Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 74 of 74

Thread: Two too close for comfort.

  1. #41
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Controllers don’t control north of the shoreline. Any info they provide is a courtesy.

    I think Lake Hood guys get complacent because they’re used to controllers calling traffic. I’m way more vigilant with my visual scans in the valley. Lots of planes, lots of strips. I just flew home from Hood. It was nice to be back for a visit.
    Likes Scooter7779h liked this post

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Glad you’re flying again, Stewart
    Thanks stewartb thanked for this post
    Likes Scooter7779h, Narwhal liked this post

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Current supplement: “Cross mid-channel of Knik Arm at 1200’ MSL or at or above 2200’MSL” coming from Pt Mac.
    Guidance below could potentially put you in head-on situation with departing traffic that would be at 900’.

    Quote Originally Posted by StalledOut View Post
    Inbound for the water or the strip, when you enter the north edge of Lake Hood segment until mid channel your supposed to be below 1200 or above 2000. The 185 on floats was quickly approaching the shoreline and if he was at 1475 he either needed to go higher or get down. But then the whole ADSB altitude reporting is suspect if it really does show 450 after landing.

  4. #44
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    300’ minimum altitude separation is provided for inbound/outbound aircraft IF guys play by the rules.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2D233644-95E3-40AD-91B9-3818C33E35E8.png 
Views:	115 
Size:	327.6 KB 
ID:	57535   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DC0A0208-505A-48BD-A745-002ADA470E13.png 
Views:	92 
Size:	282.6 KB 
ID:	57536  

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Again with the Lake Hood non-conformers:

    Coming in last week on wheels for the Tudor Overpass approach to 32/gravel, I had a near miss with departing traffic from the right downwind Tudor departure.

    They are supposed to arrest climb at 900' and remain just south of Tudor until east of the corner w/Muldoon, yet I'm inbound at the overpass and they're flying outbound at 1,200' directly over the highway and directly at me. I stopped my descent and they flew under me with about 80-100' vertical separation. When I queried the tower about the near miss I was told that the traffic had me in sight. No correction to departing traffic; no education process.

    It's just a matter of time.
    Likes TurboBeaver liked this post

  6. #46
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    11,478
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    When I queried the tower about the near miss I was told that the traffic had me in sight. No correction to departing traffic; no education process.

    It's just a matter of time.
    I can tell you a very scary first person story of "the traffic has me in sight" over downtown Los Angeles while flying a B-757. I still shake when I think about it 30 years later. I could see in his cockpit window, there was no head looking at me. Always remember when you hear someone else has you in sight DO NOT BELIEVE HIM. They all say that while continuing to look at their fancy avionics.
    N1PA
    Likes TurboBeaver, mixer liked this post

  7. #47
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look folks, I’ve said for decades that Anchorage has some of the most complex airspace in North America. If you’re going to operate there, you need to familiarize yourself with ALL the rules and procedures, NOT “just avoid the Class C airspace and you’ll be okay”.

    Then you need to follow the guidance, use ALL the “tools”, like ATC advisories, ADS-B, AND your eyeballs.

    And finally, be paranoid! Do not just cruise in there. It’s pretty easy to get casual, but that airspace is not the place for casual.

    MTV

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who are you admonishing? Cuz I'm fairly certain the violating pilots aren't reading this!

    All of the tools you mention were in play, but sometimes a change-up is thrown at us like an unpredicted and errant climb and turn of a tracked aircraft into one's path. Within the space of a few seconds the other plane's "normal" trajectory that I was both tracking on ADS-B and looking for with the peepers changed to a dangerous one, putting it directly in my path. The radio channel was so congested that day (as it frequently is...) that hailing was impossible and it was up to me to break the chain. After the fact call to the tower, as I reported, was less than satisfying.

    There needs to be an education process for folks that are not playing by the right rules, such as issuing/reminding altitudes for each Hood clearance from the tower and, in more cases, issuing violations. Think I'll call the FSDO today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Look folks, I’ve said for decades that Anchorage has some of the most complex airspace in North America. If you’re going to operate there, you need to familiarize yourself with ALL the rules and procedures, NOT “just avoid the Class C airspace and you’ll be okay”.

