fun with controllers at OSU

[Mike W.]

This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. Weather was pretty
marginal, so I did 2 landings there, departed to an uncontrolled field about
12mi away for a few, then came back. I wanted to do a few more, so I was
doing t-n-g's on the north runway. Each time, the controller said 'clear for
the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to end
and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway. He
wasn't nasty about it. 'I know you're the only one up there, but it's
baaaaaad practice...' etc.
I went through this several times when I was learning to fly there, as did
other students. Even my flight instructors would get frustrated with this
exact situation.
The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I was
this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured I
would just go home even more puzzled.
So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with 'cleared
for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?

[Blueskies]

"Mike W." > wrote in message ...
> This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. Weather was pretty
> marginal, so I did 2 landings there, departed to an uncontrolled field about
> 12mi away for a few, then came back. I wanted to do a few more, so I was
> doing t-n-g's on the north runway. Each time, the controller said 'clear for
> the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
> landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to end
> and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway. He
> wasn't nasty about it. 'I know you're the only one up there, but it's
> baaaaaad practice...' etc.
> I went through this several times when I was learning to fly there, as did
> other students. Even my flight instructors would get frustrated with this
> exact situation.
> The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
> anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
> not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I was
> this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured I
> would just go home even more puzzled.
> So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with 'cleared
> for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
> land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
> short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?
>
>

Just curious, you said you went to an uncontrolled field ~12 mi away. Why didn't you do this practice there?

[Newps]

Mike W. wrote:


> The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
> anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
> not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I was
> this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured I
> would just go home even more puzzled.

You should have, he was wrong.


> So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with 'cleared
> for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
> land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
> short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?

A stop and go is one of your options is he doesn't specifically tell you
no stop and go's. We have an instructor here that will ask for options
and then have his student fly the length of our 2 mile runway at about 3
agl. In that 2 miles the student may touch the runway 5 or 6 times.
The instructor just can't understand why this is a problem.

[Mike W.]

Uncontrolled field has standard (left) traffic pattern. The airport I fly
out of has 9R-27L (main runway) and 9L-27R, which gets used a lot for
training, has right traffic (27R). I wanted a few more landings, I like to
mix up left-right, I think it is beneficial as the pattern 'looks' a little
different, L vs R.

" Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Just curious, you said you went to an uncontrolled field ~12 mi away. Why
didn't you do this practice there?
>

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Mike W.
> wrote:

> This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. ...[Tower] said 'clear for
> the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
> landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to end
> and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway...
> The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority... I was
> this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab....

I'm sure he'd have been happy to give it to you. Sometimes what you're
expecting and what ATC is expecting can be quite different, and I'm
sure he'd have been happy to rationally explain it.

> So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with 'cleared
> for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
> land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
> short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?

That isn't what you asked for. You asked for a back-taxi on the active
runway, and that's something completely different. A stop-and-go means
you stop, and then GO. Not turn around, saunter back, line back up,
etc...

The AIM lists what you're specifically allowed to do on a

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-22

4-3-22. Option Approach

The "Cleared for the Option" procedure will permit an instructor,
flight examiner or pilot the option to make a touch-and-go, low
approach, missed approach, stop-and-go, or full stop landing.



Also, relating to the full-stop landing above:

4-3-20. Exiting the Runway After Landing
The following procedures should be followed after landing and reaching
taxi speed.
a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a
taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots shall not exit the landing runway
onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an
operating control tower, pilots should not stop OR REVERSE COURSE on
the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.


So there you go. :-)

Hope that helps.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Steve Foley]

OK, I'll bite. Why is this a probem?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> We have an instructor here that will ask for options
> and then have his student fly the length of our 2 mile runway at about 3
> agl. In that 2 miles the student may touch the runway 5 or 6 times.
> The instructor just can't understand why this is a problem.

[Bob Gardner]

According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, you were right and the
controller was wrong. You might want to talk to a quality control person at
OSU.

Bob Gardner

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. Weather was pretty
> marginal, so I did 2 landings there, departed to an uncontrolled field
> about
> 12mi away for a few, then came back. I wanted to do a few more, so I was
> doing t-n-g's on the north runway. Each time, the controller said 'clear
> for
> the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
> landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to
> end
> and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway.
> He
> wasn't nasty about it. 'I know you're the only one up there, but it's
> baaaaaad practice...' etc.
> I went through this several times when I was learning to fly there, as did
> other students. Even my flight instructors would get frustrated with this
> exact situation.
> The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
> anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
> not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I
> was
> this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured
> I
> would just go home even more puzzled.
> So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with
> 'cleared
> for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
> land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
> short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?
>
>

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Bob Gardner
> wrote:

> According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, you were right and the
> controller was wrong. You might want to talk to a quality control person at
> OSU.

