is it just me?

[The Weiss Family]

Admittedly, I only have about 65 hours (PP-ASEL), but I've yet to have a
flight where something "unusual" didn't happen.
Also, admittedly, half of the time, it's something dumb I've done (forgot to
turn my transponder to ALT, etc).
However, the other half isn't.
Today for example, I almost made a completely perfect trip for a $100 burger
with nothing unusual.
On the way back, on short final (about 300 or 400 AGL) the gulfstream that
was inching passed the hold short line decided he wanted to take the runway.
I did a 360 and heard a comment on the radio that he must be on the wrong
radio frequency.
Wasn't that big of a deal, but is it just me?

Adam

[Jay Honeck]

> Wasn't that big of a deal, but is it just me?

Yes.

;-)

Actually, it's your definition of an unusual event that will change over
time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maule Driver]

Think about your typical car trip - people turning, changing lanes, busting
traffic lights. How many of those things you might do yourself without real
consideration.

Perhaps we fly to a higher standard... or perhaps it's just the nature of
experiencing something new. As Jay said, your definition of unusual will
change.

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> Admittedly, I only have about 65 hours (PP-ASEL), but I've yet to have a
> flight where something "unusual" didn't happen.
> Also, admittedly, half of the time, it's something dumb I've done (forgot
to
> turn my transponder to ALT, etc).
> However, the other half isn't.
> Today for example, I almost made a completely perfect trip for a $100
burger
> with nothing unusual.
> On the way back, on short final (about 300 or 400 AGL) the gulfstream
that
> was inching passed the hold short line decided he wanted to take the
runway.
> I did a 360 and heard a comment on the radio that he must be on the wrong
> radio frequency.
> Wasn't that big of a deal, but is it just me?
>
> Adam
>
>

[nooneimportant]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> Admittedly, I only have about 65 hours (PP-ASEL), but I've yet to have a
> flight where something "unusual" didn't happen.
> Also, admittedly, half of the time, it's something dumb I've done (forgot
to
> turn my transponder to ALT, etc).
> However, the other half isn't.
> Today for example, I almost made a completely perfect trip for a $100
burger
> with nothing unusual.
> On the way back, on short final (about 300 or 400 AGL) the gulfstream
that
> was inching passed the hold short line decided he wanted to take the
runway.
> I did a 360 and heard a comment on the radio that he must be on the wrong
> radio frequency.
> Wasn't that big of a deal, but is it just me?
>
> Adam
>

Seems to me a cross country without at least one go around is a rarity.
Very high frequency flight training around here.. i go to one big academy,
there is another at the airport 10 miles away, and a few more up and down
the Florida coast. Add in some very busy (sometiems just rookie themselves)
Tower controllers... Lovely tricks like directing holdshort AC to taxi into
position, then not delivering a TO clearance fast enough to get them off the
ground before i land, someone "Cleared for takeoff, no delay" stopping to do
their takoff checklist (instead of doing "on the go" as you taxi to the
centerline). Students landing slightly long and not being able to make the
normal turnoff, thereby extending time on the runway while i'm on short
final, all kinds of factors. Haven't seen any major runway incursions yet,
haven't seen anyone blow a hold short line either, just numerous snafus in
sequencing and timing. And i'm finally starting to get over the minor
oopses (had a habit of running a checklist, and somehow skipping over an
item, went to a flow then croscheck with paper method and had GREAT results
with it) but now for some strange reason i keep contacting center on
tower... tower on ground... ground on dispatch... etc etc.... gotta remember
to push the freqswap button on the G430, then make sure audio panel is on
proper radio.... guess I can make a radio flow for each time i modify a freq
start a descent/approach/cruise/climb....

[John Gaquin]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message

> Admittedly, I only have about 65 hours (PP-ASEL), but I've yet to have a
> flight where something "unusual" didn't happen.

Don't say "...only have about 65 hours...". Those 65 hours are probably the
hardest 65 hours you'll ever acquire.

Re "unusual" things happening: You're now reaching the point where you
begin to realize that there is *never* a perfect flight.

[RjL]

I had the same realization a few months after gettting the plastic picture
of orville & wilbur... No such thing as 'normal' flight. On the other hand,
thats a lot of the fun. Once the sweaty palms 'where the heck am I anyway'
period passes - things would get boring if it was all just up, cruise, down
with no surprises! I take it the Gulfstream incident was at a nontowered
field? Else what *other* TWR controller cleared him to taxi & hold??

Have fun! Im only 70 hrs ahead of you & mostly through IFR training. When I
finish the instrument rating I figure I'll be about as good a VFR pilot as I
hoped I would be when I got the PP. I figure 100-200 more hours and a
commercial rating & I'll be a decent instrument pilot. But why fly if not to
learn & get better? I mean besides the obvious "I can go >120 MPH in a
straight line isnt that amazing?" part :)





"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> Admittedly, I only have about 65 hours (PP-ASEL), but I've yet to have a
> flight where something "unusual" didn't happen.
> Also, admittedly, half of the time, it's something dumb I've done (forgot
to
> turn my transponder to ALT, etc).
> However, the other half isn't.
> Today for example, I almost made a completely perfect trip for a $100
burger
> with nothing unusual.
> On the way back, on short final (about 300 or 400 AGL) the gulfstream
that
> was inching passed the hold short line decided he wanted to take the
runway.
> I did a 360 and heard a comment on the radio that he must be on the wrong
> radio frequency.
> Wasn't that big of a deal, but is it just me?
>
> Adam
>
>

[The Weiss Family]

> I take it the Gulfstream incident was at a nontowered
> field? Else what *other* TWR controller cleared him to taxi & hold??
>

Yup. I fly out of Minden, NV (MEV) -- No tower.

