Practice IFR approach?

[Spike]

My advice for the students reading, it’s painfully clear, controllers and pilots can and will miscommunicate, -till no end….

 

This statement is a generalization not necessarily directed at this thread. However, many statements had been made about comprehension, he said this, you said that, I didn’t say that, etc., etc… Which indicates miscommunication……... IMHO…..

[avbug]

Why would you be upset.

 

I'm not upset. Why would you make an assumption (again) that I am?

 

You assume far too much; a very unprofessional and dangerous trait in this business.

 

You make statements saying one thing to support your opinion and then make another statement about the same situation saying something totally different to defend your new position because your own scenario made you look bad.

 

At no time in this thread have I made any contradictory statements. You've misquoted and invented quotes repeatedly in order to attempt to show contradiction. At first I thought perhaps you had trouble understanding, but after identifying "quotes" that you invented, I realized you ere simply lying. Let's face it: I quoted you, and then put my quote next to it. The to weren't close. You invented a statement that I never made, and tried to pass it off as a quote. Interesting, but it did destroy any credibility you might have hoped to have in the conversation, didn't it?

 

It did.

 

I know this thread has really pissed you off now, especially since you were corrected by someone who really does understand IFR approach procedures.

 

You know very little, really, and we've shown that time and time again. You've been 100% wrong on nearly every count.

 

You apparently work for the FAA, and clearly don't know your material very well. If anything, this is a good lesson for students; don't take counsel from the FAA, which often as not is populated by those who couldn't make it in the private sector. Only a fool in this business ever believes the notion that "I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help you."

 

I'm not pissed off. Mildly entertained, perhaps. Not pissed off. You'd know it, however, were that to be the case.

 

My advice for the students reading, it’s painfully clear, controllers and pilots can and will miscommunicate, -till no end….

 

For those who haven't, wait until you start working internationally.

 

A common clearance that's heard in this part of the world is "cleared direct XXXXX as filed." One could be forgiven for believing that clearance is actually direct to XXXXX, because that's what was said. It's not what was intended, however, and going direct could cause some interesting issues, not the least of which is getting one shot down. What the controller is doing is clearing you to a point along your filed or previously cleared routing, and nothing more. Going direct in such a case would be a bad idea.

 

Hearing clearances and acting on them should always be clarified, however. Altitudes are easily missed or confused, as are other clearances and actions.

 

The classic miscommunication in the cockpit is one pilot telling the other "You've got the aircraft." The first pilot thinks the second is taking the controls, and when the second pilot replies "I've got the aircraft," the matter seems confirmed. The problem is that the second pilot thinks the first pilot is reporting traffic, and he looks outside the cockpit, sees an aircraft, and confirms that he sees the traffic. Now, nobody is flying the aircraft, complete miscommunication has taken place, and the aircraft crashes. Seems far fetched? It's not, and it's happened.

 

Those who don't understand procedures can get themselves into big trouble. I was with an individual once who heard that he as cleared for the approach, and decided he'd help himself to a "vector" onto final. Why fly to the VOR, fly the full procedure turn, and then come back to the airport to land, he reasoned, when he was close to the final approach course, and could simply turn inbound and land? He made a shortcut to final, and was quickly called-out by the controller who had not issued a vector. The pilot was expected to fly the full procedure, and his attempt at making a shortcut, and what he perceived as a clearance to do so, nearly ran him into a tall radio tower sticking up into the clag. Not good. Fortunately the controller caught the pilot's error, and directed him to climb immediately. A serious incident was averted.

 

One doesn't need to go international to have communication issues; going from Los Angeles to New York City, or from Fargo, North Dakota to Augusta Georgia is like going to a foreign country. The air traffic rules are fairly uniform, but the pace of activity can change drastically, as can the way things are conducted, the accents and voices on the radio, and the reactions of those around you as you try to fit in.

 

As a student pilot, you do NOT need to memorize or learn the controller handbook. You should get familiar with the AIM and know the roles, procedures, and responsibilities it imparts. Know the regulation, and know how to read a chart and what to do with the information you read. This applies to VFR and IFR flying. If you've got that down, you've got most of the battle won. Rest assured that there are plenty of situations in the working world that will crop up that don't match textbook descriptions, and you will see them. Flying a procedure to a closed runway is one of them, as is flying procedures to no runways, waterways, points in space, helipads, and even seeing runways closed due to weather, and approaches denied due to weather-related limitations. For some of us who do this every day for a living, working IFR and VFR, we see it all the time. Don't be too bamboozled by those who read about it in a manual and think they've got it pegged. Some of us have been doing this professionally for a long time, and do it often and regularly. Some of us do it all over the country, and in my case, all over the world.

