Taking Off Without A Clearance - "Radio Problem"

flyingron said:
Cirrus pilot was IFR on an apparent visual approach up until ATC canceled his IFR clearance without an explicit request (seems odd to me).
Click to expand...
He was flying the RNAV RWY 31 approach course.
 
flyingron said:
No. Listen again. The controller said "Do you want to execute the missed approach or stay visual?" The latter does not imply IFR cancellation.
Click to expand...
When you accept a visual approach while Ifr, you either land if cleared to land or execute the missed approach. The controller asked whether the Cirrus wanted to go missed approach, ie. stay IFR, or remain visual (cancel IFR and remain in the pattern). I don't know of any instance where you can remain IFR with the tower and fly the vfr pattern. The tower controller definitely could have used better terminology. She could have said "do you want to go missed approach or cancel IFR and remain with the tower?" She would have had to frequency change him to approach control if he went missed.
 
dbahn said:
What the Cirrus pilot found "unbelievable" happens frequently at non-towered fields, i.e. mis-communication - which is a very broad cluster of occurrences. Just because you're used to the hand-holding of ATC operations doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for someone pulling out in front of you.
Click to expand...
The tower controller's primary responsibility is sequencing aircraft not separation. If there had been a midair, the responsibility for the accident would be shared by both the Cirrus and Diamond pilots with the Diamond pilot getting the lion's share of blame. The tower controller would be blameless. i suspect that some pilots get a false sense of security when operating at towered airfields. While it's nice to have another set of eyeball looking out for aircraft, the guys on the ground don't relieve the pilots in the air from seeing and avoiding.
 
Witmo said:
When you accept a visual approach while Ifr, you either land if cleared to land or execute the missed approach. The controller asked whether the Cirrus wanted to go missed approach, ie. stay IFR, or remain visual (cancel IFR and remain in the pattern). I don't know of any instance where you can remain IFR with the tower and fly the vfr pattern. The tower controller definitely could have used better terminology. She could have said "do you want to go missed approach or cancel IFR and remain with the tower?" She would have had to frequency change him to approach control if he went missed.
Click to expand...
There's no missed approach procedure on a Visual. He must have been on an published approach. The terminology and the ensuing action were indeed non-standard and potentially problematic.
 
flyingron said:
There's no missed approach procedure on a Visual. He must have been on an published approach....
Click to expand...
And his flight path and altitudes were consistent with flying the RNAV 31 approach (from the DOCAL IF.).

09216R31.png
 
DFH65 said:
They ought to ban the use of local landmarks by ATC. Looking at Google maps that amphitheater is not obvious.
Click to expand...
They do it everywhere. There are plenty of non-transients and those who use the airport regularly to make it a valuable tool. For those who are not, a simple "unfamiliar" gets a helpful response (BTDT).
 
I remember flying into Cheyenne, Wyoming on my first solo XC and they told me to report "the flame." I told them I was unfamiliar. They told me I'd see it. Sure enough the path passed over one of these refinery vent flame things.
 
Got me thinking... . I spent 20 years flying and teaching at APA in south metro Denver. It is one of the busiest GA airports in the country, with a large population of flight schools, charter operators, and corporate jets. Three runways - two parallel and one "crosswind" - all used on a typical day I can't imagine the chaos without a using a set of local landmarks known to both controllers and most pilots using the airport.
 
Witmo said:
The tower controller's primary responsibility is sequencing aircraft not separation. If there had been a midair, the responsibility for the accident would be shared by both the Cirrus and Diamond pilots with the Diamond pilot getting the lion's share of blame. The tower controller would be blameless. i suspect that some pilots get a false sense of security when operating at towered airfields. While it's nice to have another set of eyeball looking out for aircraft, the guys on the ground don't relieve the pilots in the air from seeing and avoiding.
Click to expand...

Yes, but most do try to provide separation. But either way it is still on you to be aware and not run into other airplanes.

Was flying into a local towered field in a CAP 182. I reported a Visual Reporting Point and was told to enter left down wind, report mid-field. There were 3 training pattern flights doing right traffic. A Cirrus reported the same VRP very shortly after me. Tower called me a traffic and told him to enter left downwind. I see him on ADSB. Next thing I know, he is parallel to me, not behind.

Tower asked him and he reported that he was on a WIDE downwind. Tower told him to climb 500 feet. Then right after I made my mid-field call, they told him to do a right 360, now number 5 to land (a Gulfstream had reported in and was given priority).

I wanted to key the mic and start clapping for the tower controller. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top