'Practice approaches' in IMC
- Thread starter I_Money
- Start date
mrivc211
Well-Known Member
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
[ QUOTE ]
Omar, where were you?
[/ QUOTE ]
We went to Brackett Field. I think the DA was something like 1333 or something like that and we broke out a little below 1400. I neer realized how crappy the departure out of there is until I departed in marginal weather. You've got mountains/hills to the west and northeast and are instructed to climb right into them, you'd be in a pretty hairy situation if you lost your engine while turning into those mountains while in IMC.
Ed- I took up the SP yesterday, man........we climbed out at about 1100 fpm, turned on the autopilot at 800ft, sat back and just watched. I'm definetely taking it on my next long trip. Its got a nice multi function display. Definetely have to split the time with someone though, because at a buck o five an hour, I could be flying the twin for a few bucks more.
[ QUOTE ]
Omar, where were you?
[/ QUOTE ]
We went to Brackett Field. I think the DA was something like 1333 or something like that and we broke out a little below 1400. I neer realized how crappy the departure out of there is until I departed in marginal weather. You've got mountains/hills to the west and northeast and are instructed to climb right into them, you'd be in a pretty hairy situation if you lost your engine while turning into those mountains while in IMC.
Ed- I took up the SP yesterday, man........we climbed out at about 1100 fpm, turned on the autopilot at 800ft, sat back and just watched. I'm definetely taking it on my next long trip. Its got a nice multi function display. Definetely have to split the time with someone though, because at a buck o five an hour, I could be flying the twin for a few bucks more.
E_Dawg
Moderator
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
Yeah I shot the VOR-A approach into there during training and let's just say that I'm a long way away from doing that in actual; you get down to 250'AGL, over that mountain where the VOR is, and the airport is in the valley north of the mountain. Not to mention the fact that it's a circling approach
. Hell I don't even like going there VFR, much less in the clouds!
Yeah I shot the VOR-A approach into there during training and let's just say that I'm a long way away from doing that in actual; you get down to 250'AGL, over that mountain where the VOR is, and the airport is in the valley north of the mountain. Not to mention the fact that it's a circling approach
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I shot the VOR-A approach into there during training and let's just say that I'm a long way away from doing that in actual; you get down to 250'AGL, over that mountain where the VOR is, and the airport is in the valley north of the mountain. Not to mention the fact that it's a circling approach
. Hell I don't even like going there VFR, much less in the clouds!
[/ QUOTE ]
You think that's bad, you should see the approach plates for Earakson Air Station (USAF) in Alaska. There's a note that reads "Land RWY XXX, Takeoff RWY XXX, high terrain all quadrants, successful go-around improbable."
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I shot the VOR-A approach into there during training and let's just say that I'm a long way away from doing that in actual; you get down to 250'AGL, over that mountain where the VOR is, and the airport is in the valley north of the mountain. Not to mention the fact that it's a circling approach
[/ QUOTE ]
You think that's bad, you should see the approach plates for Earakson Air Station (USAF) in Alaska. There's a note that reads "Land RWY XXX, Takeoff RWY XXX, high terrain all quadrants, successful go-around improbable."
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
The change from Bay Approach was late last year.
But wait, that's not all. Many of the areas around here slowly went to the name "Sierra Approach" for a few months, then it was changed, AGAIN, in March to Norcal for all the areas.
So all the old Bay is now Norcal. Monterey is now Norcal. Stockton is now Norcal. Other areas are mostly still handled by Oakland center, with some random stuff like Fresno, Travis, Lemoore in some areas of the valley depending on your routing and other outages.
It is all kinda crazy, some areas were Sierra for a couple months, before going to Norcal. And just before that, they were other names. I've heard some of the controlers going back to 2 names ago for their area as recently as a couple weeks ago, when that name hasn't been used for 6 months or more.
I think it all makes sense now, as it is all norcal, and you just need to know what frequency it is for your area.
I am glad they got rid of Sierra. I think that caused too many possible problems with phonetic spellings and airmets going out.
