If I’m 19nm from an airport, and I call inbound - on tower frequency - and as I turn to right base as they told me to, approach asks me to contact them, what should I do?
This happened earlier today, and so I responded to tower’s directions that sent me to right base, and contacted the approach who had by this time asked that I contact them two times. So I did, and before long (an understandably confused) tower, was asking me to contact them (again). So I asked to change frequency, but approach told me to remain with them.
Which ATC service should I be connected to, and at what distance from the airport?
Stay with tower, he will hand you off if needed.
If you are on a base quite far out you might as well contact approach after a frequency change approved from tower, but if you are almost established, you might as well stay unless, as I said, tower instructs you to contact approach.
MaxSez: Max Sez.“Just say UNABLE”! This problem is consistent across all severs. Approach & Departure act like the Lone Ranger. The never coordite there action with tower. Try flying a GA VFR into a B field with both or just one rat chatcher operating. They consistently lock you in with the I’m gonna ghost you warning "“Stay on my Freq”. The problem can be solved 2 ways; provide an inter ATC Node comm coordination link or a comm menu addition that state “VFR, On visual approach, no radar vectors desired” of “Under Tower Positive Control, Freq Change Required”. (The PIC is the decision maker! In the situation described your only options presently are; Punch out or go to an alternate utilizing "Request Departure (direction). I punch out rather than fight a ghosts or take a machine generated violation)
@LewisB1… Suggest you remove ((Solved) from the Topic Title Max
Max is wrong: approach/departure do communicate and coordinate with tower on the advanced server. Sometimes coordination can be optimized, but such situations should not happen on advanced server.
I presume he means eject, don’t worry, it takes time to adapt to Max’s vocabulary, you’ll get there
Nevermind, just realized the context this was in
haha xD It’s common then!
Do you know what it means?
At 20nm out contact approach, they should then hand you of once they’ve cleared you for approach. But, if this is playground none of what I just said will take effect.
If you’re on playground, stick with tower and hope for the best lol.
@hjo. Max is never wrong Hojo. I speak from practical long term experience.
Unfortunately, I rarely find an Advance field fully staffed so there are very large voids when it comes to the so called Advance inter node communication capabilities of late. Have a nice day.
@JQC… Here they come, throw some bloody chum in the water and the minnow Spool & Spawn. The topic delt with the PG defenders of the fateful.
Cool your jets and watch your mouth, I consider your “ignorence” comment offensive no matter the context. Choose to continue send me a PM and we can use more colorful languege. Max
Advanced controllers are told to never send on guard messages to an aircraft on another manned frequency. This means is approach logs on, they message the tower controller to say they’re active who then will keep those planes that are close on tower and send planes that are further out to approach. This change should be directed by the tower controller, not by on guard messages (in most cases).
As for the issue described above, it would be best to contact the Controller involved if you feel too much switching / on-guarding has been commanded.
As for the other issue, flying a GA aircraft into a busy Bravo isn’t very realistic, yes you can do it but you can’t expect to have a perfect approach suited for your smaller prop aircraft when landing in with heavies at an international airport. The approach may not be as good as compared to landing at a smaller airfield designed for props.
@CJ12… Max Sez.Well laid out explanation on how arrivals should work DJ. As for GA to B’s, “not realistic” appears in my opinion to be the Advance Controller & ATC Trainers mind set. I believe that the NO GA mind set has metastasized into a No GA Allowed at a B actualiy. In my experience in the majority of the many GA landings I’ve attempted in a GA at a B I’ve been ignored an/ or placed in and endless 360 or vectored into infinity in 80% of attempt made. Now that the Dash-8 is in the mix I expect that No GA mind set will modify. The 8 must be accepted into the flow and over time all concerned will learn type separation timing and use extend, do a 360 or vector more sparingly. GA may even get into the unused short Rwys at the Hubs w/o a hassle. Just my opinion.
Yeah I agree previously I have noticed that GA aircraft aren’t welcomed very well at Class B airports which I personally find understandable during busy periods, however they should still be allowed to land (touch and goes at discretion of controller). I personally have improved my skills recently in implementing GA into a high speed flow, which many controllers are doing well (and you’d like). The dash 8 arrival has only improved controllers ability to sequence the slower plane into a faster flow, so you should see improvements coming along. My comment was more about single runway bravos, but like you said a spare runway or even the second runway should deifinitly be used for GA if requested (:
@CJ12… Thanks for the come back CJ. Your a Pro. I comment early on that the Dash would make a significant difference in the ATC training scheme. I’ve spent time sitting and watching flow control & sequencing at B Hubs since the Dash was released. I’ve seen a marked improvement and even eased my D
onto a short Rway at Honolulu on occasion without incident in the recant past.
Do good work DJ. Practice makes perfect. Warm Regards, Max
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.