 

It's interesting that most of the time, the most argumentative adherents of wrong information are private pilots and those with a little book learning. It's always interesting to see them develop and learn over the upcoming years, as they discover how much it is that they never really knew. At this stage in the game, they'll call that observation arrogance, but it's simply a benchmark of all they have yet to learn. Good luck.

[d10]

You older guys have made mistakes in your quotes and when those mistakes were pointed out by a flight student, you then proceeded to verbally attack that student based on your opinions and then failed to have those facts supported by documentation.

 

You're the only one verbally attacking people here. In fact you make that clear with your very next sentence:

 

The reason for the questions was to determine exactly how much BS you'd be willing to spew to make your point.

 

Why? What does this determination have to do with who's right? You've asked questions that have little to do with what the OP asked, the tangent this thread went off on, and certainly nothing to do with my only informative post in this thread. You asked these questions (as I suspected) solely to discredit our input. Not that it worked because the only one to entertain you provided reasonable answers. But still, this shows that you're more interested in proving somebody wrong than you are providing your input on the questions asked.

 

The guys you're attacking on the other hand have only provided our knowledge. I haven't seen anyone attack helistar other than pointing out when he's been wrong. Maybe in a bit of a condescending manner at times, but when you're dealing with a guy who's not open to learning from the experience of others because of a book he's misinterpreting that's not unreasonable.

[aeroscout]

The whole point of hangar flying is to relate and absorb experiences so you can learn ( and re learn) with your feet firmly on the ground. An enjoyable aspect of hangar flying is the regaling. The hangar flyers who have the most valuable information and experiences are naturally the most experienced, but not always. This forum is similar to hangar flying, in that wisdom can be exchanged from experienced to inexperienced. This forum and ones like it can be so valuable if one will be open minded to the forerunners that often have blazed a path for others to follow, and if one will heed the cautionary tales of paths not so desirable to follow.

[tracon]

Now that I've been back from vacation a few days, I'll clear this crap up using the FAR & AIM reference material, since you want to claim I don't understand my own 7110.65.

 

Avbug, at this point you were arguing with a flight student about a side-step approach clearance in an attempt to convince them that a published side-step approach procedure to one runway is in fact a clearance to a different closed runway?

 

The following are your words, not mine and they are WRONG and I'll explain below your quotes.

 

Helistar Again, you're incorrect.

 

How about KLCK ILS 23L, when runway 23L is closed?

 

 

You'll note that minimums are provided for flying the approach, an ILS, to runway 23L, but sidestepping to 23R. I've flown this procedure when 23L is closed; I've flown the instrument approach to this closed runway,then sidestepped, per ATC, to 23R. It's not a big deal.

 

Again, you say you've never seen an approach to a closed runway. You're a student pilot. Just how many approaches have you seen? I've flown approaches throughout the USA, in every state; thousands of them, as well as on every continent but Antarctica, and in nearly every country around the globe.

 

Approaches are conducted to closed runways, generally terminating in a missed approach or a circle to land or sidestep maneuver, as previously noted.

 

Negative.

 

In the example given, the initial clearance was (and is) "XXX, cleared to intercept the localizer, Runway 23L," with a subsequent, "Cleared ILS 23L." The landing clearance isn't necessarily (and wasn't) issued in conjunction with the approach clearance.

 

Formerly you stated that one is not cleared for an approach to a closed runway. You stated this incorrectly. The approach, a full ILS, is to a closed runway. The landing clearance, however, is eventually issued to another runway. The approach clearance and the landing clearance are not necessarily (and were not) issued concurrently.

 

Since according to you, pilots have no need for using the 7110.65, even through it's phraseology is the EXACT same as contained the AIM & FAR

http://www.faa.gov/a...p4/aim0402.html

 

Section 2. Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques

4-2-1. General

c. All pilots will find the Pilot/Controller Glossary very helpful in learning what certain words or phrases mean. Good phraseology enhances safety and is the mark of a professional pilot. Jargon, chatter, and “CB” slang have no place in ATC communications.