That's about what I know on the subject, and it is possible that some of what I typed was wrong, so don't hold me 110% to it.
Josh
The change from Bay Approach was late last year.
But wait, that's not all. Many of the areas around here slowly went to the name "Sierra Approach" for a few months, then it was changed, AGAIN, in March to Norcal for all the areas.
So all the old Bay is now Norcal. Monterey is now Norcal. Stockton is now Norcal. Other areas are mostly still handled by Oakland center, with some random stuff like Fresno, Travis, Lemoore in some areas of the valley depending on your routing and other outages.
It is all kinda crazy, some areas were Sierra for a couple months, before going to Norcal. And just before that, they were other names. I've heard some of the controlers going back to 2 names ago for their area as recently as a couple weeks ago, when that name hasn't been used for 6 months or more.
I think it all makes sense now, as it is all norcal, and you just need to know what frequency it is for your area.
I am glad they got rid of Sierra. I think that caused too many possible problems with phonetic spellings and airmets going out.
That's about what I know on the subject, and it is possible that some of what I typed was wrong, so don't hold me 110% to it.
Josh
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
That's kind of why I call everyone "center", "approach" or "tower" -- just a lot easier.
Nothing worse than being over the middle of the gulf of Mexico saying "Houston...err...Atlanta...Errr Jacksonville Center, Delta 124..."
and their response is "Well, we're Miami...but we won't hold it against you".
That's kind of why I call everyone "center", "approach" or "tower" -- just a lot easier.
Nothing worse than being over the middle of the gulf of Mexico saying "Houston...err...Atlanta...Errr Jacksonville Center, Delta 124..."
and their response is "Well, we're Miami...but we won't hold it against you".
EatSleepFly
Well-Known Member
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
[ QUOTE ]
That's kind of why I call everyone "center", "approach" or "tower" -- just a lot easier.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was a huge pet peeve of one of my old instructors.
That...and when I would say "...with you." (i.e. "N42F with you at 4000").
[ QUOTE ]
That's kind of why I call everyone "center", "approach" or "tower" -- just a lot easier.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was a huge pet peeve of one of my old instructors.
That...and when I would say "...with you." (i.e. "N42F with you at 4000").
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's kind of why I call everyone "center", "approach" or "tower" -- just a lot easier.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was a huge pet peeve of one of my old instructors.
That...and when I would say "...with you." (i.e. "N42F with you at 4000").
[/ QUOTE ]
Comm brevity is a big pet peeve of mine. I can't stand being on 122.8 and hearing some blowhole blabbing away.
C3= Clear/concise/correct comm. Very important for us, for in combat, the first thing that goes is the comm. Specifically remember one mission where the C3 breakdown made things that much more difficult. Keeping it C3 will keep things more simple and organized. In a civilian application, take any busy Class B terminal area and this would apply too.
Even in comm between the flight members, we use callsign/directive/descriptive to keep the comm down between the aircraft in our formation.
Example of a traffic call for a Cessna crossing our flightpath from right to left: "Gunhog, check 30 right, tally light civil 2 o'clock, 10 low, right to left."
I personally don't use "with you"; though it's perfectly legal to use. When checking in I simply give callsign, alt (at, crossing and/or for) and heading (if assigned). "Departure, Gunhog, 3.5 for one zero-10 thousand" I'll add "restricted" to the end of that if 10,000 isn't my planned final altitude.
Comm brevity: important.
MD
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's kind of why I call everyone "center", "approach" or "tower" -- just a lot easier.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was a huge pet peeve of one of my old instructors.
That...and when I would say "...with you." (i.e. "N42F with you at 4000").
[/ QUOTE ]
Comm brevity is a big pet peeve of mine. I can't stand being on 122.8 and hearing some blowhole blabbing away.
C3= Clear/concise/correct comm. Very important for us, for in combat, the first thing that goes is the comm. Specifically remember one mission where the C3 breakdown made things that much more difficult. Keeping it C3 will keep things more simple and organized. In a civilian application, take any busy Class B terminal area and this would apply too.
