VFR flight coming into class C

L

Legiox

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
72
Display Name
Display name:
RatherBflying
Me and another guy went for a nice VFR XC flight to build time for our IFR requirements. We were flying VFR about 20nm from the class C Airpsace when they were going to vector us in to RWY 23R. However, instead of vectoring us in while flying VFR ATC told us to proceed direct to Preston. Me and by friend looked at each other dumbfounded because ATC would always vector us in using course maneuvers i.e.: turn left 110 etc...etc..
Well I got back on comm and told ATC we are flying VFR and unfamiliar with Presten intersection and asked to be vectored in. The controller then got back on and again told us to go direct Preston.
Well our IFR training kicked in some and we knew Preston was probably a IAF for the glide slope. So we eventually found it on the g1000 and proceeded direct to it. Finally they handed us off to tower and they vectored us in like it should have Been.
Is this normal for VFR? Friend and I thought it was very odd and knew if they said that someone with no IFR knowledge would probably have been lost...

I should of just said "can't comply" live and learn.
 
"Spell Presten and request initial heading until able." Rinse and repeat as necessary.
 
Legiox said:
Me and another guy went for a nice VFR XC flight to build time for our IFR requirements. We were flying VFR about 20nm from the class C Airpsace when they were going to vector us in to RWY 23R. However, instead of vectoring us in while flying VFR ATC told us to proceed direct to Preston. Me and by friend looked at each other dumbfounded because ATC would always vector us in using course maneuvers i.e.: turn left 110 etc...etc..
Well I got back on comm and told ATC we are flying VFR and unfamiliar with Presten intersection and asked to be vectored in. The controller then got back on and again told us to go direct Preston.
Well our IFR training kicked in some and we knew Preston was probably a IAF for the glide slope. So we eventually found it on the g1000 and proceeded direct to it. Finally they handed us off to tower and they vectored us in like it should have Been.
Is this normal for VFR? Friend and I thought it was very odd and knew if they said that someone with no IFR knowledge would probably have been lost...

I should of just said "can't comply" live and learn.
Click to expand...

What airport is this? Sometimes you have to remind ATC that you're VFR, that you're unable, or just use plain language and tell them you're not familiar with the fix or you do not understand their instruction. If you have a database, you can ask them to spell the name of the fix (by the way, "preston" is too many letters).
 
Remember "Unable" or I agree with Approach Controller: Spell prestn and heading please,
 
Approach_controller said:
"Spell Presten and request initial heading until able." Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Click to expand...

This.

Always back up a visual approach with an ILS or RNAV.

From what ive heard, the new crop of controllers cant vector. :D
 
Last edited:
Handling airline traffic which typically loads an approach even for visual approaches, they are used to giving fixes and instructions to "join the localizer" especially when there are parallel runway.

Just to what others said and either find it quickly if you can (don't worry about it) or let the controller know that you don't know where it is.
 
Brad Z said:
What airport is this? Sometimes you have to remind ATC that you're VFR,
Click to expand...

I was on a relatively long VFR FF, and I think ATC thought I was on an IFR flight plan. He made some comment that you wouldn't say to a VFR pilot. I guess it happens.
 
rbridges said:
I was on a relatively long VFR FF, and I think ATC thought I was on an IFR flight plan. He made some comment that you wouldn't say to a VFR pilot. I guess it happens.
Click to expand...

I have definitely gotten "descend and maintain" instructions to round-number thousands altitudes in Class E while VFR on flight following.

I think part of it is that local VFR "practice approaches" operate a helluva lot like IFR, including sequencing, separation, vectors, etc.
 
It is quite common at many airports with an approach controller to be told to proceed direct to a fix on an approach even if landing visual or VFR.

In my case even if not familiar with the airport I'm ready for that because I generally load up the approach for the runway anyway even if doing a visual approach. In that case they say proceed PRSTN, I look at the flight plan and there it is already there. Select and press Direct. Done. If not, I'd ask them to spell it as others have said.
 
Thanks for heads up. Never can learn enough!
 
okay, maybe I'm a big dummy, but how would a VFR pilot know where PRSTN is? Was ATC under the assumption they had a GPS that would allow them to find it?
 
rbridges said:
okay, maybe I'm a big dummy, but how would a VFR pilot know where PRSTN is? Was ATC under the assumption they had a GPS that would allow them to find it?
Click to expand...

We are doing IFR training right now and was flying to build time. We knew It was some sort of fix for an approach chart, so we both got out our foreflights and looked it up. G1000 works well also and I can never go back to a traditional panel.
 
