A tower-induced go-round
Jay Honeck
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.
Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.
The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
TheSmokingGnu
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely.
You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
the RUNWAY.
If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
doing his job, but YMMV. :)
TheSmokingGnu
Tony
day, and we don't know how many approaches he aborted.
It wasn't done correctly, but he assumed you had the skill to do what
was needed, and you did. Besides, flying a miss from time to time when
not expected is good for you (I read that once -- or maybe it was
something MX said).
On Mar 17, 12:09 am, TheSmokingGnu
webs...@cox.net
I can't agree.
Don't try telling anyone anything over the air. Land, and have a
polite discussion with the person. Leave the airways clear.
tony roberts
> Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
> have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
> the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
> the RUNWAY.
Really?
Student pilot, clear air turbulence, 30kt gusty headwind . . .
--
Tony
Indiacha...@hotmail.com
Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE
benf...@aol.com
I am not sure I would have gotten " behind the power curve" in gusty
conditions. A sooner bailout on your determination would have been
prudent. A 360 for spacing while still on final seems better then
dragging it in. After all you are PIC and responsible for the safety
of the flight. Glad you got home safely..
Ben
Jim
wrote:
>Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
>Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
>a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30
<snipped a bunch of good stuff> What type of aircraft were you flying?
--
Jim in Houston
NoSpAmj...@houston.rr.comNosPAm
Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tim
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
>> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
>> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>>
>> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
>> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
>> to land safely.
>
>
> You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
>
> Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
> have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
> the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
> the RUNWAY.
>
> If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
> clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
> be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
> place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
> lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
> hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
>
> I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
> doing his job, but YMMV. :)
>
> TheSmokingGnu
Ah bullshit. If the person was a student he had every right to make
modifications. He made a mistake probably.
It happens all the time. Just deal with it and keep flying. I wish all
the complaints I had about the controllers in this area were as benign
as that.
BDS
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> >> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> >> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
> >>
> >> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> >> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> >> to land safely.
> >
> > You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
> >
> > Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
> > have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
> > the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
> > the RUNWAY.
Why make a big deal out of a minor issue? Anyway, after a tirade like you
suggest all the controller would have had to do was tell you that your
landing clearance was now canceled and to go around.
BDS
Jay Honeck
> conditions. A sooner bailout on your determination would have been
> prudent. A 360 for spacing while still on final seems better then
> dragging it in. After all you are PIC and responsible for the safety
> of the flight. Glad you got home safely..
Yeah, I thought about doing a 360, but it was so danged gusty that
turning at low altitude was very uncomfortable. (More for the family
than for me, of course.)
It was one of those days where, if you kept the wind on your nose, it
wasn't bad, but as soon as you turned and had the relative gusts
hitting you from the side, things got rolly-polly pretty quickly.
Nothing more uncomfortable (for me, anyway) than having turbulence
trying to lift the high wing to vertical in a turn.
Having landed at OSH and SNF a bunch of times, I'm pretty used to slow
flight and close spacing. Everything would have worked out, if the
controller had told the 172 to land long and exit immediately -- but
it wasn't to be.
No big deal, but at the end of a very long flight it was more work
than I needed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Guy Elden Jr
> than I needed.
As my flight instructor used to say, consider it a "character building
exercise".
--
jr
Jay Honeck
'74 Piper Pathfinder -- PA28-235.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
>Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
>a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
Yeah, well he should have canceled your landing clearance, or at least
communicated with you. Or, if you couldn't accept a delay in your
clearance (and a medical emergency is as valid as a mechanical emergency),
you should have communicated with him.
He knew he had a student pilot so was giving him priority, I guess (can't
be sure without reading his mind).
Unless you ask him (and I'd do that on the ground), you can't really be
sure of all the nuances of the situation.
At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land
without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting
he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it
works out. Sometimes not <shrug>.
I get that frequently going into KASH, which has a lot of student activity.
Most of the time it works out with me doing slow flight and waiting for the
the a/c ahead to land; sometimes I request a 360 for spacing; and rarely
I'll get a go-around (usually from a controller who doesn't realize how
slowly I can fly my Mooney).
--ron
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1174096733.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
What was your position at the time?
>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
> -- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
> the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
>
> Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
> 25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
> the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
> runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
> ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
> power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
>
He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's
3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that
won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far
out were you when he touched down?
>
> Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
> Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
> blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
> -- as if he does this all day long.
>
If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make
it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's
unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you?
>
> Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
> during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
> tongue as I dutifully went around.
>
> The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
> Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
> good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
> one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
> know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
> Midwest.
>
It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to
say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it.
The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced
pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less
capable people in the near future.
Steven P. McNicoll
"TheSmokingGnu" <anonymity...@1111011010011.com> wrote in message
news:YRJKh.747$DQ1...@newsfe05.lga...
>
> You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
> pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
>
> Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below have
> right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in the
> pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using the
> RUNWAY.
>
Actually it is planes on final that have the right of way, but that's
irrelevant here as it was a controlled field.
Peter Dohm
> At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land
> without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting
> he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it
> works out. Sometimes not <shrug>.
>
have a reputation for being rather cautious--and not doing that. (That's a
deliberate understatement, although there some extenuating
circumstances--including a high volume of IFR traffic.)
I strongly suspect that many (perhaps most) pilots pilots usng that airport
would be much happier with a quicker flow of traffic and more frequent
go-arounds.
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
It's places like BOS and other big city airports where the practice is
common.
I've been in situations where I've not been given a landing clearance until
the runway was clear.
I've also been in a situation where I was flying a Cessna 150 cleared to
land 15 hold short of Rwy 5 -- This was just after clearances to land had
been issued to a KC-135 for RWY 5; and a C-130 for Rwy 33!! (The C-130 was
practicing downwind landings).
--ron
Judah
@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Clearly the controller either made a mistake or is a dolt.
Either way, a few good S-Turns would have saved you some gas and turbulence.
Jay Honeck
> > Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> > a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> What was your position at the time?
Hard to say (I wasn't looking at my GPS). I'd say a mile out, maybe
two?