Even in comm between the flight members, we use callsign/directive/descriptive to keep the comm down between the aircraft in our formation.
Example of a traffic call for a Cessna crossing our flightpath from right to left: "Gunhog, check 30 right, tally light civil 2 o'clock, 10 low, right to left."
I personally don't use "with you"; though it's perfectly legal to use. When checking in I simply give callsign, alt (at, crossing and/or for) and heading (if assigned). "Departure, Gunhog, 3.5 for one zero-10 thousand" I'll add "restricted" to the end of that if 10,000 isn't my planned final altitude.
Comm brevity: important.
MD
EatSleepFly
Well-Known Member
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
Oh, I whole-heartedly agree. I can't stand hearing people babble away on the radios either. I just want to wring someone's neck when they call UNICOM for an airport advisory when there's 5 aircraft in the pattern saying the runway in use on every call.
Incidentally, my old instructor's incessant demands to stop saying "with you" did eventually work. I no longer say it, and now it drives me nuts when I hear others say it.
His point behind getting annoyed with people who just say center/tower/etc. on initial call-up was that some of them were saying it because they didn't actually know WHO they were talking to, and therefore somehow less situationally aware.
Oh, I whole-heartedly agree. I can't stand hearing people babble away on the radios either. I just want to wring someone's neck when they call UNICOM for an airport advisory when there's 5 aircraft in the pattern saying the runway in use on every call.
Incidentally, my old instructor's incessant demands to stop saying "with you" did eventually work. I no longer say it, and now it drives me nuts when I hear others say it.
His point behind getting annoyed with people who just say center/tower/etc. on initial call-up was that some of them were saying it because they didn't actually know WHO they were talking to, and therefore somehow less situationally aware.
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
My radio work has gotten LAAAA-Z over the years.
It's more like "center, delta 123 is 26 9 for flight level 350"
But one thing I always do is use "units" when I get a group of headings/altitudes/airspeeds:
"heading 250, 210 knots maintain 1500 feet 'til estalished, cleared ILS 9R"
Many pilots say "two fifty, two ten, 15 'hunnert' cleared approach" which I think is pretty dangerous.
My radio work has gotten LAAAA-Z over the years.
It's more like "center, delta 123 is 26 9 for flight level 350"
But one thing I always do is use "units" when I get a group of headings/altitudes/airspeeds:
"heading 250, 210 knots maintain 1500 feet 'til estalished, cleared ILS 9R"
Many pilots say "two fifty, two ten, 15 'hunnert' cleared approach" which I think is pretty dangerous.
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
The good comm brevity, for us, also serves to keep our ears sharper for when the crap does hit the fan and the frequency goes to hell in a hand basket. You want to hear comm brevity, listen to the GCI (Ground Control Intercept) controllers (like military ATC specifically for vectoring fighters around) when there's a hostile air environment. Did one exercise in Korea where the freqs were getting pretty bad. Was trying to get to my target in light rain, and the GCI freq was getting garbaged up with general threat calls, then them finally talking to me specifically.
"Gunhog, threat BRAA (Bearing/Range/Azimuth/Altitude) 340/23, angels 12, track southwest, unknown"
which rapidly became.....
"Gunhog, threat BRAA 340/15, angels 10 descending, track south, hostile"
as my RWR started buzzing away and I simultaneously spotted 2 enemy F-16s commencing a split maneuver to pincer our formation. The two aircraft in my flight ended up jettinsoning our ordnance in order to switch air to air and allow the remaining element to press to the target. In a matter of less than 45 seconds, the radios went from moderately busy to freaking insane. But it was the comm brevity that allowed very few transmissions to make me have question marks in my head like "Who said that/who was that for?" And that was good.
The good comm brevity, for us, also serves to keep our ears sharper for when the crap does hit the fan and the frequency goes to hell in a hand basket. You want to hear comm brevity, listen to the GCI (Ground Control Intercept) controllers (like military ATC specifically for vectoring fighters around) when there's a hostile air environment. Did one exercise in Korea where the freqs were getting pretty bad. Was trying to get to my target in light rain, and the GCI freq was getting garbaged up with general threat calls, then them finally talking to me specifically.
