X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:06:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.207.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6029075 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:35:30 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.207.164; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaout-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.66]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 9B5A01C000108 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.179.116.185] (mobile-166-147-081-198.mycingular.net [166.147.81.198]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-mb02.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 3229EE0000BF; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:34:51 -0500 (EST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-AF464605-CB54-41EA-BF81-626488DC3E9C X-Original-Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: vtailjeff@aol.com Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IFR to VFR on top X-Original-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:34:49 -0800 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:491951840:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d2942510289fb0d13 X-AOL-IP: 166.147.81.198 --Apple-Mail-AF464605-CB54-41EA-BF81-626488DC3E9C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As I understand the pilot was not instrument rated. Colyn raises good questi= ons because this lunacy threatens our ability to fly our Lancairs. Think ins= urance and regulation. I met three times with FAA leadership last year regar= ding Lancair safety. Many times with the insurance industry. It is not the FA= A's problem it is our problem and we have to solve it. Lancairs have the wor= st accident rate in GA and it is mainly a pilot attitude problem. If you are= not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Let's all get inboard= and solve this. Fly responsibly, Jeff=20 (off the soapbox now) Sent from my iPad On Jan 25, 2013, at 5:23 AM, Colyn Case wrote: > 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 I= MC conditions....maybe without an instrument rating...maybe without ever hav= ing had Lancair specific training....definitely with passengers on board?" >=20 > Follow on question: This is OUR fleet safety record. What can we do as a c= ommunity to reduce this kind of thing? >=20 > It's a worthwhile question to ask even if it isn't yet 2015 when we'll hav= e the definitive NTSB report. >=20 >=20 > On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:27 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: >=20 > Which is why I asked the original question... The accident pilot was opera= ting VFR in presumably IMC conditions with "flight following" which is a ter= m of art for VFR ATC assistance and is not an IFR clearance. I believe Skip s= aid the weather in the San Diego area was poor the day of the accident.=20 >=20 > Jeff > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Hugh Bergeron wrote:= >=20 >> Obviously I was misunderstood, in my question I was talking about "VFR" t= o VFR on top. Back in the late 1950's, as a tower operator at an Air Force b= ase in Indiana, Indianapolis Center frequently used this clearance for Milit= ary scrambles when weather conditions permitted, for obvious reasons (they d= idn'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 thro= ugh 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 qualifie= d and current. They just give you the clearance. The same is true with IFR t= o 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 milit= ary 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 need= ed it. I've gotten them from for a couple of departures from Orange County a= nd 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 o= ption. I just request it from clearance delivery and they give me an IFR de= parture 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 V= FR and finding the weather has closed in at your destination. You call appr= oach, request an IFR clearance to the airport and they give you one. Not so= mething you'd normally do, but it is an option. >> =20 >> Skip >=20 --Apple-Mail-AF464605-CB54-41EA-BF81-626488DC3E9C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
As I understand the pilot w= as not instrument rated. Colyn raises good questions because this lunacy thr= eatens our ability to fly our Lancairs. Think insurance and regulation. I me= t three times with FAA leadership last year regarding Lancair safety. Many t= imes with the insurance industry. It is not the FAA's problem it is our prob= lem and we have to solve it. Lancairs have the worst accident rate in GA and= it is mainly a pilot attitude problem. If you are not part of the solution y= ou are part of the problem. Let's all get inboard and solve this.
=
Fly responsibly,

Jeff 
(off the soapbox now)

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 20= 13, at 5:23 AM, Colyn Case <co= lyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:

I think the thread creep on this has obscured the real quest= ion.
Since really beginning to take a look at our fleet accident rate si= tuation I am truly alarmed at some of the behavior that is contributing to i= t.
I think the apt question might be: "What do you think of operat= ing VFR in IMC conditions....maybe without an instrument rating...maybe with= out ever having had Lancair specific training....definitely with passengers o= n board?"

Follow on question: This is OUR fleet saf= ety 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.

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

Which is why I asked the original questi= on... 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
<= div>
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 a= t an Air Force base in Indiana, Indianapolis Center frequently used this cle= arance for Military scrambles when weather conditions permitted, for obvious= reasons (they didn't have to clear any airspace for the scramble).  I r= emember one occasion where an Air Force pilot, after having been given this c= learance, flew through a solid layer (at a fairly high altitude) and was bus= ted for doing so.

Hugh

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

When you a= sk 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

Pi= nk Panfher
Ralph Love

On Jan 22, 2013, at 9:24 AM, "= Skip Slater" <skipslater@verizo= n.net> wrote:

"VFR to VFR-on-top, where you wanted th= e 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. I= s=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 ma= rine=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. &nbs= p;=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 airpor= t=20 and they give you one.  Not something you'd normally do, but it is an=20= option.
 
Skip
<= /div>

= --Apple-Mail-AF464605-CB54-41EA-BF81-626488DC3E9C--