Going around what to do?

[Nik]

What would you do in the following situtation:

You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
off roll.

Also lets bring the same situation to a towered airport where the
controller tells you to go around while you are on final.

I am asking this because I am just wondering that at some point the
aircraft could collide (one climbing out, the other at pattern
altitude), and what the pilot going around should do...

[Kyle Boatright]

"Nik" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.
>
> Also lets bring the same situation to a towered airport where the
> controller tells you to go around while you are on final.
>
> I am asking this because I am just wondering that at some point the
> aircraft could collide (one climbing out, the other at pattern
> altitude), and what the pilot going around should do...

In both cases, announce your intentions, offset your approach and fly an
upwind leg (typically to the right of the runway centerline). You should
adjust your upwind leg to keep the rogue aircraft/pilot in view until it is
no longer a collision threat.

[Nik]

Ok thank you...
How would you say the intentions though?
-Nik

[Kyle Boatright]

"Nik" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Ok thank you...
> How would you say the intentions though?
> -Nik

"Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing traffic on
Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway **."

[Rachel]

Nik wrote:
> Ok thank you...
> How would you say the intentions though?
> -Nik

>
"Going around, sidestepping to the right"

[Roy Smith]

In article om>,
"Nik" > wrote:

> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

How much space is between the two of you? If he's already rolling and
you're still 1/4 mile out, the safest thing might be to just land behind
him.

The alternative is to go around.

There is no one right answer.

[Bob Gardner]

The microphone is not a flight control. It's not what you say that counts,
it's what you do. "Buzzbomb 34X going around, moving to the right of the
runway" would be plenty. The rationale for moving to the right is that with
you in the left seat, you can watch the other plane and take evasive action
if necessary.

We have grass between the two parallel runways at Boeing Field in Seattle,
and when the tower issues a go-around it is usually "go around, fly over the
grass, maintain visual separation from the Flybird to your (right.left),
report midfield downwind."



Bob Gardner
"Nik" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Ok thank you...
> How would you say the intentions though?
> -Nik
>

[Chris G.]

Nik wrote:
> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.

I would immediately abort the approach, climb, and maneuver so I was
flying parallel to the runway at a safe distance until I could get a
better sense of what the other pilot is going to do. As soon as
practical, get out of the pattern and re-enter it per the published
procedures (standard or otherwise). At no time would I put myself in
front of the other plane, since I then lose my only defense against a
midair--visual contact with the other aircraft so I can maintain
separation. How can I trust that this pilot, who didn't acknowledge my
presence before by either waiting or making radio calls, will see me?
Answer: I don't trust that pilot, or any other when it comes to my own
safety.

> Also lets bring the same situation to a towered airport where the
> controller tells you to go around while you are on final.

I go around. If the scenario matches the above, I would still abort,
climb, and fly parallel to the runway, all the while explaining to ATC
what my intentions are. I'm not the one who would get busted because
I'm complying with the instruction to "Go Around", I'm the one on final,
and I'm maneuvering to avoid a collision. An argument *could* be made
(though I'm not sure how strong or weak it is) that I was in an
"emergency situation" and was deviating from whatever regulations I
needed to in order to avoid contact with another aircraft.

The way I fly, if the controller says "go around", by the time he
finishes the word "around", my throttle is already wide open. My
instructor taught me well to have an instinctive reaction to going
around. It saved my bacon a couple times after some approaches that
didn't translate into good landings.

> I am asking this because I am just wondering that at some point the
> aircraft could collide (one climbing out, the other at pattern
> altitude), and what the pilot going around should do...

The aircraft will collide only if you let them (provided you have time
to avoid the situation).

Chris G.

[[email protected]]

Nik wrote:
> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.
>
> Also lets bring the same situation to a towered airport where the
> controller tells you to go around while you are on final.
>
> I am asking this because I am just wondering that at some point the
> aircraft could collide (one climbing out, the other at pattern
> altitude), and what the pilot going around should do...


This EXACT situation happened to me on about my
second or third time of solo flying practice in the
pattern. I had been flying a few circuits around the
pattern, announcing my position the way I'd been
taught. I was landing at a comfortable interval
behind another aircraft, but as soon as the aircraft
in front of me crossed the threshold, a departing
plane pulled out in front of me to get in position for
a takeoff roll. I kept the departing plane in sight,
and announced "Cessna 123XY going around
due to traffic on the runway". (I probably should
have specified "departing traffic", because just after
I made my announcement, the aircraft which had
just landed and cleared the runway said "Bonanza
234ab is clear of the runway" -- he may have thought
I was tailgating him). I heard another voice
say "he pulled right out in front of you, didn't he?".
I started climbing to pattern altitude and kept the
departing plane in sight by a combination of moving
to the right a bit and slipping. I got to pattern
altitude about the time I was over the far end
of the runway. About then, I decided it was silly to
follow the runway centerline all the way to a normal
crosswind, especially with the rogue aircraft climing
on nearly the same trajectory, so I did a short crosswind
while he was still well below me and I joined the normal
base leg, announcing intentions the whole way.

I never heard the departing aircraft say anything.
I assume he had no radio or was too embarassed.

I'm not sure that what I did was textbook perfect; I was
improvising as a very green student. But the important
thing was that I kept the departing aircraft in sight,
I announced my intentions, I stayed in a fairly normal
pattern watching for other traffic, I didn't make any
assumptions that the departing aircraft had a radio
or was going to follow any standard procedures, and
I didn't let his mistake upset me too much.