How do you figure?

From the P/CG:

"OPTION APPROACH- An approach requested and conducted by a pilot which
will result in either a touch-and-go, missed approach, low approach,
stop- and-go, or full stop landing."

Says the same thing the AIM says. A back-taxi is not on the above list.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Hotel 179]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> Uncontrolled field has standard (left) traffic pattern. >

Non-towered field...just announce that you are making right traffic...no
tower, no active runway.

Stephen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
>
> This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. Weather was pretty
> marginal, so I did 2 landings there, departed to an uncontrolled field
> about
> 12mi away for a few, then came back. I wanted to do a few more, so I was
> doing t-n-g's on the north runway. Each time, the controller said 'clear
> for
> the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
> landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to
> end
> and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway.
> He
> wasn't nasty about it. 'I know you're the only one up there, but it's
> baaaaaad practice...' etc.
> I went through this several times when I was learning to fly there, as did
> other students. Even my flight instructors would get frustrated with this
> exact situation.
> The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
> anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
> not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I
> was
> this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured
> I
> would just go home even more puzzled.
> So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with
> 'cleared
> for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
> land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
> short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?
>

What you did was covered under "cleared for the option".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hotel 179" > wrote in message
...
>
> Non-towered field...just announce that you are making right traffic...no
> tower, no active runway.
>

Why would you announce that you're violating the FARs?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Garner Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you figure?
>
> From the P/CG:
>
> "OPTION APPROACH- An approach requested and conducted by a pilot which
> will result in either a touch-and-go, missed approach, low approach,
> stop- and-go, or full stop landing."
>
> Says the same thing the AIM says. A back-taxi is not on the above list.
>

The controller didn't bitch about the request for the back-taxi, he bitched
about the full-stop landing. A full-stop IS covered under the option.

[Hotel 179]

--

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>>
>
> Why would you announce that you're violating the FARs?


Steven,

Which FAR are you referring to?

[Brad Zeigler]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. Weather was pretty
> marginal, so I did 2 landings there, departed to an uncontrolled field
> about
> 12mi away for a few, then came back. I wanted to do a few more, so I was
> doing t-n-g's on the north runway. Each time, the controller said 'clear
> for
> the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
> landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to
> end
> and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway.
> He
> wasn't nasty about it. 'I know you're the only one up there, but it's
> baaaaaad practice...' etc.
> I went through this several times when I was learning to fly there, as did
> other students. Even my flight instructors would get frustrated with this
> exact situation.
> The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
> anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
> not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I
> was
> this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured
> I
> would just go home even more puzzled.
> So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with
> 'cleared
> for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
> land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
> short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?

Was he upset that you stopped on the runway, or that you requested a
backtaxi? Stopping is not a problem as long as you're going to take off
from the stopping point or clear the runway. As others have mentioned, a
backtaxi is not included in an "option" clearance.

[Hotel 179]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:iK6Xe.13525>>
>
> Why would you announce that you're violating the FARs?

I was referring to the fact that postage stamp runways in the boonies have a
more relaxed atmosphere than a non-towered field that may really need a
tower....my earlier post was an over-simplification.

Stephen

[Montblack]

("Garner Miller" wrote)
[snip]
> The AIM lists what you're specifically allowed to do on a
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-22
>
> 4-3-22. Option Approach
>
> The "Cleared for the Option" procedure will permit an instructor,
> flight examiner or pilot the option to make a touch-and-go, low
> approach, missed approach, stop-and-go, or full stop landing.


....low approach.

How low? Curious.

At OSH I saw a low 'departure' on 27 the final Saturday evening. It was low
enough to wonder if the prop(s) would hit. Don't recall the make/model. IIRC
they retracted the wheels then stayed low for (what looked like) some hot
doggin' - scary. And I'm all for a little fun.


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hotel 179" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven,
>
> Which FAR are you referring to?
>

91.126

[Hotel 179]

--

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:HPcXe.13271
> 91.126

You are absolutely right...There's no wiggle room in that one...although,
there have been times when I've heard of practice instrument approaches in
VMC that result in a non-standard approach to a non-towered field....does
that violate 91.126?