    Then you need to follow the guidance, use ALL the “tools”, like ATC advisories, ADS-B, AND your eyeballs.

    And finally, be paranoid! Do not just cruise in there. It’s pretty easy to get casual, but that airspace is not the place for casual.

    MTV
    Thanks gdafoe thanked for this post

  9. #49
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    11,478
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    There needs to be an education process for folks that are not playing by the right rules, such as issuing/reminding altitudes for each Hood clearance from the tower and, in more cases, issuing violations. Think I'll call the FSDO today.
    Johnny, I understand your message. I would like to point out there are also individuals who pretend to fly by "the rules of the road", they talk the talk, yet somehow they always seem to present the picture that they truly believe those "rules of the road" are for the other guy. I've known people like this. You can talk to them with a nice polite helpful friendly attitude. They will acknowledge what you have explained, then ............................ they go right back out there operating with their old me me me procedures. These people are not trainable by anyone.
    N1PA

  10. #50
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    What Johnny’s talking about. There’s almost zero lateral space on the E-W leg of that route so altitude is pretty important.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FC614EF8-DC5E-43E3-B389-691B8E09AE73.jpeg 
Views:	82 
Size:	75.3 KB 
ID:	57755  

  11. #51
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    Who are you admonishing? Cuz I'm fairly certain the violating pilots aren't reading this!

    All of the tools you mention were in play, but sometimes a change-up is thrown at us like an unpredicted and errant climb and turn of a tracked aircraft into one's path. Within the space of a few seconds the other plane's "normal" trajectory that I was both tracking on ADS-B and looking for with the peepers changed to a dangerous one, putting it directly in my path. The radio channel was so congested that day (as it frequently is...) that hailing was impossible and it was up to me to break the chain. After the fact call to the tower, as I reported, was less than satisfying.

    There needs to be an education process for folks that are not playing by the right rules, such as issuing/reminding altitudes for each Hood clearance from the tower and, in more cases, issuing violations. Think I'll call the FSDO today.
    Johnny,
    It wasn’t my intent to admonish you. Your actions clearly saved the day, and good for you! My point was there are a lot of folks floating around that airspace who are pretty “casual” about the airspace, traffic and risks. THAT was my point.

    As to whether any of those folks post on or read these forums, who knows? But, there are a LOT of “visitors” who enter that airspace not even knowing what Part 93 IS, trust me….I’ve met some, fortunately on the ground.
    And, a lot of pilots who visit ANC airspace DO read these forums. If we reach one of those….

    So, if my post came across as accusing you of anything, my apologies, it sounded to me like YOU were doing it right.

    MTV

  12. #52

    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BC12D-4-85 View Post
    Different matter but I've seen lots of IFR traffic and a few accident histories reported by ADS-B on Flightrader24 to be off expected altitudes. They provide a GPS Altitude which is sometimes different than what FT24 calls Calibrated Altitude. Needs further explanation.
    ADS-B Out reports pressure altitude and GPS altitude. Neither is a good indication of the aircraft baro corrected altitude unless the proper corrections are applied.

    Remember that, below the transition altitude, aircraft are flying and reporting baro corrected altitude - that is not what ADS-B Out is reporting.

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are the regs, the altitude assignments, reporting locations etc all around Anchorage.

    Some guys are good, some are not so good. Some know the rules but don't care.

    The reality is, flying in and out of Anchorage is sometimes a goat rope.

    Look outside, see and avoid just like Johnny did. He saw, he avoided. Complain if you want.

    It's Alaska. If we were all law abiding, rule following citizens a percentage of the state wouldn't be here.

    How many remember 30-40 years ago when the Feds would ramp check at Talkeenta

    About 1/2 the guys there didn't have licenses.

    Really, traffic is down at Lake Hood from the height in the late 70's. Radios are better. Transponders are better. GPS replaced Lorans. ADSB came along and yet things seem worse.

    When we had little, and you navigated with ADF tuned to 750 AM coming into Anchorage in the crap and looking out the window we all seemed to do better.
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post

  14. #54
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by StalledOut View Post
    There are the regs, the altitude assignments, reporting locations etc all around Anchorage.