"Gunhog, threat BRAA (Bearing/Range/Azimuth/Altitude) 340/23, angels 12, track southwest, unknown"
which rapidly became.....
"Gunhog, threat BRAA 340/15, angels 10 descending, track south, hostile"
as my RWR started buzzing away and I simultaneously spotted 2 enemy F-16s commencing a split maneuver to pincer our formation. The two aircraft in my flight ended up jettinsoning our ordnance in order to switch air to air and allow the remaining element to press to the target. In a matter of less than 45 seconds, the radios went from moderately busy to freaking insane. But it was the comm brevity that allowed very few transmissions to make me have question marks in my head like "Who said that/who was that for?" And that was good.
E_Dawg
Moderator
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, my old instructor's incessant demands to stop saying "with you" did eventually work. I no longer say it, and now it drives me nuts when I hear others say it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ha; I was exactly the same way... it is such a waste of time saying things like 'with you', roger, etc.
It's totally implied that you are 'with' the person you are talking to just by virtue of the fact that you're talking to them. That's like saying you're a pilot; they already know!
---
One thing that did kind of bother me (maybe someone can give me tips) was the other day when I got reprimanded (if you could call it that) by a controller for not replying when he gave the altimeter. It was like this:
"Magu Approach good afternoon Cessna 94469 level at 5000'"
"Cessna 94469 good afternoon altimeter 2992"
....and that's it; about 30 sec later the controller freaked and asked if I had copied the last.
Me.. "um... altimeter 2992 Cessna 469"
After that I got a nice terse comment about acknowledging things..... I never argue with controllers in the air though so I just said OK.
Now something like this can go unsaid IMHO (unless I was at the wrong altitude, which I was not). And with Socal they talk to so many planes it's too much to read back EVERYTHING (I was with Magu though). This is obviously a REALLY small thing; but it is something that I wasn't sure about so any tips are appreciated.
---
[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, my old instructor's incessant demands to stop saying "with you" did eventually work. I no longer say it, and now it drives me nuts when I hear others say it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ha; I was exactly the same way... it is such a waste of time saying things like 'with you', roger, etc.
It's totally implied that you are 'with' the person you are talking to just by virtue of the fact that you're talking to them. That's like saying you're a pilot; they already know!
---
One thing that did kind of bother me (maybe someone can give me tips) was the other day when I got reprimanded (if you could call it that) by a controller for not replying when he gave the altimeter. It was like this:
"Magu Approach good afternoon Cessna 94469 level at 5000'"
"Cessna 94469 good afternoon altimeter 2992"
....and that's it; about 30 sec later the controller freaked and asked if I had copied the last.
Me.. "um... altimeter 2992 Cessna 469"
After that I got a nice terse comment about acknowledging things..... I never argue with controllers in the air though so I just said OK.
Now something like this can go unsaid IMHO (unless I was at the wrong altitude, which I was not). And with Socal they talk to so many planes it's too much to read back EVERYTHING (I was with Magu though). This is obviously a REALLY small thing; but it is something that I wasn't sure about so any tips are appreciated.
---
aloft
New Member
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
Tho I don't disagree with anything MikeD's said, I think it's also important not to let comm brevity impede comm clarity, particularly when there are safety-of-flight considerations at hand. Say what you need to get your message across; no more, no less.
Tho I don't disagree with anything MikeD's said, I think it's also important not to let comm brevity impede comm clarity, particularly when there are safety-of-flight considerations at hand. Say what you need to get your message across; no more, no less.
