Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D (so-called)
"controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.

Yesterday we once again had the misfortune of flying into Class D, when we
flew to Dubuque (DBQ) for breakfast -- and again witnessed a potentially
dangerous situation.

The University of Dubuque has their flight school there, which means
high-density student traffic in the pattern. There are also four regular
airline flights into/out of DBQ every day. Add to this the occasional $100
hamburger flight and corporate charters, and you've got an airport which
can, on occasion, rival Chicago for business.

Yesterday was one of those days. After several days of crap, the skies
cleared and the wind, while gusting to 23 knots, was right down Rwy 18. As
a result the pattern was full of students and people like us, enjoying the
day.

As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a left
downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is hard to
spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous targets in
the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had his hands
full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.

After extending our downwind quite a ways, we finally spotted the 182 we
were to follow. As Mary was turning right base, we heard the controller
tell an older guy in a different 182 "Okay, that's not going to work. Fly
directly toward the tower now and re-enter the right downwind for 18..."

By now we were turning base to final, with Mary fighting the burbles and
updrafts caused by the 20+ knot wind. Out of the corner of my eye I spotted
a Cessna angling toward us from high and to the right, in what seemed like a
very awkward position, given the traffic density in the pattern. He was in
a shallow bank to the right, but, as long as he didn't descend, we would
pass under him as we turned final, so I didn't mention him to Mary.

As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
out of position. My thoughts were that this *must* be the guy that the
tower had told to "head toward the tower" and that the controllers surely
knew where he was, and that he/they knew what they were doing.

Wrong.

As we were on short final the guy passed above us, and out of sight. I was
now getting pretty uncomfortable, being unable to see him, but I was
confident that we weren't in any danger of collision -- he'd have had to be
a Harrier to land on top of us from that position. Mary was busy fighting
the wind, and I didn't want to interrupt her battle with bitching about this
doofus, but I sure was wondering what the heck the guy was doing
above/behind and now to our left. Besides, the controller surely knew
where he was, right?

Wrong.

Suddenly the controller spotted the transgressor, and started a rapid-fire
interrogation of the guy, asking him what he was doing and where he was
going. The guy responded that he was told to "fly to the tower" -- so he
did! He had missed the second half of the controller's instruction, and
was apparently going to be content doing 360 degree turns over the tower, or
something, awaiting further instructions? More likely he had no idea what
to do when he got over the tower, but couldn't get a word in edgewise for
further instructions...

Needless to say, the controller laid into the guy, at one point stating "I
assume you are a student pilot?" (to which the guy actually answered "No.").
He continued talking to him until we shut down to go into the FBO, so I
don't know if he had to go "visit the tower" or not.

This type of thing has happened to us so many times in Class D airspace,
it's just not funny anymore. There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance with the
parallax caused by trying to judge distance from the ground. In my opinion,
we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace, because
at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be flying
opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.
Also, everyone would be more on their toes, without the false security
blanket of being in "controlled" airspace.

IMHO, the FAA should either:

1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really are:
Semi-Controlled.

We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Copy this text onto a NASA Form 277 and ship it off to the ASRS for
action. If you don't complaint to the right people, nothing gets done!

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D (so-called)
> "controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
> tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
> ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.
>
> Yesterday we once again had the misfortune of flying into Class D, when we
> flew to Dubuque (DBQ) for breakfast -- and again witnessed a potentially
> dangerous situation.
>
> The University of Dubuque has their flight school there, which means
> high-density student traffic in the pattern. There are also four regular
> airline flights into/out of DBQ every day. Add to this the occasional $100
> hamburger flight and corporate charters, and you've got an airport which
> can, on occasion, rival Chicago for business.
>
> Yesterday was one of those days. After several days of crap, the skies
> cleared and the wind, while gusting to 23 knots, was right down Rwy 18. As
> a result the pattern was full of students and people like us, enjoying the
> day.
>
> As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
> we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a left
> downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is hard to
> spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous targets in
> the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had his hands
> full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.
>
> After extending our downwind quite a ways, we finally spotted the 182 we
> were to follow. As Mary was turning right base, we heard the controller
> tell an older guy in a different 182 "Okay, that's not going to work. Fly
> directly toward the tower now and re-enter the right downwind for 18..."
>
> By now we were turning base to final, with Mary fighting the burbles and
> updrafts caused by the 20+ knot wind. Out of the corner of my eye I spotted
> a Cessna angling toward us from high and to the right, in what seemed like a
> very awkward position, given the traffic density in the pattern. He was in
> a shallow bank to the right, but, as long as he didn't descend, we would
> pass under him as we turned final, so I didn't mention him to Mary.
>
> As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
> window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
> out of position. My thoughts were that this *must* be the guy that the
> tower had told to "head toward the tower" and that the controllers surely
> knew where he was, and that he/they knew what they were doing.
>
> Wrong.
>
> As we were on short final the guy passed above us, and out of sight. I was
> now getting pretty uncomfortable, being unable to see him, but I was
> confident that we weren't in any danger of collision -- he'd have had to be
> a Harrier to land on top of us from that position. Mary was busy fighting
> the wind, and I didn't want to interrupt her battle with bitching about this
> doofus, but I sure was wondering what the heck the guy was doing
> above/behind and now to our left. Besides, the controller surely knew
> where he was, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Suddenly the controller spotted the transgressor, and started a rapid-fire
> interrogation of the guy, asking him what he was doing and where he was
> going. The guy responded that he was told to "fly to the tower" -- so he
> did! He had missed the second half of the controller's instruction, and
> was apparently going to be content doing 360 degree turns over the tower, or
> something, awaiting further instructions? More likely he had no idea what
> to do when he got over the tower, but couldn't get a word in edgewise for
> further instructions...
>
> Needless to say, the controller laid into the guy, at one point stating "I
> assume you are a student pilot?" (to which the guy actually answered "No.").
> He continued talking to him until we shut down to go into the FBO, so I
> don't know if he had to go "visit the tower" or not.
>
> This type of thing has happened to us so many times in Class D airspace,
> it's just not funny anymore. There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
> can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance with the
> parallax caused by trying to judge distance from the ground. In my opinion,
> we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace, because
> at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be flying
> opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.
> Also, everyone would be more on their toes, without the false security
> blanket of being in "controlled" airspace.
>
> IMHO, the FAA should either:
>
> 1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
> 2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
> 3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
> 4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really are:
> Semi-Controlled.
>
> We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
> are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
> absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.

> In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
> tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
> ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time.

Jay, as has been pointed out here before, class D controllers do not
control air traffic. They control ground traffic, and sequence air
traffic to the ground. While in the air, see and avoid remains fully
in force. It is thinking that they "control" air traffic that leads
to relaxed vigilance, and bent aluminum.

The events you describe are not unique to class D. There are yoyos at
uncontrolled airports too.

> There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
> can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance

Exactly right. But that's not their job (though it really helps their
job!)

> In my opinion,
> we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace, because
> at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be flying
> opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.

Wrong.

They just wouldn't be =told= to. But given the same number of
airplanes, splitting them into left and right traffic spreads them out
in the air. Were they all in the same pattern, they'd be tighter. I
see nothing =inherently= wrong with split patterns in class D.

> IMHO, the FAA should either:
>
> 1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
> 2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
> 3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
> 4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really are:
> Semi-Controlled.

This is not a job for the FAA. It's a job for pilots. They MUST
become comfortable in class D when operating there, and they MUST
become comfortable at uncontrolled airports when operating there.

As for your (4), changing the terminology will =not= enhance safety.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't help a horse to walk.

> We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
> are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
> absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.

Agreed. But I'd reccomend as a solution that pilots practice more in
environments with which they are unfamiliar. I fly class D all the
time (I'm in the northeast) and have not found them to be more or less
safe than uncontrolled (or as they like to say now, "nontowered")
airports. But all pilots need to pay attention to the transparant
high resolution datascreen that surrounds the airplane, rather than
rely on a headset. :)

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:03:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D (so-called)
>"controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
>tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
>ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.

Jay - it might be time to buy a TCAD or at least a Mode S-TIS equipped
transponder :-)

-Nathan

Jose wrote:

> This is not a job for the FAA. It's a job for pilots.

Indeed.

Put the same amount/mix of traffic at an untowered airport. Would it be
better or worse?

My club moved from TEB to CDW about the time I joined. TEB gets relatively
little student/pattern traffic (as it charges a landing fee), and the tower
has real RADAR. CDW gets a *lot* of student/pattern traffic, and the
"RADAR" is incredibly primitive (for one: no codes, just VFR vs. IFR; for
two: blind spots in the traffic pattern).

Many of the club members have indicated a strong dislike for the chaotic
nature of CDW. They're certainly right that the place is busier, and with
a greater number of inexperienced pilots, than TEB. But with a good
controller in the tower, it's still better than an untowered airport for
"sanity".

However, put a bad controller in place and it gets *much* worse *very*
quickly. There's nothing particular about a class D that causes a
controller to waste precious airtime...period.

Even w/o the stupidity of wasting airtime, controller skill makes a major
difference (and is probably the paramount variable by far). I was in the
pattern with about six or eight other planes one day, with others coming in
and leaving. A normal weekend day at CDW. It became a mess, as the
controller lost track of who was where.

A new controller took over, and in minutes the same planes were in a well
oiled dance (to mix metaphors {8^). That's with the same crappy RADAR and
the same mix of traffic.

- Andrew

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:uCnwd.511240$wV.477723@attbi_s54...
> Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D
(so-called)
> "controlled" airspace.

Actually, too many Class D tower operators spend way to much time staring at
the radar repeater, if they have one, and not enough time looking out the
window with binoculars. It is like pilots who stare at the instruments and
don't look out the windows.

Class D may be controlled airspace, but that does not relieve you of the
responsibility to see and avoid. Even class B or A airspace does not relieve
you of that responsibility.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Jay, as has been pointed out here before, class D controllers do not
> control air traffic.

The FARs say that class D is controlled airspace. They also say that you
have to obey ATC instructions. What are the tower controllers controlling
there if not air traffic? Ground controllers control ground traffic. They
are sometimes the same person as the tower controller, sometimes they are
not.

Class D towers do a lot more than sequencing. They can also keep you out of
their airspace, issue instructions to aircraft within their airspace and
expect to be obeyed (or know the reason why not) and so forth. They will
also issue advisories of other traffic and they will control the traffic
pattern.

Hi Jay,

I have flown into Dubuque a few times so I'm familiar with the area. I have
also more frequently fly in and out of much busier Class D airspaces than
Dubuque, most all of which have traffic simultaneously on left and right
down winds. I have no problem with this. Although I have had my share of
run arounds with incompetent controllers, over all I appreciate their
efforts and believe they provide a professional and needed service.

I'm sure you've already seen all the "see and avoid is your responsibility,
not the controllers" etc etc... I was not there so I am not condemning your
actions, but would like to inject a couple of things for thought.

For example, did you notify the controller that you 'had the traffic
insight" and if you thought he was in the 'wrong' position in the pattern,
did you relay your concerns to the controller?

You stated,

<<As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
<<window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
<<out of position.

Assuming there is no immediate danger and if you've already called the
traffic in sight without a satisfactory response from ATC, this seems the
perfect opportunity to say something such as, "Confirming Nxxxx cleared for
landing"? giving the controller the opportunity to check and possibly see
the other aircraft.

If you don't get the response expected, you might say something such as, "Ok
just checking because it appears there's another aircraft on final just
above us."

I'm not trying to tell you how to talk on the radio, just giving you ideas
of possibilities to think about in unusual situations.

Most important is that if we at all perceive a situation to be dangerous, it
is incumbent upon us as pilots to pass our concerns on to the appropriate
personal, whether it's ATC or another pilot in the area.

We are all responsible for proper safety and communication it every bit as
important as "see and avoid".

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

I have flown in different "D" airspaces. The ones that I'm most
comfortable with are ones that have their own radar and approach
control (MFD is one). Youngstown is a TRSA. I also don't have a problem
with OSU since they lie under a "C".