> He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's
> 3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that
> won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far
> out were you when he touched down?
Probably 1/2 mile.
> If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make
> it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's
> unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you?
There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, but the controller
should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
neither.
> It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to
> say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it.
> The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced
> pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less
> capable people in the near future.
I doubt it, but we'll see.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1174136957.7...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yeah, I thought about doing a 360, but it was so danged gusty that
> turning at low altitude was very uncomfortable. (More for the family
> than for me, of course.)
>
Aeronautical Information Manual
Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures
Chapter 4. Air Traffic Control
Section 3. Airport Operations
4-3-5. Unexpected Maneuvers in the Airport Traffic Pattern
There have been several incidents in the vicinity of controlled airports
that were caused primarily by aircraft executing unexpected maneuvers. ATC
service is based upon observed or known traffic and airport conditions.
Controllers establish the sequence of arriving and departing aircraft by
requiring them to adjust flight as necessary to achieve proper spacing.
These adjustments can only be based on observed traffic, accurate pilot
reports, and anticipated aircraft maneuvers. Pilots are expected to
cooperate so as to preclude disrupting traffic flows or creating conflicting
patterns. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for
and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. On occasion
it may be necessary for pilots to maneuver their aircraft to maintain
spacing with the traffic they have been sequenced to follow. The controller
can anticipate minor maneuvering such as shallow "S" turns. The controller
cannot, however, anticipate a major maneuver such as a 360 degree turn. If a
pilot makes a 360 degree turn after obtaining a landing sequence, the result
is usually a gap in the landing interval and, more importantly, it causes a
chain reaction which may result in a conflict with following traffic and an
interruption of the sequence established by the tower or approach
controller. Should a pilot decide to make maneuvering turns to maintain
spacing behind a preceding aircraft, the pilot should always advise the
controller if at all possible. Except when requested by the controller or in
emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
controller.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Hard to say (I wasn't looking at my GPS). I'd say a mile out, maybe
> two?
>
What did you do before GPS? You were approaching a 6000' runway. Were you
one runway-length out, or were you two runway-lengths out?
>
> Probably 1/2 mile.
>
Sounds like plenty of room to me.
>
> There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
> agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, ...
>
If you believed the basic problem was the 172's unexpected stop why was your
ire directed solely at the controller?
>
> but the controller
> should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
> neither.
>
Why should he have done either? You said the 172 touched down 1500' from
the threshold, he DID land long. You said the unexpected stop was the
problem, there'd have been plenty of room if not for that. The AIM tells
pilots, "At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop
or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval." Why
should the controller have expected the 172 to act contrary to that?
>
> I doubt it, but we'll see.
>
You think people will choose to be control tower operators when they can
make more money doing something else?
Frank Ch. Eigler
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> writes:
> > If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's
> > decision to make it number one does not sound too bad. The
> > problem seems to be the 172's unexpected stop. Was there
> > additional traffic behind you?
>
> There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
> agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, but the controller
> should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
> neither.
But on the other hand, you should not space yourself in the circuit
with such a presumption. Even if the controller makes such an
instruction, there is no guarantee that a pilot will be able to carry
out out in a way convenient to you.
- FChE
Newps
TheSmokingGnu wrote:
>
> Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
> have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
> the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
> the RUNWAY.
There are no right of way rules at controlled airports.
>
> If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
> clearance.
No.
Jay Honeck
> emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
> traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
> controller.
Yep, although I couldn't quote chapter and verse, this is what I
figured the rules were.
Jay Honeck
> > agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, ...
>
> If you believed the basic problem was the 172's unexpected stop why was your
> ire directed solely at the controller?
Because I'm not going to blame a student for stopping short. Hell, he
probably didn't even know I was behind him, if he was nervous.
Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)
> > but the controller
> > should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
> > neither.
>
> Why should he have done either?
Because it would have easily fixed the mess the controller caused.
Stretching out his roll-out would have made everything mesh
effortlessly. Instead, the controller kept mum, and caused a runway
conflict.
> You think people will choose to be control tower operators when they can
> make more money doing something else?
Yes -- for many of the same reasons that I choose to run a little
aviation themed hotel next to an airport, even though I could be
making exponentially more money doing something else.
Jay Honeck
> with such a presumption. Even if the controller makes such an
> instruction, there is no guarantee that a pilot will be able to carry
> out out in a way convenient to you.
I presumed nothing, other than that I was cleared to land. When the
controller revoked that clearance (by inadvertently misjudging the
spacing between aircraft) I went around -- simple as that.
The only reason I posted this experience here was because it was a
"first" for Mary and me, in over 1700 hours of flying over 12 years.
It wasn't dangerous, or difficult -- but it *was* unusual.
Tim
I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport. the tower and the
conflicting traffic forgot about me. I was on final. he turned traffic
following me inthe pattern in front of me. The other traffic had no
awareness... I keyed the mike to let them know what was going on...
doh. got stepped on. did a 360 and then called AFTER. I was not
worried about doing something wrong - I was worried about getting killed
by the controller who dropped the ball and two pilots in the other plane
who were not paying attention to what the heck was going on in the pattern.
It happens too often. Do what you need to do to stay alive.
Jay Honeck
That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
dangerous airspace in America.
I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of
the week.
Jay Honeck
> > I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.
>
> That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
> dangerous airspace in America.
Sorry, Tim -- that came out sounding like I thought you were stupid
for making a 360 in the pattern. That's NOT what I meant -- I only
mean that Class D is a dangerous place, thanks to us relying on guys
in a tower with binoculars for spacing, and controllers relying on
guys in airplanes who don't know where the heck they really are.
I agree completely with your rationale for doing what you had to do.
Tim
I have been to many fine class D airports. I would take most over the
uncontrolled fields I have been. Cowboys for sure at the uncontrolled
airport near me. I was put on a waiting list at KFRG - glad I decided
to skip that. It is too busy - busier than the class c near here and
the controllers are rude. Then went to KHWV - that is a dangerous place
to fly - non-towered - insane amounts of scary piloting there and I am
finally at KISP - class C. I like it. Very professional people. Itis
nice to have radar services as the default and good for IFR flights
instead of going non towered.