The Pilot/Controller Glossary is the same glossary used in FAA Order JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control. We recommend that it be studied and reviewed from time to time to sharpen your communication skills.

 

And using the following rules pulled from the AIM

 

http://www.faa.gov/a...p5/aim0504.html

#5-4-3

Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course, when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled.

 

Also knowing that per the AIM

http://www.faa.gov/a...404.html#4-4-10

4-4-1. Clearance

a. A clearance issued by ATC is predicated on known traffic and known physical airport conditions.An ATC clearance means an authorization by ATC, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified conditions within controlled airspace. IT IS NOT AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE NOR TO CONDUCT UNSAFE OPERATION OF THE AIRCRAFT.

 

And Understanding the REQUIRED CLEARANCE Phraseology per the AIM is

http://www.faa.gov/a...s/aim/index.htm

 

Section 4. Arrival Procedures

5-4-19. Side-step Maneuver

 

ATC may authorize a standard instrument approach procedure which serves either one of parallel runways that are separated by 1,200 feet or less followed by a straight-in landing on the adjacent runway.

 

b. Aircraft that will execute a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified approach procedure and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. Example, "cleared ILS runway 23 left approach, side-step to runway 23 right." Pilots are expected to commence the side-step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight. Compliance with minimum altitudes associated with stepdown fixes is expected even after the side-step maneuver is initiated.

 

NOTE-

Side-step minima are flown to a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) regardless of the approach authorized.

 

c. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.

 

5-4-20. Approach and Landing Minimums

 

d. Side-Step Maneuver Minimums. Landing minimums for a side-step maneuver to the adjacent runway will normally be higher than the minimums to the primary runway.

 

===

 

Given the fact you continually fail to provide any type of documentation supporting your position when correcting a flight student other than bragging about what a great pilot you are and how you've flown around the world and simply know better than them, because after all your flying in the real world is a crock of BS. You don't hear me saying, Dude I have 35,360 hours of IFR tracon experience, because that crap is useless. Instead I provide documentation supporting my statements in an effort to help students learn the correct information.

 

I've now used your exact words and provided you with documentation out of your own material and books to prove your wrong yet again. So any lack of comprehension to understand the material is clearly yours and you've yet to provide anything to prove otherwise.

 

Your claim clearly states a side-step procedure is an approach clearance to a closed runway. That statement is wrong, because during a side-step procedure you are flying a published approach "AS PUBLISHED".

 

Straight out of the AIM

Aircraft that will execute a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified approach procedure and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. Example, "cleared ILS runway 23 left approach, side-step to runway 23 right."

[aeroscout]

Hey tracon, if cleared for the approach, and the approach clearance includes the runway as part of the title of the approach, does that mean you will land on that runway, assuming no missed approach or go around ? And remember, helicopters don't generally land at the termination of an approach, at least not on the runway. They terminate at a hover, and continue in a hover or air taxi to a line spot.

[tracon]

Avbugs statements were specific in naming a side-step approach.

 

I assume your now asking about an "Approach to a Point−in−Space" or "Approach to a specific landing site"

 

Totally different subject than what Avbug stated as fact.

[avbug]

A clearance for an approach does not imply, and does not provide, clearance to land. A clearance may be granted for an approach with no intention to land, nor any provision to land. Accordingly, an approach may be issued to a closed runway, as is the case.

 

I did not describe a side step approach, nor did I name one. The approach clearance was not issued as a sidestep approach. It was issued by name: cleared ILS 23L. Period. End of story.

 

Whether a subsequent landing was made on a parallel runway, or a perpendicular runway, or a taxiway, or any other location is irrelevant. The approach clearance wasn't issued as a sidestep, it was issued as an approach, by name, to the closed runway; namely, cleared ILS 23L.

 

Runway 23L was closed. Whether I knew it or not is irrelevant. Whether the controller knew it or not is irrelevant. Whether the controller advised me, independent of the approach clearance, that landings were being conducted on a parallel, is irrelevant. The clearance was not part of that information, nor was it a function of the clearance. The clearance was, in fact, to a closed runway.

