Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Antenna locations (Bill Watson)
2. 08:52 AM - Re: Re: Antenna locations (Carl Froehlich)
3. 09:50 AM - Re: Re: Antenna locations (Michael Abel)
4. 12:12 PM - Re: Re: Antenna locations (Kelly McMullen)
5. 01:27 PM - Re: Antenna locations (Bob Turner)
6. 07:09 PM - Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Dan Masys)
7. 07:28 PM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Charles Derk)
8. 07:34 PM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Berck E. Nash)
9. 08:00 PM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Jesse Saint)
10. 08:14 PM - Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Well, I just had a chance to once and for all make the case to myself
that I need to install a good primary Nav antenna. Flying the ILS 28
into KAGC, my nemesis approach, I had the perfect opportunity to test my
ILS situation.
I could clearly see that my wingtip Nav antenna on this particular
approach does not accurately pickup the LOC signal. Instead I missed
the inbound turn again but this time I could see that the needle was
just waving around at that point. Then I got the needles centered and
flew them. I could see that I was headed well to the left of the runway
all the way down to DA. On the other hand I could intercept the GS and
then fly the Flight Path Marker (FPM) right down to DA and even the
touchdown point with the LOC needle indicating right 2-3 dots all the
way down.
My wingtip antenna works at most airports where I've flown an ILS but at
KAGC, it puts me in the weeds. I'm about to remove my fin and retrofit
a Nav antenna at the top. Case closed, work to begin.
On 7/31/2018 11:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV
> approach that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons
> might be:
>
> 1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide
> it's easier to proceed with it
> 2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
> 3. Habit
>
> I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because
> they are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full
> approach at smaller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly
> accurately because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my
> sense of things.
>
> Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary
> basement" Watson
>
> On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm
>> and needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of
>> service and start process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for
>> practice in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it
>> was in service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of
>> service, with all the structures still there. Keeping a single
>> frequency transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running
>> is not exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess,
>> because of lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME
>> while neither the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical
>> horizontal paths require anything beyond a clock.
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at OSH
>>> a couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is
>>> one 15 miles from my home airport as well. We arent decommissioning
>>> all
>>> That fast around me.
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kellym wrote:
>>>>> Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> But technology moves on and has us replacing
>>>>> electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
>>>>> Nostalgia mode off.
>>>>> Kelly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good
>>>> reminder to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try
>>>> to find one these days. I currently have two instrument students
>>>> who, so far, have never heard a MB. There arent any left around here.
>>>> As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still
>>>> contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an ADF required
>>>> ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and
>>>> instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But
>>>> I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were
>>>> pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they
>>>> wouldnt have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended
>>>> up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is
>>>> now DME required. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years
>>>> ago, Id be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year
>>>> life cycle comment is correct.
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Bob Turner
>>>> RV-10 QB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Wingtip NAV antennas are only as good as the install. I make my own to opti
mize the available space in the wingtip, and tune the antenna using an anten
na analyzer (a must have shared tool for any EAA chapter). I recommend the s
ame for all RVs.
Performance exceeds all demands; VOR/LOC/ILS. Following this approach, I do
not believe an RV would ever need an external NAV antenna.
Photo is an antenna in the tuning process I made for an RV-14A. Notice how f
ar it extends into the wingtip. The antenna stays mounted to the rib and th
e wingtip slides over it.
Carl
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I just had a chance to once and for all make the case to myself that
I need to install a good primary Nav antenna. Flying the ILS 28 into KAGC,
my nemesis approach, I had the perfect opportunity to test my ILS situation
.
>
> I could clearly see that my wingtip Nav antenna on this particular approac
h does not accurately pickup the LOC signal. Instead I missed the inbound t
urn again but this time I could see that the needle was just waving around a
t that point. Then I got the needles centered and flew them. I could see t
hat I was headed well to the left of the runway all the way down to DA. On t
he other hand I could intercept the GS and then fly the Flight Path Marker (
FPM) right down to DA and even the touchdown point with the LOC needle indi
cating right 2-3 dots all the way down.
>
> My wingtip antenna works at most airports where I've flown an ILS but at K
AGC, it puts me in the weeds. I'm about to remove my fin and retrofit a Nav
antenna at the top. Case closed, work to begin.