I don't recall ever being vectored to an intersection while flying VFR. I have been cleared to land while 6nm NW of the field, landing on 30. Usually at larger Cs I am either cleared for a visual approach or given traffic to follow (often RJs).
 
I had a similar moment flying IFR out of Kissimmee FL . Orlando approach needed to move me for traffic, told me to fly the such and such radial to the orlando VOR, then turn north. Maybe he heard the deer in the headlights look, but he quickly changed his mind and spelled an intersection he wanted me to fly to instead. I guess I have gotten soft, but it sure is easier to plug in letters into a 530 and hit direct than to try to find a freq you don't know, then plug it in, identify, find and follow a radial.
 
Legiox said:
G1000 works well also and I can never go back to a traditional panel.
Click to expand...

That comment kinda makes me sad. To prefer the glass is one thing, but to outright refuse anything else?
 
mkosmo said:
That comment kinda makes me sad. To prefer the glass is one thing, but to outright refuse anything else?
Click to expand...

I'm not out right refusing it. I trained on a da-20 during my vfr training, however with being in the da-40 for IFR I just prefer the glass panel. I grew up in the 80s/90s so I feel more accustomed to computer looking panels and equipment. Besides you can do everything with it.
 
KBHM is my hanger. A lot of times on approach. ATC will use IFR locations (I am VFR), to point out traffic. Such as N##### clear to land, you are number 2, traffic to follow crossing MCDEN. The first time this happened it caught me off guard. I replied unfamiliar with MCDEN. And he replied. Traffic no factor clear to land. I have since learned feeder points and it doesn't phase me any more.
 
Legiox said:
I'm not out right refusing it. I trained on a da-20 during my vfr training, however with being in the da-40 for IFR I just prefer the glass panel. I grew up in the 80s/90s so I feel more accustomed to computer looking panels and equipment. Besides you can do everything with it.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the G1000. It has a ton of information. Just make sure you can fly instruments without those screens.
 
jordane93 said:
Nothing wrong with the G1000. It has a ton of information. Just make sure you can fly instruments without those screens.
Click to expand...

A ton of information can be a problem on its own. You must manage that information.

Complexity reduces reliability as well.

G1000s have some very interesting interfaces, but it's just not correct to say it's better than the alternatives in all respects.
 
Code90 said:
I had a similar moment flying IFR out of Kissimmee FL . Orlando approach needed to move me for traffic, told me to fly the such and such radial to the orlando VOR, then turn north. Maybe he heard the deer in the headlights look, but he quickly changed his mind and spelled an intersection he wanted me to fly to instead. I guess I have gotten soft, but it sure is easier to plug in letters into a 530 and hit direct than to try to find a freq you don't know, then plug it in, identify, find and follow a radial.
Click to expand...

Two ways to accomplish this easily:

1. Roll the knob to the "NRST" page group, then to the VOR page. Frequency will be right there and you can do normal things with your NAV radios.

2. Go Direct to the ORL VOR (via the NRST page or dialing in ORL manually), then press the OBS button and select your inbound course using your CDI.
 
AustinPilot said:
Yeah, vacuum pumps and gyros have been so reliable. :)
Click to expand...

I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER had a non-autopilot aircraft run the trim away.

I can't say that for a G1000. The addition of a pitch-controlling autopilot has therefore introduced failure modes that did not exist without it.

Like it or not, you have many more parts to fail in a glass panel.

And if you think in black and white, as in things are either "reliable" or "not reliable," you absolutely positively cannot make a rational safety decision. It simply does not work that way. Every part in your aircraft has a failure mode, so the entire aircraft is "unreliable." Is that even slightly useful?

And if you ask what could cause the autopilot to run the trim away in PIT mode, a bad signal from the AHRS is one of them.

Glitches like this are not unheard of, and you'll run into it if you fly a G1000 for more than a few hours. That family of glitches IS unheard of in simpler aircraft.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Like it or not, you have many more parts to fail in a glass panel.
Click to expand...

Like what? Every glass panel installation is different but the good ones have redundancy built in. As mentioned they don't rely on vacuum tubes or gyros or mechanical whirlling devices. They just need power. Good installations have more than one source of power. The AHRS and ADC are solid state devices and very reliable and many glass cockpit installations have two of each for redundancy. On top of that, you usually have the steam gauges as backup (along with their vacuum and gyros). So it is a bit of a stretch to imply that glass panels are more unreliable. Maybe some are but a properly implemented one is far more reliable than a traditional six pack.
 