Wait, wait...don't tell me.....I'm sure that an AC covers those situations
when advice is needed in a non-cookie-cutter world.....I'll look there.

Stephen

[Bruce E Butts]

I fly out of OSU as well and have found that since it is a Non Federal
Control Tower the controllers there can have an unfriendly attitude
depending on which controller is working at the time. I do not know them
except having met the control tower manager a few times, he is concerned
about the less than friendly treatment that students and others get at
OSU so I encourage you to call.

The management is aware that they have a reputation as being nonstudent
friendly and have encouraged local pilots to respond to surveys
regarding the service.

It sounds like to me that the controller made a mistake.

Bruce.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hotel 179" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are absolutely right...There's no wiggle room in that one...although,
> there have been times when I've heard of practice instrument approaches in
> VMC that result in a non-standard approach to a non-towered field....does
> that violate 91.126?
>

Note that FAR 91.126 begins with "Unless otherwise authorized or required".

[Hotel 179]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
> Note that FAR 91.126 begins with "Unless otherwise authorized or
> required".
>

That is splashing all around what I was talking about when Mike mentioned
the field in the boonies....Blueskies also asked the question about going
there to practice. There may have been a place where full-stop, back-taxi,
ground-looping (: , what-ever may have been authorized and could be done
safely in a training environment.

I really enjoy this forum as it has a relaxed and cordial atmosphere and I
had no intention of writing a brief on the legal requirements of practicing
right-hand traffic that Mike W likes to do. I've been flying disaster
relief into Mississippi and Louisiana over the past several weeks and
although there are control towers, it goes something like this, "xxxx,
advise what you'd like to do." There is right-hand traffic landing short as
intersection take-offs roll out and helicopters land on the parallel
taxiway, all at the same time.

If you can find a place to safely practice non-standard stuff, then good for
you. It is a skill that may come in very handy.

Stephen

[Mike W.]

I wouldn't really call it unfriendly, it just seems they contradict
themselves sometimes, then blame the pilot for the mistake

One time I was with my instructor, we were in Buckeye 4 (N40SU) waiting at
9R. The governor's king air was taxiing out to 9R from the north side. I
believe their tail # was N440H or something like that, it had a 4 and an OH
on the end. Anyway, I call up the tower and tell them we are ready to go.
tower : '40SU position and hold'. we roll out and stop, with the king air on
the taxiway on the north side, waiting.
so 30-45 seconds go by, no instructions to anybody, no radio comm. Then,
tower: '40SU, exit rw 9R'. What the hell!? I was speechless. I just looked
at my instructor, who was shaking his head.
Later, when we were done with the lesson, he had talked to the controller, I
don't know who initiated the call. But he told me that the controller had
read him the riot act about 'holding up the governor' and all this crap. The
idiot just read the wrong call sign and wouldn't admit it. If he would have
just cleared us to go, we would have been gone and out of the way. By having
us hold, then exit probably ate up a couple of minutes.

"Bruce E Butts" > wrote in message
. ..
> I fly out of OSU as well and have found that since it is a Non Federal
> Control Tower the controllers there can have an unfriendly attitude
> depending on which controller is working at the time. I do not know them
> except having met the control tower manager a few times, he is concerned
> about the less than friendly treatment that students and others get at
> OSU so I encourage you to call.
>
> The management is aware that they have a reputation as being nonstudent
> friendly and have encouraged local pilots to respond to surveys
> regarding the service.
>
> It sounds like to me that the controller made a mistake.
>
> Bruce.
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Hotel 179" > wrote in news:dgjobe02da4
@enews2.newsguy.com:

>
>

I don't know if there is an AC for this situation or not, but you
definitely don't need an AC to explain this.

A straight-in instrument is not a violation of 91.126. Flying a traffic
pattern is not a requirement, but if you choose to fly a traffic
pattern, then flying it in the correct direction is a requirement.






--
Andrew Sarangan
CFII
http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/

[Andrew Sarangan]

Newps > wrote in
:


>
> A stop and go is one of your options is he doesn't specifically tell
> you no stop and go's. We have an instructor here that will ask for
> options and then have his student fly the length of our 2 mile runway
> at about 3 agl. In that 2 miles the student may touch the runway 5 or
> 6 times. The instructor just can't understand why this is a problem.

