General discussion for aviators

Re: Re: IFR approaches and uncontrolled fields

In article <2510…@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> sc…@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM

 (Scott Turner) writes:

>I think it’s up to all pilots to speak and understand aviation.  Seems
>to me that it’s up to both instrument *and* non-instrument pilots to
>understand at least a bit about the other’s environment.  The first step
>towards peaceful co-existance is just about always some level of mutual
>understanding.  BTW, I applaud the FNL Users Group for taking a postive
>approach (pun not intended :-) in this regard.

Let me attempt to summarize the problem here:  IFR approach position reports
need to be interpreted by VFR pilots in the pattern.  There are two suggested
solutions:  IFR pilots should speak VFR, or VFR pilots should understand IFR.

Contributors over the years have yearned for "VFR-style" position reports, and
the topic recently reappeared.  Scott has weighed in with an opinion that
solution 2 is equally important, and mentions that "it’s up to all pilots to
speak and understand aviation."

Scott, I agree with you in principle, but I think there’s one more piece of
data which is missing here.  In the so-called "real world", uncontrolled
patterns tend to be filled with student pilots.  While there is certainly a
responsibility on the part of students, CFI’s, and VFR pilots to understand
basic position reports, I would argue that we IFR pilots are simply better-
equipped to hold up our end of the bargain – to make VFR-style reports.

This is not written to be any sort of derision of student or non-IFR pilots,
it’s simply an observation that -in general-, the IFR pilot is more trained
and more experienced, and is thus in a better position to go "the extra step"
toward improving safety.  Please, all you 2,000 hour VFR-onlys out there,
don’t take this personally.  I’m not worried about you, and anyway let’s face
it, there are far more 25 hour students out there (especially IN the pattern).

Therefore, while I encourage CFI’s to teach their students a little bit about
-all- areas of aviation, I implore all IFR pilots to provide simple, accurate,
and UNDERSTANDABLE position reports, at all times.

Remember, the 152 in the pattern may easily be a 20-hour student on his/her
first unsupervised solo.  Maybe their instructor DID teach them about ILS’s.
Am I the only one who remembers that state of slightly exhilerating panic
at that stage in my flying career?  I was certainly in no shape to be trying
to interpret VOR Inbound position reports….  Barely knew what a VOR was at
the time….

–Andy     stad…@apple.com

Comments (2)




2 Responses to “Re: Re: IFR approaches and uncontrolled fields”

  1. admin says:

    (the thread evolved to a discussion of IFR approach position reports and
    the frequent inability of VFR pilots, especially students, to comprehend
    the IFR position….such as "over outer marker.")….

    One of the local airports here, Butler, PA:  a) has no tower, b) has a
    lot of students and c) has an ILS that is downwind to the prevailing
    wind.  When the instrument students are doing practice approaches on a
    clear weekend day….the airwaves are repleat with "….Cherokee
    23J….breaking approach for climbing traffic…"

    To my mind…the best line of defense is with the CFIs and CFII’s.
    Primary students and instrument students should both be made aware of
    this situation and given coping skills.  This is one of those times
    where FAA "test criteria" and "required skills to be demonstrated"  is
    an insufficient basis of knowledge for safe flying.

    A related problem is pilots flying accross ILS pathways at cardnal
    approach altitudes.  In this area pilots frequently fly thru the Latrobe
    ILS at 4,000, the first segment altitude, enroute from west to east to
    Johnstown.

    J. Dunkle

  2. admin says:

    This is why you are required to look out the window whenever in VMC
    regardless of weather you are flying under IFR or not.  Your article
    somehow blames VFR traffic, flying in the established and required
    by regulation traffic patterns at uncontrolled airports for not
    giving way for practice IFR approaches.  This is extremely unreasonable.
    The reason control zones exist is to provide for safe arrivals of
    IFR traffic like this.  When the control zone is not below VFR
    miniums, it’s incumbant on the IFR pilot to make a safe and sane
    approach to the field.  Why should VFR operations shut down on a
    "clear weekend day" because someone wants to practice on the ILS.

    -Ron

Place your comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.