 

I was cleared tonight to a runway in a dust storm, for which the previous several aircraft executed missed approaches due to an unstable localizer and glideslope, and low visibility. I flew the approach successfully, and those who went missed returned to make successful subsequent landings. That particular location can and does close from time to time for reasons which need not be discussed here, yet approaches can and are flown during those periods. Conversely, air traffic control at that location also can, and does exclude traffic from using the approach procedures due to weather and other reasons not associated with traffic flow.

[tracon]

Once again, YOUR POST, Your Words, Your IAP Example, when you were correcting a flight student explaining how a side-step approach clearance was infact a clearance to a closed runway.

 

Of course. I flew one not long ago. The runway in use had no instrument approach. The parallel approach was operative, but the runway was closed. Consequently, approaches were in use to the closed runway, and upon identification of the runway environment, the approach clearance included a side-step to the parallel.

 

I did not describe a side step approach, nor did I name one. The approach clearance was not issued as a sidestep approach. It was issued by name: cleared ILS 23L. Period. End of story.

 

The approach clearance wasn't issued as a sidestep, it was issued as an approach, by name, to the closed runway; namely, cleared ILS 23L.

 

Runway 23L was closed. Whether I knew it or not is irrelevant. Whether the controller knew it or not is irrelevant. Whether the controller advised me, independent of the approach clearance, that landings were being conducted on a parallel, is irrelevant. The clearance was not part of that information, nor was it a function of the clearance. The clearance was, in fact, to a closed runway.

 

WOW, a controller and pilots knowledge of a closed runway is irrelevant and not knowing at the time during you flying an approach, a runway that is closed is irrelevant, considering your argument is YOU were flying an approach to THAT CLOSED RUNWAY. Whats even more interesting is a controller issued an approach clearance to that runway failling to issue the proper advisories and clearance phraseology. Didn't happen and your story is Total BS.

 

Damn, I thought I had heard it all until today. Your amazing, simply amazing.

 

According to your senario, if you went NORDO during this approach having already received the approach clearance prior to going NORDO, upon clearing the weather and seeing the steady green light gun in the tower you would be landing on a closed runway that just might happen to have equipment and personel working on it, because after all that's the Published Approach You were cleared for according to you.

 

There's a reason we have standardized procedures and phraseology for so many senarios and also why so much of the FAR, AIM & 7110.65 contain the same overlapping information. "Your Safety"

[Tarantula]

I probably shouldn't jump into this, but I haven't seen this quoted yet, and I'm wondering why.

http://www.faa.gov/a....html#ooJc8JACK

3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION

 

If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and

 

a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a clearance cannot be issued.

 

b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation will be at his/her own risk.

 

PHRASEOLOGY-

RUNWAY (runway number) CLOSED/UNSAFE.

 

If appropriate, (quote NOTAM information),

 

UNABLE TO ISSUE DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCH-AND-GO CLEARANCE.

DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCH-AND-GO WILL BE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

 

c. Except as permitted by para 4-8-7, Side-step Maneuver, where parallel runways are served by separate ILS/MLS systems and one of the runways is closed, the ILS/MLS associated with the closed runway should not be used for approaches unless not using the ILS/MLS would have an adverse impact on the operational efficiency of the airport.

 

I only see this applying when an aircraft requests to takeoff from, land on, or touch and go on a closed runway. Not if an aircraft requests an approach to a closed runway.

 

There is also 4-8-1 which avbug quoted partially before. The relevant part to this I think is

http://www.faa.gov/a...tc/atc0408.html

NOTE-

1. Clearances authorizing instrument approaches are issued on the basis that, if visual contact with the ground is made before the approach is completed, the entire approach procedure will be followed unless the pilot receives approval for a contact approach, is cleared for a visual approach, or cancels their IFR flight plan.

 

Then we have 5-5-5.

http://www.faa.gov/a...0505.html#5-5-5

5-5-5. Missed Approach

 

a. Pilot.

 

1. Executes a missed approach when one of the following conditions exist:

 

(a) Arrival at the Missed Approach Point (MAP) or the Decision Height (DH) and visual reference to the runway environment is insufficient to complete the landing.

 

( Determines that a safe approach or landing is not possible (see subparagraph

5-4-21h).

 

© Instructed to do so by ATC.

 

2. Advises ATC that a missed approach will be made. Include the reason for the missed approach unless the missed approach is initiated by ATC.