> Have fun! Im only 70 hrs ahead of you & mostly through IFR training. When
I
> finish the instrument rating I figure I'll be about as good a VFR pilot as
I
> hoped I would be when I got the PP. I figure 100-200 more hours and a
> commercial rating & I'll be a decent instrument pilot. But why fly if not
to
> learn & get better? I mean besides the obvious "I can go >120 MPH in a
> straight line isnt that amazing?" part :)
>

Thanks for the words of encouragement.
You know, you're right... I kind of enjoy the "unusual" stuff because it
keeps me on my toes.
And you're right again, every flight I learn something and get better.
Good luck with your training!

Adam

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nooneimportant" <no.spam@me> wrote in message
news:4uqTc.7111$mD.3703@attbi_s02...
>
> Seems to me a cross country without at least one go around is a rarity.
> Very high frequency flight training around here.. i go to one big academy,
> there is another at the airport 10 miles away, and a few more up and down
> the Florida coast. Add in some very busy (sometiems just rookie
> themselves) Tower controllers... Lovely tricks like directing holdshort
AC
> to taxi into position, then not delivering a TO clearance fast enough to
get
> them off the ground before i land,

[snip]

> Students landing slightly long and not being able to make the
> normal turnoff, thereby extending time on the runway while i'm on short
> final, all kinds of factors.
>

There's not necessarily any problem there. Under the right conditions there
can be more than one airplane using the runway at any given moment.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"RjL" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had the same realization a few months after gettting the plastic
picture
> of orville & wilbur... No such thing as 'normal' flight. On the other
hand,
> thats a lot of the fun. Once the sweaty palms 'where the heck am I anyway'
> period passes - things would get boring if it was all just up, cruise,
down
> with no surprises! I take it the Gulfstream incident was at a nontowered
> field? Else what *other* TWR controller cleared him to taxi & hold??
>

What clearance to taxi and hold?

[Michael]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote
> Admittedly, I only have about 65 hours (PP-ASEL), but I've yet to have a
> flight where something "unusual" didn't happen.

At 65 hours, everything is unusual. Really. See, there's an
important difference between the typical 65 hour automobile driver
(that would be what - 3000 miles, maybe a few months driving
experience at best) and 65 hour airplane pilot. The driver has
probably hundreds of hours sitting in the right seat of a car,
observing. He has a pretty fair idea of what is unusual and what
isn't long before he gets that learner's permit. On top of that, the
new driver is young - learns faster, reacts faster.

Ever seen what happens when someone comes to the US from a country
where automobile ownership is rare and few people drive, in middle
age, and immediately starts learning to drive? I have. It's not
pretty, and most new pilots are like that.

So here you are, no real experience, trying to figure out what is
normal. With time, you will. With time, you will also discover that
most of the unusual things are not only usual but predictable.

> Also, admittedly, half of the time, it's something dumb I've done (forgot to
> turn my transponder to ALT, etc).

Conversation between me and a controller, a few weeks ago:
ATC: Are you about 7 miles South-Southeast of Sugarland moving North?
Me: Affirm
ATC: RADAR contact, primary target only. Check your transponder.
Me: Oh, sorry. Transponder works better in Oscan-November mode.

I have over 20 times as many hours as you do, and I'm an ATP. Feel
better?

We all make dumb mistakes. It happens. We're all human. Corollary -
try not to put yourself in too many situations where one dumb mistake
will kill you. Odds will catch up with you eventually. Limit your
checklists to items that can kill you - the more items on the
checklist, the more chance of skipping one, so keep them as short as
possible - but no shorter. If you must put yourself in a situation
where one dumb mistake will kill you, know which mistake it is - and
don't make it. Be aware.

> However, the other half isn't.

Yes - the other half is something dumb I've done. Or whoever else is
around. Or something funky with the weather. Or something doesn't
work right.

> On the way back, on short final (about 300 or 400 AGL) the gulfstream that
> was inching passed the hold short line decided he wanted to take the runway.
> I did a 360 and heard a comment on the radio that he must be on the wrong
> radio frequency.
> Wasn't that big of a deal, but is it just me?

Nah. He didn't see you, he may have been on the wrong frequency, or
had the wrong radio selected, or had the audio panel misconfigured, or
he just missed your radio call. It happens. BTDT. So you did a 360
and landed. No harm, no foul.

When was the last time you had to slow down a bit because someone
changed lanes and didn't see you? How many times did you change lanes
and discover a car in your rearview mirror you didn't realize was
there?

Michael

[Maule Driver]

"Michael" > wrote in message >
> Ever seen what happens when someone comes to the US from a country
> where automobile ownership is rare and few people drive, in middle
> age, and immediately starts learning to drive?

....or someone raised in Manhatten? My college buddy 'learned' to drive to
pass the test. First time he took the wheel in my presence he crashed into
a moving car while pulling out of the parking space. That summer he wiped a
Volvo. Not pretty.

I think I drove my first 100 miles moving cars around in the driveway. We
take our driving skills for granted.

[Rob McDonald]

(Michael) wrote:
>
> At 65 hours, everything is unusual. Really....
> [good thoughts on/for new pilots smipped]

Thanks Michael, it sounds like there is hope yet :-) I have about 30hrs
PIC now and was finding the same as the OP.

Rob

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "nooneimportant" wrote:

> > Students landing slightly long and not being able to make the
> > normal turnoff, thereby extending time on the runway while i'm on short
> > final, all kinds of factors.
>
> There's not necessarily any problem there. Under the right conditions there
> can be more than one airplane using the runway at any given moment.

True enough.

I think the most I've seen using one runway together is ten - but
the RAF Red Arrows (including the pilot of the reserve aeroplane)
know a thing or two about close-quarters flight ...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "nooneimportant" wrote:
>
> > > Students landing slightly long and not being able to make the
> > > normal turnoff, thereby extending time on the runway while i'm on
short
> > > final, all kinds of factors.
> >
> > There's not necessarily any problem there. Under the right conditions
there
> > can be more than one airplane using the runway at any given moment.
>
> True enough.
>
> I think the most I've seen using one runway together is ten - but
> the RAF Red Arrows (including the pilot of the reserve aeroplane)
> know a thing or two about close-quarters flight ...
>

If you think the only time more than one airplane can be using the runway at
any given moment is formation operations, you're mistaken.