>
>> On 7/31/2018 11:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
>> So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV approach
that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons might be:
>> ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide it's e
asier to proceed with it
>> There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
>> Habit
>> I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they a
re easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach at sm
aller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly accurately be
cause of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.
>>
>> Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement" W
atson
>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>> Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and n
eeds maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service and st
art process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for practice in our area h
ad a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in service. Now, for the
last 10 years or so it has been out of service, with all the structures sti
ll there. Keeping a single frequency transmitter with a single frequency ton
e generator running is not exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive
. I guess, because of lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a D
ME while neither the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal
paths require anything beyond a clock.
>>>
>>>> On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at OSH a c
ouple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one 15 mile
s from my home airport as well. We aren=99t decommissioning all
>>>> That fast around me.
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote
:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kellym wrote:
>>>>>> Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But technology moves on and has us replacing
>>>>>> electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
>>>>>> Nostalgia mode off.
>>>>>> Kelly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder t
o not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find one these d
ays. I currently have two instrument students who, so far, have never heard a
MB. There aren=99t any left around here.
>>>>> As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still contemplating a
vionics choices. My home field had an =9CADF required=9D ILS. I s
eriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and instead buying a us
ed ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But I found that used ADF anten
nas were hard to find - people were pulling their ADFs but leaving the anten
nas, I presume so they wouldn=99t have to patch and paint the hole lef
t behind. So I ended up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone;
the ILS is now =9CDME required=9D. So now, if I had gone the AD
F route 10 years ago, I=99d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I thi
nk your ten year life cycle comment is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>> Bob Turner
>>>>> RV-10 QB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
>>
>>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Yes I had a similar problem (ILS/LOC) with my =9Cexperimental=9D
copper tape NAV antenna installed in the front of my cabin just above
the top of my windshield in my RV10 (hidden under the upholstery).
I finally put a regular rami antenna under the tailbone of the airplane
and it worked flawlessly.
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Carl Froehlich
<carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Wingtip NAV antennas are only as good as the install. I make my own
to optimize the available space in the wingtip, and tune the antenna
using an antenna analyzer (a must have shared tool for any EAA chapter).
I recommend the same for all RVs.
>
> Performance exceeds all demands; VOR/LOC/ILS. Following this
approach, I do not believe an RV would ever need an external NAV
antenna.
>
> Photo is an antenna in the tuning process I made for an RV-14A.
Notice how far it extends into the wingtip. The antenna stays mounted
to the rib and the wingtip slides over it.
>
> Carl
> <image1.jpeg>
>
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com
<mailto:Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
>> Well, I just had a chance to once and for all make the case to myself
that I need to install a good primary Nav antenna. Flying the ILS 28
into KAGC, my nemesis approach, I had the perfect opportunity to test my
ILS situation.
>>
>> I could clearly see that my wingtip Nav antenna on this particular
approach does not accurately pickup the LOC signal. Instead I missed
the inbound turn again but this time I could see that the needle was
just waving around at that point. Then I got the needles centered and
flew them. I could see that I was headed well to the left of the runway
all the way down to DA. On the other hand I could intercept the GS and
then fly the Flight Path Marker (FPM) right down to DA and even the
touchdown point with the LOC needle indicating right 2-3 dots all the
way down.
>>
>> My wingtip antenna works at most airports where I've flown an ILS but
at KAGC, it puts me in the weeds. I'm about to remove my fin and
retrofit a Nav antenna at the top. Case closed, work to begin.
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 11:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>> So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV
approach that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons might
be:
>>> ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide
it's easier to proceed with it
>>> There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
>>> Habit
>>> I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because
they are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full
approach at smaller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly
accurately because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense
of things.
>>>
>>> Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary
basement" Watson
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
<kellym@aviating.com> <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>
>>>>
>>>> Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm
and needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of
service and start process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for
practice in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it
was in service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of
service, with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency
transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not
exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of
lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither
the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths
require anything beyond a clock.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
<mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at
OSH a couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is
one 15 miles from my home airport as well. We aren=99t
decommissioning all
>>>>> That fast around me.
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
<mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
<bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> <mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kellym wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But technology moves on and has us replacing
>>>>>>> electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
>>>>>>> Nostalgia mode off.
>>>>>>> Kelly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good
reminder to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to
find one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so
far, have never heard a MB. There aren=99t any left around here.