Gubbins said:
Like what? Every glass panel installation is different but the good ones have redundancy built in. As mentioned they don't rely on vacuum tubes or gyros or mechanical whirlling devices. They just need power. Good installations have more than one source of power. The AHRS and ADC are solid state devices and very reliable and many glass cockpit installations have two of each for redundancy. On top of that, you usually have the steam gauges as backup (along with their vacuum and gyros). So it is a bit of a stretch to imply that glass panels are more unreliable. Maybe some are but a properly implemented one is far more reliable than a traditional six pack.
Click to expand...

A part doesn't have to be mechanical to be a part.

You have several millions of moving "parts" in Garmin software. Any of those can contain a bug.

There are ways to fail -- some of them pretty bad -- that don't look like a blank screen.

Steam gauges largely work or don't work, though there are certainly some grays there. Software-driven electronics has very many states that are less than fully working, some of which can make you die.

I just had a GFC700 run the trim all the way nose down in PIT mode. That's not losing power, it had no annunciations at all aside from "GPS PIT," and it would have killed me on an approach, especially if I was level looking for the MAP, say, on a localizer approach at 400 AGL. Fortunately, I was much higher than that and VFR at the time.

There is MUCH more to this than "glass = good." It can be good, or it can be a safety hazard. Much more likely, both.
 
Last edited:
This makes sense to me

Sounds like you asked the controller to fly a practice RNAV Y 23R
https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1512/pdf/00516RY23R.PDF

PRSTN is an IAF on that approach. If you are asking to fly an approach (even practice), you need to have the plate in front of you and the controller is giving you instructions consistent with your request. Other than the vectoring part.

When I was training for IFR I would get direct to fixes all the time when requesting practice approaches.

Edit: then I re-read it and it says RWY 23R, not RNAV 23R :). Either way. This is probably what he thought you wanted :).. So what others said
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
A part doesn't have to be mechanical to be a part.

You have several millions of moving "parts" in Garmin software. Any of those can contain a bug.
Click to expand...

:lol: So you're equating what to a part? A line of code?

You can't compare the G1000 software to some generic crap software product. The level of process that is required by their quality system and their validation procedures are at a very high level.

You don't get software defects in the G1000 that are anywhere near the level of a mechanical failure in a steam gauge system. Yes there are defects that get fixed, but if you read what they are in the release notes they are all very minor and not showstoppers like what happen with mechanical devices.

MAKG1 said:
There are ways to fail -- some of them pretty bad -- that don't look like a blank screen.
Click to expand...

Like what? Explain. If you lose two sources of power you will get a blank screen. If you get one blank screen, you can move the display to the other one. If you lose an ADC or AHRS you will get red X's. What else? Examples please.


MAKG1 said:
Steam gauges largely work or don't work, though there are certainly some grays there. Software-driven electronics has very many states that are less than fully working, some of which can make you die.
Click to expand...

:lol: Um, no. I assure you they have strictly controlled specifications and requirements and test procedures that trace back to the requirements and I assure you there are no states than are less than fully working. You obviously never worked in a regulated software environment. When it comes to mission critical applications (including medical software) you make sure there are no states that are less than fully working. :lol:

MAKG1 said:
I just had a GFC700 run the trim all the way nose down in PIT mode. That's not losing power, it had no annunciations at all aside from "GPS PIT," and it would have killed me on an approach, especially if I was level looking for the MAP, say, on a localizer approach at 400 AGL. Fortunately, I was much higher than that and VFR at the time.

There is MUCH more to this than "glass = good." It can be good, or it can be a safety hazard. Much more likely, both.
Click to expand...

You get autopilot failures just like in any system. If the trim runs away whether you are on glass or steam, if you can't figure that out then you shouldn't be flying. The G1000 can interface with other autopilots besides the GFC700. If you have an issue with the GFC700, don't blame the G1000 for that. I've had autopilot issues with the g1000 too always hardware related (like servos failed). That ain't a glass issue though.
 
Umm, I work with certified systems. Yes, there is a lot more testing. No, it is not anywhere near authoritative or comprehensive. You put a lot of faith in DO-178x. It's helpful, but it's nowhere near what you seem to think it is.

A variable is a very good analog to a moving part. DO-178B clearly assumes that a moving part is equivalent to a line of code, though I don't personally agree with that.

I find it very interesting that you claim the G1000 is absolutely reliable and then say you get autopilot failures "just like in any system." Contradiction. And while there are very few guarantees in reliability analysis, one that really jumps out is that a system that doesn't exist cannot fail.

There is a great deal of consternation in the field about testability of FMS systems in general. With good reason. And a good systems engineer designs a system with the appropriate amount of automation. More = better is not competent analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top