[nooneimportant]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > "nooneimportant" wrote:
> >
> > > > Students landing slightly long and not being able to make the
> > > > normal turnoff, thereby extending time on the runway while i'm on
> short
> > > > final, all kinds of factors.
> > >
> > > There's not necessarily any problem there. Under the right conditions
> there
> > > can be more than one airplane using the runway at any given moment.
> >
> > True enough.
> >
> > I think the most I've seen using one runway together is ten - but
> > the RAF Red Arrows (including the pilot of the reserve aeroplane)
> > know a thing or two about close-quarters flight ...
> >
>
> If you think the only time more than one airplane can be using the runway
at
> any given moment is formation operations, you're mistaken.
>


Then enlighten us, from what i've been taught and understand its a 1 at a
time deal, exception would be formation flights, some LAHSO, and
emergencies. Its also a policy at our school to not simultaneously use a
runway (either in cooperation with CFR14 or in addition to CFR14).

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <067Uc.304700$JR4.209126@attbi_s54>,
"nooneimportant" <no.spam@me> wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > > "nooneimportant" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Students landing slightly long and not being able to make the
> > > > > normal turnoff, thereby extending time on the runway while i'm on
> > short
> > > > > final, all kinds of factors.
> > > >
> > > > There's not necessarily any problem there. Under the right conditions
> > there
> > > > can be more than one airplane using the runway at any given moment.
> > >
> > > True enough.
> > >
> > > I think the most I've seen using one runway together is ten - but
> > > the RAF Red Arrows (including the pilot of the reserve aeroplane)
> > > know a thing or two about close-quarters flight ...
> > >
> >
> > If you think the only time more than one airplane can be using the runway
> at
> > any given moment is formation operations, you're mistaken.
> >
>
>
> Then enlighten us, from what i've been taught and understand its a 1 at a
> time deal, exception would be formation flights, some LAHSO, and
> emergencies. Its also a policy at our school to not simultaneously use a
> runway (either in cooperation with CFR14 or in addition to CFR14).
>
>

I have landed at Oshkosh, where they were landing 4 at a time (2 long, 2
at threshold) on 27 and two at a time on 18.

[Brian Burger]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > "nooneimportant" wrote:
> >
> > > > Students landing slightly long and not being able to make the
> > > > normal turnoff, thereby extending time on the runway while i'm on
> short
> > > > final, all kinds of factors.
> > >
> > > There's not necessarily any problem there. Under the right conditions
> there
> > > can be more than one airplane using the runway at any given moment.
> >
> > True enough.
> >
> > I think the most I've seen using one runway together is ten - but
> > the RAF Red Arrows (including the pilot of the reserve aeroplane)
> > know a thing or two about close-quarters flight ...
> >
>
> If you think the only time more than one airplane can be using the runway at
> any given moment is formation operations, you're mistaken.

I've seen - been part of, actually - three light a/c on one 7000ft runway
at a time. Not formation, but Tower issuing 'postion & hold' to one a/c on
the end, and two coming off intersecting taxiways ahead, while we all
waited for a 737 to get far enough away for wake turb clearance.

Then there's LASHO - the US seems to have much more restrictive regs about
this, because it seems quite routine here in Canada. CYYJ has three
runways, all intersecting, and LASHO and 'position and hold' for takeoff are
both used to get max. usage out of our layout.

Brian.
PP-ASEL/Night.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nooneimportant" <no.spam@me> wrote in message
news:067Uc.304700$JR4.209126@attbi_s54...
>
> Then enlighten us, from what i've been taught and understand its a 1 at a
> time deal, exception would be formation flights, some LAHSO, and
> emergencies. Its also a policy at our school to not simultaneously use a
> runway (either in cooperation with CFR14 or in addition to CFR14).
>

See links below. Is it your school's policy to avoid towered fields?


http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0309.html#3-9-6

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0310.html#3-10-3

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> > > Under the right conditions there can be more than one airplane
> > > using the runway at any given moment.

> > I think the most I've seen using one runway together is ten - but
> > the RAF Red Arrows (including the pilot of the reserve aeroplane)
> > know a thing or two about close-quarters flight ...
>
> If you think the only time more than one airplane can be using the runway
> at any given moment is formation operations, you're mistaken.

I don't think that at all: I simply said that (AFAICR) the Reds (and
*possibly* the Patrouille de France and/or the Frecce Tricolori) have
provided the maximum that I have seen.

AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen that form
of dual runway occupancy.

Apart from formation operations of one sort or another, I can't think
of any example which *I have seen* which wasn't of some "obviously
safe" type, such as "after the landing Cessna, line up ..."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen that form
> of dual runway occupancy.
>

LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.

[Newps]

Robert Briggs wrote:


>
> AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen that form
> of dual runway occupancy.

In the US LAHSO was changed several years ago. You can now use LAHSO
procedures on a one runway airport. For example there may be people
working on the end of the runway and you can be instructed to hold short
of a certain intersection to allow the people to work on the runway at
the same time. However the rules are so ridiculous about the markings
and signs necessary that LAHSO, same or intersecting runways, are
virtually a thing of the past in the US. Most airports simply won't
spend the money to make the needed changes.


"obviously
> safe" type, such as "after the landing Cessna, line up ..."



Ooh, conditional clearance. You won't get that here.

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> > AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen that
> > form of dual runway occupancy.
>
> LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.

I realise that (modulo Newps' comment).

That said, why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
include 150 feet or so of your own? The tarmac is the same, even if
his label for it is different from yours.

[Robert Briggs]

Newps wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:

> > AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen that
> > form of dual runway occupancy.

> > ... "obviously
> > safe" type, such as "after the landing Cessna, line up ..."
>
> Ooh, conditional clearance. You won't get that here.

Hmm ... I've got the impression that you folk *do* use conditional
clearances - or something to very similar effect.