>>>>>> As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still
contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an =9CADF
required=9D ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save
money) and instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and
plentiful. But I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people
were pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they
wouldn=99t have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I
ended up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is
now =9CDME required=9D. So now, if I had gone the ADF route
10 years ago, I=99d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think
your ten year life cycle comment is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> Bob Turner
>>>>>> RV-10 QB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>> <x-msg://2/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
I can see where you could get a glide slope antenna above the
windshield. I seriously doubt you could get enough length for a VOR/LOC
antenna there. I have not experienced any problems so far with any ILS
with my Bob Archer nav antennas. One in each wingtip so that my dual ILS
units do not have to share via a splitter(which reduces signal strength
by 50%)
On 8/6/2018 9:40 AM, Michael Abel wrote:
> Yes I had a similar problem (ILS/LOC) with my experimentalcopper tape
> NAV antenna installed in the front of my cabin just above the top of my
> windshield in my RV10 (hidden under the upholstery).
> I finally put a regular rami antenna under the tailbone of the airplane
> and it worked flawlessly.
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna locations |
Before giving up, see if some local ham radio operator will have a look. Some things
that seem okay for normal wiring definitely are not okay at these frequencies.
For example:
I have seen Archer antennas installed with the ground leg 8 away from the end
rib, and connected to the rib with a single 8 long wire; I have seen one installed
inverted (e.g., the radiating element attached to the rib, the ground leg
free in the wingtip). Even these installations worked to some degree, with the
pilots blaming poor performance on the antenna.
Look at Carls photo. Notice how the leading edge of the antenna is back, away from
the landing light and its heat shielding foil.
Can you post a photo similar?
Another possibility is that the localizer at KAGC is at 109.1 MHz- close to the
low frequency end of the nav frequencies. If your antenna is tuned to the higher
end, it wont perform as well at 109. See Carls post about an analyzer.
That said, I am totally perplexed as to how an antenna issue can give you a fly
left indication (ignoring the fact that the antenna is 15 off the aircraft centerline).
The receiver just looks at the relative strength of two different modulation
frequencies. There is nothing in any antenna that should cause one signal
to be different from the other. And if the reception is just poor, the receiver
should flag. One thing you could try: my old C182 POH mentioned that sometimes,
if the prop rpm was very close to the modulation frequency, it could
cause some strange effects. I dont see how a wingtip antenna could be affected,
but you could try this approach again, at a 100 rpm different prop setting.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482122#482122
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Getting beat up by NorCal ATC |
Sorry in advance for the long post, but I had a strange experience yesterday
trying to open an IFR flight plan and wonder 1) what I did wrong and 2) has
anybody else had a similar experience?
Background: have been an active instrument rated pilot for 30+ years and
routinely fly my RV-10 IFR, but mostly in the Seattle area. Sunday August 5
filed an online IFR flight plan from Lincoln Regional (KLHM) to Hawthorne
(KHHR) in downtown L.A. Was a blue sky day everywhere (well, except for
some wildfire smoke) and this was one of those 'administrative IFR' flight
plans to get into the L.A. basin. Radio exchange begins at about 0800 after
departing KLHM VFR, climbing for 11k.
Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
Norcal on 125.8: no response, but relatively busy handling arrivals into
Sacramento, so no surprise
[wait for another pause in radio traffic]
Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
Norcal: RV calling Norcal, stand by.
[Approximately 2 minutes goes by, conversations end between Norcal and
airline traffic]
Another RV calls Norcal and is immediately responded to, given a squawk
code.
After that, thinking I had been forgotten:
Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD.
No response for another thirty seconds. I get it. This guy is not going to
talk to me and is apparently trying to teach me a lesson.
Now 40 miles down the road, am in another Norcal sector and try them on
123.7:
Me: Norcal approach, experimental RV N104LD
Norcal (female voice): RV 104LD, squawk 3636.
Me: 3636 on the squawk. RV104LD is off Lincoln and would like to open my
IFR flight plan to KHHR.
Norcal: 104LD, I can issue your clearance but cannot open your flight plan.
Advise ready to copy.
Me: Ready to copy:
[Clearance is given as filed, and read back successfully]
Me: Who should I call to open the IFR flight plan?
Norcal: Try Flight Service.
Me: Do you have a preferred frequency for them in this area?
Norcal: Negative, don't have that information.