"D" airports that do not have their own radar and are trying to control
things are scary to me. The FAA set up the "D" environment for some
reason. And if there is a lot of traffic, they need RADAR (my opinion).

For any one who has been in MD, I find it very interesting that HGR has
a tower and FDK doesn't (Hagerstown v. Frederick) yet it has more
traffic.

I've had more near misses at HGR than any other airport. Is this a
controller problem or is this a lack of equipment problem. One example
was a controller turned an airplane into me rather than telling them to
follow me as #2 for landing. Another example was an IFR biz jet that
was doing a VOR 9 approach while I was cleared for landing (RWY 9) and
about to turn final (I had to firewall the throttle and climb hard to
keep from becoming a hood ornament). In the latter case, HGR tower
didn't know the biz jet was doing the approach (seems someone forgot to
tell them).

So I can appreciate your comments. And as I've said to others, an ASRS
needs to be filed when things like this happen. Wheels that don't
squeak don't get greased.

Later,
Steve.T

> I have flown into Dubuque a few times so I'm familiar with the area. I
> have
> also more frequently fly in and out of much busier Class D airspaces than
> Dubuque, most all of which have traffic simultaneously on left and right
> down winds. I have no problem with this.

I doubt you have flown into an environment that was busier than that segment
of time that Mary and I hit Dubuque.

I've flown into Oshkosh and Sun N Fun numerous times -- arguably the busiest
airspace in the world -- and not seen (and heard) more people landing than
we did in Dubuque. It was just a fluke thing, with many students, many
simultaneous arrivals, and one doofus pilot all arriving in DBQ at once.

Twenty minutes later, eating breakfast, we saw nary a plane landing.

> I'm sure you've already seen all the "see and avoid is your
> responsibility,
> not the controllers" etc etc... I was not there so I am not condemning
> your
> actions, but... <snip>

Not to pick on you, PJ, but I always have to laugh at the folks on the
newsgroups who immediately swing the old "it's your responsibility to see
and avoid" bat whenever I (or anyone else, for that matter) brings up
problems with controlled airspace. NO ONE is arguing that it is not our
responsibility to see and avoid. NO ONE is advocating any other rule, and
NO ONE is abdicating that responsibility. This point of this thread is an
entirely separate issue, and ONLY pertains to my perceptions of the
weaknesses of the FAA's concept of Class D airspace.

> For example, did you notify the controller that you 'had the traffic
> insight" and if you thought he was in the 'wrong' position in the pattern,
> did you relay your concerns to the controller?

IMHO it would be inappropriate to call out "traffic in sight" to a
controller who (a) had not called out traffic to me specifically, and (b)
was rattling off instructions a mile a minute to half a dozen other planes.
Trust me, if the airwaves had been silent, Mary would have been asking ATC
what the heck that guy was doing.

> We are all responsible for proper safety and communication it every bit as
> important as "see and avoid".

Agreed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote in news:1103251889.160802.229680
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

<snip>
> I've had more near misses at HGR than any other airport. Is this a
> controller problem or is this a lack of equipment problem. One example
> was a controller turned an airplane into me rather than telling them to
> follow me as #2 for landing. Another example was an IFR biz jet that
> was doing a VOR 9 approach while I was cleared for landing (RWY 9) and
> about to turn final (I had to firewall the throttle and climb hard to
> keep from becoming a hood ornament). In the latter case, HGR tower
> didn't know the biz jet was doing the approach (seems someone forgot to
> tell them).

If the biz Jet was not talking to tower, he couldn't have been cleared to
land on the runway... If he wasn't talking to approach either, he was not
maintaining two-way radio communication with ATC while in the Class D
Airspace, which is illegal.

So the example, I suspect, is one of someone who didn't follow the rules for
some reason. In that scenario, the competence of the controller or the
equipment is barely relevant. The same situation could have happened (and is
more likely) at a non-towered airport - someone shooting IFR practice
approachs pops up on final and never announces his position on the radio. If
you happen to see him, great. If you don't, at least at a towered airport you
have a guy with a pair of binoculars helping to watch your back.

> Jay, as has been pointed out here before, class D controllers do not
> control air traffic. They control ground traffic, and sequence air
> traffic to the ground.

I think you'd get a pretty stiff argument from the Dubuque controllers on
this issue. They seem to firmly believe that they are "controlling" traffic
inside their airspace -- while it is Mary and me who are arguing otherwise.

> While in the air, see and avoid remains fully in force.

See and avoid remains fully in force in ALL classes of airspace, regardless
of radar control.

> The events you describe are not unique to class D. There are yoyos at
> uncontrolled airports too.

True. But at least we're all expecting the same thing from each other,
rather than having a binocular-equipped controller trying to send us in
different directions. Personally, I'll trust the other guy in the pattern
to do the right thing -- most of the time -- whereas almost every time I fly
into busy non-radar Class D airspace, I witness something stupid and/or
borderline dangerous.

> They just wouldn't be =told= to. But given the same number of airplanes,
> splitting them into left and right traffic spreads them out in the air.
> Were they all in the same pattern, they'd be tighter. I see nothing
> =inherently= wrong with split patterns in class D.

What makes them wrong in non-radar Class D airspace is the fact that the
controller is still relying on each of us seeing each other for proper
spacing. Since he's directed half the traffic to fly an opposing pattern,
spotting the correct plane in the sky is problematic. Turning your base leg
in too soon and following the wrong plane is a real possibility.

> This is not a job for the FAA. It's a job for pilots. They MUST become
> comfortable in class D when operating there, and they MUST become
> comfortable at uncontrolled airports when operating there.

That's my point. After ten years and 1400 hours, we're far more comfortable
flying into busy non-controlled airspace than we are flying into so-called
controlled Class D airspace. That is a clear indication that Class D is not
working properly. (Class B and C, in contrast, are almost absurdly simple
and fool-proof. I feel far more comfortable flying into Albuquerque, NM,
Milwaukee, WI, or Birmingham, AL than I do flying into Dubuque.)

> As for your (4), changing the terminology will =not= enhance safety.
> Calling a tail a leg doesn't help a horse to walk.

Perhaps not -- but at least the terminology would be accurate. Class D is
NOT controlled by any stretch of the imagination.

> Agreed. But I'd reccomend as a solution that pilots practice more in
> environments with which they are unfamiliar. I fly class D all the time
> (I'm in the northeast) and have not found them to be more or less safe
> than uncontrolled (or as they like to say now, "nontowered") airports.

Well, I fly into Class D -- usually Janesville, WI (JVL ) or Dubuque (DBQ)
maybe once a month, and have done so for ten years. When the airspace is
dead (as it usually is at a Class D tower), everything works fine --
although certainly no better than in "non-towered" airspace.

It's only when traffic picks up that things can get hairy -- which is truly
absurd when you consider that there wouldn't even BE a reason for a tower
except for those busy times.

> But all pilots need to pay attention to the transparant high resolution
> datascreen that surrounds the airplane, rather than rely on a headset. :)

On this we all agree!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article <uCnwd.511240$wV.477723@attbi_s54>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D (so-called)
>"controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
>tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
>ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.

The right controllers make all the difference. I wonder if part
of your local issue is that there is alot of uncontrolled airspace,
so pilots are not as practiced dealing with controlled airspace.

I fly in the Bay Area, so we have lots of controlled airspace (B,
C, D). I fly out of Palo Alto (PAO, Class D, one 2500ft runway).
I often fly into Livermore (LVK, Class D, two runways, 5200ft and
2600ft).

I've been #12 in the pattern at Palo Alto, and other then a five
mile final, it was smooth sailing. I've been #3 in the pattern at
Livermore and the tower has lost track of which plane was which
and given conflicting instructions. Even though Palo Alto is much
busier, I worry more about flying into Livermore. The guys in SFO
tower have it easy. Norcal Approach does all the hard stuff for
them. Most of the time, the SFO tower guys sound bored. One time,
they asked a departing FedEx DC-10 to make an early turn after
departure, since they wanted to take some pictures. It was just
before sunset, and the light was perfect, unfortunately, I didn't
have my camera with me. My view from 1500ft over SFO would have
made a great photo.

>As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
>we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a left
>downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is hard to
>spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous targets in
>the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had his hands
>full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.

Palo Alto runs left and right patterns pretty much continually.
If the tower is keeping track of where the traffic it, it should
be easy to spot the traffic on the opposite downwind.

A typical call is "N12345, #4, cleared to land, traffic you are
following is the Cessna on left downwind abeam the tower". That
makes it really easy to spot the traffic.

I think when the pattern is busy, and there is more traffic inbound,
extending the pattern is safer and easier then having planes doing
360s. By the time one plane does a 360, the next plane in the
pattern will have caught up, so then that one has to do a 360, etc.

Having planes fly a longer pattern keeps the pattern flowing better,
IMHO. That way, new planes arriving in the pattern just go to the
end of the line, and the tower doesn't have to try and coordinate
having every other plane doing 360s.

One nice feature at PAO is that when you turn base at five miles
out, you are over two 8000ft runways (Moffett Field NUQ), so even
on a five mile final, you are mostly within gliding range of a
runway.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

> The FARs say that class D is controlled airspace. They also say that you
> have to obey ATC instructions. What are the tower controllers controlling
> there if not air traffic?

They are not controlling air traffic in the sense of taking
responsibility for separation (which they do in IFR for example, and
perhaps in positive control areas - a controller will certainly jump
in and clarify)

That they can keep you out is true, but not relevant to my point (of
it being primarily a pilot's responsibility to see and avoid)

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > The FARs say that class D is controlled airspace. They also say that you
> > have to obey ATC instructions. What are the tower controllers
controlling
> > there if not air traffic?
>
> They are not controlling air traffic in the sense of taking
> responsibility for separation (which they do in IFR for example, and
> perhaps in positive control areas - a controller will certainly jump
> in and clarify)
>

I want to put to rest once and for all the idea that class D controllers do
not control air traffic, however. They do. They issue vectors, departure and
arrival instructions for both VFR and IFR traffic, and routing instructions
through their airspace for both VFR and IFR traffic. They also make an
attempt to maintain separation and controllers who fail that responsibility
have been found at least partially at fault in NTSB reports.

I agree with you that separation is primarily the pilot's responsibility,
but this is not a peculiarity of class D. It is true no matter what airspace
you are in.

Jay... Class D is only responsible to separate traffic ON THE RUNWAY.. not
in the air.. their attempts in the air is to try and sequence the traffic so
they have separation ON THE RUNWAY.

Many people forget that.. to include Tower Controllers... as evidenced by
the JetProp and Piper Arrow that met at the runway intersection, one
landing, one taking off, at VGT last year.