 

3. Complies with the missed approach instructions for the IAP being executed from the MAP, unless other missed approach instructions are specified by ATC.

 

4. If executing a missed approach prior to reaching the MAP, fly the lateral navigation path of the instrument procedure to the MAP. Climb to the altitude specified in the missed approach procedure, except when a maximum altitude is specified between the final approach fix (FAF) and the MAP. In that case, comply with the maximum altitude restriction. Note, this may require a continued descent on the final approach.

 

5. Following a missed approach, requests clearance for specific action; i.e., another approach, hold for improved conditions, proceed to an alternate airport, etc.

 

Is there a reason a pilot couldn't request to fly an approach to a closed runway and go missed? Upon breaking into VFR cancel IFR and request a direct to the ramp or other runway landing?

 

Last, I found 4-3-12

http://www.faa.gov/a...403.html#4-3-12

4-3-12. Low Approach

 

a. A low approach (sometimes referred to as a low pass) is the go-around maneuver following an approach. Instead of landing or making a touch-and-go, a pilot may wish to go around (low approach) in order to expedite a particular operation (a series of practice instrument approaches is an example of such an operation). Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the low approach should be made straight ahead, with no turns or climb made until the pilot has made a thorough visual check for other aircraft in the area.

 

b. When operating within a Class B, Class C, and Class D surface area, a pilot intending to make a low approach should contact the tower for approval. This request should be made prior to starting the final approach.

 

c. When operating to an airport, not within a Class B, Class C, and Class D surface area, a pilot intending to make a low approach should, prior to leaving the final approach fix inbound (nonprecision approach) or the outer marker or fix used in lieu of the outer marker inbound (precision approach), so advise the FSS, UNICOM, or make a broadcast as appropriate.

 

Could a pilot not request a low approach to a closed runway, and upon breaking VFR cancel IFR and request a direct to the ramp or other runway landing?

 

I'm also "only a student", but I am planning to go for my instrument certificate next. More information is always good, but I'd like to know what is correct.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Tarantula

[500E]

Well I am confused now we have high hour pilots saying one thing, controllers saying another.

I can only wonder there are not more accidents due to misunderstandings.

The one thing I think I have a grip on is the statement.

"An approach clearance and a landing clearance are completely separate entities,"

 

As HJ said

 

"The irony of all this is that it's your chair moving at 150 knots, not the controller's.

When your aircraft slams into that unseen ridge, he'll probably feel really bad. You probably won't feel a thing."

[Trans Lift]

Basically, fly VFR!

[Stealthchicken]

^{I'm confused as well. I'm a moderately high-time fixed wing pilot moving over to the "dark side" of helicopters when I stumbled across this thread. I certainly don't have the IFR experience of many here, but I've done a few approaches and it's always been my understanding that an approach clearance will not be denied simply because the airport is reporting less than minimums if the aircraft is operating under Part 91. I think that was the OP's original question. I've always had the (mis?)understanding that known traffic conflicts were the only reason to absolutely, positively deny a clearance--any type of clearance. Controllers aren't beat cops sent to enforce the FARs, and they're not to substitute their judgment for that of the PIC. They are there to keep aircraft separated, and if they can issue the clearance and maintain separation then they're supposed to issue the clearance even if it's likely that the pilot will be busting some FARs in the process.}

 

^{Perhaps I've been wrong all these years. Learn something every day . . .}

[avbug]

WOW, a controller and pilots knowledge of a closed runway is irrelevant and not knowing at the time during you flying an approach, a runway that is closed is irrelevant, considering your argument is YOU were flying an approach to THAT CLOSED RUNWAY. Whats even more interesting is a controller issued an approach clearance to that runway failling to issue the proper advisories and clearance phraseology. Didn't happen and your story is Total BS.

 

It most certainly did happen, and your comments thus far have been shown to be completely wrong, including misquotes and lies to support the point you think you're trying to make. Having come from being nearly completely wrong on every count, you call my factual statements based on recent experience "bs?" Interesting. If you can't make your point with lies and misquotes and mistatements, the next step is to simply accuse the participatn of never having been there in the first place. You're a work and a wonder, to be sure.

 

According to your senario, if you went NORDO during this approach having already received the approach clearance prior to going NORDO, upon clearing the weather and seeing the steady green light gun in the tower you would be landing on a closed runway that just might happen to have equipment and personel working on it, because after all that's the Published Approach You were cleared for according to you.