When a number of independent aircraft (i.e., excluding formation
teams and the like) wish to land in quick succession, AIUI only
one will be "cleared to land" at any time in the UK, so if a
landing aeroplane doesn't clear the runway in time then the guy
behind who has not been "cleared to land" will be going around
anyway.

OTOH, and again AIUI, you folk may be "cleared to land" before
the guy in front vacates the runway, so if he doesn't do so in
time then you effectively have to *cancel* the clearance as you
go around.

I guess it's something of a matter of emphasis, but I prefer the
idea that the second guy is flying a missed approach until the
controller tells him that the runway *is* his, rather than that
he is flying a normal approach unless and until the controller
tells him that the runway is *not* his (or he breaks out of any
overcast and sees for himself).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the US LAHSO was changed several years ago. You can now
> use LAHSO procedures on a one runway airport.
>

Theoretically, perhaps, but it would serve no useful purpose.


>
> For example there may be people
> working on the end of the runway and you can be instructed to hold short
> of a certain intersection to allow the people to work on the runway at
> the same time.
>

Nonsense.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> I realise that (modulo Newps' comment).
>

Newps' comments are best ignored.


>
> That said, why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
> include 150 feet or so of your own? The tarmac is the same, even if
> his label for it is different from yours.
>

Eh? If you're instructed to hold short, the other guy's runway DOES include
150 feet or so of the runway you'd otherwise be entitled to use.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmm ... I've got the impression that you folk *do* use conditional
> clearances - or something to very similar effect.
>

What gave you that impression?


>
> When a number of independent aircraft (i.e., excluding formation
> teams and the like) wish to land in quick succession, AIUI only
> one will be "cleared to land" at any time in the UK, so if a
> landing aeroplane doesn't clear the runway in time then the guy
> behind who has not been "cleared to land" will be going around
> anyway.
>

In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
around would not be necessary.


>
> OTOH, and again AIUI, you folk may be "cleared to land" before
> the guy in front vacates the runway, so if he doesn't do so in
> time then you effectively have to *cancel* the clearance as you
> go around.
>

In the US we have Same Runway Separation standards. The first aircraft can
still be on the runway when the second one lands under the right
circumstances.


>
> I guess it's something of a matter of emphasis, but I prefer the
> idea that the second guy is flying a missed approach until the
> controller tells him that the runway *is* his, rather than that
> he is flying a normal approach unless and until the controller
> tells him that the runway is *not* his (or he breaks out of any
> overcast and sees for himself).
>

Now you're talking IFR operations. If the aircraft were provided proper IFR
separation for the approach how is the first one going to be still on the
runway when the second one breaks out?

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
> around would not be necessary.

Where is this US? Where I live, controllers *attempt* to do so. They don't
always succeed. Sometimes they err, sometimes tires fail, ...

- Andrew

[Newps]

Robert Briggs wrote:

>>
>>Ooh, conditional clearance. You won't get that here.
>
>
> Hmm ... I've got the impression that you folk *do* use conditional
> clearances - or something to very similar effect.

A conditional clearance is when a controller would say " position and
hold behind the landing Cessna." You won't hear that. You will hear
"position and hold" after the Cessna goes by you.


>
> When a number of independent aircraft (i.e., excluding formation
> teams and the like) wish to land in quick succession, AIUI only
> one will be "cleared to land" at any time in the UK, so if a
> landing aeroplane doesn't clear the runway in time then the guy
> behind who has not been "cleared to land" will be going around
> anyway.

In the US any number of aircraft can be cleared to land at the same time.


>
> OTOH, and again AIUI, you folk may be "cleared to land" before
> the guy in front vacates the runway, so if he doesn't do so in
> time then you effectively have to *cancel* the clearance as you
> go around.

Yes.


>
> I guess it's something of a matter of emphasis, but I prefer the
> idea that the second guy is flying a missed approach until the
> controller tells him that the runway *is* his, rather than that
> he is flying a normal approach unless and until the controller
> tells him that the runway is *not* his (or he breaks out of any
> overcast and sees for himself).

Well we don't do that here, never have. As for the LAHSO you mentioned
before we almost got our airport to start painting the lines at the
intersections. Occasionally we have personnel on the ends of the runway
doing various maintenence. Had we got the airport to do the required
work we could have had aircraft landing and holding short of a given
taxiway, one that say lops 1000 feet of the end of the runway. They in
the end chose not to maintain the runway to those specs

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

>> I guess it's something of a matter of emphasis, but I prefer the
>> idea that the second guy is flying a missed approach until the
>> controller tells him that the runway *is* his, rather than that
>> he is flying a normal approach unless and until the controller
>> tells him that the runway is *not* his (or he breaks out of any
>> overcast and sees for himself).
>
> Well we don't do that here, never have.

Any idea why not?

It's not just "emphasis". If communication fails when someone is about to
be waved off, there's a problem. If communication fails when someone is
about to be cleared to land, there's far less of a problem.

In general, I'd expect the landing pilot to notice the aircraft with the
blown tire sitting on the runway. But in sufficiently poor weather...?

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
> > around would not be necessary.
>
> Where is this US?
>

The US is found on the continent of North America, south of Canada and north
of Mexico, with rhw addition of Alaska and Hawaii.


>
> Where I live, controllers *attempt* to do so. They don't
> always succeed. Sometimes they err, sometimes tires fail, ...
>

Where do you live?

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Where do you live?

In a country called "US" too. What a coincidence. But mine's on Earth,
where controllers can err and tires can blow.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
> around would not be necessary.

Not always. I had the plane in front of me fail to clear the runway in time at TTN
once.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> In a country called "US" too. What a coincidence. But mine's on Earth,
> where controllers can err and tires can blow.
>

Apparently your just inexperienced.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
> > around would not be necessary.
>
> Not always. I had the plane in front of me fail to clear the runway in
time at TTN
> once.
>

That doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient spacing.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> That doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient spacing.

