it was as easy as google.com

-Fatty

The guy that brought up the psychological term 'anal retentive' wins the prize.

WHAT a bunch of weenies!

'ATC' is just trying to help you dorks out -and improve your employer's bottom line! IE: lower fuel burn . .stock price . . dividends . .. fiscal soundness.

Some of you guys have been watching too much Boston Legal. . . or imagine you are lawyers. Think about what the 'can do' pioneers of aviation would be thinking of your limp dick responses here. Pitiful !!

I thought this was a 'team effort' here? Too much 'CYA' going on for an old timer. Accept the damn clearance -and if you 'lose' him -due to your own weaknesses . .due to your own pizz poor airman ship . . call it out. . . and get a vector out of the situation.

Whatever you say, cowgirl. ;)






.

Y'all ever hear the famous last words of Will Rogers?

"Yeah, Wiley, he's a great pilot...."

You mean, like the "back in the Falcon" guys?

At least we'll accept a transponder code that includes "666" in the number! :rolleyes:

Oh yea, and when you're pulling back the throttles to go slow into SAN (hmm, wonder why anyone would do that? ;)), its hard to over take anyone! :eek:

Amen Brother!!!

Great example of my point is the latest MD-FSR submitted for, and I kid you not, a failed cargo door test! After pushback, or so the lecture goes, they get a failed cargo door test, do the manual test, it fails then they block back in. Wow, thanks for the report. I feel SOOO much safer! Perhaps we should nominate the Capt for the daedalion award. Humorous to me that somebody would actually take the time to write a missive about such an inconsequential event, one that doesn't even fall under the reasons to submit the report in the first place.

"AR" all the way!

I was watching 4 T-45s take off today from El Centro and I was thinking about this 'visual separation' thread and wondering if there would be such a big discussion in their ready room. Reading this thread has certainly given me a new perspective on the whole thing. I've never put that much thought into it.

USMCFLYR

I flew down to Florida once on the MD-10. On the return leg, we got out to the jet and the wing anti-ice was deferred. MEL said that you have to remain clear of icing conditions.

The captain said, no problem - he had printed out the satellite picture of the southeast, and if we just aviated a little west of our filed route we'd be fine.

I asked him if he'd realized what we were signing up for - maintaining VFR at night at Mach .82. Hitting clouds and then getting out of them is not "remaining clear" of icing conditions.

You guys with the eagle eyes and the fighter reflexes are all studs and all, but the FAA can ruin your whole day - I've seen it many times, and I'd say over 50% of the time the pilot is trying to do the company a favor.

Consistently spotting the right 727 at night with no logo lights from ~3 miles away while flying a two-man airliner through the takeoff profile... you guys are Yeager, man.....

And there is the answer.

I myself don't do visual separation on take offs, and rarely on landings.

Huck,

Therein lies the difference between a military trained pilot and a one from a civilian background....you should be in awe of our prowess.:D


Jakal......Baiting for a severe thread creep

DITTO!!!!!!

It takes all kinds.....just continue to do the unbelievable job you guys do night in and night out and don't worry about the few D---- that will always be around in any operation.

Now that I have read all six pages of the response to your question ATC, it is obvious most of those I was addressing are on this forum....

Keep up the good work!

That's Yeager-meister to you sir!:D

Girls...Dont get your panties in a wad!

It's not worth fighting over.

Bottom line is its the Captains decision to accept visual or not. Obviously we are all not going to have the same response. That's O.K. too. Just as long as were not flying into each other out there or getting the "call me on the ground" from ATC.

Seems were doing pretty good on this one so far!:)

Very true sir!

What was the spacing between the AA Airbus and B-747 in New York when the vertical stab separated?

x2, good post

What kind of wing ice do you expect at FL330 at .82? Ice crystals, adhering to the wing? Unlikely or impossible. Lot's of accidents over the years due to ice buildup on on the wings but at high cruise and high mach.......name one?

The issue wasn't accreting ice.

The issue was complying with the MEL.

"Do not operate aircraft in known or forecast icing conditions."

Doesn't say "fly along until you get in icing conditions, then climb/descend/turn to get back out of them."

Agreed, I just don't think that high cirrus clouds constitute "known icing" nor would I expect to get any. Lower, slower, cumulous clouds, yes...but not cruising through cirrus at FL XXX at .82 to .84.

As ticky-tack as this interpretation historically has been, recently the FAA published their interpretation as to "what is known icing". Here it is for all to heed. When the FED's put it in black and white, you would be best served to comply......

