Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 09, 2016, 04:19:28 PM
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
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

 21 
 on: December 06, 2016, 05:03:58 AM 
Started by tyketto - Last post by dave
These feeds are now offline until a new host location can be found. We hope to have them back from a new location in January but there are no guarantees. This includes the ZLA feed.

 22 
 on: December 05, 2016, 05:27:19 PM 
Started by GeoffSM1 - Last post by GeoffSM1
Delta McDonnel Douglas MD-88 at Daytona Beach on Nov 28th 2016, rejected takeoff due to bird strikes

https://www.aeroinside.com/item/8663/delta-md88-at-daytona-beach-on-nov-28th-2016-rejected-takeoff-due-to-bird-strikes

Pilot is given a choice of runway for take off and would possibly agree he made the wrong choice.

 23 
 on: December 02, 2016, 02:53:40 PM 
Started by mlt - Last post by dawgweed
The Canadian reporting system can be queried here;


http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/CADORS-SCREAQ/m.aspx?lang=eng

 24 
 on: December 02, 2016, 01:59:02 PM 
Started by GeoffSM1 - Last post by GeoffSM1
http://avherald.com/h?article=4a16c12f&opt=0

Aircraft was climbing out of Grand Rapids when the crew stopped the climb at about 8000 feet and returned to Grand Rapids after a cabin window cracked.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ENY3721/history/20161128/2240Z/KGRR/KORD


 

 25 
 on: December 01, 2016, 11:16:24 PM 
Started by mlt - Last post by mlt
Yes I thought the ATC recording would be from the Vancouver Centre, unfortunately there are no Vancouver Centre archives!!

Thank you for finding the Aviation report! Where did you find this?

 26 
 on: December 01, 2016, 09:14:20 PM 
Started by RonR - Last post by JetScan1
Ron,

Quote
133.5 and 128.675 are now on the JFK3 feed.  At the moment the controller is also simulcasting on 125.92...you want that freq on this radio too?

Thanks for taking the time to do that, appreciate it.

Yeah the 133.50 and 125.92 sectors seem to be combined a lot of the time, so it would makes sense to permanently add 125.925 to your #3 radio.

I'm going to be busy for the next week, but I'll check the archives later when I have time and see if I can catch them splitting off 128.675 into a separate sector again ?



 27 
 on: December 01, 2016, 07:58:38 PM 
Started by n07cfi - Last post by bikhhr
I already suspect this will not be a popular opinion (especially among CFI’s), but here goes my logic and my “armchair legal opinion” (I am not a lawyer).  Sorry for the length, but this is complicated:

1) A controller can NOT authorize you to do something illegal. They may say "go ahead and buzz the field", but that doesn't make it legal. Your mother may say the same thing, but that doesn't make it legal, either.

2) If you are cleared to land, and you abort the landing in the interests of safety, you have violated your ATC clearance (you were cleared to LAND), but it's totally okay to do so in the interests of safety. By aborting your landing, you have, in effect, performed a routine “emergency “action, as you deviated from 91.123b (requiring adherence to ATC clearances), per the allowance given to you in 91.3 (“an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action”).
91.123b: "Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."
http://www.aeromanual.com/%C2%A791.123
91.3: "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
http://aeromanual.com/%C2%A791.3

3) You MUST tell the controller, once it's safe to do so, that you're "going around", per 91.123c:
91.123c: "Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible."

4) ATC should NEVER complain about you aborting a landing (or doing ANYTHING, for that matter), in the interests of safety.  If an overwhelmed and flustered controller ever does complain, be sure to non-defensively clarify on the radio (this is being recorded) that you aborted your landing in the interests of safety.  It'll look good on the tape transcript later, if they make a beef.

....now, the trouble...

5) If you intend to PRACTICE a "go-around" (meaning that you never had any intention of touching the ground), you are technically breaking the minimum altitude rule.
FAR 91.119 begins "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:"
http://www.aeromanual.com/%C2%A791.119
..this means that if you approach the field for, let's call it a "practice go-around", in which you've already decided that you're not going to land, then really you're just flying too low (unless you're a helicopter, which has different minimums), since you were never intending to land.  Even if the controller is okay with it, that doesn’t make it legal.

For this reason, if I want to practice my go-arounds (a critical pilot skill to keep sharp on), I WILL NOT WARN THE CONTROLLER.  I know this doesn’t sound good; the system works best when everyone is “on the same side” and works together, but the law unfortunately left us with this unhandled problem.  I will usually ask for “the option”, giving no indication that I’m not intending to touch the ground, then announce that I’m “going around” on my way up.  Warning the controller that I’m not going to land would be admitting to an intentional violation of the 91.119 minimum altitude rule without an emergency condition to justify it.  Make sure that you put your gear down and go through all the other motions when doing “practice go-arounds”, or it would be difficult to argue that you were planning on landing.  If anyone was suspicious of my intentions, I can always just say that “it didn’t look good, and I didn’t think it was safe” (too high/hot or not on glideslope or whatever).

6) So what about “IFR practice approaches” (done under VFR) that terminate in a “low pass”?  This is really the same situation, as if you dip below 1,000’ AGL (as most practice approaches will) before “going missed”, you have effectively violated 91.119 (minimum altitude rule) again, whether the controllers were okay with it or not.  Honestly, I usually break with my previous advice on this one.  I usually inform the controller (that usually asks) that my approach will terminate in a “low pass” rather than a “full stop”), simply because: a) I consider it to be more disruptive of the traffic flow to surprise the controller, b) violations start with complaints from controllers- if you “work with them”, they’re not likely to violate you; if you try to trick them, and it screws with their sequencing/separation, they ARE likely to look for a way to violate you, and c) if you continually “go missed” when you say you’re going to “full stop”, they might think you’re an imbecile and not let you keep messing around with their traffic/approach pattern, or get alarmed that you may be experiencing some other problem.

7) If you practice your VFR go-arounds at an untowered field, there’s no controller around to make trouble for you. Just be sure to make good use of the CTAF frequency for the benefit of all your other two-winged friends up there, fly considerately, and see-and-avoid.

Remember- in the end, rules don't matter if you bend metal, so safety first!

 28 
 on: December 01, 2016, 04:58:07 PM 
Started by VictorAtienza94 - Last post by alfd822
Chilling, RIP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 29 
 on: December 01, 2016, 03:24:43 PM 
Started by mlt - Last post by dawgweed
Here is the Aviation report on it;

UPDATE TSB #A16P0204: C-GRSL, a Beech C90 (King Air) aircraft operated by Canadian Flight Centre, was en route from Vancouver/Boundary Bay, BC (CZBB) to Edmonton Intl, AB (CYEG) under IFR at FL210. Approximately 40 nautical miles North West of Revelstoke, BC, the aircraft began to lose pressurization and the flight crew requested a descent to FL190. Subsequently, the crew reported a pressurization failure and declared an emergency. ATC cleared the flight to the minimum IFR altitude of 14 300 feet ASL and the flight continued to its destination. The TSB is awaiting more information.

 30 
 on: December 01, 2016, 11:45:56 AM 
Started by Paulbc - Last post by Paulbc
Saudia SV891 Lucknow-Jeddah (A330 HZ-AQI) diverted to Karachi Thursday 1st December, with a straight-in to Runway 25L. Active runway was 07R. Other inbounds forced to hold.

Captain declared Mayday and stated he would stop on the runway, unable to taxi. Requested full assembly of emergency vehicles, including ambulances.

Nature of problem still not clear at time of posting.

Edit: Reason for diversion was captain fainting. Co-pilot made the Mayday call.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10


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!