I was at KPHF - that was a great class D.
Tim
I did not take it that way. Thanks for the follow up. Students really
need to be told to watch out for themselves - it is all too easy to
assume the controllers are omnipotent and never erring gods. The sooner
you see in training some screw-ups by controllers and other pilots, the
better off you are. Always watch out for yourself and be safe.
I don;t think I will ever find myself near Iowa City, but if I do your
place has been on my list for a while. Congrats on the longevity of the
endeavor.
benf...@aol.com
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>Except when requested by the controller or in
> >>emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
> >>traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
> >>controller.
>
> > Yep, although I couldn't quote chapter and verse, this is what I
> > figured the rules were.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> >www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport. the tower and the
> conflicting traffic forgot about me. I was on final. he turned traffic
> following me inthe pattern in front of me. The other traffic had no
> awareness... I keyed the mike to let them know what was going on...
> doh. got stepped on. did a 360 and then called AFTER. I was not
> worried about doing something wrong - I was worried about getting killed
> by the controller who dropped the ball and two pilots in the other plane
> who were not paying attention to what the heck was going on in the pattern.
>
> It happens too often. Do what you need to do to stay alive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
BT
you are PIC..
Tower controllers here are known to put two aircraft on crossing runways..
one landing.. one taking off..
and yes.. they did meet at the intersection.. luckily no one died that
day.. but two aircraft were totaled
BT
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1174096733.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
> -- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
> the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
>
> Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
> 25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
> the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
> runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
> ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
> power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
>
> Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
> Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
> blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
> -- as if he does this all day long.
>
> Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
> during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
> tongue as I dutifully went around.
>
> The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
> Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
> good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
> one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
> know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
> Midwest.
BT
Andrew Gideon
> I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of the
> week.
I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
airport. It can be better.
But I do agree that a pilot is not absolved of situational awareness by
being in class D airspace, and too many pilot's fail to realize this.
I've posted this here before, but I think it worth repeating: the last
flight I took right-seat with a particular someone was when we were
approaching a class D and we'd a clear view of traffic on climb-out that
we knew from radio calls was closed traffic. That traffic and we were
destined to reach downwind at about the same time.
I suggested to my friend that he deviate a little so as to come into the
pattern behind that traffic. He said that it wasn't necessary as the
tower would keep us apart.
- Andrew
Jay Honeck
> airport. It can be better.
Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:
a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
control too many things going on.
b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
of traffic effectively.
At an uncontrolled airport, everyone KNOWS they are on their own, and
events transpire accordingly and (mostly) predictably. In Class D'oh
airspace, on the other hand, too many pilots believe that the
controller is actually controlling the airspace, when, in fact, he is
not.
This type of confusion is a recipe for conflicts -- and I've seen them
often.
TheSmokingGnu
> Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
> because:
> This type of confusion is a recipe for conflicts -- and I've seen them
> often.
In non-radar D, very much so. You have to be on the ball all the time
and be sure to make precise radio calls. However, with radar coverage, D
is a whole new ballgame. Out here in the boonies (heretofore known as
"the LA basin" :D ), almost all the controlled airports either carry
radar themselves or can tap into them, and so controlled flight is a
breeze (and the controllers really do administer their airspace, with
xpndr checks and traffic reports, as well as non-talking violators).
Contrariwise, uncontrolled space can be a zoo, with a high traffic
density, and weekend warriors that don't (or won't) follow proper
procedure, in the cockpit or on the radio. You'll get lots of people
that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
because he thought he could depart via the upwind), or omitting initial
position calls, calls to final, calls clear of runway, omitting the
ident, etc. etc. etc. Add in some jet traffic along with the standard
piston assortment, and things can get ugly, really fast.
So, I think it's all a matter of degrees and personal experience at its
essence, just like having a bad time in Class C can sour your attitude
for that 'space.
TheSmokingGnu
Newps
Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
>>airport. It can be better.
>
>
> Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
> because:
>
> a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
> control too many things going on.
>
> b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
> they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
> impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
> of traffic effectively.
Compare a class D to an uncontrolled field with similar traffic counts
and the class D is much safer and the traffic flows much more orderly.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Because I'm not going to blame a student for stopping short. Hell, he
> probably didn't even know I was behind him, if he was nervous.
>
How did you know you were following a student? Why do you hold the
controller responsible for the student's actions?
>
> Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
> misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)
>
But you've already admitted spacing was fine, the problem was the 172s
unexpected stop on the runway. Do you believe the controller applied the
brakes?
>
> Because it would have easily fixed the mess the controller caused.
> Stretching out his roll-out would have made everything mesh
> effortlessly. Instead, the controller kept mum, and caused a runway
> conflict.
>
Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?
>
> Yes -- for many of the same reasons that I choose to run a little
> aviation themed hotel next to an airport, even though I could be
> making exponentially more money doing something else.
>
What are the reasons? What could you be doing that would earn exponentially
more money?
Jay Beckman
"PLONK"
Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I presumed nothing, other than that I was cleared to land. When the
> controller revoked that clearance (by inadvertently misjudging the
> spacing between aircraft) I went around -- simple as that.
>
Previously you said the spacing was good and the controller initiated the go
around when the 172 unexpectedly stopped on the runway. Now you say the
spacing was poor and you chose to go around. Which is it?
I believe you were formerly in the newspaper business. Were you forced out
of that career by an inability to keep a story straight?
Steve S
news:W1kLh.33$zk5...@newsfe12.lga...
> I have been to many fine class D airports. I would take most over the
> uncontrolled fields I have been. Cowboys for sure at the uncontrolled
> airport near me. I was put on a waiting list at KFRG - glad I decided to
> skip that. It is too busy - busier than the class c near here and the
> controllers are rude. Then went to KHWV - that is a dangerous place to
> fly - non-towered - insane amounts of scary piloting there and I am
> finally at KISP - class C. I like it. Very professional people. Itis
> nice to have radar services as the default and good for IFR flights
> instead of going non towered.
