   Also a C560(small) can land 3 or 4 miles behind a heavy versus the 6 miles a controller shall provide on an instrument approach.   

you still have to have enough room for the first a/c to get clear of the runway...which is why nextgen is a rediculous "tool" that have plp who don't control believeing it will save the NAS.  who cares if it reduces separation???  there will always be wake turbulence, and there will always be delays until we build more runways. end of rant on nextgen

Maybe that happens at the aiport you work at, but where I work we dont have parallels, I sequence them to the airport, point out the traffic, follow that traffic Cleared visual apprach Runway 36. Its pretty slick where I work at. It may require some more work at the bigger airports.
Logged

Nightmare 68, Fargo Tower, Runway 36, Fly Runway Heading, Mantain 10,000, Cleared For Takeoff, Change To Departure
nd0725
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2008, 10:41:32 PM »

most of the time when i try to listen at night it is down
Logged
IndyTower
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 325



« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2008, 11:16:42 PM »

most of the time when i try to listen at night it is down

Yeah my ISP has been down for a few days...haven't had enough time away from work to call to get it fixed...hope to do so within the next couple days.
Logged
mk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94



« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2008, 10:41:31 PM »

disagree...you often talk twice as much pointing out aircraft to other aircraft to follow.  it takes some work off of the controller b/c you don't have to space a/c that are landing parallel runways (depending on how close the runways are).   Also a C560(small) can land 3 or 4 miles behind a heavy versus the 6 miles a controller shall provide on an instrument approach.

Where are you coming up with this?  As far as I can tell 6 miles is ALWAYS the minimum for a small landing behind a heavy without exception:

7110.65S  5-5-4
f. TERMINAL. In addition to subpara e, separate an aircraft landing behind another aircraft on the same runway, or one making a touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach by ensuring the following minima will exist at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold:

NOTE-
Consider parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence.


1. Small behind large- 4 miles.

2. Small behind B757- 5 miles.

3. Small behind heavy- 6 miles.

the discussion is about viusal approaches...that's when a small can land behind a heavy with less than 6.  i know the rules...use them everyday.   and the reference to the parallel was because at certain airports like SFO for example, the runways are less than 2500' apart.  so, even though two airplanes may be landing on different runways (27L, 27R)  one must report the other in sight in order to visual approaches if you're gonna be less than the standard separation minima.
Logged
mk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94



« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2008, 10:46:03 PM »

NWA ARJ,

i agree, when it's not super busy or at smaller airports, it makes it so simple.  our final controller also sequences for a smaller class D airport and i just aim the arrivals for the D airport at the runway and they do all the other work. haha  Meanwhile i'm talkin my a$$ off sequencing for the major airport.
Logged
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!