I could well believe that there was sufficient spacing when the plane ahead of me was
still a mile away from touchdown. There was not when I crossed the threshold.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient spacing.
>
> I could well believe that there was sufficient spacing when the plane
ahead of me was
> still a mile away from touchdown. There was not when I crossed the
threshold.
>

How do you know?

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> How do you know?

The controller told me so.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The controller told me so.
>

Did you not have the previous airplane in sight?

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>>
>> In a country called "US" too. What a coincidence. But mine's on Earth,
>> where controllers can err and tires can blow.
>>
>
> Apparently your just inexperienced.

You have it backwards. I have experienced controllers issuing a go-around.
I've also been the cause of this, I'm sorry to say, when a tire failed on
landing.

So if you've never experienced a controller issuing a go around, then you
are lacking in that experience. Lucky you.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>>
>> How do you know?
>
> The controller told me so.

In the US on Earth, the controller has to make certain assumptions. That #1
won't blow a tire is one of those assumptions, of course. Others include
that #1 won't slow a lot on final or dally on the runway.

And just to make matters "worse", I've been cleared as #3 or #4 to land. So
the controller is making a fairly lengthy chain of assumptions (even on
small planes, we're speaking now of 9 tires holding together {8^).

- Andrew

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>>I guess it's something of a matter of emphasis, but I prefer the
>>>idea that the second guy is flying a missed approach until the
>>>controller tells him that the runway *is* his, rather than that
>>>he is flying a normal approach unless and until the controller
>>>tells him that the runway is *not* his (or he breaks out of any
>>>overcast and sees for himself).
>>
>>Well we don't do that here, never have.
>
>
> Any idea why not?

Because it's not a problem.

>
> It's not just "emphasis". If communication fails when someone is about to
> be waved off, there's a problem. If communication fails when someone is
> about to be cleared to land, there's far less of a problem.
>
> In general, I'd expect the landing pilot to notice the aircraft with the
> blown tire sitting on the runway. But in sufficiently poor weather...?

Those are all potential problems that haven't caused a wreck here in the
States because a controller wasn't able to send someone around when he
had to.

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:


>
>
> In the US on Earth, the controller has to make certain assumptions.

We make thousands of assumptions everyday.



That #1
> won't blow a tire is one of those assumptions, of course.

In the 16 or so years I've been doing this I've seen less than 5 blown
tires that required the aircraft to get towed off the runway. In that
time I have witnessed well over a million takeoffs and landings.


Others include
> that #1 won't slow a lot on final or dally on the runway.

That happens all the time. There is no such thing as a go around proof
sequence. **** happens. If it didn't there wouldn't be any need for a
controller in the first place.


>
> And just to make matters "worse", I've been cleared as #3 or #4 to land. So
> the controller is making a fairly lengthy chain of assumptions (even on
> small planes, we're speaking now of 9 tires holding together {8^).

What exactly are the tires you use made of...Jello? They just don't
fail with the regularity that you are worried about.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> You have it backwards.
>

Actually, I'm dead on.


>
> I have experienced controllers issuing a go-around.
> I've also been the cause of this, I'm sorry to say, when a tire failed on
> landing.
>
> So if you've never experienced a controller issuing a go around, then you
> are lacking in that experience. Lucky you.
>

So a blown tire means the controller didn't provide proper spacing?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the 16 or so years I've been doing this I've seen less than 5 blown
> tires that required the aircraft to get towed off the runway. In that
> time I have witnessed well over a million takeoffs and landings.
>

That's unlikely. To witness that many you'd have to spend your full forty
hour work week in the tower every week for sixteen years and average thirty
operations per hour.

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Andrew Gideon wrote:

> > I have experienced controllers issuing a go-around.
> > I've also been the cause of this, I'm sorry to say, when a tire
> > failed on landing.
> >
> > So if you've never experienced a controller issuing a go around,
> > then you are lacking in that experience. Lucky you.
>
> So a blown tire means the controller didn't provide proper spacing?

Steven, I don't think anyone is saying that.

Proper spacing on final approach would be sufficient for the second
guy to have a suitably clear runway on which to land if the first one
has no problems and vacates the runway promptly.

However, if something *does* go wrong, the second guy may *not* have
a suitably clear runway, and so will have to go around.

If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:

> > That said, why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
> > include 150 feet or so of your own? The tarmac is the same, even if
> > his label for it is different from yours.
>
> Eh? If you're instructed to hold short, the other guy's runway DOES include
> 150 feet or so of the runway you'd otherwise be entitled to use.

Er, that's what I was saying.

I suspect my caffeine fix was overdue when I read your previous
article:

: > AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen
: > that form of dual runway occupancy.
:
: LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.

I now think that all you were doing there was (unnecessarily)
explaining something of which I *have* read, even though I've
not seen it in action - but for some reason I took it to be a
claim that the rhomboidal patch at the intersection is part of
the "other" runway only!

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The controller told me so.
> >
>
> Did you not have the previous airplane in sight?

Og course. He was trundling down the runway.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

> What exactly are the tires you use made of...Jello? They just don't
> fail with the regularity that you are worried about.

I no longer rent from the FBO that maintained the plane I was flying when
the tire failed, so it isn't terribly convenient for me to check to see if
the tires are jello. I expect I'd have noticed this sort of thing during
the preflight, but - given that I don't preflight with a spoon and whipped
cream - perhaps not.

More seriously: I've only had a tire fail once during my 400+ hours of
flying, so perhaps it isn't terribly likely. However, I have been waved
off in the past for other reasons. Perhaps these can all be classified as
"controller missequencing", but - given that a lot of students are flying
around my "home" airport - I'd be surprised if none of the blame falls to
those students.

But this is all beside the point (although interesting). The fact is that
controllers do occasionally have to wave off an aircraft previously cleared
for landing. Someone - not you, BTW - claimed:

In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
around would not be necessary.

I was merely pointing out that this was usually, but not always, the case in
my country which also happens to be called "the US".

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven, I don't think anyone is saying that.
>

I think Andrew Gideon is saying that.