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:uCnwd.511240$wV.477723@attbi_s54...
> Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D
> (so-called) "controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing
> in a control tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at
> best, a ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.
>
> Yesterday we once again had the misfortune of flying into Class D, when we
> flew to Dubuque (DBQ) for breakfast -- and again witnessed a potentially
> dangerous situation.
>
> The University of Dubuque has their flight school there, which means
> high-density student traffic in the pattern. There are also four regular
> airline flights into/out of DBQ every day. Add to this the occasional
> $100 hamburger flight and corporate charters, and you've got an airport
> which can, on occasion, rival Chicago for business.
>
> Yesterday was one of those days. After several days of crap, the skies
> cleared and the wind, while gusting to 23 knots, was right down Rwy 18.
> As a result the pattern was full of students and people like us, enjoying
> the day.
>
> As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
> we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a
> left downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is
> hard to spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous
> targets in the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had
> his hands full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.
>
> After extending our downwind quite a ways, we finally spotted the 182 we
> were to follow. As Mary was turning right base, we heard the controller
> tell an older guy in a different 182 "Okay, that's not going to work. Fly
> directly toward the tower now and re-enter the right downwind for 18..."
>
> By now we were turning base to final, with Mary fighting the burbles and
> updrafts caused by the 20+ knot wind. Out of the corner of my eye I
> spotted a Cessna angling toward us from high and to the right, in what
> seemed like a very awkward position, given the traffic density in the
> pattern. He was in a shallow bank to the right, but, as long as he didn't
> descend, we would pass under him as we turned final, so I didn't mention
> him to Mary.
>
> As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
> window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
> out of position. My thoughts were that this *must* be the guy that the
> tower had told to "head toward the tower" and that the controllers surely
> knew where he was, and that he/they knew what they were doing.
>
> Wrong.
>
> As we were on short final the guy passed above us, and out of sight. I
> was now getting pretty uncomfortable, being unable to see him, but I was
> confident that we weren't in any danger of collision -- he'd have had to
> be a Harrier to land on top of us from that position. Mary was busy
> fighting the wind, and I didn't want to interrupt her battle with bitching
> about this doofus, but I sure was wondering what the heck the guy was
> doing above/behind and now to our left. Besides, the controller surely
> knew where he was, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Suddenly the controller spotted the transgressor, and started a rapid-fire
> interrogation of the guy, asking him what he was doing and where he was
> going. The guy responded that he was told to "fly to the tower" -- so he
> did! He had missed the second half of the controller's instruction, and
> was apparently going to be content doing 360 degree turns over the tower,
> or something, awaiting further instructions? More likely he had no idea
> what to do when he got over the tower, but couldn't get a word in edgewise
> for further instructions...
>
> Needless to say, the controller laid into the guy, at one point stating "I
> assume you are a student pilot?" (to which the guy actually answered
> "No."). He continued talking to him until we shut down to go into the FBO,
> so I don't know if he had to go "visit the tower" or not.
>
> This type of thing has happened to us so many times in Class D airspace,
> it's just not funny anymore. There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
> can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance with the
> parallax caused by trying to judge distance from the ground. In my
> opinion, we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled
> airspace, because at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no
> one would be flying opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic
> patterns simultaneously. Also, everyone would be more on their toes,
> without the false security blanket of being in "controlled" airspace.
>
> IMHO, the FAA should either:
>
> 1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
> 2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
> 3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
> 4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really are:
> Semi-Controlled.
>
> We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than
> we are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is
> just an absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this
> way.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

> I want to put to rest once and for all the idea that class D controllers
> do
> not control air traffic, however. They do. They issue vectors, departure
> and
> arrival instructions for both VFR and IFR traffic, and routing
> instructions
> through their airspace for both VFR and IFR traffic. They also make an
> attempt to maintain separation and controllers who fail that
> responsibility
> have been found at least partially at fault in NTSB reports.
>
> I agree with you that separation is primarily the pilot's responsibility,
> but this is not a peculiarity of class D. It is true no matter what
> airspace
> you are in.

Last I remember, a CLASS D tower is a VFR tower.. they can only handle 1 IFR
aircraft at a time, and then it is on a relayed clearance from an IFR
facility, they cannot issue or change an IFR clearance without permission
from the IFR controlling facility.

A VFR tower cannot issue a "radar vector", they can provide recommended
headings to fly.

But then again, it's been more than a few years since I was on the other
side of the headset, sitting at the radar scope.

BT

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:Q1vwd.31798$Ae.18996@fed1read05...
>
> Last I remember, a CLASS D tower is a VFR tower..

Not necessarily.


>
> they can only handle 1 IFR aircraft at a time, and then it is on a relayed
> clearance from an IFR facility, they cannot issue or change an IFR
> clearance without permission from the IFR controlling facility.
>

That's all true for VFR towers except for the part about handling only one
IFR aircraft at a time.


>
> But then again, it's been more than a few years since I was on the other
> side of the headset, sitting at the radar scope.
>

Apparently.

> I doubt you have flown into an environment that was busier than that
segment
> of time that Mary and I hit Dubuque.

Jay, don't be so sure. I fly as many hours in a year that you've flown in
ten, based on one of your post to another reader.

As I said previously, I was not there and I am in no way judging your
actions or implying that you did anything wrong.

I was only attempting to suggest possible options for people to consider
when things do not go as we might expect. For all I know you may well have
considered these as well as others.

Next time I get over to that side of the world I'll stop by the Alexis Park
Inn and introduce myself.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hhtwd.207711$V41.132095@attbi_s52...
> > I have flown into Dubuque a few times so I'm familiar with the area. I
> > have
> > also more frequently fly in and out of much busier Class D airspaces
than
> > Dubuque, most all of which have traffic simultaneously on left and right
> > down winds. I have no problem with this.
>
..
>
> I've flown into Oshkosh and Sun N Fun numerous times -- arguably the
busiest
> airspace in the world -- and not seen (and heard) more people landing than
> we did in Dubuque. It was just a fluke thing, with many students, many
> simultaneous arrivals, and one doofus pilot all arriving in DBQ at once.
>
> Twenty minutes later, eating breakfast, we saw nary a plane landing.
>
> > I'm sure you've already seen all the "see and avoid is your
> > responsibility,
> > not the controllers" etc etc... I was not there so I am not condemning
> > your
> > actions, but... <snip>
>
> Not to pick on you, PJ, but I always have to laugh at the folks on the
> newsgroups who immediately swing the old "it's your responsibility to see
> and avoid" bat whenever I (or anyone else, for that matter) brings up
> problems with controlled airspace. NO ONE is arguing that it is not our
> responsibility to see and avoid. NO ONE is advocating any other rule, and
> NO ONE is abdicating that responsibility. This point of this thread is an
> entirely separate issue, and ONLY pertains to my perceptions of the
> weaknesses of the FAA's concept of Class D airspace.
>
> > For example, did you notify the controller that you 'had the traffic
> > insight" and if you thought he was in the 'wrong' position in the
pattern,
> > did you relay your concerns to the controller?
>
> IMHO it would be inappropriate to call out "traffic in sight" to a
> controller who (a) had not called out traffic to me specifically, and (b)
> was rattling off instructions a mile a minute to half a dozen other
planes.
> Trust me, if the airwaves had been silent, Mary would have been asking ATC
> what the heck that guy was doing.
>
> > We are all responsible for proper safety and communication it every bit
as
> > important as "see and avoid".
>
> Agreed.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

This is so true. At a busy Class D around here, they must have been
training a new controller as I didn't recognize the voice. Traffic was a
disaster, extending down winds for miles and miles, holding, nobody getting
off of the ground and the run-up area stacked. Then ah, that beautiful
friendly voice. Planes started getting in and out with incredible ease and
things were clearing up very quickly. I so badly wanted to say, "Student
Controller, eh?" but figured we hate hearing that pointed our way.


> Even w/o the stupidity of wasting airtime, controller skill makes a major
> difference (and is probably the paramount variable by far). I was in the
> pattern with about six or eight other planes one day, with others coming
in
> and leaving. A normal weekend day at CDW. It became a mess, as the
> controller lost track of who was where.
>
> A new controller took over, and in minutes the same planes were in a well
> oiled dance (to mix metaphors {8^). That's with the same crappy RADAR and
> the same mix of traffic.

> > But then again, it's been more than a few years since I was on the other
> > side of the headset, sitting at the radar scope.
> >
>
> Apparently.

*Was that necessary?*

> After ten years and 1400 hours, we're far more comfortable
>flying into busy non-controlled airspace than we are flying into so-called
>controlled Class D airspace. That is a clear indication that Class D is not
>working properly.

After 15 years and 5700 hours, Class D has worked for me.
I think it just might be a mixture of crappy pilots (Not saying you are one:)),
crappy controllers and bad timing.
I have seen both at various airports with Class D all over the country.

When I fly VFR into Class D (or any airspace, for that matter), I usually take
the controllers word as advice. I usually follow it because there is usually a
good reason to, but sometimes...ya just never know.

The key to it is realize the system isn't perfect and do not expect perfection.
Just gotta keep your head on swivel and your SA up.




-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Jay Honeck wrote:

> entirely separate issue, and ONLY pertains to my perceptions of the
> weaknesses of the FAA's concept of Class D airspace.

Unless I'm missing some USA specifics (if so, please correct me):
Class D airspace is not an FAA concept but rather an ICAO definition. It
seems to me that you should sit down and re-read the airspace
definitions. Class D: *No* separation provided for VFR flights.

Stefan

>> I doubt you have flown into an environment that was busier than that
> segment
>> of time that Mary and I hit Dubuque.
>
> Jay, don't be so sure. I fly as many hours in a year that you've flown in
> ten, based on one of your post to another reader.

You fly 900+ hours per year?

> As I said previously, I was not there and I am in no way judging your
> actions or implying that you did anything wrong.

I know.

> Next time I get over to that side of the world I'll stop by the Alexis
> Park
> Inn and introduce myself.

We'll keep the beacon on for ya!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Unless I'm missing some USA specifics (if so, please correct me):
> Class D airspace is not an FAA concept but rather an ICAO definition. It
> seems to me that you should sit down and re-read the airspace definitions.
> Class D: *No* separation provided for VFR flights.

Right -- there is no separation provided in Class D. And no one should
expect the controller to maintain separation.

This is precisely my point, which may be summed up thusly: Class D is
"pretend" controlled airspace. It should be regarded as "Barely
controlled" or "Semi-controlled"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fPAwd.586096$D%.508731@attbi_s51...
> Right -- there is no separation provided in Class D. And no one should
> expect the controller to maintain separation.
>
> This is precisely my point, which may be summed up thusly: Class D is
> "pretend" controlled airspace. It should be regarded as "Barely
> controlled" or "Semi-controlled"...

How about "Out of Control"?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

>> This is precisely my point, which may be summed up thusly: Class D is
>> "pretend" controlled airspace. It should be regarded as "Barely
>> controlled" or "Semi-controlled"...
>
> How about "Out of Control"?

Better, yet...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> That's my point. After ten years and 1400 hours, we're far more
comfortable
> flying into busy non-controlled airspace than we are flying into so-called
> controlled Class D airspace. That is a clear indication that Class D is
not
> working properly.

My Class D airport works great and would be less safe without the tower, IMO.
It gets extremely busy at times with a mix of industrial helicopters,
military training, freighter heavies and GA jets and props. It has an FAA
tower with contract controllers; a veteran crew with solid techniques for
handling the peculiarities of the local traffic and airspace. I'd hate to
see the tower closed, as its controllers have always been better at calling
traffic than the local TRACON folks. Now that they finally have DBRITE
they've gotten even better. We kid them that it's taken all the fun out of
their jobs because we can't sneak up on them anymore.

> When the airspace is
> dead (as it usually is at a Class D tower), everything works fine --
> although certainly no better than in "non-towered" airspace.
>
> It's only when traffic picks up that things can get hairy -- which is truly
> absurd when you consider that there wouldn't even BE a reason for a tower
> except for those busy times.

I have negligible experience at other Class Ds, but my experience where I'm
based has been just the opposite.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:11 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Unless I'm missing some USA specifics (if so, please correct me):
>> Class D airspace is not an FAA concept but rather an ICAO definition. It
>> seems to me that you should sit down and re-read the airspace definitions.
>> Class D: *No* separation provided for VFR flights.
>
>Right -- there is no separation provided in Class D. And no one should
>expect the controller to maintain separation.
>
>This is precisely my point, which may be summed up thusly: Class D is
>"pretend" controlled airspace. It should be regarded as "Barely
>controlled" or "Semi-controlled"...

My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
is (and is not) being provided. I have experienced a number of
problems at Class D airports (one in particular) in my short flying
career. I blame those problems on both controller error and pilot
error. I have been told to position and hold and then listened to the
controller clear someone to land on top of me twice. I have also seen
and heard pilots who were unable to accurate convey their position to
the controllers or were doing something contrary to what they reported
to the controller. My unscientific observation is that neither side
is improving much. I am at my highest risk alert level when flying in
D.
Rich Russell

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:Q1vwd.31798$Ae.18996@fed1read05...
>
> A VFR tower cannot issue a "radar vector", they can provide recommended
> headings to fly.
>

I said "vector" and "departure instructions," not "radar vector." If the
tower tells you to depart on left downwind it is not a "recommendation," it
is an ATC instruction that you are obligated to follow under 91.123(b). Some
class D towers have upgraded radar and they do issue radar vectors, by the
way.

I'll chime in on this with a slight tangent...