 

Don't be an idiot. I'm going to land on a closed runway based on a green light? The tower is going to give me a green light to land on a closed runway? I'm going to break out and look for the light?

 

I don't need a green light if I've lost communications; I'm expected to proceed and land.

 

Now that you mention it, however, as I've already cited the fact, I have landed on a closed runway with men and equipment working on the runway, during an emergency, with full communication with the tower and real time coordination. It worked out well, too.

 

According to my "scenario" (a true accounting of a recent approach I flew, not a "scenario"), I did fly the approach as cleared, and received a subsequent clearance to land from the tower. What I "would" have done or what the tower "would" have done is irrelevant and pure speculation on your part; baseless speculation at best with no bearing on what I have provided here. Again, don't be an idiot. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. I was cleared for an approach, which I flew, and cleared to land on a different runway, which I did. The clearances were separate and distinct, given by different entities, and were provided sequentially. I was initially cleared to fly a heading, then to join the localizer, then to fly the approach. I was turned over to the tower, which cleared me to land on a different runway. This is common.

 

It's not at all uncommon, in fact, to be cleared by the tower to land on a different runway than that of the approach for which one was previously cleared. I have experienced this domestically, internationally, and at rural small airports as well as busy metro locations.

 

You, clearly, have not.

 

What you represent, then, is the voice of inexperience. The more you post, the more evident this is shown to be.

 

Could a pilot not request a low approach to a closed runway, and upon breaking VFR cancel IFR and request a direct to the ramp or other runway landing?

 

Absolutely. It's done all the time, just as one may fly an approach to an airfield at one airport, in order to land at another that has no approach. I've done it many times. Simply because you are cleared for or fly an approach does not mean you must land at that field, or land at all. Often approaches are flown simply to get beneath weather, with full intent of flying somewhere else to land, or to proceed visually. Not a big deal at all.

 

Is there a reason a pilot couldn't request to fly an approach to a closed runway and go missed?

 

There is no reason it can't be done, because it is done. I did it myself, and have spent much of this thread describing one such event.

 

I probably shouldn't jump into this, but I haven't seen this quoted yet, and I'm wondering why.

 

You should jump in where ever you wish. It was quoted earlier in the thread, but it's okay to quote it again.

[Falko]

wow, i cant believe this topic keeps on going........ happy Christmas everyone

[aeroscout]

wow, i cant believe this topic keeps on going........ happy Christmas everyone

 

The eveready energizer bunny thread.

[avbug]

I flew an approach to low minimums in a dust storm last night, and then spent the evening sitting out a rocket attack in a shelter. It's been a long couple of days. While there, I had a conversation with another aviator about this thread, and about being denied an approach due to weather. He'd had similiar experiences, and was quite adamant that he'd been refused approach clearances due to weather. In fact, some of the airfields we were using were not authorizing approaches due to the weather. It happens. It wasn't a traffic issue, either.

 

I flew an approach to the same field two nights before, in which other aircraft ahead of me went missed. I was fortunate to be in a position to land at minimums when the lights appeared, and did land, and other aircraft came back around, flew the approach, and landed behind me.

 

I have been in such locations and in such conditions in the past when the runway was not necessarily useable (bomb damage and other concerns), but the approach was still quite viable for getting to the airport and transitioning as needed.

 

While our book-learned intrepid ATC folks have seen the library, I submit there's much of the world they've yet to view. I suggest they post, and speak, accordingly.

[aeroscout]

Good suggestion.

[tracon]

I have been in such locations and in such conditions in the past when the runway was not necessarily useable (bomb damage and other concerns), but the approach was still quite viable for getting to the airport and transitioning as needed.

 

While our book-learned intrepid ATC folks have seen the library, I submit there's much of the world they've yet to view. I suggest they post, and speak, accordingly.

 

Avbug, do the students a favor and explain the difference using FAA Documentation, between what your claiming is an approach to a closed runway and the material contained in all parts of the FAR & AIM and also include Chapter 10 of the AIM. I'll let you choose which sections apply to the procedures you've described.

 

Your problem is I'm able to discredit your opinion with FAA documentation contained within your very own AIM & FAR Regulations. While so far throughout this debate you've failed to do anything other than spew opinion and insults in an effort to make yourself appear knowledgeable about a subject matter for which you obviously have a limited understanding.