[I find Murieta Springs Radio frequency and call FSS]
Me: Murieta radio, experimental RV N104LD.
FSS: Say request
Me: I was told to contact you by Norcal, who said they cannot open my IFR
flight plan.
FSS: There must be some confusion. Flight service can only open VFR flight
plans, not IFR flight plans. Go back to Norcal.
Me: Roger.
Me (back on Norcal frequ): Norcal, this is N104LD; contacted Flight Service
and they said they cannot open an IFR flight plan; you have to do that.
Norcal (same female voice): I don't understand what you are requesting.
There is nothing more we can do for you
[Now 55 miles down the road and level at 11k, I decide to call Oakland
Center]
Me: Oakland Center, experimental RV104LD 10 northeast of Linden VOR at 11k.
Would like to open our IFR flight plan to KHHR.
Oakland Center: You should have opened your flight plan with Norcal
approach.
Me: I tried. (and further explain the strange sequence of events).
Oakland Center: Ok, your flight plan is active. Cleared direct TTE.
Apparently Norcal reacted to your trying to open a flight plan when they had
not issued the clearance yet. First you have to call them to get the
clearance.
Me: Ok, sorry. My mistake.
Commentary on this rather bizarre interchange: I am totally about learning
new things and apologizing when I make a mistake. But this one still has me
scratching my head. Any thoughts?
Dan Masys
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC |
Sounds to me that it was just someone trying to be difficult.
That said, when IFR Ive never heard anyone say they wanted to open an IFR flight
plan. I always say Id like to pick up my IFR clearance. Once I read back my
clearance its assumed that Im now in the system no further action is required.
Never had an issue this way.
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 10:05 PM, Dan Masys <dmasys@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry in advance for the long post, but I had a strange experience yesterday
> trying to open an IFR flight plan and wonder 1) what I did wrong and 2) has
> anybody else had a similar experience?
>
> Background: have been an active instrument rated pilot for 30+ years and
> routinely fly my RV-10 IFR, but mostly in the Seattle area. Sunday August 5
> filed an online IFR flight plan from Lincoln Regional (KLHM) to Hawthorne
> (KHHR) in downtown L.A. Was a blue sky day everywhere (well, except for
> some wildfire smoke) and this was one of those 'administrative IFR' flight
> plans to get into the L.A. basin. Radio exchange begins at about 0800 after
> departing KLHM VFR, climbing for 11k.
>
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal on 125.8: no response, but relatively busy handling arrivals into
> Sacramento, so no surprise
> [wait for another pause in radio traffic]
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal: RV calling Norcal, stand by.
> [Approximately 2 minutes goes by, conversations end between Norcal and
> airline traffic]
> Another RV calls Norcal and is immediately responded to, given a squawk
> code.
> After that, thinking I had been forgotten:
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD.
>
> No response for another thirty seconds. I get it. This guy is not going to
> talk to me and is apparently trying to teach me a lesson.
>
> Now 40 miles down the road, am in another Norcal sector and try them on
> 123.7:
> Me: Norcal approach, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal (female voice): RV 104LD, squawk 3636.
> Me: 3636 on the squawk. RV104LD is off Lincoln and would like to open my
> IFR flight plan to KHHR.
> Norcal: 104LD, I can issue your clearance but cannot open your flight plan.
> Advise ready to copy.
> Me: Ready to copy:
> [Clearance is given as filed, and read back successfully]
>
> Me: Who should I call to open the IFR flight plan?
> Norcal: Try Flight Service.
> Me: Do you have a preferred frequency for them in this area?
> Norcal: Negative, don't have that information.
> [I find Murieta Springs Radio frequency and call FSS]
> Me: Murieta radio, experimental RV N104LD.
> FSS: Say request
> Me: I was told to contact you by Norcal, who said they cannot open my IFR
> flight plan.
> FSS: There must be some confusion. Flight service can only open VFR flight
> plans, not IFR flight plans. Go back to Norcal.
> Me: Roger.
> Me (back on Norcal frequ): Norcal, this is N104LD; contacted Flight Service
> and they said they cannot open an IFR flight plan; you have to do that.
> Norcal (same female voice): I don't understand what you are requesting.
> There is nothing more we can do for you
>
> [Now 55 miles down the road and level at 11k, I decide to call Oakland
> Center]
> Me: Oakland Center, experimental RV104LD 10 northeast of Linden VOR at 11k.