My airport - HYX / Saginaw Mi - is an uncontrolled field with a 5,000
foot runway, VOR-A approach, GPS approach, NDB approach, and the brand
spanking new ILS is to be turned on 'any day now'...

This oughta get good once the jets (and mucho others) start shooting
ILS into the field and don't understand that local traffic does N O T
listen to ATC - especially the nordo guys... Plus, students will often
be shooting crosswind circuits and bangs for practice (3 flight
schools on field) - and me too, slow learner...
And worse, on nice days the jumpers talk to ATC up until 2 minutes
before jumping when their s**t head pilot makes a single announcement
on a really busy 122.8... Someday there's gonna be a happening due to
that... Meat bombs at 120 mph straight down from 12,000 feet into a
busy airport pattern... (arghh)
Actually, a jumper hit a hangar in November breaking his leg and
denting the hangar, (it used to be my hangar) but I guess you can't
blame that on the radios...
A Class D would actually be an improvement...

Denny

Jay Honeck wrote:

> This is precisely my point, which may be summed up thusly: Class D is
> "pretend" controlled airspace. It should be regarded as "Barely
> controlled" or "Semi-controlled"...

Perhaps you've not a problem with the airspace, but with the term
"controlled". After all, class E airspace is "controlled" too; see the AIM
(section 2 defines "controlled airspace", if memory serves). But (I hope!)
nobody expects VFR separation there.

- Andrew

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fPAwd.586096$D%.508731@attbi_s51...
>
> Right -- there is no separation provided in Class D. And no one should
> expect the controller to maintain separation.
>

So it appears the problem is pilot's understanding of Class D airspace.


>
> This is precisely my point, which may be summed up thusly: Class D is
> "pretend" controlled airspace. It should be regarded as "Barely
> controlled" or "Semi-controlled"...
>

Controlled airspace means an airspace of defined dimensions within which air
traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in
accordance with the airspace classification. Let's call Class D airspace
what it is - controlled airspace.

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
>
> My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
> inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
> is (and is not) being provided. I have experienced a number of
> problems at Class D airports (one in particular) in my short flying
> career. I blame those problems on both controller error and pilot
> error. I have been told to position and hold and then listened to the
> controller clear someone to land on top of me twice.
>

Cleared someone to land on top of you? How do you know that? A landing
clearance can be issued with aircraft on the runway. The landing aircraft
may have been miles away.

>My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
>inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
>is (and is not) being provided.

This would be because pilots, like all other people, have this idea
that authority and responsibility go together. In other words, if the
controller has the authority to tell you how to fly your pattern, when
to turn, etc - then the responsibility for separation in the air should
also be his. Well, it doesn't work that way. THAT is the primary
weakness of Class D airspace, and it can't be fixed unless you either
make the controller responsible for separation (meaning that unless the
pilot disregarded the controller's instructions, it's controller error,
not pilot error, in the event of a mid-air or near miss) or you give
the pilot the authority to disregard the controller's instructions at
will, not just in the event of an emergency (thus making the airspace
uncontrolled). But while this is an issue in theory, in practice it's
usually not an issue.

In reality, at most Class D's most controllers treat separation as if
it were their responsibility. That means they issue clear and
comprehensible instructions and ask for a readback of the key points,
just as if they were issuing clearances. When that happens, pilots
treat the instructions as if they were clearances - meaning they
question those they don't understand, read back those they do, and
comply - and things work OK - a little better than they would if the
airspace was uncontrolled. Sometimes you get a bad or overloaded
controller, and then things are MUCH worse than they would be if the
airspace was uncontrolled. That's when you get the problems.

I will be the first to admit that I will let a situation that looks
ugly develop a lot further in Class D than I will in Class E or G. I
Class E/G, I know there's nobody looking out for me but me, and if I
don't have a plan nobody does. So when I see things not going to plan
(someone too close for comfort) I take action immediately. Not so in
Class D. Unless the controller has given me reason to doubt his
competence (by doing things like issuing nonsensical or illegal
instructions, chewing out pilots on the frequency rather than calmly
giving them a number to call, and generally acting like he lost SA) I'm
going to assume he has a plan, and I'm going to stick with his plan
until there's just no way. I think most pilots would too. I guess
this is what you call inappropriate comfort level. You are of course
entitled to your opinion, but I don't consider it inappropriate given
the way Class D normally operates. Given the legalities, you have a
point.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> This would be because pilots, like all other people, have this idea
> that authority and responsibility go together.
>

Actually, there are quite a few people that don't understand that.

> Dubuque controllers seem to firmly believe that they are
> "controlling" traffic inside their airspace

Do they accept responsibility for separation?

> But at least [uncontrolled] we're all expecting the same thing from each other,
> rather than having a binocular-equipped controller trying to send us in
> different directions.

I seem to remember you having diatribes against pilots who don't "fly
the pattern" at uncontrolled airports too. Controllers have more than
binoculars - they have pencil and paper, and minds. They don't just
"send you in different directions" (though I had one at EMT that sent
me almost all around the airport to approach from the other side).
They do so with a purpose. Sometimes, like anybody, they make errors.

> almost every time I fly
> into busy non-radar Class D airspace, I witness something stupid and/or
> borderline dangerous.

Either you fly in wild places, or you have a different threshold of
"stupid/dangerous".

> What makes [split patterns] wrong in non-radar Class D airspace is the fact that the
> controller is still relying on each of us seeing each other for proper
> spacing. Since he's directed half the traffic to fly an opposing pattern,
> spotting the correct plane in the sky is problematic.

That has never been a problem with me. I have just as much difficulty
finding traffic in my pattern as in the opposite one. Sometimes the
opposite pattern is easier to spot. And in any case, when they say
"you're number 4" I look for three airplanes. When they say "You're
number 24" I'm glad we have a controller helping out.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> This is precisely my point, which may be summed up thusly: Class D is
> "pretend" controlled airspace. It should be regarded as "Barely
> controlled" or "Semi-controlled"...

But it *is* controlled. Heck, even Class E is controlled airspace!

In class D, IFR flights are vectored. In class D, the controller has the
right to give instructions even to VFR flights, as in "keep out" or
"leave" or "stay west of that river and below 3000 ft".

If you can't tell "controlled" from "separation provided", then this
isn't a flaw in the concept, but rather in the pilot's knowledge.

Stefan

Richard Russell wrote:

> My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
> inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand

Exactly. The pilots don't understand. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea
to choose a cheapo ground school and do the written by merely learning
the questions catalogue by heart and hoping for some luck? (I'm
deliberaely exaggerating.)

Stefan

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:52:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
>> inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
>> is (and is not) being provided. I have experienced a number of
>> problems at Class D airports (one in particular) in my short flying
>> career. I blame those problems on both controller error and pilot
>> error. I have been told to position and hold and then listened to the
>> controller clear someone to land on top of me twice.
>>
>
>Cleared someone to land on top of you? How do you know that? A landing
>clearance can be issued with aircraft on the runway. The landing aircraft
>may have been miles away.
>
I had heard previous chatter between the other plane and the
controller. At that point, I thought of that possibility. As it
became increasingly clear that I was "forgotten", I called the tower
and in a firm (but not yet panicked) voice stated that I was in
position and holding on 24. I got an immediate response clearing me
for "immediate take-off, no delay. You may not agree, and that is
fine, but I am quite certain that I was forgotten.
Rich Russell

On 17 Dec 2004 08:29:29 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>>My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
>>inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
>>is (and is not) being provided.
>
>This would be because pilots, like all other people, have this idea
>that authority and responsibility go together. In other words, if the
>controller has the authority to tell you how to fly your pattern, when
>to turn, etc - then the responsibility for separation in the air should
>also be his. Well, it doesn't work that way. THAT is the primary
>weakness of Class D airspace, and it can't be fixed unless you either
>make the controller responsible for separation (meaning that unless the
>pilot disregarded the controller's instructions, it's controller error,
>not pilot error, in the event of a mid-air or near miss) or you give
>the pilot the authority to disregard the controller's instructions at
>will, not just in the event of an emergency (thus making the airspace
>uncontrolled). But while this is an issue in theory, in practice it's
>usually not an issue.
>
>In reality, at most Class D's most controllers treat separation as if
>it were their responsibility. That means they issue clear and
>comprehensible instructions and ask for a readback of the key points,
>just as if they were issuing clearances. When that happens, pilots
>treat the instructions as if they were clearances - meaning they
>question those they don't understand, read back those they do, and
>comply - and things work OK - a little better than they would if the
>airspace was uncontrolled. Sometimes you get a bad or overloaded
>controller, and then things are MUCH worse than they would be if the
>airspace was uncontrolled. That's when you get the problems.
>
>I will be the first to admit that I will let a situation that looks
>ugly develop a lot further in Class D than I will in Class E or G. I
>Class E/G, I know there's nobody looking out for me but me, and if I
>don't have a plan nobody does. So when I see things not going to plan
>(someone too close for comfort) I take action immediately. Not so in
>Class D. Unless the controller has given me reason to doubt his
>competence (by doing things like issuing nonsensical or illegal
>instructions, chewing out pilots on the frequency rather than calmly
>giving them a number to call, and generally acting like he lost SA) I'm
>going to assume he has a plan, and I'm going to stick with his plan
>until there's just no way. I think most pilots would too. I guess
>this is what you call inappropriate comfort level. You are of course
>entitled to your opinion, but I don't consider it inappropriate given
>the way Class D normally operates. Given the legalities, you have a
>point.
>
>Michael

Perhaps a poor choice of works, Michael. By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is. Too many pilots lose just a little bit of the edge when
they think someone else is watching over their wellbeing. I'm
speaking specifically of VFR pilots, all of whom were taught that ATC
does not provide separation in the air for VFR aircraft in the Delta,
but many have "forgotten".
Rich Russell

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had heard previous chatter between the other plane and the
> controller. At that point, I thought of that possibility. As it
> became increasingly clear that I was "forgotten", I called the tower
> and in a firm (but not yet panicked) voice stated that I was in
> position and holding on 24. I got an immediate response clearing me
> for "immediate take-off, no delay. You may not agree, and that is
> fine, but I am quite certain that I was forgotten.
>

Just wanted a bit more detail. Controllers do make mistakes, but just
because you hear someone else cleared to land while you're on the runway
doesn't mean that someone's about to land on top of you.

Richard Russell wrote:

> By inappropriate comfort
> level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
> because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
> really is.

This is, unfortunately, true. There's someone with whom I no longer fly who
refused to take preventative measures regarding traffic w/in CDW's class D
because "it's the controller's job". Scary.

But this is not the fault of class D airspace. Rather, it is the fault of
training, and perhaps the understanding of the phrase "controlled
airspace". I don't understand this confusion, myself, as any that exists
should be cleared up the moment the student asks "but why is class E called
'controlled'?".

- Andrew

Jay,

Yes I do. Actually a bit higher.

It was more tempting when I thought you said "We'll keep the bacon on for
ya!"

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

> By inappropriate comfort
> level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
> because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
> really is.

I understand what you're saying, I simply think this is one of those
situations where the national airspace system is poorly designed. It's
a bug. We have lots of people here making the point that this is a
well known, documented bug - and they are right. It's still a bug,
though, not a feature, and I think that Jay correctly identified it as
such, even if I don't agree with his solutions.

The national airspace system is full of those bugs. For example, you
might reasonably think that if you fly a published instrument approach,
with current plates and NOTAM's, equipment that meets the
specifications and passes the required operational checks, and you fly
the approach to well within PTS standards that means you shouldn't have
to worry about hitting any obstructions. You might think that - but
you would be wrong. It's a bug. This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

> I'm
> speaking specifically of VFR pilots, all of whom were taught that ATC
> does not provide separation in the air for VFR aircraft in the Delta,
> but many have "forgotten".

And I'm saying they have "forgotten" because it's just not a reasonable
situation to give the controller authority to tell the aircraft where
and when to fly without giving him the responsibility for separating
them. It's a situation that's guaranteed to cause problems for pilots,
so when pilots have problems with it, it's worth going beyond asking
whether they know the rules, and question whether those rules are
reasonable. The solution for a quirky system is not training in
dealing with the quirks - it's fixing the quirks.