 

FYI: those questions I asked in my first post, where straight out of the FAR & AIM and any proficient IFR pilot would know they are very basic IFR questions.

 

One last point for the flight students. While as a pilot you are not required to use them, notice the great IFR pilot has failed to inform you about reduced helicopter minimums or mention he was actually being cleared to a "point in space" (notice "transitioning as need" in his response) and this is why it's so important for you as students to look up and understand the material and not trust someones opinion regardless of how great they claim to be.

 

Always remember when you mix ignorance with arrogance at low altitude, the results are almost guaranteed to be spectacular.

[SBuzzkill]

Well I'm lost. What are we arguing about in here? Approaches into closed runways or approaches to airports that are reporting below minimums?

[aeroscout]

tracon is claiming you can't execute or even be cleared for an approach to a closed runway.

[tracon]

tracon is claiming you can't execute or even be cleared for an approach to a closed runway.

 

Go back and read Avbugs reply to helistar where he belittled her for saying a side-step approach is not an approach clearance to a closed runway. She was correct as I've expalined, because you are flying a published procedure "As Published" and as such it also has different minimums since it is to a different runway.

 

You and Avbug have yet to explain how a published side-step approach to one runway is somehow considered a "cleared approach to a different closed runway" because you lack the ability or the reference material to support and prove your point, because it doesn't exist.

 

Which only leaves one to wonder exactly how much IFR experience you really have.

 

Simple solution to this debate. Provide documentation supporting your opinion.

 

Tell you what, how about a wager, funds go to an aviation scholarship fund.

[avbug]

Avbug, do the students a favor and explain the difference using FAA Documentation, between what your claiming is an approach to a closed runway and the material contained in all parts of the FAR & AIM and also include Chapter 10 of the AIM. I'll let you choose which sections apply to the procedures you've described.

 

I provided citations, references, and links, and used them to discredit your statements (which have been wrong and inaccurate thus far). You should more properly read the thread. Again, it appeared that some of you were simply having a reading comprehension problem, but we soon were able to identify falsified quotes attributed to me, and lies on your part. When you were unable to make your case (which you haven't yet) you resorted to lies. It was all downhill for you from then on.

 

Your present assertion that documentation hasn't been provided is one such lie.

 

FYI: those questions I asked in my first post, where straight out of the FAR & AIM and any proficient IFR pilot would know they are very basic IFR questions.

 

They were addressed and answered, every one. When the information didn't support your point,you quickly moved on, didn't you? You did.

 

You should do so now, too.

[Tarantula]

c. Except as permitted by para 4-8-7, Side-step Maneuver, where parallel runways are served by separate ILS/MLS systems and one of the runways is closed, the ILS/MLS associated with the closed runway should not be used for approaches unless not using the ILS/MLS would have an adverse impact on the operational efficiency of the airport.

Tracon,

I read this as saying that if the runway is closed, the ILS/MLS should not be used for it, unless there would be an adverse impact on the operational efficiency. If there would be an adverse impact, I read it as saying that ATC would continue to use the closed runway ILS/MLS. If approaches to closed runways were not allowed, then shouldn't the paragraph end after "should not be used for approaches" ?

 

Please note: I am not talking about a side-step procedure. I think the extra information in this paragraph is for the case of parallel runways without a published side-step procedure. Please tell me if that isn't the case.

[tracon]

Actual ATC conversations that I've added Avbugs name to since his attitude towards the facts are about the same.

 

Avbug:- "Request Runway 27 Right."

Approach:- "Unable."

Avbug:- "Approach, do you know the wind at six thousand is 270 at fifty?"

Approach:- "Yeah, I do, and if we could jack the airport up to fifty-five hundred you could have that runway. Expect 14 Right."

 

And my favorite:

controller to a heli on approach to JFK-

"You're gonna have to key the mike. I can't see you when you nod your head."

 

Gotta laugh at some point.

 

Everyone have a Merry Christmas.

 

"Accuracy means something to me. It's vital to my sense of values. I've learned not to trust people who are inaccurate. Every aviator knows that if mechanics are inaccurate, aircraft crash. If pilots are inaccurate, they get lost—sometimes killed. In my profession life itself depends on accuracy." Charles A. Lindbergh