> Would like to open our IFR flight plan to KHHR.
> Oakland Center: You should have opened your flight plan with Norcal
> approach.
> Me: I tried. (and further explain the strange sequence of events).
> Oakland Center: Ok, your flight plan is active. Cleared direct TTE.
> Apparently Norcal reacted to your trying to open a flight plan when they had
> not issued the clearance yet. First you have to call them to get the
> clearance.
> Me: Ok, sorry. My mistake.
>
> Commentary on this rather bizarre interchange: I am totally about learning
> new things and apologizing when I make a mistake. But this one still has me
> scratching my head. Any thoughts?
>
> Dan Masys
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC |
I too am confused. What did you want them to do? What do you think it
means to "open" an IFR flight plan?
The purpose of an IFR flight plan is to help get you a clearance. If you
received an IFR clearance, you're good to go, there's nothing more to be
done. If you were operating under an IFR clearance, and then asked another
controller after a handoff to "open your flight plan" I can imagine that
they would be very confused.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Dan Masys <dmasys@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Sorry in advance for the long post, but I had a strange experience
> yesterday
> trying to open an IFR flight plan and wonder 1) what I did wrong and 2) has
> anybody else had a similar experience?
>
> Background: have been an active instrument rated pilot for 30+ years and
> routinely fly my RV-10 IFR, but mostly in the Seattle area. Sunday August
> 5
> filed an online IFR flight plan from Lincoln Regional (KLHM) to Hawthorne
> (KHHR) in downtown L.A. Was a blue sky day everywhere (well, except for
> some wildfire smoke) and this was one of those 'administrative IFR' flight
> plans to get into the L.A. basin. Radio exchange begins at about 0800
> after
> departing KLHM VFR, climbing for 11k.
>
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal on 125.8: no response, but relatively busy handling arrivals into
> Sacramento, so no surprise
> [wait for another pause in radio traffic]
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal: RV calling Norcal, stand by.
> [Approximately 2 minutes goes by, conversations end between Norcal and
> airline traffic]
> Another RV calls Norcal and is immediately responded to, given a squawk
> code.
> After that, thinking I had been forgotten:
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD.
>
> No response for another thirty seconds. I get it. This guy is not going
> to
> talk to me and is apparently trying to teach me a lesson.
>
> Now 40 miles down the road, am in another Norcal sector and try them on
> 123.7:
> Me: Norcal approach, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal (female voice): RV 104LD, squawk 3636.
> Me: 3636 on the squawk. RV104LD is off Lincoln and would like to open my
> IFR flight plan to KHHR.
> Norcal: 104LD, I can issue your clearance but cannot open your flight plan.
> Advise ready to copy.
> Me: Ready to copy:
> [Clearance is given as filed, and read back successfully]
>
> Me: Who should I call to open the IFR flight plan?
> Norcal: Try Flight Service.
> Me: Do you have a preferred frequency for them in this area?
> Norcal: Negative, don't have that information.
> [I find Murieta Springs Radio frequency and call FSS]
> Me: Murieta radio, experimental RV N104LD.
> FSS: Say request
> Me: I was told to contact you by Norcal, who said they cannot open my IFR
> flight plan.
> FSS: There must be some confusion. Flight service can only open VFR
> flight
> plans, not IFR flight plans. Go back to Norcal.
> Me: Roger.
> Me (back on Norcal frequ): Norcal, this is N104LD; contacted Flight
> Service
> and they said they cannot open an IFR flight plan; you have to do that.
> Norcal (same female voice): I don't understand what you are requesting.
> There is nothing more we can do for you
>
> [Now 55 miles down the road and level at 11k, I decide to call Oakland
> Center]
> Me: Oakland Center, experimental RV104LD 10 northeast of Linden VOR at 11k.
> Would like to open our IFR flight plan to KHHR.
> Oakland Center: You should have opened your flight plan with Norcal
> approach.
> Me: I tried. (and further explain the strange sequence of events).
> Oakland Center: Ok, your flight plan is active. Cleared direct TTE.
> Apparently Norcal reacted to your trying to open a flight plan when they
> had
> not issued the clearance yet. First you have to call them to get the
> clearance.
> Me: Ok, sorry. My mistake.