Michael

Michael wrote:

> The national airspace system is full of those bugs.

The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

> This disconnect between authority and
> responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

It's no bug at all. It allows a controller to basically say: "stay in
that region" or "fly that altitude band" or even more important "stay
away from that region", but I won't be able to provide separation.

If you're talking about bugs, then I'd say that the biggest bug is a
system which allows people to become pilots without knowing the basics
of airspace classification.

Stefan

Jay Honeck wrote :
>1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
>2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
>3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
>4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really are:
>Semi-Controlled

I know that you know that separation is the pilots responsibility in
class D, but it seems that you still expect the tower controller to be
responsible for it. I fly out of a pretty busy Class D and frankly, I
don't expect the tower (equipped with D-BRITE radar) to keep me away
from other planes at all. I also expect either the tower or some
flying doofus to occasionally screw up and cause a conflict (which
happens a few times a year). The way I look at it, the guy in the cab
is going to do his/her best to sequence everybody without conflicts
and that's the extent of their responsibility. I treat a class D
airport just like I would a busy uncontrolled airport, with the added
benefit of someone giving their best guess about other traffic I may
encounter. I guess I'm saying that we as pilots should already know
what you suggest in #4. Class D airports are semi-controlled as far as
separation is concerned.

Radar is not always the answer. Many towers are equipped with
D-BRITE radar displays which are just remote displays of a radar
located at another airport. While the D-BRITE has the capability of
issuing a conflict alert to the controller, you shouldn't feel safer
knowing that the tower is so equipped. Since actual radar site is not
on the airport, towers with D-BRITE often cannot see traffic in their
own traffic pattern. A local example of this is Scottsdale, AZ (SDL).
Their traffic pattern is 2,500 ft., but the radar only sees down to
3,000 ft. Several years ago, there was a midair at SDL between a plane
entering the downwind and one that was already in the pattern. All of
it happened out of sight of the radar.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Stefan wrote:
> > The national airspace system is full of those bugs.
> The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

No, other nations ALSO have bugs in their systems, but since I haven't
flown in those other nations I'm not too interested on commenting on
them.

> > This disconnect between authority and
> > responsibility in Class D is also a bug.
>
> It's no bug at all. It allows a controller to basically say: "stay in

> that region" or "fly that altitude band" or even more important "stay

> away from that region", but I won't be able to provide separation.

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
separation. That's a bug.

> If you're talking about bugs, then I'd say that the biggest bug is a
> system which allows people to become pilots without knowing the
basics
> of airspace classification.

I don't agree. First, no system is ever perfect, and someone will
always slip through the net who doesn't understand something. Any
systems that relies on everyone knowing all aspects, including those
that are counterintuitive, is very poorly designed. Second, I haven't
actually met any pilots who made it through without knowing the basics
of airspace classification, although I don't doubt that it's possible.
It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come up.
And third, I think lack of understanding of systematic errors (as
opposed to procedural ones) is a much greater handicap to safety.
However, we don't teach pilots anything about system design - probably
because if we did, they would start to realize what a poorly designed
and quirky mess the national airspace system is.

Michael

Michael wrote:

>>The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

> No, other nations ALSO have bugs in their systems, but since I haven't
> flown in those other nations I'm not too interested on commenting on
> them.

You don't understand what I mean. Airspace classification is an
international thing, an ICAO thing. The worst a country could do is to
leave that international system. If you don't like airspace D, then your
approach should be not to apply it in the USA. I wouldn't comment on
that. But airspace D may have its place in other countries. In mine, it
certainly does.

> Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
> yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
> separation. That's a bug.

No. It allows a controller to provide some "big scale separation",
leaving the "fine separation" to the pilots.

> It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come up.

Intuition is a very personal thing. What may be intuitive to you may not
be so to me and vice versa. Even more interesting, intuition can be
trained. When I started studying physics, quantum theory and realtivity
were the most counterintuitive things I could imagine. Today, they are
very intuitive. The same applies to certain aspects of flying.

Stefan

Here is a good one: If you are cleared for an approach, are you also
cleared for landing? You see, the biz jet was apparently flying the HGR
VOR 9 approach, that starts well outside the "D" airspace. When he
called up HGR tower, he appologised for a late hand-off (must mean he
was talking with ATC). HGR tower told him they didn't have a strip on
him. Meanwhile, I didn't see him until he lit up over the VOR, just as
he called in (which means he was either vectored or did the PT
inbound). At that point I would guess he was over 180Knots because the
closing rate was rather rapid.

To be fair, I have been IFR in the clouds and told to expect visual 27
(at HGR). I have dropped out of the clouds, 5 miles out looking down
RWY 9 before being handed off to HGR tower.

Today I fly a PA28-180, back then I was flying either a C150/2.
Later,
Steve.T

Jay,

It is still "see and avoid". The controller is just another set of eyes. I
fly from a Class D airport (with radar though). Right after getting my
license I was finishing my C172SP checkout doing some touch and goes. After
about 3 we were on downwind, getting ready to turn base with a Tomahawk
behind us doing touch and goes also. Just then I saw it. A Mooney. My
first thought was "He can't be...." Then he announces "Mooney *****
entering on the 45 for left base runway 27" As he starts to get bigger in
my windshield,my CFI screams "Oh s**t..you need..." and stops because since
the Mooney's turning right I'm already giving it the gas and turning right.
The tower started to tell me about a traffic alert and gave up, apparently
seeing the maneuver. As I come around in the turn I'm looking for the
Tomahawk hoping he's doing the same or passing between us and the runway.
He's in a 360 also. The Mooney announced final and after touchdown got a
very terse "You need to call me at....." Needless to say we and the
Tomahawk requested full stops instead of touch and goes. Often it's our own
faults.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:uCnwd.511240$wV.477723@attbi_s54...
> Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D
(so-called)
> "controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
> tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
> ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.
>
> Yesterday we once again had the misfortune of flying into Class D, when we
> flew to Dubuque (DBQ) for breakfast -- and again witnessed a potentially
> dangerous situation.
>
> The University of Dubuque has their flight school there, which means
> high-density student traffic in the pattern. There are also four regular
> airline flights into/out of DBQ every day. Add to this the occasional $10
0
> hamburger flight and corporate charters, and you've got an airport which
> can, on occasion, rival Chicago for business.
>
> Yesterday was one of those days. After several days of crap, the skies
> cleared and the wind, while gusting to 23 knots, was right down Rwy 18.
As
> a result the pattern was full of students and people like us, enjoying the
> day.
>
> As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
> we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a
left
> downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is hard to
> spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous targets in
> the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had his hands
> full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.
>
> After extending our downwind quite a ways, we finally spotted the 182 we
> were to follow. As Mary was turning right base, we heard the controller
> tell an older guy in a different 182 "Okay, that's not going to work. Fly
> directly toward the tower now and re-enter the right downwind for 18..."
>
> By now we were turning base to final, with Mary fighting the burbles and
> updrafts caused by the 20+ knot wind. Out of the corner of my eye I
spotted
> a Cessna angling toward us from high and to the right, in what seemed like
a
> very awkward position, given the traffic density in the pattern. He was
in
> a shallow bank to the right, but, as long as he didn't descend, we would
> pass under him as we turned final, so I didn't mention him to Mary.
>
> As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
> window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
> out of position. My thoughts were that this *must* be the guy that the
> tower had told to "head toward the tower" and that the controllers surely
> knew where he was, and that he/they knew what they were doing.
>
> Wrong.
>
> As we were on short final the guy passed above us, and out of sight. I
was
> now getting pretty uncomfortable, being unable to see him, but I was
> confident that we weren't in any danger of collision -- he'd have had to
be
> a Harrier to land on top of us from that position. Mary was busy
fighting
> the wind, and I didn't want to interrupt her battle with bitching about
this
> doofus, but I sure was wondering what the heck the guy was doing
> above/behind and now to our left. Besides, the controller surely knew
> where he was, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Suddenly the controller spotted the transgressor, and started a rapid-fire
> interrogation of the guy, asking him what he was doing and where he was
> going. The guy responded that he was told to "fly to the tower" -- so he
> did! He had missed the second half of the controller's instruction, and
> was apparently going to be content doing 360 degree turns over the tower,
or
> something, awaiting further instructions? More likely he had no idea what
> to do when he got over the tower, but couldn't get a word in edgewise for
> further instructions...
>
> Needless to say, the controller laid into the guy, at one point stating "I
> assume you are a student pilot?" (to which the guy actually answered
"No.").
> He continued talking to him until we shut down to go into the FBO, so I
> don't know if he had to go "visit the tower" or not.
>
> This type of thing has happened to us so many times in Class D airspace,
> it's just not funny anymore. There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
> can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance with the
> parallax caused by trying to judge distance from the ground. In my
opinion,
> we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace,
because
> at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be
flying
> opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.
> Also, everyone would be more on their toes, without the false security
> blanket of being in "controlled" airspace.
>
> IMHO, the FAA should either:
>
> 1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
> 2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
> 3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
> 4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really are:
> Semi-Controlled.
>
> We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than
we
> are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just
an
> absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

> It is still "see and avoid". The controller is just another set of eyes.

Which, in Class D airspace, is much like using a set of rubber crutches.

Worse than useless.

IMHO, of course.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I know that you know that separation is the pilots responsibility in
> class D, but it seems that you still expect the tower controller to be
> responsible for it.

Not exactly.

What I find potentially dangerous is the fact that Class D ATC is putting on
a show of actually controlling traffic, when, in fact, they are doing
nothing of the sort.

And then, when things fall apart, they can legally blame the pilots. This,
IMHO, is a recipe for disaster.

Take, for example, the poor schmuck in the pattern with us who was
dangerously out of position. He apparently only heard the first part of the
controller's instructions ("Fly toward the tower....") and missed the last
part ("...and re-enter the right downwind.") Who knows what happened --
maybe the controller was walked on by another aircraft, or maybe the pilot
himself walked on the second half of the instructions when he acknowledged
them? (I heard the controller's whole transmission, so this is admittedly
unlikely.)

Either way, had the tower controller not been there, and thus no
instructions issued, chances are this guy would have been just fine. He'd
have proceeded into the pattern (or not) of his own volition -- and so would
we all. When he misheard and then stupidly followed clearly erroneous
instructions, we all ended up in a more precarious position.

In the end, the attempt to control the landing pattern without adequate
vision simply made the situation worse.

Which, of course, begs the question: Could this situation have happened in
Class C airspace? I think the answer is clearly "yes" -- but due to their
radar it would never have gone so far without being caught and corrected.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Here is a good one: If you are cleared for an approach, are you also
> cleared for landing?
>

No.

> When he misheard and then stupidly followed clearly erroneous
> instructions, we all ended up in a more precarious position.

So the error on the part of the pilot made things worse. No surprise
here, that's what errors do.

> Which, of course, begs the question: Could this situation have happened in
> Class C airspace? I think the answer is clearly "yes" -- but due to their
> radar it would never have gone so far without being caught and corrected.

Suppose the radar controller made a mistake? That would make things
worse too, wouldn't it? And then the pilot would compound it by
"stupidly following clearly erronieous instructions"...

Toys in the cab and toys in the cockpit are no substitute for eyeballs
(except in IMC) and reliance on toys puts us all in a more precarious
position.

The airspace is what it is.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Michael wrote:

> Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
> yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
> separation. That's a bug.

This is a misunderstanding. The PIC has more authority than ATC, but is
only supposed to exercise it when necessary. Loss of separation is one
example of that necessity.

Given this, the PIC's ability is not limited.

- Andrew

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xpNwd.589735$D%.554238@attbi_s51...
> > It is still "see and avoid". The controller is just another set of
eyes.
>
> Which, in Class D airspace, is much like using a set of rubber crutches.
>
> Worse than useless.
>
> IMHO, of course.

My experience tells me that in many cases the controllers in Class D towers
have only radio contact with the traffic they are trying to "control."
They have no visual contact yet attempt to sequence landing traffic. Pretty
scary. I avoid Class D at all costs.

