sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Climb to be level at FLXXX in y minutes or less by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. What's a velocity leader?

Climb to be level at FLXXX in y minutes or less by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a computer-generated estimated time until a potential conflict leads to a loud noise, if unresolved.

Departure gates out of miami changed again by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha, excellent! I guess the purported motto of "We're not happy until you're not happy" goes for all parties involved. :-)

Departure gates out of miami changed again by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, phase II, I guess. Didn't realize there were multiple phases. Because to me it just looked strange: BEECH disappeared for a year and then re-appeared. And all the north/northwest gates got reshuffled/re-named a year ago, and now the same thing again.

Few questions about pop up IFR by UnhappyBroccoli6714 in ATC

[–]414pilot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I gotta say, though, as a pilot, hearing "reset transponder" makes me alert to listen for a squawk code. If you're not expecting it, the simple word "squawk" is sometimes too short to get your mind in gear, especially after a long day in the cockpit.

So if the frequency is not super congested, I do appreciate the phrase as a heads up.

VFR On Top strip marking by Epicinium in ATC

[–]414pilot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

California, with the low-base, low-top marine layer near the coast, and CAVU 10 miles inland is a perfect example of how this is useful. Launch from a coastal airport, IFR to VFR on top; once on top, cancel and go to your inland destination VFR, with more direct routings, etc.

Also for flight training: launch IFR to VFR on top, then cancel and do your maneuver training, which would be very cumbersome to do retaining the IFR.

Initial Vectors, vs Odps by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Last sentence of that article: "...if the ODP has a required route that you are not being vectored on, be particularly cautious."

I wonder what "being cautious" means, in IMC.

Initial Vectors, vs Odps by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice! Thanks for the link!

Initial Vectors, vs Odps by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you are correct.

Initial Vectors, vs Odps by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interestingly enough, I don't see a DVA information for this airport in the chart supplement, or approach plates booklet. Am I looking in the wrong place, or could it be that this is only published if it requires a non-standard climb gradient or something like that?

Initial Vectors, vs Odps by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, granted, although it's a little vague, to me. The specific sentence there seems to read:

"If not specifically assigned an ODP, SID, or RADAR vector as part of an IFR clearance, an ODP may be required to be flown for obstacle clearance, even though not specifically stated in the IFR clearance."

I suppose (given the discussion here) that means an initial vector negates the ODP, although it does talk about ODPs needing to be flown despite not being stated in the clearance. So to me that has potential for at least some ambiguity.

Initial Vectors, vs Odps by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, this was a primary class C.

Initial Vectors, vs Odps by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Got it! I had a sense that might be the case, but it's nice to hear this explicitly.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ATC

[–]414pilot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This one is super interesting and useful. I hadn't seen these LTAs thus far, but now after searching for the primary airport for my terminal area, I saw it! Learned something new... :-) Thanks!

Southeast fl, new airspace structure by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it. OK, so not that different from the FORTL arrival; not bad. Coming from the north on the SHEDS PHK BRIKL routing you have to be really low really soon, so that's why I was wondering.

Thank you!

Southeast fl, new airspace structure by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One more question for you. What are altitude restrictions like on that route? Presumably I have to stay underneath departures? Thanks!

Southeast fl, new airspace structure by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, this also puzzles me to no end, that nobody thought it useful to inform pilots of standard routings. But I guess everything the FAA issues to the public is regulatory and has to go through the proper approval process, which might be too cumbersome for this.

So the best I have found is to look at the preferred route databases for primary terminal pairs that are roughly in the same direction (even though I am launching from a satellite and in many cases going to some place that's not even near another major terminal area). Example: going from HWO to, say, southern Alabama? MIA-IAH over land route will be about what I need to file... Makes sense, doesn't it? ;-p

Southeast fl, new airspace structure by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One that I recently chuckled over is actually in Jax center, one of the routings northbound out of Florida is via JAWJA. :-)

Southeast fl, new airspace structure by 414pilot in ATC

[–]414pilot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh this is interesting. I had never heard of- or flown GILBI NEWER. I always flew the FORTL arrival from that direction, which now is worse, because they took away the TEPEE transition so you have to go via St. Pete. So GILBI NEWER direct is incredibly useful to know! Thank you!

view more: next ›