    Some guys are good, some are not so good. Some know the rules but don't care.

    The reality is, flying in and out of Anchorage is sometimes a goat rope.

    Look outside, see and avoid just like Johnny did. He saw, he avoided. Complain if you want.

    It's Alaska. If we were all law abiding, rule following citizens a percentage of the state wouldn't be here.

    How many remember 30-40 years ago when the Feds would ramp check at Talkeenta

    About 1/2 the guys there didn't have licenses.

    Really, traffic is down at Lake Hood from the height in the late 70's. Radios are better. Transponders are better. GPS replaced Lorans. ADSB came along and yet things seem worse.

    When we had little, and you navigated with ADF tuned to 750 AM coming into Anchorage in the crap and looking out the window we all seemed to do better.
    I don't think it's when the weather is down that the problems exist. It's on those nice sunny days, when EVERYbody is out flying....

    There are rules and there are rules. These rules aren't designed to punish honest citizens....they were designed to prevent honest citizens from being killed in a mid air.

    MTV

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like
    I get that but nothing is going to replace looking outside the windows while flying in/out of Anchorage. No reg or rule is going to fix it.
    Recently every year seems to get worse not better. Maybe there will be a big generational turn over that will change things.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Excuses, excuses...

    I get what you're saying and do understand that we share the skies with all sorts (some of whom we would be better off without). Pete wisely pointed out that some folks are completely unteachable or don't wake up until there's a penalty - either a violation or an accident. I don't want to be included in any way in those hard won lessons.

    Not to point fingers, but you provided a great illustration of how even long time local LHD pilots can get it wrong and may be endangering themselves/others. Remember the earlier inaccurate scoop on altitudes you posted for one of the Lake Hood segments (see Post #43). If one of the good guys can get it wrong or fudges the altitudes, then who else is not keeping up with the procedures? It only takes a little bit of error in those tight quarters.

    The starting point for safety isn't looking outside - that's what happens after we launch and we're in the airspace. The basic element that has to first be in place is: Every pilot who is flying into that airspace needs to routinely review the procedures. That means young and old; newbie and seasoned pro. If we all took a moment and checked to see if how "we've always done it" is the way it's supposed to be done, maybe it would be a less risky place.

    Then we can look out the window.



    Quote Originally Posted by StalledOut View Post
    There are the regs, the altitude assignments, reporting locations etc all around Anchorage.

    Some guys are good, some are not so good. Some know the rules but don't care.

    The reality is, flying in and out of Anchorage is sometimes a goat rope.

    Look outside, see and avoid just like Johnny did. He saw, he avoided. Complain if you want.

    It's Alaska. If we were all law abiding, rule following citizens a percentage of the state wouldn't be here.

    How many remember 30-40 years ago when the Feds would ramp check at Talkeenta

    About 1/2 the guys there didn't have licenses.

    Really, traffic is down at Lake Hood from the height in the late 70's. Radios are better. Transponders are better. GPS replaced Lorans. ADSB came along and yet things seem worse.

    When we had little, and you navigated with ADF tuned to 750 AM coming into Anchorage in the crap and looking out the window we all seemed to do better.
    Last edited by JohnnyR; 10-05-2021 at 04:30 PM. Reason: typo

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like
    93.61 General rules: Lake Hood segment. (a) No person may operate an aircraft at an altitude between 1,200 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL in that portion of this segment lying north of the midchannel of Knik Arm.

    Where did 2200 come in? Not in the FAR.
    Likes JohnnyR liked this post

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Alaska Chart Supplement, which is what we're supposed to be referencing for Lake Hood procedures. See p. 355
    AFD_BOOK_AK.book (faa.gov)

    Quote Originally Posted by StalledOut View Post
    93.61 General rules: Lake Hood segment. (a) No person may operate an aircraft at an altitude between 1,200 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL in that portion of this segment lying north of the midchannel of Knik Arm.

    Where did 2200 come in? Not in the FAR.