Alchemy
Well-Known Member
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
Yeah, I've never been a fan of "with you" either. Haven't ever used it myself. When checking in with approach/center, I'll usually say
"(facility name) approach/center, Skylane 123AB one thousand five-hundred for one zero thousand"
or If I'm already at altitude I say "level one zero thousand"
Anyone else say "level" or is this extraneous in your opinion? Even though I hate roger, I sometimes finding myself saying "roger, 1AB" to achknowledge things like altimeter settings, wind advisories, or "traffic no factor". I should probably just use my callsign to achknowledge these type of non-clearance advisories and drop the roger.
Yeah, I've never been a fan of "with you" either. Haven't ever used it myself. When checking in with approach/center, I'll usually say
"(facility name) approach/center, Skylane 123AB one thousand five-hundred for one zero thousand"
or If I'm already at altitude I say "level one zero thousand"
Anyone else say "level" or is this extraneous in your opinion? Even though I hate roger, I sometimes finding myself saying "roger, 1AB" to achknowledge things like altimeter settings, wind advisories, or "traffic no factor". I should probably just use my callsign to achknowledge these type of non-clearance advisories and drop the roger.
E_Dawg
Moderator
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
I always say 'level' if I am. If you don't it leaves it ambigious as to whether you are climbing or descending. At the very least it alerts others on frequency as to whether or not you'll be at their altitude in a few seconds (or in a 152, hours).
I always say 'level' if I am. If you don't it leaves it ambigious as to whether you are climbing or descending. At the very least it alerts others on frequency as to whether or not you'll be at their altitude in a few seconds (or in a 152, hours).
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
I'm trying to get away from "Roger" also. I got so used to saying it in the military, it's a hard habit to break.
My pet peeve is when it is busy, keep you transmissions short and to the point. We have a couple of people here that even when you can tell the controller is a#@$$%les & elbows busy, they want to be nice and friendly with a lot of long good mornings and good afternoons.
I'm trying to get away from "Roger" also. I got so used to saying it in the military, it's a hard habit to break.
My pet peeve is when it is busy, keep you transmissions short and to the point. We have a couple of people here that even when you can tell the controller is a#@$$%les & elbows busy, they want to be nice and friendly with a lot of long good mornings and good afternoons.
Re: \'Practice approaches\' in IMC
Well, since this has turned into a comm thread somehow...
My local field is uncontrolled, and quite busy. The LOC is the opposite direction of the normal calm wind runway. There
is a lot of ultralight activity at the field, as well as those open cockpit types, or older guys who just insist on not using, or installing
a radio in their plane. And this at a field with a few hundred operations on any normal weekend.
So, during instrument work, it had become normal to announce positions. Well, N6106H Loc inbound, over NALLS doesn't mean squat
to Joe Student Pilot. So a little more detail is needed.
Kinda like I've had the DE point out that the normal 45deg pattern entry point, 3 miles out. Locals call, "river and highway, for 45, 20
Watsonville". What does that mean to someone that doesn't know the area. A slight different but clearer, would be something
like 3 mile 45, 20 Watsonville. So what you hear, isn't always best/shortest when you really think about it. I think comm on uncontrolled
fields are more for others than for me. Who cares what I'm doing (assuming I know where I really am) more than the other planes in the area.
Josh
Well, since this has turned into a comm thread somehow...
My local field is uncontrolled, and quite busy. The LOC is the opposite direction of the normal calm wind runway. There
is a lot of ultralight activity at the field, as well as those open cockpit types, or older guys who just insist on not using, or installing
a radio in their plane. And this at a field with a few hundred operations on any normal weekend.
So, during instrument work, it had become normal to announce positions. Well, N6106H Loc inbound, over NALLS doesn't mean squat
to Joe Student Pilot. So a little more detail is needed.
Kinda like I've had the DE point out that the normal 45deg pattern entry point, 3 miles out. Locals call, "river and highway, for 45, 20
Watsonville". What does that mean to someone that doesn't know the area. A slight different but clearer, would be something
like 3 mile 45, 20 Watsonville. So what you hear, isn't always best/shortest when you really think about it. I think comm on uncontrolled
fields are more for others than for me. Who cares what I'm doing (assuming I know where I really am) more than the other planes in the area.
Josh