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

>My experience tells me that in many cases the controllers in Class D towers
>have only radio contact with the traffic they are trying to "control."
>They have no visual contact yet attempt to sequence landing traffic. Pretty
>scary. I avoid Class D at all costs

I never had a problem with controllers in Class D towers. Some towers now have
radar, maybe not the newest, but they can track traffic. Of course things maybe
different here in SE Florida.
I make sure I have the Atis or Awos, then tell them who I am, where I am and
what I want to do.
Hank

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:03:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:


>We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
>are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
>absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but here are two incidents I've had in
the last WEEK....

1. I was in the pattern for Santa Rosa (KSTS), class D. The tower told
me I was number two for landing, and to follow a Cherokee. I told him
I had a Cherokee off my left wing at 9:00 on final. The tower didn't
say anything. I turned base behind him, and the controller snapped at
me that "I was following the wrong Cherokee". If it was the wrong one,
why didn't he correct me when I identified which Cherokee I reported
seeing?

My passenger was a commercial pilot and former flight instructor. He
told me that I did the right thing, and the controller was wrong.

2. I was returning to Hayward (KHWD, home airport) class D. I was
approaching from the south, and was told to fly inbound on a "modified
straight in" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). So I angled
to the east slightly to join a long downwing for 28L. A twin was
approaching from the east, and was told to report at "Cal State" (a
big building in the hills to the east, sticks out like a sore thumb).
Then he was told to do a 360 there, since I was on about a 1.5 mile
final.

I looked to my right, and there was a twin, about a 1/4 mile from me,
angling toward the runway. It was uncomfortably close. The controller
barked at him about not doing the 360 at the right spot, etc.

I'm sure Hayward has radar, because they asked me to squak ident. In
this case, radar didn't help much, the guy flying the twin messed up.


John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

> 2. I was returning to Hayward (KHWD, home airport) class D. I was
> approaching from the south, and was told to fly inbound on a "modified
> straight in" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean).

In my experience this refers to a specific track along the ground
(such as at EMT, following the channel, which is sort of aligned with
the runway, but not really all that closely). If in doubt, ask. OF
course there's the danger that the other airplane doesn't know what it
is, and didn't ask either.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Stefan wrote:
> You don't understand what I mean. Airspace classification is an
> international thing, an ICAO thing. The worst a country could do is
to
> leave that international system. If you don't like airspace D, then
your
> approach should be not to apply it in the USA.

First off, we've already done it with Class F airspace - we don't have
any in the US. We don't have to have class D either.

Second, we are already non-compliant with some aspects of ICAO. For
example, in the US, Class C does not require a celarance for VFR.

Third, I don't see what the big deal is about local regulation. Yes,
it makes things more complicated for the huge international operator,
giving the smaller local operator an advantage. IMO this is a feature,
not a bug.

So I understand what you mean perfectly - I just don't agree.

> > Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
> > yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting
loss of
> > separation. That's a bug.
>
> No. It allows a controller to provide some "big scale separation",
> leaving the "fine separation" to the pilots.

I think this is nonsense, considering there IS no big scale in US Class
D - the typical radius is less than 5 nm.

> > It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come
up.
>
> Intuition is a very personal thing. What may be intuitive to you may
not
> be so to me and vice versa.

Actually, that's not true. There is a whole science of ergonomics, and
one aspect of it, the design of user interfaces, is all about what is
intuitive. In the modern software world, the more progressive
companies actually have people unfamiliar with the software work with
it. If people keep right-clicking somewhere where such an action has
no effect, the fix is not to train the users - it is to change the
software so that right clicking there does what they expect.

The trained people (software engineers) often complain about this, but
they are wrong. It's really that simple. It's about time some modern
thinking like that was introduced into the national airspace system.
Michael

"john szpara" wrote:
> a "modified straight in" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean).

"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

> "Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."

Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> First off, we've already done it with Class F airspace - we don't have
> any in the US. We don't have to have class D either.
>

We don't have Class F airspace in the US because we have no airspace with
the properties of ICAO Class F airspace. We have Class D airspace because
we do have airspace with the properties of ICAO Class D airspace.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."
>>
>
> Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".
>

Where is it specified?

>>>"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."
>>>
>> Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".
>>
> Where is it specified?
>

In the minds of the controllers, and of the pilots, as propagated by
instructors who teach at the airport in question. For example, at EMT
a modified straight in approach (from the North anyway) is one that
comes in over the cement trough that passes for a river in those
parts, and pretty much meets the approach end of the runway.

I learned this more or less through osmosis. (Actually my instructor
probably told me the first time we encounterd it while I was learning
how not to crash).

I don't know how it came about, or when (though I suspect it dates
from early in the history of that tower). I doubt it's specified in
writing anywhere, but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."
>>>>
>>> Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".
>>>
>> Where is it specified?
>
> In the minds of the controllers, and of the pilots, as propagated by
> instructors who teach at the airport in question. For example, at EMT a
> modified straight in approach (from the North anyway) is one that comes in
> over the cement trough that passes for a river in those parts, and pretty
> much meets the approach end of the runway.
>
> I learned this more or less through osmosis. (Actually my instructor
> probably told me the first time we encounterd it while I was learning how
> not to crash).
>

So the meaning of "modified" varies with the location?


>
> I don't know how it came about, or when (though I suspect it dates from
> early in the history of that tower). I doubt it's specified in writing
> anywhere, but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.
>

Of course it does.

> So the meaning of "modified" varies with the location?

Right. Sort of like "ground rules" in baseball. Different ground,
different rules.

Actually the only "modified straight in" I've come in contact with has
been at EMT but the concept certainly generalizes, and recent posts
confirm at least a second instance.

>> ...but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.
>>
> Of course it does.

No it doesn't.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> So the meaning of "modified" varies with the location?
>>
>
> Right. Sort of like "ground rules" in baseball. Different ground,
> different rules.
>

So what does it mean to an itinerant pilot?


>
> Actually the only "modified straight in" I've come in contact with has
> been at EMT but the concept certainly generalizes, and recent posts
> confirm at least a second instance.
>
>>> ...but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.
>>>
>> Of course it does.
>
> No it doesn't.
>

You're mistaken.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=specified

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> So what does it mean to an itinerant pilot?

Widely scattered aluminum?

> So what does it mean to an itinerant pilot?

It means the pilot ought to ask what it means.

> You're mistaken.

No, I'm not.

And your evidence, should I call it that, does not address the issue
of whether, to be specified, it must be specified in writing, which is
the issue in question.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> So what does it mean to an itinerant pilot?
>>
>
> It means the pilot ought to ask what it means.
>

It means nothing.


>>
>> You're mistaken.
>>
>
> No, I'm not.
>

Of course you are, your position is absurd.


>
> And your evidence, should I call it that, does not address the issue of
> whether, to be specified, it must be specified in writing, which is the
> issue in question.
>

How can it be otherwise?

> How can it be otherwise?

Things were specified before the dawn of writing. When my wife asks
me to go to the store and pick up yogurt, but only the "plain", not
the vanilla, she doesn't write it down. Nonetheless, the kind of
yougurt she wants is specified. Likewise, when she asks me to pick up
chips, I know from experience that she means a specific kind of chips.
(and no, I'm not talking about Intel or Motorola either).

Three hundred years ago, there =were= no dictionaries, but the
meanings of words were still specified through usage.

That's how it can be otherwise. "Modified straight in" is specified
in this same manner, although it ends up specified only to the locals.
Itinerants are left with a question, which should be asked. While
this may seem wickedly dangerous, the tradeoff is that less air time
on a busy channel is used up saying "modified straight in" (which
most pilots there understand) than saying "start at the intersection
of I210 and I14 and follow the channel southbound towards the runway".
I am presuming that the actual flight path has a good reason, and
simply not using that flight path is not an option.

>>>So what does it mean to an itinerant pilot?
>>>
>> It means the pilot ought to ask what it means.
>>
> It means nothing.

That =you= don't know something does not drain its meaning.

>>>You're mistaken.
>>>
>> No, I'm not.
>>
> Of course you are, your position is absurd.
>

I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> I don't know how it came about, or when (though I suspect it dates from
>> early in the history of that tower). I doubt it's specified in writing
>> anywhere, but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.
>>
>
> Of course it does.
[invoking image of hiding behind something less someone catches me
agreeing with Mr. McNicoll, again] I've got to agree on that. It is the
same as policy -- if it ain't it writing, it ain't nuthin'.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > I don't know how it came about, or when (though I suspect it dates from
> > early in the history of that tower). I doubt it's specified in writing
> > anywhere, but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.
>
> Of course it does.

From the OED: "specify - 1. speak or treat of a matter etc. in detail; give
details or particulars."

It does not have to be written down to be specified or to be specific.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> From the OED: "specify - 1. speak or treat of a matter etc. in detail;
> give
> details or particulars."
>
> It does not have to be written down to be specified or to be specific.
>

I suppose not. But if it isn't, the controller must explain what it means
each time he uses the phrase.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:49:20 GMT, Jose >
wrote:


>That's how it can be otherwise. "Modified straight in" is specified
>in this same manner, although it ends up specified only to the locals.
> Itinerants are left with a question, which should be asked. While
>this may seem wickedly dangerous, the tradeoff is that less air time
>on a busy channel is used up saying "modified straight in" (which
>most pilots there understand) than saying "start at the intersection
>of I210 and I14 and follow the channel southbound towards the runway".
> I am presuming that the actual flight path has a good reason, and
>simply not using that flight path is not an option.

I didn't mean to create a scrap here.

FYI, I'm not itinerant at KHWD, it's my home airport.

What I meant was, I was not given specific instructions, as is often
the case at Hayward. You are normall told to fly to a specific point,
don't break certain altitudes, etc.

When the controller said "modified straight in", and no other
instructions, I assumed that to mean that I could fly at pilot's
discretion. For those of you with more hours than I (300), please
correct me if I'm wrong.
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

"john szpara" > wrote in message
news:1103668495.fa76b9a7292886cc9ad13045780a10bb@t eranews...
>
> I didn't mean to create a scrap here.
>
> FYI, I'm not itinerant at KHWD, it's my home airport.
>
> What I meant was, I was not given specific instructions, as is often
> the case at Hayward. You are normall told to fly to a specific point,
> don't break certain altitudes, etc.
>
> When the controller said "modified straight in", and no other
> instructions, I assumed that to mean that I could fly at pilot's
> discretion. For those of you with more hours than I (300), please
> correct me if I'm wrong.
>

Your interpretation is as correct as any other.

Widely scattered with an occluded front.

Michael wrote:

> First off, we've already done it with Class F airspace - we don't have
> any in the US. We don't have to have class D either.

This has nothing to do with ICAO compliance. Each ICAO member is free
whether or not it wants to use a certain airspace class. The country
where I live, for example, does not use airspace class A, B and F. We
only have C, D, E and G. Nothing wrong with this.

> Third, I don't see what the big deal is about local regulation. Yes,
> it makes things more complicated for the huge international operator,

And for the average private pilot who wants to cross a border now and
then. Maybe not an issue when you live in the middle of the USA without
any intention of ever leaving it, but I live at 1nm from a border and
3nm from another border. Oh, and when I fly 150nm, then I can choose
between two more borders...

>> Intuition is a very personal thing. What may be intuitive to you may
>> not be so to me and vice versa.

> Actually, that's not true. There is a whole science of ergonomics,
....
> If people keep right-clicking somewhere where such an action has

:-)

If 20 years ago, somebody told about right-clicking, what did you
*intuitively* expect??

Intuition is just another word for experience.

Stefan

"Your interpretation is as correct as any other."

A bit of tongue-in-cheek, perhaps?

What I don't understand, is why don't people just ask for a clarification
when one is needed? It just doesn't seem like the airspace would be very
safe if everyone ran around doing what they THOUGHT someone instructed them
to do.

To coin a whatever: "If you have to ask, you might look stupid, but if you
don't ask, you might look dead. Take your choice".