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like
    I bet I am not the only one here who has been going in and out before part 93 came into being. At the time we got lessons and updates and read the FAR so we could get through the biennial flight reviews.
    It's seldom after 30+ years of going in and out of a location that you read the supplements anymore. We might buy them and have them in the plane but seldom open them unless we go somewhere unfamiliar. I know lots of guys around the lake who have supplements that are years old.
    What was is, 2001 or so when Part 93 got added in?
    So knowing the FAR general rules will put me in conflict with other traffic. Great. I guess I will read the supplement nightly now.
    Thanks for pointing it out.
    Thanks mydoghasa170 thanked for this post

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Spread the word!

    We’re all in this together.

    Quote Originally Posted by StalledOut View Post
    I bet I am not the only one here who has been going in and out before part 93 came into being. At the time we got lessons and updates and read the FAR so we could get through the biennial flight reviews.
    It's seldom after 30+ years of going in and out of a location that you read the supplements anymore. We might buy them and have them in the plane but seldom open them unless we go somewhere unfamiliar. I know lots of guys around the lake who have supplements that are years old.
    What was is, 2001 or so when Part 93 got added in?
    So knowing the FAR general rules will put me in conflict with other traffic. Great. I guess I will read the supplement nightly now.
    Thanks for pointing it out.

  21. #61
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    Spread the word!

    We’re all in this together.
    Johnny,

    Here is the pertinent REGULATION:

    §93.61 General rules: Lake Hood segment.
    (a) No person may operate an aircraft at an altitude between 1,200 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL
    in that portion of this segment lying north of the midchannel of Knik Arm.
    (b) Each person operating an airplane within this segment (except that part described in para*
    graph (a) of this section) shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 600 feet MSL until
    maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent

    What you are citing is not “regulatory”. The AFD, in this case the Alaska Supplement, is non regulatory, except for information therein which is specifically formalized in regulation. These are “recommended” procedures. The admonition to depart at 2200 feet is a “recommendation” to try to deconfliction inbound and outbound traffic. But there is no legal requirement to follow that guidance.

    The airspace parameters, on the other hand are described in regulation.

    Now, if you hit someone while not following that guidance, and hit someone, the NTSB is going to say you weren’t following “Good Practice”

    MTV

  22. #62
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    The added 200’ to allow clearance between me and the descending F-22s? I’ll take it.

    Not long ago the outbound altitude was 700’. No wheel guys I know used that. We all used to use the boat hull in and out, too. Now we use the boat or Pt MacKenzie for separation. It’s still a rodeo on busy days. To the east is more limited. But until today I didn’t know the Peanut Farm arrival was no longer. Things change.

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's an ineffectual distinction, Mike. Regulatory or not - you are to fly it as published. When contacting Anchorage Approach or Lake Hood, you are typically told "Expect X arrival or departure" and that is what they expect you to fly upon approach or departure. Call up the FSDO and tell them you intend to fly at 1,000 inbound from now on regardless of assigned procedure because it's your right based off the regs and see where that gets you. You don't get to reinvent the procedure because the regs don't specify it to as specific of an altitude.

    A gentleman inadvertently posted some incorrect info ("Inbound for the water or the strip, when you enter the north edge of Lake Hood segment until mid channel your supposed to be below 1200 or above 2000"). We're not supposed to be below 1,200; we're supposed to be right at 1,200' with our altimeter already set to Lake Hood's reading (we did note the ATIS info and reported having that when we contacted Lake Hood ATC, correct? Can't tell you how many times someone calls in with, he says in his best pilot voice, "I've got the numbers." What the rest of us hear is "I didn't actually listen to and note my altimeter setting," which is why the immediate response from ATC is "Confirm you have information X?"

    Lack of adherence to that seemingly minor point of being at 1,200' with the proper altimeter setting can whittle away at an already small buffer separating us from a loud noise and death.

    And that's what this is about.
    Last edited by JohnnyR; 10-05-2021 at 09:44 PM.

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've been wondering that all afternoon, do the FAR's trump the supplement when they aren't in agreement.

  25. #65
    stewartb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    6,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    You guys are mixing arguments. North of the north shore below 1400’ is uncontrolled. That’s where Hood and Merrill traffic mix. That’s different than heading east since you’re in controlled airspace until past Muldoon. Johnny’s story happened in controlled airspace while the near miss in the original post is outside of controlled airspace. Different problems. I hear guys transition through Hood to the east and I’ve never heard a controller tell them to use 900’. That’s kind of interesting in itself.