>
> Proper spacing on final approach would be sufficient for the second
> guy to have a suitably clear runway on which to land if the first one
> has no problems and vacates the runway promptly.
>

In the US, the first one does not have to vacate the runway for it to be
suitably clear.


>
> However, if something *does* go wrong, the second guy may *not* have
> a suitably clear runway, and so will have to go around.
>

I think most of us understand that.


>
> If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
> to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
> the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
> point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.
>

The UK rules appear very inefficient.

[Andrew Gideon]

Robert Briggs wrote:


> If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
> to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
> the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
> point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

Right. This is my point. Since someone stated:

In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
around would not be necessary.

I thought it useful to point out that, in this US, this is usually but not
always the case. What I wrote:

Where I live, controllers attempt to do so. They don't
always succeed. Sometimes they err, sometimes tires fail, ...

is pretty clear. Why Steven concludes that a blown tire implies a failure
to provide proper spacing is odd, but really doesn't have anything to do
with the discussion here.

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> Er, that's what I was saying.
>

No, you said "the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so of your
own".


>
> I suspect my caffeine fix was overdue when I read your previous
> article:
>
> : > AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen
> : > that form of dual runway occupancy.
> :
> : LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.
>
> I now think that all you were doing there was (unnecessarily)
> explaining something of which I *have* read, even though I've
> not seen it in action - but for some reason I took it to be a
> claim that the rhomboidal patch at the intersection is part of
> the "other" runway only!
>

I explained it because your message indicated you did not understand it. In
LAHSO operations, if you've been instructed to hold short, "the rhomboidal
patch at the intersection IS part of the 'other' runway only!" It's not
available to you because another aircraft is using it to either land or
takeoff.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Og course. He was trundling down the runway.
>

That was the first you saw of him?

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> I have experienced controllers issuing a go-around.
>> I've also been the cause of this, I'm sorry to say, when a tire failed on
>> landing.
>>
>> So if you've never experienced a controller issuing a go around, then you
>> are lacking in that experience. Lucky you.
>>
>
> So a blown tire means the controller didn't provide proper spacing?

No. They can occur independently. Both, though, may require the next
aircraft in sequence - which may have been cleared to land in the US - to
go around.

You claimed:

In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
around would not be necessary.

to which I replied:

Where I live, controllers attempt to do so. They don't
always succeed. Sometimes they err, sometimes tires fail, ...

to which you replied:

Apparently your just inexperienced.

which makes as much sense as asking whether a blown tire means that the
controller failed to provide proper sequencing.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

[...]
>> In general, I'd expect the landing pilot to notice the aircraft with the
>> blown tire sitting on the runway. But in sufficiently poor weather...?
>
> Those are all potential problems that haven't caused a wreck here in the
> States because a controller wasn't able to send someone around when he
> had to.

That's not the same thing as saying that it cannot occur, though. If we did
have a wreck caused by such an unfortunate and unlikely event, would the
rules be changed? If so, why wait?

That's what I'm not understanding...or I'm missing what makes this unlikely
scenario impossible.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> In the US on Earth, the controller has to make certain assumptions.
>
> We make thousands of assumptions everyday.

True.

[...]
>
> That happens all the time. There is no such thing as a go around proof
> sequence.

I know.

> **** happens.

I forgot that reason: animal incursion (and activities {8^) on the runway.

- Andrew

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> > Er, that's what I was saying.
>
> No, you said "the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so
> of your own".

Er, what I wrote was:

"... why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
include 150 feet or so of your own?"

See the "why bother ... if ..." construct?

[Newps]

Robert Briggs wrote:

>
> Proper spacing on final approach would be sufficient for the second
> guy to have a suitably clear runway on which to land if the first one
> has no problems and vacates the runway promptly.

Remeber here in the States most aircraft don't have to be off the runway
for the next one to land, just a certain distance down the runway.


>
> However, if something *does* go wrong, the second guy may *not* have
> a suitably clear runway, and so will have to go around.

Some airplanes only.


>
> If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
> to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
> the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
> point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said? That would
never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping at the tower
controller wondering about his landing clearance. In your scenario
there are many more miles separation than the minimum if there is that
kind of time to be doing all this talking.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:
> >
> > > Er, that's what I was saying.
> >
> > No, you said "the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so
> > of your own".
>
> Er, what I wrote was:
>
> "... why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
> include 150 feet or so of your own?"
>
> See the "why bother ... if ..." construct?
>

Yes, I saw it the first time. The part you still don't understand is that
the other guy's runway DOES include 150 feet or so of your own. You can't
use that portion of the runway because someone else is using it.

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:


>
> More seriously: I've only had a tire fail once during my 400+ hours of
> flying, so perhaps it isn't terribly likely. However, I have been waved
> off in the past for other reasons. Perhaps these can all be classified as
> "controller missequencing", but - given that a lot of students are flying
> around my "home" airport - I'd be surprised if none of the blame falls to
> those students.

I worked for four years at an airport where 95% of the traffic was from
the University of North Dakota. Nothing but flight training. Students
beat the hell out of airplanes and I don't recall any flat tires on the
trainers. The flats all seem to happen to the biz jets and big twins.

>
> But this is all beside the point (although interesting). The fact is that
> controllers do occasionally have to wave off an aircraft previously cleared
> for landing.

At GFK we had probably 50 go arounds a day for any number of reasons.
However disabled aircraft on the runway wasn't one of the top 10
factors. Here at BIL we have hardly any flight training anymore and I
can't remember the last time I saw a go around. Although there are a
few reasons for that too.

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Steven, I don't think anyone is saying that.
>>
>
> I think Andrew Gideon is saying that.
>

What I wrote was:

Where I live, controllers attempt to do so. They don't
always succeed. Sometimes they err, sometimes tires fail, ...

It would take creative reading to take that to mean, as you asked:

a blown tire means the controller didn't provide proper spacing?