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "john szpara" > wrote in message
> news:1103668495.fa76b9a7292886cc9ad13045780a10bb@t eranews...
> >
> > I didn't mean to create a scrap here.
> >
> > FYI, I'm not itinerant at KHWD, it's my home airport.
> >
> > What I meant was, I was not given specific instructions, as is often
> > the case at Hayward. You are normall told to fly to a specific point,
> > don't break certain altitudes, etc.
> >
> > When the controller said "modified straight in", and no other
> > instructions, I assumed that to mean that I could fly at pilot's
> > discretion. For those of you with more hours than I (300), please
> > correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
>
> Your interpretation is as correct as any other.
>
>

>>It does not have to be written down to be specified or to be specific.
>
> I suppose not. But if it isn't, the controller must explain what it means
> each time he uses the phrase.

No, just each time he uses the phrase with a pilot that doesn't
understand it. If most pilots flying there are based there, and the
phrase is used often enough (and consistantly enough) and CFI/radio
osmosis occurs (this is not at all farfetched), then a lot of radio
time is saved, because most of the time it will not need to be explained.

I do agree that this is not sufficient justification to invent phrases
willy nilly. But it's really no different from "N42312 report the tanks".

> When the controller said "modified straight in", and no other
> instructions, I assumed that to mean that I could fly at pilot's
> discretion. For those of you with more hours than I (300), please
> correct me if I'm wrong.

I would disagree (which is different from "you're wrong" :). I would
take "modified straight in" to be a specific and common course which
makes sense given the geography of the place, and if I didn't know
what course that was, I'd ask. Absent altitude restrictions, I'd
assume altitude is at the pilot's discretion (within the FARs).

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

My appologies, I didn't get the whole thred, however,

I am based at HWD, and have been there daily for almost a year and
have never heard a "Modified straight in" clerance. 'Hayweird' does
get some interesting traffic due to its proximity to OAK (Oakland
Intl, less than 10nm and between 29 and 27L/R. This is a new one on
me.

Jon Wanzer
CP ASEL / IA
AGI IGI (CFI / CFII soon-to-be)
San Jose,CA

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:35:56 -0800, john szpara
> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:49:20 GMT, Jose >
>wrote:
>
>
>>That's how it can be otherwise. "Modified straight in" is specified
>>in this same manner, although it ends up specified only to the locals.
>> Itinerants are left with a question, which should be asked. While
>>this may seem wickedly dangerous, the tradeoff is that less air time
>>on a busy channel is used up saying "modified straight in" (which
>>most pilots there understand) than saying "start at the intersection
>>of I210 and I14 and follow the channel southbound towards the runway".
>> I am presuming that the actual flight path has a good reason, and
>>simply not using that flight path is not an option.
>
>I didn't mean to create a scrap here.
>
>FYI, I'm not itinerant at KHWD, it's my home airport.
>
>What I meant was, I was not given specific instructions, as is often
>the case at Hayward. You are normall told to fly to a specific point,
>don't break certain altitudes, etc.
>
>When the controller said "modified straight in", and no other
>instructions, I assumed that to mean that I could fly at pilot's
>discretion. For those of you with more hours than I (300), please
>correct me if I'm wrong.
>John Szpara
>Affordable Satellite
>Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

> What I don't understand, is why don't people just ask for a clarification
> when one is needed? It just doesn't seem like the airspace would be very
> safe if everyone ran around doing what they THOUGHT someone instructed
> them
> to do.

Precisely.

And what makes Class D so dangerous is that

a) Everyone THINKS they know what they're doing, when, in fact, many are
interpreting things differently
b) The controller THINKS he knows where everyone is.
c) The controller is often so busy that asking for clarification is
extremely difficult

The day I wrote about, getting a word in edgewise would have been
darned-near impossible for Mary...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ecfyd.513$k25.152@attbi_s53...
>
> Precisely.
>
> And what makes Class D so dangerous is that
>

>
> b) The controller THINKS he knows where everyone is.
>

The controller get his information from the pilots. Pilots are frequently
not where they THINK they are and provide bad information to the controller.

The Bob Collins (of WGN Radio) crash north of Chicago comes immediately to
mind...

IIRC, that was almost totally the result of bad position reporting.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Ecfyd.513$k25.152@attbi_s53...
> >
> > Precisely.
> >
> > And what makes Class D so dangerous is that
> >
>
> >
> > b) The controller THINKS he knows where everyone is.
> >
>
> The controller get his information from the pilots. Pilots are frequently
> not where they THINK they are and provide bad information to the
controller.
>
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@> wrote
> The controller get his information from the pilots. Pilots are frequently
> not where they THINK they are and provide bad information to the
controller.

I do have to agree with you on this one Steve. I'd be rich if I'd had a
dollar for every time I've seen or heard a pilot exclaim they are at some
location, when in fact said location is any where from 1 to 5 miles in front
of them.

If you're not "directly over it" then you're not there yet!

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> I do have to agree with you on this one Steve. I'd be rich if I'd had a
> dollar for every time I've seen or heard a pilot exclaim they are at some
> location, when in fact said location is any where from 1 to 5 miles in
> front
> of them.
>
> If you're not "directly over it" then you're not there yet!
>

I see this frequently, and it's often much more than five miles off.
Somebody will report five miles out just as they're crossing the ten mile
range mark, and it's not just the low end guys either.

I've often wondered why some pilots report their position at all when
contacting the tower. It's in Class C airspace, they were radar identified
at some point and never told radar contact lost or terminated. I know
exactly where they are when they call.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:24:40 GMT, Jon Wanzer >
wrote:

>My appologies, I didn't get the whole thred, however,
>
>I am based at HWD, and have been there daily for almost a year and
>have never heard a "Modified straight in" clerance. 'Hayweird' does
>get some interesting traffic due to its proximity to OAK (Oakland
>Intl, less than 10nm and between 29 and 27L/R. This is a new one on
>me.


Hayward (weird) *is* a strange place to fly into. The ILS for 29 is 1
mile to the left, and the ILS for 27 is 2.5 miles to the right.
Oakland is basically two airports. It has class C airspace, which
starts barely a 1/2 mile off the end of HWD's runways.

SFO's class B airspace lays above. SJC's class C starts 10 miles
south. Flying anywhere in this area is like an obstacle course.

As for the "modified straight in", I didn't give any thought to it at
the time. I was given no other instructions, point to fly to, or
traffic to follow, so I flew a route at my discretion.
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

>> b) The controller THINKS he knows where everyone is.
>
> The controller get his information from the pilots. Pilots are frequently
> not where they THINK they are and provide bad information to the
> controller.

Sorry, Steven -- I didn't mean to imply anything else.

That's exactly what I meant.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> The controller get his information from the pilots. Pilots are frequently
> not where they THINK they are and provide bad information to the
> controller.
>

Guilty as charged.
Long ago I was inbound to Dallas Redbird from the Surry VOR. I mixed my
position report with direction of flight. The controller was quick to see my
mistake and asked my position again, prompting me to realize it.
My original report would have placed me in the heart of DFWs hornets nest.
:-0

Marty

Congestion on the approach frequency is at the heart of the problem.
Often it is impossible to ask for a clarification - and sometimes near
impossible to get approach's attention at all. One time I wanted to
transition a Class C, and had to listen to a long-winded conversation
between the controller and a pilot. Since they wouldn't shut up long
enough for me to "get a word in edgewise", I had to deliberately
transmit on top of the other pilot to get the controller's attention.

The best solution, if you can, is to avoid those places altogether.
Most destinations have uncontrolled airports nearby, and I, for one,
will always choose to use them - unless there is some pressing
reason to use the towered airport. I used to be based at a Class C,
but chose to move to an uncontrolled airport twice as far from where
I lived - because I got sick and tired of the hassle.

David Johnson

I started flying at RHV and everyone avoided SJC Carlie like the
plague. Then out of Oakland (North Field). And now HWD. I like HWD
because I am still "in the mix" of busy airspace and get lots of "real
world" traffic and communications chalenges, but if I don't want to do
the transition I can still get out and stay clear of Charlie and/or
Bravo and only have to chat with HWD tower. I still fly into OAK some
times for pattern work.

IMHO pilots should take the time to use the airspace avalable to its
fullest, particularly with all of the communications issues that seem
to be out there. If someone finds that they avoid airspace because
they get frustrated with ATC or are scared of the "jungle" thats where
they should spend some time to get over it and hone the skills of
proper communication.

I have found that the more proffesional and confident you sound the
faster you will get in and out of the airspace. A CFI once told me
that controllers are aware that they don't always make sence. The only
feedback they get about a particular phrasiology being ineffective is
clarifacation requests. If we dont ask they assume it made sence.
Oddly enough the NTSB sides with ATC on that. ;)
After all, we are PIC, Right?

Another thing I have noticed, particularly with Bravo and Charlie,
accuracy in position reporting and quick "traffic in sight" replies or
unsolicited "traffic in sight" updates get you priority handling as
well. If they think you know where you are and whose around you, they
dont need as much "clear air" to keep anything from bending.

Jon Wanzer
CP ASEL / IA
AGI IGI (CFI / CFII soon-to-be)
San Jose,CA

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:21:59 -0800, john szpara
> wrote:

>Hayward (weird) *is* a strange place to fly into. The ILS for 29 is 1
>mile to the left, and the ILS for 27 is 2.5 miles to the right.
>Oakland is basically two airports. It has class C airspace, which
>starts barely a 1/2 mile off the end of HWD's runways.
>
>SFO's class B airspace lays above. SJC's class C starts 10 miles
>south. Flying anywhere in this area is like an obstacle course.
>
>As for the "modified straight in", I didn't give any thought to it at
>the time. I was given no other instructions, point to fly to, or
>traffic to follow, so I flew a route at my discretion.
>John Szpara

Newbie almost student pilot here (IE still saving for lessons and playing
with MS Flight Sim):

bit off topic, can you recommend reading material that describes ATC
communications. What's I've heard so far sounds totally Greek to me. I can
make sure since out of a square dance call.

"Jon Wanzer" > wrote in message
...
> I started flying at RHV and everyone avoided SJC Carlie like the
> plague. Then out of Oakland (North Field). And now HWD. I like HWD
> because I am still "in the mix" of busy airspace and get lots of "real
> world" traffic and communications chalenges, but if I don't want to do
> the transition I can still get out and stay clear of Charlie and/or
> Bravo and only have to chat with HWD tower. I still fly into OAK some
> times for pattern work.
>
> IMHO pilots should take the time to use the airspace avalable to its
> fullest, particularly with all of the communications issues that seem
> to be out there. If someone finds that they avoid airspace because
> they get frustrated with ATC or are scared of the "jungle" thats where
> they should spend some time to get over it and hone the skills of
> proper communication.
>
> I have found that the more proffesional and confident you sound the
> faster you will get in and out of the airspace. A CFI once told me
> that controllers are aware that they don't always make sence. The only
> feedback they get about a particular phrasiology being ineffective is
> clarifacation requests. If we dont ask they assume it made sence.
> Oddly enough the NTSB sides with ATC on that. ;)
> After all, we are PIC, Right?
>
> Another thing I have noticed, particularly with Bravo and Charlie,
> accuracy in position reporting and quick "traffic in sight" replies or
> unsolicited "traffic in sight" updates get you priority handling as
> well. If they think you know where you are and whose around you, they
> dont need as much "clear air" to keep anything from bending.
>
> Jon Wanzer
> CP ASEL / IA
> AGI IGI (CFI / CFII soon-to-be)
> San Jose,CA
>
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:21:59 -0800, john szpara
> > wrote:
>
> >Hayward (weird) *is* a strange place to fly into. The ILS for 29 is 1
> >mile to the left, and the ILS for 27 is 2.5 miles to the right.
> >Oakland is basically two airports. It has class C airspace, which
> >starts barely a 1/2 mile off the end of HWD's runways.
> >
> >SFO's class B airspace lays above. SJC's class C starts 10 miles
> >south. Flying anywhere in this area is like an obstacle course.
> >
> >As for the "modified straight in", I didn't give any thought to it at
> >the time. I was given no other instructions, point to fly to, or
> >traffic to follow, so I flew a route at my discretion.
> >John Szpara
>

> I can make sure since out of a square dance call.

Talk about "speaking in tongues" -- what the heck does *that* mean?

You're gonna fit right in the mix with ATC, talking like that!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Hmmm, fingers not typing what I'm thinking, "I can make more since out of a
square dance call" :)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0vYzd.644956$D%.308656@attbi_s51...
> > I can make sure since out of a square dance call.
>
> Talk about "speaking in tongues" -- what the heck does *that* mean?
>
> You're gonna fit right in the mix with ATC, talking like that!
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

> Hmmm, fingers not typing what I'm thinking, "I can make more since out of a
> square dance call" :)

Still doesn't parse in English, but it gives me enough of a clue. I
think you meant "I can make more =sense= out of a square dance call".

November Three Juliet Bravo, fly heading 120, do-si-do the outer
marker until intercepting the localizer. Maintain 3000, lady's chain
then promenade. Report airport in sight.

It's that apple cider, I'm sure. :)

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> November Three Juliet Bravo, fly heading 120, do-si-do the outer marker
> until intercepting the localizer. Maintain 3000, lady's chain then
> promenade. Report airport in sight.

Egg nog out the nose is painful!

Thanks, Jose!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ha, you got it (silly spell checker, it should know what I mean).

So are there good reference material to learn that, I'm thinking I'm going
to have enough fun watching my air speed, rate of descent, keeping on the
center line, slipping and crabbing, etc. And I'm going to choke when I hear
the ATC going on like that. I'd like to get a head start on knowing what to
expect and what it means.


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > Hmmm, fingers not typing what I'm thinking, "I can make more since out
of a
> > square dance call" :)
>
> Still doesn't parse in English, but it gives me enough of a clue. I
> think you meant "I can make more =sense= out of a square dance call".
>
> November Three Juliet Bravo, fly heading 120, do-si-do the outer
> marker until intercepting the localizer. Maintain 3000, lady's chain
> then promenade. Report airport in sight.
>
> It's that apple cider, I'm sure. :)
>
> Jose
> --
> Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> So are there good reference material to learn [ATCspeak], I'm thinking I'm going
> to have enough fun watching my air speed, rate of descent, keeping on the
> center line, slipping and crabbing, etc. And I'm going to choke when I hear
> the ATC going on like that. I'd like to get a head start on knowing what to
> expect and what it means.

As a student pilot there's a lot you won't have to worry about (IFR
clearances, vectors and altitude assignments, stuff like that) and the
stuff you do need you'll get to gradually (flight following for
example does involve vectors and altitudes). One of the best things
you can do is to take a tape recorder out to the field and record a
few hours (or have a friend record a few hours) of the chatter on the
control tower frequency (I assume you'll be training at a tower
airport, since you're posting in the Class D thread) and the ground
frequency. Listen to ground tower first. Aircraft contact the tower
inbound asking for landing clearance, and outbound when they reach the
runway and are ready to take off. You'll hear "left traffic", "right
traffic", "straight in", "right base"... over and over. They refer to
the path an airplane flies when ready to land (essentially it flies
parallel to the runway and makes a u-turn - left traffic means make
the turns to the left... etc).

Then listen to ground for a while. Most of the chatter there concerns
getting to the runway (which taxiways to take, sometimes which runways
to use). They use the phonetic alphabet (ABC... is Alpha Bravo
Charlie...) to name taxiways and such; you'll get used to it. You'll
also hear IFR clerances. Don't worry about them for now. ("Victor
Tango Charlie is cleared to Santa Rosa via radar vectors to Awnie,
Victor 12, Victor 3, Madison, direct. Maintain three thousand, expect
five in ten...")

Listen to the ATIS for a bit too. That's easy, it keeps repeating.
It's just weather and runway in use, mostly.

Once you take your first or second lesson, so much more will be clear
because you'll actually be =doing= stuff and you'll have an instructor
to ask questions of.

There are books and such about good ATC communications; and the AIM is
an essential handbook for pilots anyway (it has a chapter on it). I
don't have any reccomendations (so why am I posting?) on specific
books; see what your library has, drop in on the flight school and
thumb through some of their books.

You'll learn to understand the stuff quickly enough, don't let it
intimidate you. Anybody who does square dancing can do ATC. The hard
part is when transmitting, to know what to say before you key the
mike. ("Danbury tower, Piper three four seven Alpha Charlie, eight
miles northeast, inbound for landing with Whiskey", rather than
"Danbury tower, uh, let's see, we're a Piper, yeah... we're
landing.... um... oh, it's three four seven Charlie... I mean three
four seven Alpha Charlie... we're to the south... No, we're heading
south - we're north by a lake, well, we just passed the lake, most of
it anyway. We're at 2000 feet, our heading is two five zero... um,
what's the weather. And we're landing. Is that ok?"

That's just practice. But practice the first method, not the second
one. :)

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Nimoy Pugh" > wrote in message
...
> Ha, you got it (silly spell checker, it should know what I mean).
>
> So are there good reference material to learn that, I'm thinking I'm going
> to have enough fun watching my air speed, rate of descent, keeping on the
> center line, slipping and crabbing, etc. And I'm going to choke when I
hear
> the ATC going on like that. I'd like to get a head start on knowing what
to
> expect and what it means.


Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf
Hotel India Juliet Kilo Lima Mike November
Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform
Victor Whiskey X-ray Yankee Zulu


Knowing the alphabet is a very good place to start. Copy this part of this
post, and keep a shortcut on your desktop, and every time you can't remember
a letter real quick, go through the whole thing again.
--
Jim in NC

Nimoy Pugh wrote:
>
> Hmmm, fingers not typing what I'm thinking, "I can make more since out of a
> square dance call" :)

What you just typed doesn't make sense.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

Try this website:

http://www.liveatc.net

you can listen in to ATC from a lot of different airports around the US
and the rest of the world.

Watch out for some of the B and C class feeds however, since you will
be getting the feed from a scanner that is constantly looking for
chatter on up to 10 different frequencies.
For the smaller fields, however, you can get a pretty good idea.

Chris

Try this website:

http://www.liveatc.net

you can listen in to ATC from a lot of different airports around the US
and the rest of the world.

Watch out for some of the B and C class feeds however, since you will
be getting the feed from a scanner that is constantly looking for
chatter on up to 10 different frequencies.
For the smaller fields, however, you can get a pretty good idea.

Chris

Thanks, I'll be working out of CMI and only live a few miles from the field.
I can pick up all the transmissions from home, I'll have to give it a
listen.

Also thanks for breaking it down, seems so much more involved than just
managing the aircraft.Good it'll come in little chucks.



"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > So are there good reference material to learn [ATCspeak], I'm thinking
I'm going
> > to have enough fun watching my air speed, rate of descent, keeping on
the
> > center line, slipping and crabbing, etc. And I'm going to choke when I
hear
> > the ATC going on like that. I'd like to get a head start on knowing what
to
> > expect and what it means.
>
> As a student pilot there's a lot you won't have to worry about (IFR
> clearances, vectors and altitude assignments, stuff like that) and the
> stuff you do need you'll get to gradually (flight following for
> example does involve vectors and altitudes). One of the best things
> you can do is to take a tape recorder out to the field and record a
> few hours (or have a friend record a few hours) of the chatter on the
> control tower frequency (I assume you'll be training at a tower
> airport, since you're posting in the Class D thread) and the ground
> frequency. Listen to ground tower first. Aircraft contact the tower
> inbound asking for landing clearance, and outbound when they reach the
> runway and are ready to take off. You'll hear "left traffic", "right
> traffic", "straight in", "right base"... over and over. They refer to
> the path an airplane flies when ready to land (essentially it flies
> parallel to the runway and makes a u-turn - left traffic means make
> the turns to the left... etc).
>
> Then listen to ground for a while. Most of the chatter there concerns
> getting to the runway (which taxiways to take, sometimes which runways
> to use). They use the phonetic alphabet (ABC... is Alpha Bravo
> Charlie...) to name taxiways and such; you'll get used to it. You'll
> also hear IFR clerances. Don't worry about them for now. ("Victor
> Tango Charlie is cleared to Santa Rosa via radar vectors to Awnie,
> Victor 12, Victor 3, Madison, direct. Maintain three thousand, expect
> five in ten...")
>
> Listen to the ATIS for a bit too. That's easy, it keeps repeating.
> It's just weather and runway in use, mostly.
>
> Once you take your first or second lesson, so much more will be clear
> because you'll actually be =doing= stuff and you'll have an instructor
> to ask questions of.
>
> There are books and such about good ATC communications; and the AIM is
> an essential handbook for pilots anyway (it has a chapter on it). I
> don't have any reccomendations (so why am I posting?) on specific
> books; see what your library has, drop in on the flight school and
> thumb through some of their books.
>
> You'll learn to understand the stuff quickly enough, don't let it
> intimidate you. Anybody who does square dancing can do ATC. The hard
> part is when transmitting, to know what to say before you key the
> mike. ("Danbury tower, Piper three four seven Alpha Charlie, eight
> miles northeast, inbound for landing with Whiskey", rather than
> "Danbury tower, uh, let's see, we're a Piper, yeah... we're
> landing.... um... oh, it's three four seven Charlie... I mean three
> four seven Alpha Charlie... we're to the south... No, we're heading
> south - we're north by a lake, well, we just passed the lake, most of
> it anyway. We're at 2000 feet, our heading is two five zero... um,
> what's the weather. And we're landing. Is that ok?"
>
> That's just practice. But practice the first method, not the second
> one. :)
>
> Jose
> --
> Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

> The hard
> part is when transmitting, to know what to say before you key the
> mike.

Not always. On my first or second solo XC, one airport along the way was a
class C. I contacted departure outbound, of course, and did what I thought
was my usual call-up. I must have missed something, because he asked me
for my "altitude departing".

I'd never heard that before! I interpreted it to mean the altitude at which
I planned to depart the class C. An interesting conversation followed
<laugh>.

- Andrew

P.S. It occurs to me that some of my best worst aviation
stories come from my first two solo XC flights. I'm
not exactly sure what this means, given that these are
a number of years back now.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:41:29 GMT, Jose >
wrote:


>You'll learn to understand the stuff quickly enough, don't let it
>intimidate you. Anybody who does square dancing can do ATC. The hard
>part is when transmitting, to know what to say before you key the
>mike. ("Danbury tower, Piper three four seven Alpha Charlie, eight
>miles northeast, inbound for landing with Whiskey", rather than
>"Danbury tower, uh, let's see, we're a Piper, yeah... we're
>landing.... um... oh, it's three four seven Charlie... I mean three
>four seven Alpha Charlie... we're to the south... No, we're heading
>south - we're north by a lake, well, we just passed the lake, most of
>it anyway. We're at 2000 feet, our heading is two five zero... um,
>what's the weather. And we're landing. Is that ok?"
>
>That's just practice. But practice the first method, not the second
>one. :)
>
>Jose


You can also pick up a programmable scanner from Radio
Shack for probably less than $100. Then you can listen all you want.
If you live close enough to the airport, you could listen from home,
and/or just listen to the approach and center frequencies. This is how
I learned about communication when I was a kid, and had several years
of listening that helped me considerably when I finally got my
license.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:38:33 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Jose wrote:
>
>> The hard
>> part is when transmitting, to know what to say before you key the
>> mike.
>
>Not always. On my first or second solo XC, one airport along the way was a
>class C. I contacted departure outbound, of course, and did what I thought
>was my usual call-up. I must have missed something, because he asked me
>for my "altitude departing".

Normally, when you are doing your solo flight during training, you
will tell ATC that you are "solo" or something like that. They wil
know you might need more help than normal.

I found a portable intercom that I carry around in the plane with an
audio out and a digital voice recorder is a fantastic investment.
Recording your own flights and reviewing them post flight is a good
tool. It also can help the flight instructor as well. You can hear the
calls you missed or where unclear about in a low work load environment
after the fact and honestly evaluate your performance. A portable T/RX
(or scanner) in conjunction with the comm and recorder also works
well. You can get hours of radio trainning tapes (CD's) for pennys.

Jon Wanzer
CP ASEL / IA
AGI IGI (CFI / CFII soon-to-be)
San Jose,CA