  26. #66
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyR View Post
    That's an ineffectual distinction, Mike. Regulatory or not - you are to fly it as published. When contacting Anchorage Approach or Lake Hood, you are typically told "Expect X arrival or departure" and that is what they expect you to fly upon approach or departure. Call up the FSDO and tell them you intend to fly at 1,000 inbound from now on regardless of assigned procedure because it's your right based off the regs and see where that gets you. You don't get to reinvent the procedure because the regs don't specify it to as specific of an altitude.

    A gentleman inadvertently posted some incorrect info ("Inbound for the water or the strip, when you enter the north edge of Lake Hood segment until mid channel your supposed to be below 1200 or above 2000"). We're not supposed to be below 1,200; we're supposed to be right at 1,200' with our altimeter already set to Lake Hood's reading (we did note the ATIS info and reported having that when we contacted Lake Hood ATC, correct? Can't tell you how many times someone calls in with, he says in his best pilot voice, "I've got the numbers." What the rest of us hear is "I didn't actually listen to and note my altimeter setting," which is why the immediate response from ATC is "Confirm you have information X?"

    Lack of adherence to that seemingly minor point of being at 1,200' with the proper altimeter setting can whittle away at an already small buffer separating us from a loud noise and death.

    And that's what this is about.
    Jonny,

    Now you’re mixing metaphors. ATC clearances ALWAYS have the force of regulation. But the SUPPLEMENT “supplements” the information provided in the Airman’s Information Manual, which is NOT regulatory.

    But, you are absolutely correct, if an ATC Specialist gives you a clearance, you’re expected to abide by it, unless you have a compelling reason not to.

    MTV

  27. #67

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm talking about the whole deal. Let's keep tracking on safety.

    A typical Lake Hood ops scenario nowadays goes like this: Upon contact of the 24-hrs ATC serving Lake Hood's 24-hrs tower for both departure and arrival, one of the Alaska Chart Supplement (ACS) procedures is usually referenced and, if the pilot accepts, it's then assigned by ATC. There is then a "contract" between the controllers and the pilot.
    You don't have to accept the procedure when queried or directed, but then you are typically walked in or out by the controllers who subsequently use the same altitudes and landmarks as published in the procedures in the ACS. Either way there are set and expected altitudes and positions.

    The issue of it being "regulatory" or not shouldn't be the issue here. Most of the close calls in that airspace are a result of folks deviating from expected altitudes or positions that were detailed in the ACS procedures. Why wouldn't you want to be safer going in or out of there?

    In my case, the offending pilot was assigned and accepted the "Tudor Overpass Departure," and then during his departure abruptly left both the assigned altitude and positioning, putting him in direct conflict with me.

    In the other example, which was discussing "West Route" arrivals, the issue is that "below 1,200" as StalledOut rightfully cited from the FAR's, could mean anything - it could be 1,000', or 900', or 800', etc. My intent on bringing that example to light is to prevent a pilot from reading this thread and deciding that arriving "below 1,200" (per the regs but potentially in conflict with an accepted and more detailed ACS procedure) allowed them pick 900'. They'd then be flying right at departing traffic - most of whom would be following the procedure to fly outbound at 900' and would be expecting the inbound pilots to be at 1,200' (not somewhere "below").

    Deconflicting these types of set-ups in all of the Lake Hood sectors and making the ATC-pilot exchange more efficient is primarily why the ACS procedures were written.
    Hold up! What are we arguing about?
    Likes DENNY, Narwhal liked this post

  28. #68
    TVATIVAK71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    119
    Post Thanks / Like
    I fly out of Merrill and you hear ATC chewing out people all the time for not flying the “x” departure or arrival correctly or not being where their supposed to be. (Does this happen at LHD often cause this thread makes it sound like it’s a free for all.) It ain’t just the student pilots getting corrected either. More than once that gal in Merrill tower has been heard telling folks “ You specifically asked for the xx departure so I assumed you read the SUPPLEMENT to correctly fly it. I shouldn’t have to talk you through it.” I personally avoid Lake Hood, but once everyone clears either the Merrill or Hood segment and frequency change( to whatever the hell frequency you choose) is approved is where I get nervous. That powerline bend area can be a rats nest.
    Likes Narwhal liked this post

