ArcticFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Using Visual Flight Rules to facilitate operational efficiency is no more a loophole than using Instrument Flight Rules to avoid airspace clearance issues is. I've flown light GA into 5 Class B airports. IFR arrivals every time and only 1 VFR departure. I never had an issue getting in, which would have been a lot more questionable VFR.

I've flown VFR into/out of Class B airports multiple times (mainly PHL) and the controllers were always accomodating. A friend of mine even flew into JFK under VFR once and it was also a non-issue, although JFK has a reservation system during certain hours and he flew in outside of that window.

The JFK reservation system is more to collect that $100 surcharge during busy times than anything. I've heard nothing but good things about operating light GA at JFK and at PHL - both airports are known to have good folks working who will take good care of any pilot there. PHL even has an ILS to their 5000' runway that is almost exclusively GA and an occasional RJ.

N1120A wrote:

Actually, IFR traffic does not have priority at a VFR Class D tower. Now, the tower will likely give priority to getting a departure with a release out, but they sequence the runway the same way regardless of VFR or IFR. They can and will tell approach to hold IFRs if needed as well, due to their own workload. I've had that happen to me.

Not what I would have thought based on my own experiences but I'll admit there are only a couple of areas where I've done a lot of VFR work. At PNE it definitely seemed that IFR had priority and I've heard from controllers that sometimes PHL TRACON would "hand off" arrivals to them without coordination.

Likely there are different LOAs between facilities that lay out how these situations will be handled, which I know explains why (at least when I was there) PNE tower would not give you a VFR squawk code on the ground.

ArcticFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Actually, IFR traffic does not have priority at a VFR Class D tower. Now, the tower will likely give priority to getting a departure with a release out, but they sequence the runway the same way regardless of VFR or IFR. They can and will tell approach to hold IFRs if needed as well, due to their own workload. I've had that happen to me.

Not what I would have thought based on my own experiences but I'll admit there are only a couple of areas where I've done a lot of VFR work. At PNE it definitely seemed that IFR had priority and I've heard from controllers that sometimes PHL TRACON would "hand off" arrivals to them without coordination.

Likely there are different LOAs between facilities that lay out how these situations will be handled, which I know explains why (at least when I was there) PNE tower would not give you a VFR squawk code on the ground.

A small number of towers still don't have the physical ability to generate codes - though PNE would surprise me. Some approach controls and centers don't allow towers under them to generate codes for flight following, though that number is smaller than in the past. Most big, busy approach controls desperately want to 1) be talking to airplanes in their airspace and 2) don't want to be the ones typing up the strip.

When I was young and dumb (much the same thing); I was doing a passenger drop at JFK in a Citation II. In those days, VFR in the NY TCA was common, but jets had to join the IFR line up because of noise restrictions. IOW, we couldn’t zip out at 1,600’m cross the island and change over the BDL TRACON like the piston guys. It was Friday, very busy, IFR arrival, but ready to start up to ferry home, I figured I could beat the 45 minute line, by asking; “JFK Clearance, Twin Cessna N1851T, request TCA northbound at 1,500’”. Easily, the sharpest FAA ATCO, came right back with, “you arrived as a jet, you’re leaving as one, expect to be xx in line”. My co-pilot was reeling with laughter.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

When I was young and dumb (much the same thing); I was doing a passenger drop at JFK in a Citation II. In those days, VFR in the NY TCA was common, but jets had to join the IFR line up because of noise restrictions. IOW, we couldn’t zip out at 1,600’m cross the island and change over the BDL TRACON like the piston guys. It was Friday, very busy, IFR arrival, but ready to start up to ferry home, I figured I could beat the 45 minute line, by asking; “JFK Clearance, Twin Cessna N1851T, request TCA northbound at 1,500’”. Easily, the sharpest FAA ATCO, came right back with, “you arrived as a jet, you’re leaving as one, expect to be xx in line”. My co-pilot was reeling with laughter.

But was it Kennedy Steve who said that.

The problem kind of reminds me of golf. At a local course you have your regulars that get the same tee time every day. Then the holidays hit and all the tourists want to play at the same time. Most courses don't all of a sudden allow 45 tee times at 8AM just because of the tourist demand. When the tee times are filled - the tourists must find a different time - or play elsewhere. Simple concept that golf courses can impliment - but airports can't.

canyonblue17 wrote:

The problem kind of reminds me of golf. At a local course you have your regulars that get the same tee time every day. Then the holidays hit and all the tourists want to play at the same time. Most courses don't all of a sudden allow 45 tee times at 8AM just because of the tourist demand. When the tee times are filled - the tourists must find a different time - or play elsewhere. Simple concept that golf courses can impliment - but airports can't.

You sound like a lobbyist for A4A. The airlines are not preferred citizens at airports.

canyonblue17 wrote:

The problem kind of reminds me of golf. At a local course you have your regulars that get the same tee time every day. Then the holidays hit and all the tourists want to play at the same time. Most courses don't all of a sudden allow 45 tee times at 8AM just because of the tourist demand. When the tee times are filled - the tourists must find a different time - or play elsewhere. Simple concept that golf courses can impliment - but airports can't.

I’m glad it reminds of a golf course, but not remotely related.

I think folks are still overlooking the actual problem - ATC is massively understaffed and handcuffed by poor management of military airspace in high level sectors of concentrated airspace that see seasonal spikes in demand and problematic weather systems. While well compensated, US air traffic controllers are underpaid, especially seeing what pilots are now getting, and overworked. They are also way too often forced to shut down significant airspace to IFR traffic due to hot MOAs and restricted areas in places where they need more space in the sky, not less.

This has nothing to do with corporate pilots or owner-pilots utilizing the flight rules to expedite their own operation and also help ATC out.

Airspace is significant part of the problem, but, yeah, staffing . Somewhere, I read, ATC is expected to do overtime as a regular scheduling plan. Absurd.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Airspace is significant part of the problem, but, yeah, staffing . Somewhere, I read, ATC is expected to do overtime as a regular scheduling plan. Absurd.

Yeah, especially at busy TRACONs and centers.

“You sound like a lobbyist for the A4A”

First off - I don’t even know what the A4A is. Second - just trying to solve a problem - help or feel free to peruse other forums. Three - I want those corporate jets lined up to leave on time as much as the airlines.

[list=][/list]

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Airspace is significant part of the problem, but, yeah, staffing . Somewhere, I read, ATC is expected to do overtime as a regular scheduling plan. Absurd.

Some who ware still working that I know tell me they are very often scheduled for six day work weeks and on top of that even held over from their eight hour shift to do two hours of overtime. They are rewarded quite well for their hours with overtime money.

It seems like the corporate jet problem isn't exclusive to the USA. Apparently Amsterdam tried recently to ban corporate jets from its airport. The attempt failed - but the related problems remain.

canyonblue17 wrote:

It seems like the corporate jet problem isn't exclusive to the USA. Apparently Amsterdam tried recently to ban corporate jets from its airport. The attempt failed - but the related problems remain.

It would be equally honest to call it an “airliner”. The most accurate is a traffic problem with too much demand for the available infrastructure.

canyonblue17 wrote:

It seems like the corporate jet problem isn't exclusive to the USA. Apparently Amsterdam tried recently to ban corporate jets from its airport. The attempt failed - but the related problems remain.

Corporate jet traffic had nothing to do with that. It was exclusively environmental virtue signaling. They were attempting to limit airline traffic to less than 2019 numbers and impose curfews