I assume that you're doing this deliberately, creating noise to cover your
statement:

In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
around would not be necessary.

which ignores that it is occasionally necessary for controllers to wave off
aircraft in the US. I might have assumed this "creative reading" to be an
error on your part, but you then accused me of being "inexperienced" merely
because I had experienced controllers issuing go-around instructions.
That's too silly, given that inexperience would be a *lack* of experience.

- Andrew

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > >
> > > > Er, that's what I was saying.
> > >
> > > No, you said "the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so
> > > of your own".
> >
> > Er, what I wrote was:
> >
> > "... why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
> > include 150 feet or so of your own?"
> >
> > See the "why bother ... if ..." construct?
>
> Yes, I saw it the first time. The part you still don't understand is that
> the other guy's runway DOES include 150 feet or so of your own. You can't
> use that portion of the runway because someone else is using it.

Hmm ... I think I *do* understand that: you land and hold short of that
150-foot portion (more specifically, short of some marked holding
point).

I guess that at least one of us needs a caffeine fix and/or a weekend
away from the 'puter. Good night.

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

> I worked for four years at an airport where 95% of the traffic was from
> the University of North Dakota. Nothing but flight training. Students
> beat the hell out of airplanes and I don't recall any flat tires on the
> trainers. The flats all seem to happen to the biz jets and big twins.

Interesting. Well, it happened to me once.

[Yes, it was in a 172 also used for training.]

>>
>> But this is all beside the point (although interesting). The fact is
>> that controllers do occasionally have to wave off an aircraft previously
>> cleared for landing.
>
> At GFK we had probably 50 go arounds a day for any number of reasons.
> However disabled aircraft on the runway wasn't one of the top 10
> factors. Here at BIL we have hardly any flight training anymore and I
> can't remember the last time I saw a go around. Although there are a
> few reasons for that too.

That *is* interesting. It helps explain why I've experienced this more at
CDW than elsewhere. I thought it because most of my landings, over the
years, have been there (it's where I did my primary and instrument
training). But CDW is also a "training heavy" airport.

Not that this is too meaningful, but I cannot recall a single instance of a
go-around being required at a controlled airport not CDW. I can recall
hearing a go-around issued at CDW just this past week.

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmm ... I think I *do* understand that: you land and hold short of that
> 150-foot portion (more specifically, short of some marked holding
> point).
>

Well, if you understood that, why did you ask "... why bother holding short
if the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so of your own?"?


>
> I guess that at least one of us needs a caffeine fix and/or a weekend
> away from the 'puter. Good night.
>

I think you're right. I suggest rest.

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:


>
> That's not the same thing as saying that it cannot occur, though.

Fer cryin' out loud, of course anything can happen. And yet we still
allow planes to takeoff.


If we did
> have a wreck caused by such an unfortunate and unlikely event, would the
> rules be changed?

Probably, because that's how the FAA works. Controller forgets
Metroliner on runway at an intersection at night, clears 737 to land,
which promptly lands on Metroliner. As a direct result I am no longer
allowed to put aircraft in postion at an intersection at night.


If so, why wait?

Because it's reasonable to wait.

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:


>
>>**** happens.
>
>
> I forgot that reason: animal incursion (and activities {8^) on the runway.

Yep, a few weeks ago aHorizon Dash 8 told me "Tower, we just hit
something on the runway." We send the truck out onto the runway and
they needed a shovel to pick up the remains of some animal. It wasn't
until the Horizon pilot checked his nosewheel and found a few hundred
quills stuck in the tire did we realize it was a porcupine.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:02:09 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:


>Not that this is too meaningful, but I cannot recall a single instance of a
>go-around being required at a controlled airport not CDW. I can recall
>hearing a go-around issued at CDW just this past week.

FWIW, I've been told to go-around while attempting to get in a landing
at BED on any number of occasions during my training here.

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Clark wrote:

> FWIW, I've been told to go-around while attempting to get in a landing
> at BED on any number of occasions during my training here.

Is that a training-heavy airport?

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Og course. He was trundling down the runway.
> >
>
> That was the first you saw of him?

What difference does that make? I suspect you're playing your usual one sentence post
game that ends in something like "well, we do that, but that's not the proper term
for that here." If so, finish it up, 'cause you're on record so far as saying that,
if the runway gets blocked by one aircraft, no U.S. controller would cancel the
landing clearance of a following aircraft, and that's BS. Been there.

Pertinent quote:
>> When a number of independent aircraft (i.e., excluding formation
>> teams and the like) wish to land in quick succession, AIUI only
>> one will be "cleared to land" at any time in the UK, so if a
>> landing aeroplane doesn't clear the runway in time then the guy
>> behind who has not been "cleared to land" will be going around
>> anyway.
>>
> In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
> around would not be necessary.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:55:51 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I've been told to go-around while attempting to get in a landing
>> at BED on any number of occasions during my training here.
>
>Is that a training-heavy airport?

Yes, at least 2 schools based there. I believe they do a lot of
controller training as well. Makes for an exciting pattern towards
the end of the scheduled blocks when everyone is coming back from the
practice areas :)

[C Kingsbury]

Peter Clark > wrote in message >...

> Yes, at least 2 schools based there. I believe they do a lot of
> controller training as well. Makes for an exciting pattern towards
> the end of the scheduled blocks when everyone is coming back from the
> practice areas :)

BED gets even more interesting when you add in the heavy bizjet
traffic. You can easily have a handful of Katanas and Tomahawks
sharing the pattern with Challengers and G-Vs.

Also you need to keep your eyes peeled out by the "golf ball" off to
the Northeast, and the old Wang Towers. I always make a point of not
passing directly overhead of either one.

-cwk.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(C Kingsbury) wrote:

> Also you need to keep your eyes peeled out by the "golf ball" off to
> the Northeast, and the old Wang Towers. I always make a point of not
> passing directly overhead of either one.

consider adding the Needham towers and Minuteman to your list.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[C Kingsbury]

"RjL" > wrote in message >...