  29. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    ANC/MRI/LHD has almost triple the traffic volume of many class B terminal areas in the L48. I agree, we all need to tighten up and keep an eye out, because it sure would be annoying to deal with class B up here (it would probably take a midair involving a 121 pax carrier or cargo widebody for that to happen, let's hope it doesn't).
    Last edited by Narwhal; 10-06-2021 at 11:05 PM.

  30. #70

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    163
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    But until today I didn’t know the Peanut Farm arrival was no longer. Things change.
    Wait, what?! Man, when I was a 21 year old, that approach was the only reason I knew what the Peanut Farm was.

    I did my training with Tom Wardleigh flying out of ANC International. On my first flight we took off across the inlet. We talked through the altitude limitations in our preflight discussion, but come on - as a first-flight pilot my mind and eyes were all over the place - except out the window. About 30 seconds into the flight, Tom slammed the yoke forward and I looked up as we descended to see an F-15 right above me. I'm sure we had a few hundred feet of separation, but that moment was a serious eye opener regarding the importance of airspace rules.

    And honestly, now that I primarily fly in the backcountry and am based in Birchwood, I mostly just avoid Anchorage airspace at all costs. If I'm flying to Homer, I divert through Ship Creek to Indian just to skip Anchorage. I'd rather add 10 minutes to my flight than deal with the airspace that I am no longer familiar with. If I need to fly into Merrill for some reason, I'll review the procedures, but mostly I'll just go around, thank you very much.

  31. #71
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    The added 200’ to allow clearance between me and the descending F-22s? I’ll take it.

    Not long ago the outbound altitude was 700’. No wheel guys I know used that. We all used to use the boat hull in and out, too. Now we use the boat or Pt MacKenzie for separation. It’s still a rodeo on busy days. To the east is more limited. But until today I didn’t know the Peanut Farm arrival was no longer. Things change.
    The Peanut Farm Arrival was my introduction to Part 93. I worked in Kodiak, which is a different universe actually. I had to take a Cub on floats to ANC. ANC weather was bad, but Kodiak and the Barrens were good, so I launched, planning to spend a night on the Kenai if need be. Turned out ANC was IFR the next day. Day three, the vis was good but really low ceilings. I headed north.
    it turned out that the brand new Part 91 rules had gone into effect the day before. Word of that didn’t reach Kodiak, or I just missed it (most likely).

    So, at the Forelands, I called Approach inbound, at 500 feet. ANC had just gone VFR. Controller instructed “N720, Roger, fly the Peanut Farm Arrival.” Silence on my part…..”Umm, Approach, I’m not familiar with the Peanut Farm Arrival.”

    Approach: “N720, are you familiar with The Peanut Farm?” “Umm, no” (And feeling really dumb about then.).
    ”Roger that, the Peanut Farm is a bar, near the corner of the New Seward Highway and…..”. A pause, then: “N720, do you know where Lake Hood is?”. “Affirmative”. “N720, proceed direct Lake Hood….I don’t know what I’m doing…you’re the only VFR traffic in the Basin.”

    I did get a copy of 93 and read it before I went home, though.

    MTV
    Likes skukum12, tedwaltman1, Narwhal liked this post

  32. #72

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    StalledOut’s query and your declaration made me go back to the regs. Am I reading this correctly in that Part 93 spells it out clearly and the ACS pub procedures might be considered compulsory? First time I noticed this section!

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/93.57


    § 93.57 General rules: All segments. (b) Each person operating an airplane within the Anchorage, Alaska Terminal Area shall conform to the flow of traffic depicted on the appropriate aeronautical charts.

