Instrument approaches at the end of VFR flights

[helicopterjoe]

Quick question about tacking on a practice approach to an otherwise VFR flight.

Say I'd like to finish my VFR flight with a Practice ILS at KSNA, Would I just dial up approach control on the appropriate freq and request the practice approach? I've only ever done this in RW with Military savy approach control (Carins Approach in Alabama or Grey Approach in Texas), but I'm assuming it works the same way. I just want to make sure it's not just something Millitary centric Approach controllers have learned to tolerate from Army guys, and is not common practice else where.

Thanks,

Joe

[bbuckley]

I'd like to hear a PE expert answer, but I can tell you in RW I do that all the time at purely civilian centric locations. And in fact on PE I have launched from say San Luis (KSBP) VFR and called Santa Barbara Approach and got a practice ILS into Santa Maria (KSMX). The only thing that didn't work as it does in RW, is I asked Approach for TWO practice ILS approaches with the first to a missed approach followed by vectors to another ILS to a full stop. He didn't give me climbout instructions, so I asked, and he said TWR would do that. OK, but when I was switched to TWR they just said "Cleared to Land" and since I was so new to PE I didn't want to rock the boat, so I just made the first one a full stop. Usually RW APPR gives me a climbout like "Right turn 220, climb & maintain 1,500' and return to this freq". In RW I'm used to TWR giving me some direction like "execute your climbout 1 mile prior to the runway" or other climbout instructions, as needed for traffic, since APPR would have coordinated with TWR. I often like to go out and do multiple IAPs (RNAV & ILS) around my home airport but I don't know if that is something that PE can accommodate.

[helicopterjoe]

It's starting to sound like it works the same way everywhere.

[kullery]

Should not be an issue to get multiple practice approaches on PE.

See Keith's reply to a similar question here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3463&p=22107&hilit= ... hes#p22107

[Keith Smith]

Bruce,

It sounds like the approach controller didn't relay to the tower that you were planning to go missed. You would not be rocking the boat by telling the tower that you wanted a low approach and a handoff back to the TRACON for another approach.

[bbuckley]

Thanks Keith, I'll do that in the future. I'm getting a better feel now for PE and LOVE IT. I learn something new every time and by reading here.

Joe, BTW I'm former military pilot, F-14. Thanks for what you do!

Ken, I went to that topic, thanks. BTW this sounds just like me... (from Keith's post there)

I was reminded of this during my BFR. I tend to use the GPS to show DTK, TRK and XTK for each of my legs, and I use that almost exclusively to navigate along the route of flight, backed up by the electronic CDI, the CDI on the HSI and where it's a VOR-based leg, backed up with the NAV2. During the BFR, the instructor decided to navigate onto a useless page and said, "this is a neat page...let's leave it there for a while."

So there I was, sans GPS for quite some time. It was a nice reminder and forced me to use the other displays for primary course guidance. This could be a good time for you to switch off the GPS, or simply use it to tune the VOR and nothing else. This way, when the GPS doesn't perform (it happens!), you shrug it off and continue.

[stevekirks]

The only thing that didn't work as it does in RW, is I asked Approach for TWO practice ILS approaches with the first to a missed approach followed by vectors to another ILS to a full stop. He didn't give me climbout instructions, so I asked, and he said TWR would do that. OK, but when I was switched to TWR they just said "Cleared to Land" and since I was so new to PE I didn't want to rock the boat, so I just made the first one a full stop.

Setting aside the "new to PE part", if this came up again, would you just go missed, enter the traffic pattern then depart VFR and pickup the approach controller again?

Side note: is the Departure controller contact ONLY by IFR flights? Would a VFR pilot call Departure in this scenario to get vectored back out for a practice approach with an Approach controller?

PPS: Do PE controllers like the challenge of weird ATC situations as much as pilots like weird requests?

[helicopterjoe]

Thanks for what you've done, and thanks for your support Bruse!

[bbuckley]

Steve - Since I was cleared to land I would have read that back (that's my clearance and what I would do until / unless I get a different clearance), then ask TWR for a touch & go and to be handed back to DEPARTURE for another approach. They would probably tell me "On the go, fly runway heading, climb and maintain XXX' and contact DEPARTURE on yyy.y". After contacting DEPARTURE, if they didn't get a handoff from TWR, they'd probably ask my intentions and I'd ask for vectors to the ILS for a full stop. If they did get the handoff they'd give me vectors and we're on our way. Sound reasonable? BTW, I was still squawking the code APPR had given me for the VFR IAP. I'll have to let a PE controller comment on how much fun they have...

[Keith Smith]

Do PE controllers like the challenge of weird ATC situations as much as pilots like weird requests?

Back to back practice approaches aren't weird requests, that's bread and butter IFR training. I'm happy to handle approaches as a controller, the only challenge is if it's into a relatively infrequently-visited airport where I have to pull up the plate to get the info I need to handle it from the controller side. Since we have to cover 40 airports plus the non-towered fields, it's not practical to memorize them all. Real world controllers work a relatively small chunk of airspace and generally don't need to look up the data in real time as they have it committed to memory.

If you call for an ILS at CRQ, SNA, TOA, LGB, BUR, VNY, SBA, ONT, SBP, or LAS, there's nothing for me to look up, but if it's anything else, I have to go look it up. I'm happy to do it, but if I'm working 15 other planes, then it can be a challenge to get it done in a timely fashion...it's a balancing act between getting the info I need just in time to handle your approach versus holding off on giving IFR clearances to people who are waiting on the ground. That's the unique challenge of being a PE controller versus a r/w controller.