I agree about KFRG, the controllers are regulars at being jerks, I think
mostly because they are underqualified for what they have to deal with. I
was put in a hold over the bridge near the shore for 30 minutes with 10
other planes all looking to not crash into each other. I was glad for the
TIS-A that day. Finally I headed north and called up from the northeast
where I was promptly let into the pattern.
I trained and was based at KHPN and they have more traffic and a more
difficult mix what with students, spamcans, corporates and commuter
airliners. They rarely got surly and were much more accomodating. Perhaps
KFRG needs NY Approach to assign a squawk and sequence arrivals like they do
for KHPN.
KISP was always a joy to fly into. Much sleepier than KFRG.
Steven P. McNicoll
<benf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174262016.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> A tower controller has NEVER been killed because of their screw up. It is
> always the
> pilot who bites the dust. When I stated a 360 for spacing was my first
> choice I never
> said I wasn't going to make a radio report to the tower, in fact That has
> happened to
> me before and as I started my 360 the tower was notified by me, it is then
> up to them
> to fix the mess they created.
>
Yup, just as it's up to them to fix the messes pilots create.
>
> I am going home alive, piss on the incompetent tower controller who
> stuffed a plane
> right in front of me after I was cleared to land.
>
Was spacing a problem?
>
> Funny ol Steven P. Mc Nicoll threw in the side line of tower operators not
> making
> enough money, and there will be a shortage of them because of it. One day
> he might
> even admit a controller actually made a mistake and a pilot fixed it and
> lived to fly
> again.
>
Me? Admit a controller made a mistake? I'm as likely to do that as you are
to admit a pilot made a mistake.
>
> I have to admit he can quote all the rules and seems up to speed on
> traffic flows
> and probably was a great controller before he became mighter then the rest
> of
> us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
He still is.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
> misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)
>
No, but he may very well have had radar. Mizzou approach's ASR is about 7
miles north of JEF. With a BRITE scope in the tower the controller would be
in a far better position to judge spacing than you were. (And we've already
established how well you can judge spacing, even with GPS... :-)
Alan Gerber
> You'll get lots of people
> that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
> a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
> because he thought he could depart via the upwind),
What's wrong with departing via the upwind?
... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com
TheSmokingGnu
> What's wrong with departing via the upwind?
I think you'd find it exceedingly difficult to do so when you must fly
_through_ the gentleman in front of you. :)
The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.
Even more distressing was the fact that he didn't divert properly around
the obviously slower traffic (that is, to the right; he kept on his
departure vector), and was either oblivious or didn't care about giving
or listening to position reports.
But whadda ya gonna do? Kick the ball, fly around George, kick the ball...
TheSmokingGnu
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
> dangerous airspace in America.
>
> I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of
> the week.
>
Why would the presence of a control tower render airspace unsafe?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
> because:
>
> a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
> control too many things going on.
>
What things is the guy in the tower trying to see and control?
>
> b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
> they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
> impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
> of traffic effectively.
>
So it's pilots that make Class D unsafe?
Steven P. McNicoll
"TheSmokingGnu" <anonymity...@1111011010011.com> wrote in message
news:x6ILh.645$gC7...@newsfe02.lga...
>
> In non-radar D, very much so. You have to be on the ball all the time and
> be sure to make precise radio calls.
>
Precise radio calls are a rarity.
>
> Contrariwise, uncontrolled space can be a zoo, with a high traffic
> density, and weekend warriors that don't (or won't) follow proper
> procedure, in the cockpit or on the radio. You'll get lots of people that,
> for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had a
> from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed because
> he thought he could depart via the upwind), or omitting initial position
> calls, calls to final, calls clear of runway, omitting the ident, etc.
> etc. etc. Add in some jet traffic along with the standard piston
> assortment, and things can get ugly, really fast.
>
Part 91 specifies direction of turns for arriving aircraft, but not for
departing aircraft. The AIM states; "If departing the traffic pattern,
continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a
left?hand traffic pattern; to the right when in a right?hand traffic
pattern) beyond the departure end of the runway, after reaching pattern
altitude." Things like that probably lead people to believe departing via
the upwind is entirely proper.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
> only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
> "standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.
>
What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?
Jay Honeck
> caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
> what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
> inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?
Jeebus, Steven. I give up.
While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.
See ya!
benf...@aol.com
I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frank Ch. Eigler
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> writes:
> > Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the
> > problem was caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was
> > inadequate regardless what the 172 did after touchdown. [...]
>
> While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
> controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
> outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.
Thing is, Jay, he has a point. Many a time you've posted stories
about something odd happening during a flight. When your aspects of
judgement ended up being questioned, you consistently deflected
criticism. That's only natural, but sometimes saying "I should have
done that differently!" would be healthy.
- FChE
Larry Dighera
in <1174482742.5...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
>you have outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.
You mean he has exposed your muddled thinking, and caused you to doubt
your own analysis of the incident?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Lots of places have specific "standard" arrivals and departures for
noise abatement.
Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav is spotty, but Flight
Guide is pretty good.
An example is KCCB.
To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
control channel.
To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn north over the 24.
There are no downwind, straight-out or right departures.
And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
TheSmokingGnu
> What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?
French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard"
crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and
influential) housing developments some wonderful person decided needed
to be direct off the end of a GA airport.
Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining
a civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to
flying off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't
going to tell anyone first.
TheSmokingGnu
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Jeebus, Steven. I give up.
>
> While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
> controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
> outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.
>
> See ya!
>
Gee, Jay, and usefulness to you was my primary purpose here!
Sounds more like you just find my questions too difficult to answer.
See ya!
Steven P. McNicoll
<benf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174483073.8...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
> process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
> would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
> danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
> thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
You're free to believe whatever you choose. I rarely even mention that I'm
a controller, anyone here can claim to be anything they choose. Rather than
post, "I'm a controller and this is the way it is...", my messages tend to
take the form, "This is the way it is because FAA Order 1234.56A says..."
Which form do you find more convincing?