    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Johnny,

    Here is the pertinent REGULATION:

    §93.61 General rules: Lake Hood segment.
    (a) No person may operate an aircraft at an altitude between 1,200 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL
    in that portion of this segment lying north of the midchannel of Knik Arm.
    (b) Each person operating an airplane within this segment (except that part described in para*
    graph (a) of this section) shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 600 feet MSL until
    maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent

    What you are citing is not “regulatory”. The AFD, in this case the Alaska Supplement, is non regulatory, except for information therein which is specifically formalized in regulation. These are “recommended” procedures. The admonition to depart at 2200 feet is a “recommendation” to try to deconfliction inbound and outbound traffic. But there is no legal requirement to follow that guidance.

    The airspace parameters, on the other hand are described in regulation.

    Now, if you hit someone while not following that guidance, and hit someone, the NTSB is going to say you weren’t following “Good Practice”

    MTV

  33. #73

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have some questions regarding Merrill and the Bryant Segment:

    If you want to depart Merrill runway 25/7 and cross the inlet below 600 feet because altitude deviations are denied (no not the safest choice, but a calculated risk like many others), what departure do you fly? I have noticed Merrill controllers issuing the "ship creek departure" to fixed wing aircraft but according to the chart supplement, it is a "helicopter route". I guess that's allowed? I've also had them offer the "shoreline departure" when I express my desire to cross below 600 ft but the shoreline departure plate makes no allowances for that. Chester creek is the only VFR departure procedure that appears to accomodate crossing the inlet below 600 ft, but it's only for runway 16 and 23. There are many many days when the ceiling isn't sufficient to cross the inlet VFR at 2200-2500 ft and they're not allowing altitude deviations either. Maybe this is by design to dissuade people from crossing the inlet at low altitude? If the weather is good, I just fly the Inlet departure if shoreline departure with altitude deviation is denied (the aircraft I fly cannot reliably climb to 2100 feet AGL in 3 miles).

    Lastly, what's the take on the Bryant Segment (that little 1/2 mile strip of Bryant's airspace that is southeast of the Glen Highway, but isn't actually in their Class D)?

    § 93.67 General rules: Bryant segment.

    (a) Each person operating an airplane to or from the Bryant Airport shall conform to the flow of traffic shown on the appropriate aeronautical charts, and while in the traffic pattern, shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet MSL until maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent.

    (b) Each person operating an aircraft within the Bryant segment should self-announce intentions on the Bryant Airport CTAF.


    There are some days when it might be necessary to fly thorugh the bryant segment for weather or traffic. All it says is that you "should" self anounce on Bryant CTAF. I flew in and out of Bryant a lot and never once heard anyone do that, and am pretty sure there was plenty of traffic in there. I was talking to tower obviously because I was operating at that airport. Additionally, 122.9 seems to be the designated CTAF for that area, although Bryant CTAF would be their tower frequency, 127.2. Personally I just try to avoid that strip of part 93 airspace as much as possible.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	inlet.JPG 
Views:	48 
Size:	62.2 KB 
ID:	57819   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	chestercreek.JPG 
Views:	48 
Size:	59.9 KB 
ID:	57818   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	shipcreek.JPG 
Views:	46 
Size:	60.6 KB 
ID:	57817   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	shoreline.JPG 
Views:	51 
Size:	57.4 KB 
ID:	57820   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bryant.JPG 
Views:	49 
Size:	181.9 KB 
ID:	57821  


  34. #74

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    AK, ME, ID - what time of year is it?
    Posts
    647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Had an informative and pleasant meeting with ANC FSDO inspector a few weeks back regarding recent risk factors at Lake Hood. I can’t post all his reflections but summary is that controllers do expect us to follow published procedures to the letter, and pilots could use reminders of that plus actual altitudes issued to pilots with clearances, time permitting. The FSDO powers that be were already planning to discuss with tower personnel some enhancements to help pilot adherence to altitudes and positions. Hopefully safety will increase as a result, but it’s a big bureaucracy…
    Likes WayneK49 liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Too Close for Comfort: Reno
    By stewartb in forum In The News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-27-2016, 08:48 AM
  2. Aileron Balance Cable - How close is too close?
    By Marty57 in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 10:27 AM
  3. back seat comfort in Cubcrafters Light Sport Cub
    By jimpattensc in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-02-2009, 10:03 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •