IFR Magazine

…

Around 1980, the FAA tried using adjacent approach control facilities to manage traffic through or within major metropolitan areas. The practice was dubbed tower enroute control (TEC), also called Tower to Tower. But these names are misleading because pilots on TEC routes never talk to tower controllers while enroute. Go figure.(The difference between TEC routes and other canned routes is that TEC routes never touch center airspace.)The Air Traffic Control Handbook defines TEC: the control of IFR enroute traffic within delegated airspace between two or more adjacent approach control facilities. This service is designed to expedite traffic and reduce control and pilot communication requirements. A good idea; lets see if theres any there there.

Old habits can be hard to shake. My familys got a nice DVR setup in our home, set to record all our favorite TV shows and save them digitally to its huge hard drive. Our last VHS deck made its way to Goodwill years ago. Nonetheless, I still find myself saying Im going to tape a particular show.

The following is quoted from the NTSB report of a wake turbulence accident. It was this accident that led to the existing wake turbulence guidelines now being used by the FAA and ATC.

Let me say at the outset that general aviation pilots do not have to worry about wake turbulence because wake turbulence will only be dangerous on takeoff, departure, climb-out, enroute, descent, approach and landing.See, no problem.Oh, uh…wait-that pretty much covers the entire flight, doesnt it? Maybe we should worry about wake turbulence.

Like flying itself, air traffic control is complex at first glance, but below the surface its driven by basic principles. One ATC cornerstone is the need for timely, accurate information. As an air traffic controller, when I ask a question or issue an instruction to a pilot, the ol trust but verify adage kicks in-but only to a point. I can see a lot from the tower or on my radar scope, but I cant look over each pilots shoulder. Are they being straightforward with me and following normal procedures? I want to believe they are. Its their safety and mission on the line, after all.

Three simple conditions must be met to land from an instrument approach: being in a position to land, having the runway environment in sight, and possessing the required flight visibility. The first requirement is straight-forward and the second is thoroughly articulated in the regs. The third requirement, though, is a little thorny.Unlike commercial operations, which are restricted from conducting approaches with reported weather below minimums, GA pilots can take a peek no matter what the AWOS is blabbering. If you land with reported weather below minimums, an FAA inspector might ask you about the visibility. The answer is simple-you had the required flight visibility. The regulations only require you to have the flight visibility printed on the approach plate. The ol Pilot/Controller glossary defines flight visibility as:

Its been a long road, but Icon announced in June that its A5 light sport amphibian met all FAA requirements and the company was ready to start serial production. The first customer delivery was scheduled to take place at EAA AirVenture at Oshkosh, with about 60 more deliveries expected within the next 12 months. The all-composite A5 offers a spin-resistant design, a cockpit inspired by luxury automobile styling, and folding wings to make it easy to transport by trailer or store in a garage. Its powered by a Rotax 912iS and sells for up to $250,000. The company first introduced its design in 2006.

While I was working on my instrument rating, I sought advice from a number of sources. One group of pilot friends said that with an instrument rating-or even now, to get in the habit-I should file/follow Victor airways. Another group says Why? No need to follow land-based navaids; just file direct.

…