Jay Honeck
> about something odd happening during a flight. When your aspects of
> judgement ended up being questioned, you consistently deflected
> criticism. That's only natural, but sometimes saying "I should have
> done that differently!" would be healthy.
There is absolutely nothing in my story that is inconsistent, nor is
there anything that I would have -- or should have -- done
differently.
Nothing in my telling of the tale has changed from start to finish,
either. It is only Steven -- and you, apparently -- that sees change
where none exists.
If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far out I was when the
student was in front of me, that's his option -- but please don't side
with his form of anal insanity.
benf...@aol.com
wrote:
> <benfo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Neither,,,because the Pilot incommand has the FINAL responsibility for
the safety of any given flight. That leaves out a controller that
spaces planes too closely and any FAA order that can't conform to a
given situation on short notice.
Jay Honeck
> your own analysis of the incident?
Oh, God help me. Now the *other* King of Anal is on board.
No, Larry, that's not what I mean. The only muddled thinking here was
mine when I thought people like you might benefit from hearing about
my experience.
I'll say it again: If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far
out I was when the student was cleared to land in front of me, that's
his option -- but please don't side with his form of insanity.
Jay Honeck
Nope, just too stupid.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Nope, just too stupid.
>
Jay, I thought you'd given up! I thought I had outlived my usefulness to
you in this thread!
Alan Gerber
> departing aircraft. The AIM states; "If departing the traffic pattern,
> continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a
> left?hand traffic pattern; to the right when in a right?hand traffic
> pattern) beyond the departure end of the runway, after reaching pattern
> altitude." Things like that probably lead people to believe departing via
> the upwind is entirely proper.
Gee, ya think? :-)
Alan Gerber
I wouldn't agree with that, but it could be a risk factor.
There's a phenomenon that's been observed that people change their safety
margins in the face of safety equipment. People wearing bicycle helmets
tend to cycle in a riskier manner; people with ABS brakes drive a little
faster, and a little more aggressively, trusting the brakes to save them
if needed.
I suspect this is also a factor when there's a tower -- people let up on
their traffic scan, and lose some common sense, assuming the controller
won't let anything bad happen to them.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Alan Gerber" <ger...@panix.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:etsm30$reu$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> I wouldn't agree with that, but it could be a risk factor.
>
> There's a phenomenon that's been observed that people change their safety
> margins in the face of safety equipment. People wearing bicycle helmets
> tend to cycle in a riskier manner; people with ABS brakes drive a little
> faster, and a little more aggressively, trusting the brakes to save them
> if needed.
>
> I suspect this is also a factor when there's a tower -- people let up on
> their traffic scan, and lose some common sense, assuming the controller
> won't let anything bad happen to them.
>
It appears many pilots believe ATC provides VFR/VFR separation in Class D
airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.
Alan Gerber
> airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
> any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.
That's sort of a chicken-and-egg question. I agree with you, but the net
result is that class D airspace *can* be more dangerous, due to the
presence of those ignorant pilots. And it's definitely more dangerous for
exactly those ignorant pilots.
I trained at a class D airport, and my instructor made very sure that I
knew exactly what the controllers were there for, and what they weren't
there for.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> There is absolutely nothing in my story that is inconsistent, nor is
> there anything that I would have -- or should have -- done
> differently.
>
> Nothing in my telling of the tale has changed from start to finish,
> either. It is only Steven -- and you, apparently -- that sees change
> where none exists.
>
Let's check the record.
On 3/16 you wrote:
"Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway."
On 3/18 you wrote:
"Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing."
Going from "spaced just fine" to "he misjudged the spacing" sure looks like
a change to me.
>
> If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far out I was when the
> student was in front of me, that's his option -- but please don't side
> with his form of anal insanity.
>
I don't recall quibbling about how far out you were. I recall asking how
far out you were and you being unable to provide an accurate response,
despite having GPS. You finally decided you were about 1/2 mile out when
the student landed 1500' down the runway. If your estimates are accurate
there was proper spacing.
Steven P. McNicoll
<benf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174521532....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Neither,,,because the Pilot incommand has the FINAL responsibility for
> the safety of any given flight. That leaves out a controller that
> spaces planes too closely and any FAA order that can't conform to a
> given situation on short notice.
>
What controller spaces planes too closely?
FAR 91.3(a) states; "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
aircraft." If a preceding properly-spaced aircraft uses his final authority
as to the operation of his aircraft and stops on the runway ahead of you,
forcing the tower controller to issue a go around, who would you hold
directly responsible?
Jay Honeck
> airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
> any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.
Ah, forever the non-radar Class D controller's cop-out. "We only
provide sequencing, not separation."
In other words, you THINK you know where we are, and you HOPE we'll
follow your directions, and you PRAY it will all work out, and we had
BETTER follow your instructions (or else!) -- but, oh, shoot, it
*didn't* work out when I directed both of you to land on the same
runway? Dang, sorry about that -- we were only providing sequencing
(not!) -- it was up to YOU to not actually hit each other.
To which I say: Either give the poor sap in the tower radar, or stay
home. Go away. Save our tax money and possibly our lives. Uncontrolled
airports work just fine, thank you very much, and I'll trust my
skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
guy on the ground with binoculars.
We don't need Class D'oh! faux air traffic "control", anywhere.
benf...@aol.com
wrote:
> <benfo...@aol.com> wrote in message
You just don't give up, !!!! In the 25 years I have been flying in
EVERY instance I was cleared to land by a controller in a tight
spacing situation the call from the tower to the preceding plane was "
N12345 exit runway as soon as possible, landing aircraft on a 1/2 mile
final behind you" Jay stated there was no communication from that
tower to the offending aircraft stopped on the runway. So, my question
to you ,almighty controller, Isn't the tower operator responsible for
the traffic on 'HIS" runway? A simple one word answer will do. YES or
NO ? I can't wait to see how you will spin this one. <GGGGG>
Jay Honeck
> On 3/16 you wrote:
>
> "Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway."
>
> On 3/18 you wrote:
>
> "Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
> misjudged the spacing."