> Have fun! Im only 70 hrs ahead of you & mostly through IFR training. When I
> finish the instrument rating I figure I'll be about as good a VFR pilot as I
> hoped I would be when I got the PP. I figure 100-200 more hours and a
> commercial rating & I'll be a decent instrument pilot. But why fly if not to
> learn & get better? I mean besides the obvious "I can go >120 MPH in a
> straight line isnt that amazing?" part :)
>

I'd generally agree but add the counsel to make sure that the quality
of your experience meets or exceeds the quantity. You can go from
student to CFII while almost never venturing more than 50 miles from
one airport with an instructor sitting next to you on sunny days. I'm
getting ready to take my instrument checkride and I have about 25
hours of actual IFR time, because my instructor makes a point of
teaching students in real weather.

After the examiner handed me my ticket two years ago, I asked him if
he would recommend that I get an instrument rating. He replied,
"Absolutely, but first you should go out alone and scare yourself for
50 hours or so."

-cwk.

[Robert Briggs]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> > Hmm ... I think I *do* understand that: you land and hold short of that
> > 150-foot portion (more specifically, short of some marked holding
> > point).
>
> Well, if you understood that, why did you ask "... why bother holding short
> if the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so of your own?"?

After a weekend away from the 'puter, here's how I put it last
Wednesday:

: Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: > Robert Briggs wrote:
: >
: > > AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen
: > > that form of dual runway occupancy.
: >
: > LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.
:
: I realise that (modulo Newps' comment).
:
: That said, why bother holding short if the other guy's runway
: doesn't include 150 feet or so of your own? The tarmac is
: the same, even if his label for it is different from yours.

I guess I misunderstood your simple explanation of LAHSO to include
denial that it constituted a "form of dual runway occupancy" when the
other guy crosses your nose.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> After a weekend away from the 'puter, here's how I put it last
> Wednesday:
>
> : Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> : > Robert Briggs wrote:
> : >
> : > > AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen
> : > > that form of dual runway occupancy.
> : >
> : > LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.
> :
> : I realise that (modulo Newps' comment).
> :
> : That said, why bother holding short if the other guy's runway
> : doesn't include 150 feet or so of your own? The tarmac is
> : the same, even if his label for it is different from yours.
>
> I guess I misunderstood your simple explanation of LAHSO to include
> denial that it constituted a "form of dual runway occupancy" when the
> other guy crosses your nose.
>

Nope, if you're cleared to land and hold short of the intersecting runway
your runway effectively ends at the hold short point.

[Robert Briggs]

Newps wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> > Proper spacing on final approach would be sufficient for the second
> > guy to have a suitably clear runway on which to land if the first one
> > has no problems and vacates the runway promptly.
>
> Remeber here in the States most aircraft don't have to be off the runway
> for the next one to land, just a certain distance down the runway.

That is why I wrote "suitably clear", rather than "empty".

> > However, if something *does* go wrong, the second guy may *not* have
> > a suitably clear runway, and so will have to go around.

> > If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
> > to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
> > the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
> > point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.
>
> That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said?

It is quite likely that the controller *would* call the go-around, but
the lack of a landing clearance would (or jolly well should) keep the
second guy airborne.

> That would never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping
> at the tower controller wondering about his landing clearance.

I don't think the pilot would often be "wondering about his landing
clearance".

At a field with normally light(ish) traffic where you happened to be
unusually close to the guy in front the controller would tell you to
expect a late landing clearance.

Somewhere like LHR "late" landing clearances are the default.

> In your scenario there are many more miles separation than the
> minimum if there is that kind of time to be doing all this talking.

What do you mean by "all this talking"?

You can sort out things like the weather in plenty of time.

I wouldn't call issuing the landing clearance itself "doing all this
talking" - certainly not in comparison with a system which requires
time for the controller to call a go-around.

[Newps]

Robert Briggs wrote:


>
>
>>>If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
>>>to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
>>>the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
>>>point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.
>>
>>That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said?
>
>
> It is quite likely that the controller *would* call the go-around, but
> the lack of a landing clearance would (or jolly well should) keep the
> second guy airborne.

But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.


>
>
>>That would never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping
>>at the tower controller wondering about his landing clearance.
>
>
> I don't think the pilot would often be "wondering about his landing
> clearance".

Alas, they do.


>
> At a field with normally light(ish) traffic where you happened to be
> unusually close to the guy in front the controller would tell you to
> expect a late landing clearance.

There's no reason for that and causes the controller to talk more than
he has to. "Follow the Cessna ahead, cleared to land." Assuming it
works out as expected with the required amount of separation no further
talking is required. If it doesn't then you tell the aircraft to go
around. It's foolish to be issuing landing clearances with the aircraft
on very short final. He's got more important things to worry about.




>
> I wouldn't call issuing the landing clearance itself "doing all this
> talking" - certainly not in comparison with a system which requires
> time for the controller to call a go-around.

In my system I have a lot more time to talk because I am not giving
other airplanes farther out a stupid instruction like "continue inbound."

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

>
> But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
> clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
> without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
> is safer is simply not true.

Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's not
a Good Thing.

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's
not
> a Good Thing.
>

No, but it happens. And it happens with the pros too.

[C Kingsbury]

Bob Noel > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (C Kingsbury) wrote:
>
> > Also you need to keep your eyes peeled out by the "golf ball" off to
> > the Northeast, and the old Wang Towers. I always make a point of not
> > passing directly overhead of either one.
>
> consider adding the Needham towers and Minuteman to your list.

So long as we're at it let's not forget the nude beach on the Cape!

-cwk.

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
>>clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
>>without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
>>is safer is simply not true.
>
>
> Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's not
> a Good Thing.

Not for them, but it really doesn't matter.

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

>
> Not for them, but it really doesn't matter.

The more I listen to controllers, the more I worry about pilots. You guys
tell some frightening stories.

In all the reading I've done on "runway incursions", I don't recall seeing
this issue addressed (although I may simply have missed it). Apparently,
it should be.

- Andrew