>
> Commentary on this rather bizarre interchange: I am totally about learning
> new things and apologizing when I make a mistake. But this one still has
> me
> scratching my head. Any thoughts?
>
> Dan Masys
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC |
I=99m thinking the same thing. I file an IFR flight plan so I can get a
clearance. I=99ve never asked to open my flight plan. I call and say,
=9Coff X35 looking for my Ifr.=9D They say, =9Ccleared...
=9D and that=99s it. I=99m filed, cleared and done.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 10:32 PM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I too am confused. What did you want them to do? What do you think it me
ans to "open" an IFR flight plan?
>
> The purpose of an IFR flight plan is to help get you a clearance. If you r
eceived an IFR clearance, you're good to go, there's nothing more to be done
. If you were operating under an IFR clearance, and then asked another cont
roller after a handoff to "open your flight plan" I can imagine that they wo
uld be very confused.
>
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Dan Masys <dmasys@u.washington.edu> wrote
:
>>
>> Sorry in advance for the long post, but I had a strange experience yester
day
>> trying to open an IFR flight plan and wonder 1) what I did wrong and 2) h
as
>> anybody else had a similar experience?
>>
>> Background: have been an active instrument rated pilot for 30+ years and
>> routinely fly my RV-10 IFR, but mostly in the Seattle area. Sunday Augus
t 5
>> filed an online IFR flight plan from Lincoln Regional (KLHM) to Hawthorne
>> (KHHR) in downtown L.A. Was a blue sky day everywhere (well, except for
>> some wildfire smoke) and this was one of those 'administrative IFR' fligh
t
>> plans to get into the L.A. basin. Radio exchange begins at about 0800 af
ter
>> departing KLHM VFR, climbing for 11k.
>>
>> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
>> Norcal on 125.8: no response, but relatively busy handling arrivals into
>> Sacramento, so no surprise
>> [wait for another pause in radio traffic]
>> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
>> Norcal: RV calling Norcal, stand by.
>> [Approximately 2 minutes goes by, conversations end between Norcal and
>> airline traffic]
>> Another RV calls Norcal and is immediately responded to, given a squawk
>> code.
>> After that, thinking I had been forgotten:
>> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD.
>>
>> No response for another thirty seconds. I get it. This guy is not going
to
>> talk to me and is apparently trying to teach me a lesson.
>>
>> Now 40 miles down the road, am in another Norcal sector and try them on
>> 123.7:
>> Me: Norcal approach, experimental RV N104LD
>> Norcal (female voice): RV 104LD, squawk 3636.
>> Me: 3636 on the squawk. RV104LD is off Lincoln and would like to open my
>> IFR flight plan to KHHR.
>> Norcal: 104LD, I can issue your clearance but cannot open your flight pla
n.
>> Advise ready to copy.
>> Me: Ready to copy:
>> [Clearance is given as filed, and read back successfully]
>>
>> Me: Who should I call to open the IFR flight plan?
>> Norcal: Try Flight Service.
>> Me: Do you have a preferred frequency for them in this area?
>> Norcal: Negative, don't have that information.
>> [I find Murieta Springs Radio frequency and call FSS]
>> Me: Murieta radio, experimental RV N104LD.
>> FSS: Say request
>> Me: I was told to contact you by Norcal, who said they cannot open my IFR
>> flight plan.
>> FSS: There must be some confusion. Flight service can only open VFR fli
ght
>> plans, not IFR flight plans. Go back to Norcal.
>> Me: Roger.
>> Me (back on Norcal frequ): Norcal, this is N104LD; contacted Flight Serv
ice
>> and they said they cannot open an IFR flight plan; you have to do that.
>> Norcal (same female voice): I don't understand what you are requesting.
>> There is nothing more we can do for you
>>
>> [Now 55 miles down the road and level at 11k, I decide to call Oakland
>> Center]
>> Me: Oakland Center, experimental RV104LD 10 northeast of Linden VOR at 11
k.
>> Would like to open our IFR flight plan to KHHR.
>> Oakland Center: You should have opened your flight plan with Norcal
>> approach.
>> Me: I tried. (and further explain the strange sequence of events).
>> Oakland Center: Ok, your flight plan is active. Cleared direct TTE.
>> Apparently Norcal reacted to your trying to open a flight plan when they h
ad
>> not issued the clearance yet. First you have to call them to get the
>> clearance.