>
> Going from "spaced just fine" to "he misjudged the spacing" sure looks like
> a change to me.
"Spaced just fine for Oshkosh" -- in pilot-speak -- means that I
probably won't die, but it's TOO DAMNED CLOSE FOR REGULAR OPERATIONS
AT A ONE-HORSE AIRPORT.
Get it now?
Matt Barrow
> ...and I'll trust my
> skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
> guy on the ground with binoculars.
I just had the weirest flashback/visual of Arte Johnson, in that goofy
German costume on Laugh-In, peering over the sandbags with binoculars...
Neil Gould
>
> To which I say: Either give the poor sap in the tower radar, or stay
> home. Go away. Save our tax money and possibly our lives. Uncontrolled
> airports work just fine, thank you very much, and I'll trust my
> skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
> guy on the ground with binoculars.
>
traffic, I would think it is good to know the local activity. An example;
Cleveland's Burke Lakefront airport (Class D) is close enough to Hopkin's
Class B's first layer (2000') that all local VFR is scooting under that,
and by the time you've left Burke's airspace to the East, you're in
Cuyahoga County airport's Class D space, which is still under Hopkin's
4,000. Both County and Burke have BizJet traffic as well as GA, and Burke
has a lot of helo traffic as well. I don't think that making those
airports uncontrolled would make that airspace safer. On some days it gets
your adrenalin flowing fast to fly in there.
Neil
Steven P. McNicoll
<benf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174571421.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> You just don't give up, !!!!
>
Would you give up if you were in my position?
>
> In the 25 years I have been flying in
> EVERY instance I was cleared to land by a controller in a tight
> spacing situation the call from the tower to the preceding plane was "
> N12345 exit runway as soon as possible, landing aircraft on a 1/2 mile
> final behind you" Jay stated there was no communication from that
> tower to the offending aircraft stopped on the runway. So, my question
> to you ,almighty controller, Isn't the tower operator responsible for
> the traffic on 'HIS" runway? A simple one word answer will do. YES or
> NO ? I can't wait to see how you will spin this one. <GGGGG>
>
I'll be happy to answer your question, right after you answer mine. That's
only fair, I asked first. To make it easy for you, here it is again:
FAR 91.3(a) states; "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
aircraft." If a preceding properly-spaced aircraft uses his final authority
as to the operation of his aircraft and stops on the runway ahead of you,
forcing the tower controller to issue a go around, who would you hold
directly responsible?
A simple one word answer will do. PILOT or CONTROLLER?
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1174571147.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> provide sequencing, not separation."
>
What makes that a cop-out?
>
> In other words, you THINK you know where we are, and you HOPE we'll
> follow your directions, and you PRAY it will all work out, and we had
> BETTER follow your instructions (or else!) -- but, oh, shoot, it
> *didn't* work out when I directed both of you to land on the same
> runway? Dang, sorry about that -- we were only providing sequencing
> (not!) -- it was up to YOU to not actually hit each other.
>
Not me, I've never worked a non-radar tower. I also doubt those that do
think that.
>
> To which I say: Either give the poor sap in the tower radar, or stay
> home. Go away. Save our tax money and possibly our lives. Uncontrolled
> airports work just fine, thank you very much, and I'll trust my
> skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
> guy on the ground with binoculars.
>
So you'll be driving to AirVenture from now on.
>
> We don't need Class D'oh! faux air traffic "control", anywhere.
>
I can't see any competent pilot having the problems that you have with Class
D airspace. It's become obvious the problem is you, your skills are just
not up to it. For your own safety and the safety of others you should just
avoid Class D airspace until you upgrade your skills and knowledge.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I swore I wouldn't do this, but here goes....
>
To thine own self be true.
>>
>> On 3/16 you wrote:
>>
>> "Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
>> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway."
>>
>> On 3/18 you wrote:
>>
>> "Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
>> misjudged the spacing."
>>
>> Going from "spaced just fine" to "he misjudged the spacing" sure looks
>> like
>> a change to me.
>>
>
> "Spaced just fine for Oshkosh" -- in pilot-speak -- means that I
> probably won't die, but it's TOO DAMNED CLOSE FOR REGULAR OPERATIONS
> AT A ONE-HORSE AIRPORT.
>
That's swell, Jay, but "Spaced just fine for Oshkosh" did not appear in any
of your previous messages.
>
> Get it now?
>
I sure do. You hold an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC
and you hold controllers responsible for pilot's actions.
Larry Dighera
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<MPDMh.12679$PL....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>For your own safety and the safety of others you should just
>avoid Class D airspace until you upgrade your skills and knowledge.
Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.
benf...@aol.com
wrote:
> <benfo...@aol.com> wrote in message
Hell, Thats an easy answer. Even a caveman or a pilot can answer that.
<G>
Read this real slow thickhead...
A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
preceding plane was still on the rollout. He/she should not have
waited for the guy/girl to make a complete stop on the runway. If you
just go back and reread this whole thread it should become crystal
clear to a sane and competent controller that Jay was given a go
around because of the tower controller was asleep at the switch. There
are those of us who make a living in the private sector and have to
prove ourselves every day to stay employed. Then there is the
government workers who BS their way though life and the system to make
it to retirement, milking the system the whole time.... Jay and I and
alot of others work for the private sector and are surviving in the
black. Your employer is the US government who is 9+ trillion in the
red. It is either your move or checkmate on our part...
In closing I still admit that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll knows his regs
probably better then most other aviation people ,, But he forgot his
common sense at the office..
Blueskies and tailwinds......
Steven P. McNicoll
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9o4603hg9foqgf2h8...@4ax.com...
>
> Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
> inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.
>
If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.
Steven P. McNicoll
<benf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174607024.9...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hell, Thats an easy answer. Even a caveman or a pilot can answer that.
> <G>
>
Well, as you didn't answer it, I'll have to assume you are neither.
>
> Read this real slow thickhead...
>
No need. I can read it quickly, no matter how slowly you wrote it.
>
> A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
> landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
> cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
> runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
> preceding plane was still on the rollout.