Cleared for the option means you can do a "touch-and-go, low approach,
missed approach, stop-and-go, or full stop landing" (from the AIM).

Flying at 3agl is an excellent training exercise. I see nothing wrong
with doing it when you are cleared for the option.

If ATC expects a normal landing, then they should not clear you for the
option.





--
Andrew Sarangan
CFII
http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/

[Hotel 179]

--

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> I don't know if there is an AC for this situation or not, but you
> definitely don't need an AC to explain this.
> Andrew Sarangan


I hate it when I'm wrong....aargh :)-

Stephen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hotel 179" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is splashing all around what I was talking about when Mike mentioned
> the field in the boonies....
>

I have no idea what that means.


>
> Blueskies also asked the question about going there to practice. There
> may have been a place where full-stop, back-taxi, ground-looping (: ,
> what-ever may have been authorized and could be done safely in a training
> environment.
>
> I really enjoy this forum as it has a relaxed and cordial atmosphere and I
> had no intention of writing a brief on the legal requirements of
> practicing right-hand traffic that Mike W likes to do. I've been flying
> disaster relief into Mississippi and Louisiana over the past several weeks
> and although there are control towers, it goes something like this, "xxxx,
> advise what you'd like to do." There is right-hand traffic landing short
> as intersection take-offs roll out and helicopters land on the parallel
> taxiway, all at the same time.
>
> If you can find a place to safely practice non-standard stuff, then good
> for you. It is a skill that may come in very handy.
>

You can practice right-traffic at controlled fields and at uncontrolled
fields that have right-traffic. You can't practice right-traffic at
uncontrolled fields that have left traffic.

[Newps]

Garner Miller wrote:

> That isn't what you asked for. You asked for a back-taxi on the active
> runway, and that's something completely different. A stop-and-go means
> you stop, and then GO. Not turn around, saunter back, line back up,
> etc...

The controller was upset about the stop and go not the request for a
back taxi. The controller was out of line.

[Newps]

Steve Foley wrote:

> OK, I'll bite. Why is this a probem?
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We have an instructor here that will ask for options
>>and then have his student fly the length of our 2 mile runway at about 3
>>agl. In that 2 miles the student may touch the runway 5 or 6 times.
>>The instructor just can't understand why this is a problem.

A touch and go, an option or a stop and go allows you one operation. As
soon as you takeoff again you cannot then land without another
clearance. As soon as you takeoff I can launch the next departure. Now
if you land again that is certain to be a pilot deviation as you have
caused a loss of seperation.

[Newps]

Garner Miller wrote:

> In article >, Bob Gardner
> > wrote:
>
>
>>According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, you were right and the
>>controller was wrong. You might want to talk to a quality control person at
>>OSU.
>
>
> How do you figure?
>
> From the P/CG:
>
> "OPTION APPROACH- An approach requested and conducted by a pilot which
> will result in either a touch-and-go, missed approach, low approach,
> stop- and-go, or full stop landing."
>
> Says the same thing the AIM says. A back-taxi is not on the above list.

Read his post. The controller was ****ed off about the fact that he
stopped, not that he wanted to back taxi.

[Newps]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>>A stop and go is one of your options is he doesn't specifically tell
>>you no stop and go's. We have an instructor here that will ask for
>>options and then have his student fly the length of our 2 mile runway
>>at about 3 agl. In that 2 miles the student may touch the runway 5 or
>>6 times. The instructor just can't understand why this is a problem.
>
>
> Cleared for the option means you can do a "touch-and-go, low approach,
> missed approach, stop-and-go, or full stop landing" (from the AIM).
>
> Flying at 3agl is an excellent training exercise. I see nothing wrong
> with doing it when you are cleared for the option.
>
> If ATC expects a normal landing, then they should not clear you for the
> option.

My point was as a controller I have given a lot of option clearances and
then also stated that you could do anything except a stop and go.

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Newps
> wrote:

>
> Read his post. The controller was ****ed off about the fact that he
> stopped, not that he wanted to back taxi.

