X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:23:26 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6028555 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:46:33 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=A6YeeLbywjHawQEOU4pZnYGra+u06k/Ji7TQmszTTTyZx2WovxqUVXX9OoT3EbX7; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [67.98.47.206] (helo=[172.30.1.49]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Tyc6w-0008JZ-Q3 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:45:59 -0500 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-26-680952216 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IFR to VFR on top X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:45:57 -0600 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <6992CFEA-9ED7-4840-B4AE-E8FB070EBEC5@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940e68ff08a64f335b4984236b0ce15c2dd350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 67.98.47.206 --Apple-Mail-26-680952216 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I think the thread creep on this has obscured the real question. Since really beginning to take a look at our fleet accident rate = situation I am truly alarmed at some of the behavior that is = contributing to it. I think the apt question might be: "What do you think of operating VFR = in IMC conditions....maybe without an instrument rating...maybe without = ever having had Lancair specific training....definitely with passengers = on board?" Follow on question: This is OUR fleet safety record. What can we do as = a community to reduce this kind of thing? It's a worthwhile question to ask even if it isn't yet 2015 when we'll = have the definitive NTSB report. On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:27 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: Which is why I asked the original question... The accident pilot was = operating VFR in presumably IMC conditions with "flight following" which = is a term of art for VFR ATC assistance and is not an IFR clearance. I = believe Skip said the weather in the San Diego area was poor the day of = the accident.=20 Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Hugh Bergeron = wrote: > Obviously I was misunderstood, in my question I was talking about = "VFR" to VFR on top. Back in the late 1950's, as a tower operator at an = Air Force base in Indiana, Indianapolis Center frequently used this = clearance for Military scrambles when weather conditions permitted, for = obvious reasons (they didn't have to clear any airspace for the = scramble). I remember one occasion where an Air Force pilot, after = having been given this clearance, flew through a solid layer (at a = fairly high altitude) and was busted for doing so. >=20 > Hugh >=20 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:25:25 -0500 > From: ralphlove@stanfordalumni.org > Subject: [LML] Re: IFR to VFR on top >=20 > When you ask for an IFR clearance, they never ask if you are IFR = qualified and current. They just give you the clearance. The same is = true with IFR to VFR on top, but legally you better be qualified and = current >=20 > Pink Panfher > Ralph Love >=20 > On Jan 22, 2013, at 9:24 AM, "Skip Slater" = wrote: >=20 > "VFR to VFR-on-top, where you wanted the benefits of an IFR clearance = but some of the freedom of VFR conditions, was a common clearance used = in military scrambles back when I was a military controller. Is this = clearance still available today?" > =20 > All I can tell you is that I've not had a problem getting one when I = needed it. I've gotten them from for a couple of departures from Orange = County and Santa Barbara airports when they've had marine layers on the = coast. With tops around 2000' and CAVU conditions just a few miles = inland, it's a good option. I just request it from clearance delivery = and they give me an IFR departure with a clearance limit. Once I'm on = top and am leaving their Class C, I just cancel and proceed VFR. > =20 > When you think about it, it's really no different than flying = somewhere VFR and finding the weather has closed in at your destination. = You call approach, request an IFR clearance to the airport and they = give you one. Not something you'd normally do, but it is an option. > =20 > Skip --Apple-Mail-26-680952216 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I = think the thread creep on this has obscured the real question.
Since = really beginning to take a look at our fleet accident rate situation I = am truly alarmed at some of the behavior that is contributing to = it.
I think the apt question might be: "What do you think of = operating VFR in IMC conditions....maybe without an instrument = rating...maybe without ever having had Lancair specific = training....definitely with passengers on = board?"

Follow on question: This is OUR fleet = safety record.  What can we do as a community to reduce this kind = of thing?

It's a worthwhile question to ask = even if it isn't yet 2015 when we'll have the definitive NTSB = report.


On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:27 = AM, vtailjeff@aol.com = wrote:

Which is why I asked the original question... = The accident pilot was operating VFR in presumably IMC conditions with = "flight following" which is a term of art for VFR ATC assistance and is = not an IFR clearance. I believe Skip said the weather in the San Diego = area was poor the day of the accident. 

Jeff
Sent from my = iPad

On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Hugh Bergeron <hpbergeron@hotmail.com> = wrote:

Obviously I was misunderstood, in my question I was talking about = "VFR" to VFR on top.  Back in the late 1950's, as a = tower operator at an Air Force base in Indiana, Indianapolis Center = frequently used this clearance for Military scrambles when weather = conditions permitted, for obvious reasons (they didn't have to clear any = airspace for the scramble).  I remember one occasion where an Air = Force pilot, after having been given this clearance, flew through a = solid layer (at a fairly high altitude) and was busted for doing = so.

Hugh

To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: = Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:25:25 -0500
From: ralphlove@stanfordalumni.org<= /a>
Subject: [LML] Re: IFR to VFR on top

When you ask for = an IFR clearance, they never ask if you are IFR qualified and current. = They just give you the clearance. The same is true with IFR to VFR on = top, but legally you better be qualified and = current

Pink Panfher
Ralph = Love
"VFR to VFR-on-top, where you = wanted the benefits=20 of an IFR clearance but some of the freedom of VFR conditions, was a = common=20 clearance used in military scrambles back when I was a military = controller. Is=20 this clearance still available today?"
 
All I can tell you is that I've not = had a problem=20 getting one when I needed it.  I've gotten them from for a couple = of=20 departures from Orange County and Santa Barbara airports when they've = had marine=20 layers on the coast.  With tops around 2000' and CAVU conditions = just a few=20 miles inland, it's a good option.  I just request it from clearance=20= delivery and they give me an IFR departure with a clearance = limit.  =20 Once I'm on top and am leaving their Class C, I just cancel and = proceed=20 VFR.
 
When you think about it, it's = really no different=20 than flying somewhere VFR and finding the weather has closed in at your=20= destination.  You call approach, request an IFR clearance to the = airport=20 and they give you one.  Not something you'd normally do, but it is = an=20 option.
 
Skip
=

= --Apple-Mail-26-680952216--