>
There was no need for that.
>
> He/she should not have
> waited for the guy/girl to make a complete stop on the runway.
>
The pilot should not have made a complete stop on the runway regardless.
>
> If you
> just go back and reread this whole thread it should become crystal
> clear to a sane and competent controller that Jay was given a go
> around because of the tower controller was asleep at the switch.
>
How could the controller give Jay a go around while he was asleep at the
switch?
To those of us that have read this whole thread and also have some knowledge
of ATC procedures it is crystal clear that Jay had plenty of room behind the
preceding 172, and that an alert controller issued a go around to Jay when
he observed the 172 had stopped on the runway. Good for him.
>
> There
> are those of us who make a living in the private sector and have to
> prove ourselves every day to stay employed.
>
Just like the controllers at JEF.
>
> Then there is the
> government workers who BS their way though life and the system to make
> it to retirement, milking the system the whole time.... Jay and I and
> alot of others work for the private sector and are surviving in the
> black. Your employer is the US government who is 9+ trillion in the
> red. It is either your move or checkmate on our part...
>
You can only hope to perform your job as well as I perform mine.
>
> In closing I still admit that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll knows his regs
> probably better then most other aviation people ,, But he forgot his
> common sense at the office..
>
Those with common sense don't hold controllers responsible for a pilot's
mistake.
Shirl
> > A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
> > landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
> > cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
> > runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
> > preceding plane was still on the rollout.
>
> There was no need for that.
Most people know that the first order of business when you've landed is
to get OFF the runway as soon as able. If this was a student with an
instructor, the instructor KNOWS that, and should have also been aware
that someone was on final behind them. Perhaps there was a valid reason
for stopping that they just did not announce on the radio?
> The pilot should not have made a complete stop on
> the runway regardless.
Unless there was some emergency/safety factor that prompted them to stop
on the runway.
> > If you just go back and reread this whole thread it
> > should become crystal clear to a sane and competent
> > controller that Jay was given a go around because of
> > the tower controller was asleep at the switch.
Maybe so, but if you're only 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed,
you should be *ready* to do a go-round if they don't exit the runway
promptly REGARDLESS of whether or not the controller tells you to do so.
At least, that's what I was taught.
> To those of us that have read this whole thread and also have
> some knowledge of ATC procedures it is crystal clear that
> Jay had plenty of room behind the preceding 172, and that
> an alert controller issued a go around to Jay when he observed
> the 172 had stopped on the runway. Good for him.
Yeah...so what's the problem? No offense, Jay, but IMO you should have
been prepared for the go-around.
> Those with common sense don't hold controllers
> responsible for a pilot's mistake.
To which pilot are you referring? the one who stopped on the runway?
Unless you talked with him/her, hard to know if that was a "mistake" or
if he/she had a valid reason for stopping there. I wouldn't assume they
didn't just because they didn't announce it on frequency.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Shirl" <Xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
news:Xmnushal8y-05781...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
>
> Most people know that the first order of business when you've landed is
> to get OFF the runway as soon as able. If this was a student with an
> instructor, the instructor KNOWS that, and should have also been aware
> that someone was on final behind them. Perhaps there was a valid reason
> for stopping that they just did not announce on the radio?
>
>> The pilot should not have made a complete stop on
>> the runway regardless.
>
> Unless there was some emergency/safety factor that prompted them to stop
> on the runway.
>
Recall that Jay discussed the situation with "the guys in the FBO", that's
where he learned it was a student. Had there been an emergency or some
valid reason for stopping I'm sure it would have been mentioned.
>
> Maybe so, but if you're only 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed,
> you should be *ready* to do a go-round if they don't exit the runway
> promptly REGARDLESS of whether or not the controller tells you to do so.
> At least, that's what I was taught.
>
But he wasn't 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed, he was 1/2 mile from
the threshold when the guy landed 1500' down the runway.
>
> To which pilot are you referring? the one who stopped on the runway?
>
Yes.
>
> Unless you talked with him/her, hard to know if that was a "mistake" or
> if he/she had a valid reason for stopping there. I wouldn't assume they
> didn't just because they didn't announce it on frequency.
>
See above.
Jim Logajan
I'm not sure I understand, but didn't the controller appear to make a
mistake with regard to section "2.1.2 Duty Priority" of Order 7110.65R:
"Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as
required in this order."?
There appear to be other sections of 7110.65R that may be more or less
relevant to the situation, though I'm not sure to what extent or manner, if
any, controllers are held responsible for complying with the instructions
(or guidance?) in that Order.
Also, I am not sure why a mistake by the pilot who landed ahead of Jay to
promptly clear the runway necessaily excludes the possibility that the
controller made mistakes. Is there some sort of exclusion principle I'm not
aware of that is operative here?
Lastly, I sense a claim implied here that FAR § 91.3 absolves controllers
of all responsibility for consequences for their orders or lack thereof
issued under the authority of § 91.123 - at least with respect to Class D
VFR operations. Is that correct? If so, I can see some merit to Jay's
complaint with regard to the wisdom or utility of Class D airspace.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jim Logajan" <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98FBCE869BEB...@216.168.3.30...
>
> I'm not sure I understand, but didn't the controller appear to make a
> mistake with regard to section "2.1.2 Duty Priority" of Order 7110.65R:
>
> "Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as
> required in this order."?
>
No.
>
> There appear to be other sections of 7110.65R that may be more or less
> relevant to the situation, though I'm not sure to what extent or manner,
> if
> any, controllers are held responsible for complying with the instructions
> (or guidance?) in that Order.
>
Please identify them.
>
> Also, I am not sure why a mistake by the pilot who landed ahead of Jay to
> promptly clear the runway necessaily excludes the possibility that the
> controller made mistakes. Is there some sort of exclusion principle I'm
> not
> aware of that is operative here?
>
No, there just wasn't anything that suggested the controller made a mistake.