>> Me: Ok, sorry. My mistake.
>>
>> Commentary on this rather bizarre interchange: I am totally about learni
ng
>> new things and apologizing when I make a mistake. But this one still has
me
>> scratching my head. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Dan Masys
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?RV10-List
>> =========================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> =========================
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Getting beat up by NorCal ATC |
Other responses are correct that a clearance does activate your flight plan.
IMHO, your first call should have been "Experimental RV104LD off Lincoln
request clearance."
While they should have had a strip on you already, your asking for
clearance tells them they are supposed to have you and respond to you. Your
call tells them who you are, where you are and what you want, succinctly.
I don't know the area, whether you could have gotten clearance on the
ground or not, nor how you filed, perhaps for ATC to expect your clearance
request at an airport fix.
Sent from my IBM-360 main frame
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Dan Masys <dmasys@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Sorry in advance for the long post, but I had a strange experience
> yesterday
> trying to open an IFR flight plan and wonder 1) what I did wrong and 2) has
> anybody else had a similar experience?
>
> Background: have been an active instrument rated pilot for 30+ years and
> routinely fly my RV-10 IFR, but mostly in the Seattle area. Sunday August
> 5
> filed an online IFR flight plan from Lincoln Regional (KLHM) to Hawthorne
> (KHHR) in downtown L.A. Was a blue sky day everywhere (well, except for
> some wildfire smoke) and this was one of those 'administrative IFR' flight
> plans to get into the L.A. basin. Radio exchange begins at about 0800
> after
> departing KLHM VFR, climbing for 11k.
>
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal on 125.8: no response, but relatively busy handling arrivals into
> Sacramento, so no surprise
> [wait for another pause in radio traffic]
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal: RV calling Norcal, stand by.
> [Approximately 2 minutes goes by, conversations end between Norcal and
> airline traffic]
> Another RV calls Norcal and is immediately responded to, given a squawk
> code.
> After that, thinking I had been forgotten:
> Me: Norcal departure, experimental RV N104LD.
>
> No response for another thirty seconds. I get it. This guy is not going
> to
> talk to me and is apparently trying to teach me a lesson.
>
> Now 40 miles down the road, am in another Norcal sector and try them on
> 123.7:
> Me: Norcal approach, experimental RV N104LD
> Norcal (female voice): RV 104LD, squawk 3636.
> Me: 3636 on the squawk. RV104LD is off Lincoln and would like to open my
> IFR flight plan to KHHR.
> Norcal: 104LD, I can issue your clearance but cannot open your flight plan.
> Advise ready to copy.
> Me: Ready to copy:
> [Clearance is given as filed, and read back successfully]
>
> Me: Who should I call to open the IFR flight plan?
> Norcal: Try Flight Service.
> Me: Do you have a preferred frequency for them in this area?
> Norcal: Negative, don't have that information.
> [I find Murieta Springs Radio frequency and call FSS]
> Me: Murieta radio, experimental RV N104LD.
> FSS: Say request
> Me: I was told to contact you by Norcal, who said they cannot open my IFR
> flight plan.
> FSS: There must be some confusion. Flight service can only open VFR
> flight
> plans, not IFR flight plans. Go back to Norcal.
> Me: Roger.
> Me (back on Norcal frequ): Norcal, this is N104LD; contacted Flight
> Service
> and they said they cannot open an IFR flight plan; you have to do that.
> Norcal (same female voice): I don't understand what you are requesting.
> There is nothing more we can do for you
>
> [Now 55 miles down the road and level at 11k, I decide to call Oakland
> Center]
> Me: Oakland Center, experimental RV104LD 10 northeast of Linden VOR at 11k.
> Would like to open our IFR flight plan to KHHR.
> Oakland Center: You should have opened your flight plan with Norcal
> approach.
> Me: I tried. (and further explain the strange sequence of events).
> Oakland Center: Ok, your flight plan is active. Cleared direct TTE.
> Apparently Norcal reacted to your trying to open a flight plan when they
> had
> not issued the clearance yet. First you have to call them to get the
> clearance.
> Me: Ok, sorry. My mistake.
>
> Commentary on this rather bizarre interchange: I am totally about learning
> new things and apologizing when I make a mistake. But this one still has
> me
> scratching my head. Any thoughts?
>
> Dan Masys
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|