"straight from the FAA legal counsel: "Reduced to basic terms, known icing conditions exist when visible moisture or high relative humidity combines with temperatures near or below freezing. Since clouds are a form of visible moisture, flying through clouds at an altitude that is near or below freezing would constitute flight into known icing conditions. Another factor to consider, as a practical matter, is the temperature of the aircraft exterior. When the air temperature is close to but above freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is below freezing may cause water droplets to freeze and ice to accumulate. When the air temperature is below freezing, any part of an aircraft exterior that is above freezing (e.g., engine cowling) may cause snow or ice crystals to melt, refreeze, and further accumulate as ice. The Federal Aviation Regulations do not allow for experimentation. Flight into known
icing conditions when the airplane flight manual or pilot operating handbook prohibits such flight would constitute a violation whether the aircraft accretes ice or not."

990, not that I doubt your interpretation, but where exactly did you find the above quote? I'd like to be able to read the entire text.

You can download the FAA's legal interpretation at this weblink, look toward the bottom of the page where the article gives you an option to download the PDF file from the FED's.

Known Icing Conditions

And...after further review....looks like this link challenges the "legal" interpretation. Guess that's par for the course. Ambiguity so that if something happens, they pin it on you the PIC.

Icing Update

And more fodder for consideration.....

"The ultimate decision whether, when, and where to make the flight rests with the pilot. A pilot also must continue to reevaluate changing weather conditions. If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will encounter visible moisture at freezing or near freezing temperatures and that ice will adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist. If the AFM prohibits flight in known icing conditions and the pilot operates in such conditions, the FAA could take enforcement action."

Read the full article at

AOPA Online: FAA seeks pilot input on definition of 'known icing'

[quote=990Convair;504752]And more fodder for consideration.....



On a roll here with this....man, it looks like the smart decision would be to stay at the hotel and drink some beer.....

In explaining their definition of known ice, Loretta E. Alkalay, FAA Regional Counsel, referenced Administrator v. Curtis, NTSB Order No. EA-5154 (April 29, 2005). Here, the court ruled that conditions conducive to icing exists whenever near- or below-freezing temperatures and moisture exist together in a given area. It didn't matter that there were no reports or forecasts of icing conditions at any altitude anywhere near the route of flight.

The Regional Counsel's office also referenced Administrator v. Groszer, NTSB Order No. EA-3770 (January 5, 1993), which ruled that the threat of ice need not cover the entire area at all altitudes for the threat to be known or dangerous. In short, the FAA defines known ice as any visible moisture (cloud or limiting visibility due to moisture) with temperatures at or near freezing. If you go there in a non-known-ice-certified aircraft, you are in violation. Period.

The Regional Counsel's letter to me clarified the definition of known ice. You cannot legally fly a non-known-ice-certified airplane into any cloud near or below zero degrees C or you are in violation. If the FAA learns, either by direct observation or via a filed complaint, that a non-known-ice-certified aircraft entered a freezing cloud, it will initiate the EDT process and an enforcement may, or may not, result.

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/defining...n_faa_ifr.html

---------------------------------------

Pilots should also remain aware that 14 CFR Sec. 91.13(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft for the purpose of air navigation in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
or property of another. Meteorological information that does not evidence known icing conditions, or the extent thereof, may regardless support a finding that a pilot's operation under the circumstances was careless.

This response constitutes an interpretation of the Chief Counsel's Office and was coordinated with the FAA's Flight Standards Service.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2007.
Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 07-1620 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...07/07-1620.htm
http://forums.jetcareers.com/images/...er_offline.gif

I hate attorneys...they ruin all the fun.

The key here is that the response was inappropriately worded. "Negative" would have had the same effect for the controller. No need to be confrontational, even if you are on your 25th straight night of MEM hub turns with layovers at the Motel 6 in Podunk, MT. Not to disparage the Motel 6 there, but you get the drift....

I don't remember exactly what it was, but I do know that the investigators determined that there was legal RADAR separation (at least 4 miles in this case).

The biggest issue here is cooperation. I don't have all of the facts about this incident, so I don't know if the controller painted him/herself into a corner or if the pilot was being stubborn, or if it was a little of both. It's fine and dandy to have a CYA attitude, but know that there is a long-term price that may have to be paid. I have known ATCers who held grudges against entire companies due to the actions/attitude of one pilot. If your company has a hub at this airport, then the ramifications can really add up. Fortunately, those folks are in the tiny minority. Most people understand that pilots and controllers are on the same team, i.e. you might save someone's butt today and they might save your's tomorrow. In spite of all of the rules written in black and white, over the years I learned that aviation is just one big shade of gray, and a lot of folks have to put out extra effort to make the system work. If a clearance is unsafe, then by all means refuse it! However, if you just want to be difficult, understand that your actions may have a greater impact than you bargained for.

Visual separation exists in form to "expedite" a procedure in use in the terminal area and enroute airspace system of NAS. There is no requirement for a pilot to "accept" such clearance however in the terminal environment, the ATC local controller can provide this separation if both subject aircraft are kept in sight and instructions applied accordingly. The Heavy Driver was not wrong in declining such clearance but he could have used the word "unable", and everyone here knows what that means. There is too much chatter on the ATC frequencies these days, keeping it short and simple to the point is much more effective.