I guess that wasn't clear from the original message. I read it as he
stopped on the runway, then asked a question about a 180 on the runway
while sitting stopped on the runway, and THAT'S what annoyed him.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Newps > said:
>>>We have an instructor here that will ask for options
>>>and then have his student fly the length of our 2 mile runway at about 3
>>>agl. In that 2 miles the student may touch the runway 5 or 6 times.
>>>The instructor just can't understand why this is a problem.
>
>A touch and go, an option or a stop and go allows you one operation. As
>soon as you takeoff again you cannot then land without another
>clearance. As soon as you takeoff I can launch the next departure. Now
>if you land again that is certain to be a pilot deviation as you have
>caused a loss of seperation.

That wasn't multiple operations, just one t&g with a lot of bounces. I'd
hate to think how many pilot deviations I've done with some of my
landings. :-)


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
please excuse my typing, but my whole left arm is in a cast. and i don't
mean _the king and i_.

[Matt Whiting]

Garner Miller wrote:

> In article >, Bob Gardner
> > wrote:
>
>
>>According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, you were right and the
>>controller was wrong. You might want to talk to a quality control person at
>>OSU.
>
>
> How do you figure?
>
> From the P/CG:
>
> "OPTION APPROACH- An approach requested and conducted by a pilot which
> will result in either a touch-and-go, missed approach, low approach,
> stop- and-go, or full stop landing."
>
> Says the same thing the AIM says. A back-taxi is not on the above list.
>

The OP said he "requested a back taxi", it didn't say he just did it
without asking. Prior to requesting the back taxi, he said he landed
and stopped on the runway. That clearly IS permitted by the "option"
landing clearance. I say he did nothing wrong and the controller
doesn't understand what "cleared for the option" means. Now, the
controller certainly wasn't obligated to approve a back-taxi, but the OP
certainly did nothing wrong based on the description given.

Matt

[Randy]

IIRC the tower operators at OSU are non-Federal. They're definitely
less cooperative than any other facility in the area.

[Viperdoc]

It sounds like you were right, if that means much except from the point of
education or personal gratification. If this is the worst thing that a
controller has said you're doing pretty well- you didn't violate any FAR's,
no one was hurt, and you didn't damage anything.

The controllers are human too, and get tired, make mistakes, and have a hard
time knowing all of the often ridiculous FAA regulations, just like pilots.
If the particular controller has had a habit of snapping at people and
berating them over the air, then it should be reported to the tower supe as
well as the customer assurance controller at the nearest facility (Newps can
provide the exact job titles). You can call them and report the time and
date of the incident, and ask that they review the tapes.

Also, you should take it up with the airport staff as well as the FBO, since
such individuals have a negative impact on business (who wants to go to an
airport with a bad reputation and the anticipation that you'll get yelled
at, particularly if you're unfamiliar?) If enough pilots complain about
their treatment over the air, you can bet that something will be done
quickly.

The worst thing would be to get into a ****ing contest on the air. Also, if
you did make a major error like a runway incursion, etc remember that if you
call the tower and admit you did something majorly wrong (like an obvious
FAR violation) your comments could potentially be used against you in an FAA
action.

[john smith]

> IIRC the tower operators at OSU are non-Federal. They're definitely
> less cooperative than any other facility in the area.

Services provided by Midwest.
The office of one flying club based on the field has the address for
filing complaints about the services received, provided by the FAA.

[Newps]

Viperdoc wrote:
then it should be reported to the tower supe as
> well as the customer assurance controller at the nearest facility (Newps can
> provide the exact job titles). You can call them and report the time and
> date of the incident, and ask that they review the tapes.

If it's a nonfederal tower then a call to the nearest big city FAA tower
is in order. The FAA oversees these towers and can have an impact on
stuff like this.

[Newps]

Don Poitras wrote:


>
> And I think this is where the op messed up. To my mind, a "full stop
> landing" is one in which you land and exit the runway before stopping.
> A stop-and-go means you will stop and immediately take off again. None
> of these options includes stopping and then doing something other than
> taking off from that point and I believe this is what the controller
> was miffed about.

An immediate "go" isn't required. Nice, but not required.

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> At OSH I saw a low 'departure' on 27 the final Saturday evening. It was
low
> enough to wonder if the prop(s) would hit. Don't recall the make/model.
IIRC
> they retracted the wheels then stayed low for (what looked like) some hot
> doggin' - scary. And I'm all for a little fun.

While it is certainly possible that hot doggin' was going on, it also could
be that someone took off with more fuel and cargo than they should have, and
therefore had a high seat suckin' - pucker factor goin' on. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Alan Gerber wrote:


>
> It sounded to me like the problem was that the OP actually stopped on the
> runway, and then called to request the back-taxi *while* stopped on the
> runway. I can see how the controller would object to this.
>

No reason for a controller to be upset about this, particularly since
the controller told him on the radio there was no other traffic. The
controller was wrong on all counts.

