IFR Pickup
 

Anybody used or know how to use this?

(NAS thing)

Isnt it just a case of floundering into class E airspace in VMC without a clearance, and then asking for activation of your IFR flight plan? You just need to use the new lovely warm and fuzzy phrase 'request IFR pickup' instead of requesting an airways clearance.

Maybe I am mistaken in my simple beliefs.

Bevan..

A very catchy "Americanism"
 

If CASA has produced this touchy-feely, warm-and-fuzzy buzz word to make them look more American, is it possible that Oz airspace may soon resemble US airspace? That would be a nice change! :D

I've read all the 'blurb' put out on the IFR pickup and I think I'll just continue to plan IFR, at a high a level as practical, and do whatever centre/control/approach/whoever tell me to do.:D



You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

Apparently this is what the industry want :rolleyes:

Proabably why there is such a huge education/consultation plan going on.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I cannot blame som many pilots/controllers for just not even trying to keep up with all this bull$hit - the credibility gap has become a chasm

Worth reviving this topic, anybody done a roaring trade in this feature in the last couple of months?

I've had two requests, neither involving any separation. I've seen one where a clearance to an intermediate level would not have caused any delay, so the situation was complicated slightly by a pick-up request. I have heard of one instance where a pilot used the existence of the procedure as an excuse to blunder into class E without saying anything first.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

If you are operating to the Visual Flight Rules then you don't require a clearance to enter or fly in Class E airspace.

I dont understand what is meant by "...blunder into class E without saying anything first." Was the "blunder[er]" operating in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules?

If you want to change to the Instrument Flight Rules whilst in Class E airspace then you need to obtain a clearance before you can change from VFR to IFR.

Where's the hard part?

Now if only they had written the procedures as simply and clearly as that, there would have been no problem whatsoever, nor any need for "IFR pick up" or any other strange aberrations.

A simple class E procedure would have been:

1) IFRs need a clearance, and get separated from IFRs (Current procedure - no change required)

2) VFR need no clearance and get only an 'on request' traffic service. (Current procedure- no change required)

3) Change the rules so any IFR capable aircraft can change category to VFR at pilot discretion, subject to VMC etc. (currently IFR-capable RPT cannot do this.)

4) Fix up any charging anomalies so you only pay for the service you get. (I don't know what this would involve, but assume it could be done by changing the avcharges software).

Simple. No confusion. Easy. Flexible. Safe. Cheap. Leaves the choice where it belongs - with the pilots.

Why did this not happen?

Nah 4711... that would be MUCH too logical and simple and cheap and.... so, ya see, there's no advantage in it! :p

Seems there is a bit of apathy about this procedure. Particularly surprised though by a certain VOR's attitude towards an inovation of Dick's ARGh.

The point of the IFR Pick-up is we treat IFR flights in class E as sorta VFR. They don't need a clearance, get traffic, and don't get held outside controlled airspace if the conditions are VMC. Simply having windows in your aircraft prevents contact with others. VFR flights can come and go as they please in class E, this is a way for everybody to acknowledge an IFR flight is VFR when the weather is nice.

It smacks a little of the old "IFR Category, VFR procedures" concept that became horribly unfashionable a while a go.

Just wait for:
:cool: VFR on top
:cool: VMC Climb and descent
:cool: Visual separation

May I ask this?
When E corridors extend down to 1200 feet, say into YDPO and YWYY, how will an IFR flight be able to depart when VMC doesn't exist and there is conflicting traffic?
In current G airspace, I assume conflicting partys work out some sort of segregation, thus allowing the departing traffic to get going.
Will this be the case with low level E corridors?

Oh, that kind of IFR. :(

I thought you meant THE real IFR. :ok:

http://www.ifr.us/index.php

And yes, there is a link there to PPRuNe. :D

I think you guys are getting a little bit het up about it...
as I understand it from a quick read of the pubs, if you're an IFR aircraft flying into Class E airspace and you're having some delays with a clearance, you can continue if VMC exists, having requested an IFR pickup and ensuring you don't punch into cloud without a clearance. If you can't do that, hold until you can, or until you have a clearance. Or am I off the track here after a couple of red wines?

Any realistic answers to my query?

Although I do not know the answer personally, I was trying to help.

One of the Moderators on that "IFR" site I mentioned, is a very senior ATC person in the USA, I am sure he could help if you post the question there?

Failing that, have you asked the question in the "ATC ISSUES" Forum here on PPRuNe?

Airsupport - thanks.
My point is that we must look at NAS in the Australian context. When trying to relate the realities of an operational situation with what is currently proposed with NAS, the details are very sketchy.
This is why I don't think some of the important changes have been fully thought through.
We are (are we?) going to have non-radar E steps to locations all over the country. If you are a IFR pilot, just try and remember how many times you've had to do an IMC departure when there was other conflicting IFR traffic. If it doesn't occur very often, then it probably won't be a problem. All I know is that it can't be VMC 24/7, and places like YDPO and YWYY will probably be candidates for the worst case scenario. There are enough regionals and local IFR ops there, that will result in delays/holding that may not occur under the current G airspace.
If that's the case, then the system is not progressing far.
If I'm wrong, maybe someone out there can enlighten me.

No worries. :D

Haven't seen any new members on IFR today :rolleyes: so I have asked the question for you in their ATC Forum, will let you know if/when it gets a reply, what that is. :D

Chief Galah,

Not certain exactly the point you were trying to make with reference to IFR separation inbound/outbound. I fly about 20 IFR sectors a week, of which more than a third have at least one aircraft inbound on the track I'm using outbound. Don't need much of a memory to remember the last one!

Maybe this highlights another angle...:confused:

Airsupport - Thanks again. I'm trying not to get too involved in the US system. Their infrastructure is so different to ours I find it hard to make a connection. When I saw what they do around the busy hubs, and they do it brilliantly, it was obvious some smart minds were at work setting it up. Some other things seemed not so great.

YMML - Thanks
This is more like what I'm getting at. Those flights you mentioned may not conflict en-route, unless one of you want to climb/ descend thru the other. You currently might cook up your own form of separation to achieve this.
With non radar E airspace, some newbie centre controller will be in control, (perhaps in a building 1000nm away) and will have to apply positive separation standards, some of which can be very restrictive.
If you taxi at one of the airports that have E corridors, and there is inbound IFR traffic, and you can't depart in VMC, I guess you'll have to stay on the ground.
Perhaps it's VMC if you can depart in a certain direction, but you'll have to be sure you can remain in VMC. The LSALT becomes an additional factor. Once you're off track things become complicated for the centre controller.
To me a simple pilot to pilot situation has been turned into a long-winded, complex and restrictive process.
The locations I mentioned are two I'm familiar with, but perhaps somewhere like Yulara might be affected the same way. There must be many others.
Even radar covered areas will have some problems - like will centre be able to vector in narrow corridors?
Food for thought or meanless musings?
And it's not even my area of influence!!!!

CG

For meanless please read meaningless

Mr Smith says
 

I asked this question of Dick, at the Civil Air convention in Mackay last October; he stated that the scenario that Chief Galah talks about only happens less than 10% of the time.

In IMC conditions below 1200 AGL, it will be one at a time.

If there are comms on the ground, this can be dealt with easy; if not then clearances will be issued over the phone; which means that taking the delays into account (especially where land lines will be needed to be used), about one movement per half an hour. Clearances would need to be structured to enable entry into CTA assessing LSALTS where inbound aircraft are likely to mix it up, they'll be held (in a holding pattern) high until another standard can be applied.

All this going on while reducing ATC numbers, sound great. Service, only if it's affordable, don't mention safety...:mad:

Bottle of Rum