>
> Lastly, I sense a claim implied here that FAR § 91.3 absolves controllers
> of all responsibility for consequences for their orders or lack thereof
> issued under the authority of § 91.123 - at least with respect to Class D
> VFR operations. Is that correct? If so, I can see some merit to Jay's
> complaint with regard to the wisdom or utility of Class D airspace.
>
How did you infer that?
Jose
> inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.
What would that accomplish? More and more I'm coming to believe that
some pilots from Iowa are in the clouds enough as it is. :)
Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Larry Dighera
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<ZxEMh.15342$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
Not without additional training.
Steven P. McNicoll
> >
> >If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
> >system.
> >
>
> Not without additional training.
>
I don't think that would help.
Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.
benf...@aol.com
wrote:
Kool,,, New ammunition....
Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
land. <G>
Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
through it will be smeared with shit and the smell will always remind
me of this thread.... ):).
Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Kool,,, New ammunition....
>
And again you shoot yourself in the foot.
>
> Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
> observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
> can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
> close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
> they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
> by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
> separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
> just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
> land. <G>
>
> Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
> travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
> can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
> Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
> the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
> No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
> still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
> McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
> toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
> by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
> in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
> through it will be smeared with shit and the smell will always remind
> me of this thread.... ):).
>
> Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....- Hide quoted text -
>
"No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft" in Class D
AIRSPACE. All control towers, whether the overlying airspace is Class
B, C, D, E, or G, provide RUNWAY separation. Minimum same runway
separation between two piston singles is 3000 feet. Recall that Jay
said he was about 1/2 mile out from the threshold when the 172 touched
down 1500' from the threshold. Let's see if you're any better at
simple arithmetic than you are at answering simple questions.
Jim Logajan
> Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
> airspace.
Where did he make that explicit claim? Jay Honeck has stated a least this
much in this thread:
"In Class D'oh airspace, on the other hand, too many pilots believe that
the controller is actually controlling the airspace, when, in fact, he is
not."
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Where did he make that explicit claim?
>
Who said it was explicit?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=1174571147.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
benf...@aol.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
ha ha. This gettin fun. You have posted 28 times to this silly thread.
Real controllers are taught to be short and to the point with their
answers. What we have here folks is a MX Mc Nicoll..... I bet he
doesn't even have a Pilots cert.
Steven P. McNicoll
<benf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174676007.2...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> ha ha. This gettin fun.
>
You find amusement in appearing stupid?
>
> You have posted 28 times to this silly thread.
> Real controllers are taught to be short and to the point with their
> answers.
>
That is amusing. In the past others have complained about my brevity.
>
> What we have here folks is a MX Mc Nicoll..... I bet he
> doesn't even have a Pilots cert.
>
Is a pilot's certificate required to post here?
Jay Honeck
> include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
> Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
> the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
> provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
> Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
> Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
> airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
> deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
> he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.
*sigh* No where did I ever say that I expect the Class D'oh!
controllers to provide separation services. I neither expect it, nor
want it from them, because quite frankly they couldn't do it if they
tried. Not without radar.
Which is my point. The controllers at these non-radar facilities do,
effectively, NOTHING. They need to simply admit that fact, pack up
their binoculars, save the taxpayers a bundle, and go home.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> *sigh* No where did I ever say that I expect the Class D'oh!
> controllers to provide separation services. I neither expect it, nor
> want it from them, because quite frankly they couldn't do it if they
> tried. Not without radar.
>
> Which is my point. The controllers at these non-radar facilities do,
> effectively, NOTHING. They need to simply admit that fact, pack up
> their binoculars, save the taxpayers a bundle, and go home.
>
The point is, Jay, you lack a proper understanding of Class D airspace and
ATC. In the interest of safety you should avoid all controlled fields until
you can gain that understanding.
Montblack
Jay Honeck
>
> I sure do. You hold an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC
Wrong again? Dang.
Well, at least you're consistent.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Wrong again? Dang.
>
> Well, at least you're consistent.
>
You're short on integrity.
Newps
benf...@aol.com wrote:
The tower controller didn't care how
> close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
> they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
> by spouting off this reg.
It would cost the FAA millions, already has. It is irrelavant that the
rules say controllers don't separate airplanes in the air within the
class D. If two aircraft run together while talking to the tower you
the taxpayers will buy both airplanes and compensate the families.
Maintain situational awareness - class D controllers are only
responsible for separation on the ground
Would you like to bet $25 Million on that statement?
A Broward jury has awarded $25.2 million to the family of a pilot killed
in a collision of two planes near Deerfield Beach almost three years ago.
The family of Steve Ross, a Boca Raton chaplain, filed the
wrongful-death suit against Robinson Aviation, a private contractor
operating the Boca Raton and Pompano Beach control towers.
Ross, who is survived by his wife and four children, was one of five
people who died when two small planes crashed in the water off Deerfield
Beach on June 16, 2003.
The jury in Circuit Judge Victor Tobin's courtroom Wednesday awarded
$1.2 million for economic damages and, for pain and suffering, $10
million to Ross' wife, Julie, and $3.5 million to each of the four children.
Steve Ross and a longtime friend, Douglas Bauer, 48, were flying a
Cessna 182 north to Boca Raton Airport. They were returning from a
missionary trip in the Bahamas and had just cleared U.S. Customs at Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
A Cessna 172, with a family of three aboard, was headed south to Fort
Lauderdale Executive Airport. At the controls was private pilot Johnny
Mark Willey, 39, of Margate, who was learning to be an airline pilot at
Gulfstream Training Academy. Willey was taking his wife and daughter for
a ride along the coast.
The two planes plowed into each other about 1,000 feet above the
Deerfield Beach International Fishing Pier and plunged into the water as
stunned beachgoers looked on.
According to the suit, the planes collided moments after both pilots
made contact with air-traffic controllers in Pompano Beach and Boca Raton.
"Robinson Aviation . . . otherwise directed or failed to direct air
traffic so as to avoid the midair collision of the two aircraft," the
suit reads.
Attorneys for Robinson Aviation could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
The Ross family settled with Gulfstream Training Academy for an
undisclosed amount more than a year ago, contending that Willey was "not
fit, qualified or properly trained."