[OtisWinslow]

Can't do that.


"Hotel 179" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Mike W." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Uncontrolled field has standard (left) traffic pattern. >
>
> Non-towered field...just announce that you are making right traffic...no
> tower, no active runway.
>
> Stephen
>

[OtisWinslow]

I've always just specifically requested a stop and go if that's what I
wanted to do so the controller could plan accordingly. All the other
options imply that you're going to keep moving or exit the runway.


"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. Weather was pretty
> marginal, so I did 2 landings there, departed to an uncontrolled field
> about
> 12mi away for a few, then came back. I wanted to do a few more, so I was
> doing t-n-g's on the north runway. Each time, the controller said 'clear
> for
> the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
> landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to
> end
> and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway.
> He
> wasn't nasty about it. 'I know you're the only one up there, but it's
> baaaaaad practice...' etc.
> I went through this several times when I was learning to fly there, as did
> other students. Even my flight instructors would get frustrated with this
> exact situation.
> The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
> anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
> not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I
> was
> this >< close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured
> I
> would just go home even more puzzled.
> So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with
> 'cleared
> for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
> land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
> short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?
>
>

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> While it is certainly possible that hot doggin' was going on, it also
> could
> be that someone took off with more fuel and cargo than they should have,
> and
> therefore had a high seat suckin' - pucker factor goin' on. <g>


Gear up ...then used up the rest of the runway at (maybe) 7 feet AGL. Yeah,
probably a weight and balance issue :-)

(I don't think the bottom of the fuselage was more 10 feet off the deck, I'm
sticking with 7 feet - though I can't recall the type of plane it was. I
think it was white.)


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> Doesn't a full-stop landing imply that you're going to get off the runway
> promptly? I've never actually *stopped* on the runway for a full-stop
> landing, just for a stop-and-go. For a full-stop landing, I always clear
> the runway either at the first intersection or where the controller sends
> me.
>
> It sounded to me like the problem was that the OP actually stopped on the
> runway, and then called to request the back-taxi *while* stopped on the
> runway. I can see how the controller would object to this.
>

He wasn't cleared for a full-stop landing, he was cleared for the option.
The option includes a stop and go. On a stop and go there is usually a
pause of a few seconds between the aircraft coming to a stop and beginning
the next takeoff. Trim is set, flaps adjusted, power increased, etc.
Nothing in the OP suggests the pilot paused any longer than normal, nothing
in the OP suggests the controller had anything to object to.

[Lakeview Bill]

Does "the option" include a taxi-back?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Doesn't a full-stop landing imply that you're going to get off the
runway
> > promptly? I've never actually *stopped* on the runway for a full-stop
> > landing, just for a stop-and-go. For a full-stop landing, I always
clear
> > the runway either at the first intersection or where the controller
sends
> > me.
> >
> > It sounded to me like the problem was that the OP actually stopped on
the
> > runway, and then called to request the back-taxi *while* stopped on the
> > runway. I can see how the controller would object to this.
> >
>
> He wasn't cleared for a full-stop landing, he was cleared for the option.
> The option includes a stop and go. On a stop and go there is usually a
> pause of a few seconds between the aircraft coming to a stop and beginning
> the next takeoff. Trim is set, flaps adjusted, power increased, etc.
> Nothing in the OP suggests the pilot paused any longer than normal,
nothing
> in the OP suggests the controller had anything to object to.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Does "the option" include a taxi-back?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> (I don't think the bottom of the fuselage was more 10 feet off the deck,
> I'm sticking with 7 feet - though I can't recall the type of plane it was.
> I think it was white.)
>

Gee, that'll narrow it down quite a bit.

[Mike W.]

Nope, that's why I asked.

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
> Does "the option" include a taxi-back?
>
>

[John Clonts]

Of course you can. Just not legally!

Many of society's problems can be traced back to this lack of distinction between "can" and "may". Teach your
children well their "grammar" :)

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ


"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message ...
> Can't do that.
>
>
> "Hotel 179" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mike W." > wrote in message ...
>>> Uncontrolled field has standard (left) traffic pattern. >
>>
>> Non-towered field...just announce that you are making right traffic...no tower, no active runway.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>
>