--Rich

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Nik" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Ok thank you...
>>How would you say the intentions though?
>>-Nik
>
>
> "Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing traffic on
> Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway **."
>
>

I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway, but
otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)

Matt

[Rachel]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> "Nik" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> Ok thank you...
>>> How would you say the intentions though?
>>> -Nik
>>
>>
>>
>> "Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing traffic
>> on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway **."
>>
>
> I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway, but
> otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)

I normally unkey the mic and THEN say what I really want... :-)

[john smith]

In article om>,
"Nik" > wrote:

> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.
>
> Also lets bring the same situation to a towered airport where the
> controller tells you to go around while you are on final.
> I am asking this because I am just wondering that at some point the
> aircraft could collide (one climbing out, the other at pattern
> altitude), and what the pilot going around should do...

Power up, pitch up, flaps up.
If you are in a retract, leave the gear down, your Vx and Vy speeds will
be lower and you won't have to worry about forgetting in on the next
circuit.
Fly to the right of the departing aircraft.
Allow the departing aircraft to accelerate ahead of you.
Turn left, enter the pattern and land normally.
Why follow the departing aircraft?
You are ready to land.

[Matt Whiting]

Rachel wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>> "Nik" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>
>>>> Ok thank you...
>>>> How would you say the intentions though?
>>>> -Nik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing traffic
>>> on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway **."
>>>
>>
>> I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway, but
>> otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)
>
>
> I normally unkey the mic and THEN say what I really want... :-)

Why unkey the mic?


Matt

[John R]

Nik wrote:

> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.

You go around. I make a standard procedure of keeping to the right of the
runway during all go-arounds, sometimes informally called a "sidestep." At
a towered field you may be asked to go around and not told why. Keeping
right lets you keep the runway in view out your left window and gets you
out of the way of any other aircraft that may be landing/taking off until
you can maintain visual contact to avoid them.

You don't have to go far to the right, just enough to allow you to see the
runway and be out of the way for any fast climbers.

It's normal to stay to the RIGHT of the runway. This is especially useful
when you find yourself on a nice final approach and then notice that some
clown decided to land downwind on the opposing runway. Both aircraft can
go around and be out of each other's way and be safe.

Obviously if there are parallel runways in use or other special
circumstances (obstacles) the procedure may differ.

Practice go-arounds often at different phases of landing. Know what your
airplane requires (flaps set x degrees? Carb heat off? Mixture is already
rich? Prop is already forward? Gear up? Full power? Spoilers
retracted?) by heart.

[Blanche]

Kyle Boatright > wrote:
>
>"Nik" > wrote in message
>> Ok thank you...
>> How would you say the intentions though?
>> -Nik
>
>"Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing traffic on
>Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway **."

I'd bet that you'd want less words and sooner!

Something on the order of...

"location, NXYZ, going around, right of XXX" (this assumes that
runway XXX is not on the left side of a parallel runway...)

Get out of the way. If at a towered airport, and they tell you
to go around, don't bother with all the details, just agree,
something like

"NXYZ going around"

because they'll probably tell you which side to offset, or even more
detailed instructions, such as

"go around IMMEDIATELY, turn (left or right) as soon as possible,
wait for further instructions"

yes, I've had this happen to me when an aircraft broke down on the
runway. They sent us all out to the SE or SW with instructions to
go away for a while.

[Rachel]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Rachel wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Nik" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Ok thank you...
>>>>> How would you say the intentions though?
>>>>> -Nik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing
>>>> traffic on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway
>>>> **."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway, but
>>> otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I normally unkey the mic and THEN say what I really want... :-)
>
>
> Why unkey the mic?
>
>
> Matt
Controllers tend to get angry when you swear on the radio.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nik" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.
>

I'd either land or go around, it depends on how much room I'll have behind
the Cessna.


>
> Also lets bring the same situation to a towered airport where the
> controller tells you to go around while you are on final.
>

If I'm VFR or on a visual approach I'll overfly the runway while climbing to
traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the crosswind
leg, unless given other instructions by the controller. If I'm on an
instrument approach I'll execute the published missed approach procedure or
proceed as instructed by the controller.


>
> I am asking this because I am just wondering that at some point the
> aircraft could collide (one climbing out, the other at pattern
> altitude), and what the pilot going around should do...
>

I'd avoid colliding.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> In both cases, announce your intentions, offset your approach and fly an
> upwind leg (typically to the right of the runway centerline). You should
> adjust your upwind leg to keep the rogue aircraft/pilot in view until it
> is no longer a collision threat.
>

At a controlled field, unless told otherwise, you should overfly the runway
while climbing to traffic pattern altitude.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway, but
> otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)
>

What did you see in the OP that suggested the departing pilot was a fool?

[B a r r y]

Nik wrote:
> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.

Depends on other factors, especially WHERE on final I am.

Other than that, most of these types of questions are pointless. <G>

[Matt Whiting]

Rachel wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Rachel wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Nik" > wrote in message
>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok thank you...
>>>>>> How would you say the intentions though?
>>>>>> -Nik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing
>>>>> traffic on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of
>>>>> Runway **."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway, but
>>>> otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I normally unkey the mic and THEN say what I really want... :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Why unkey the mic?
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> Controllers tend to get angry when you swear on the radio.

Well, I wouldn't do that, but I don't have any qualms letting the idiot
know that I know that he or she is an idiot. :-)

Matt

[Stubby]

Rachel wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Rachel wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Nik" > wrote in message
>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok thank you...
>>>>>> How would you say the intentions though?
>>>>>> -Nik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing
>>>>> traffic on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of
>>>>> Runway **."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway, but
>>>> otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I normally unkey the mic and THEN say what I really want... :-)
>>
>>
>> Why unkey the mic?
>>
>>
>> Matt
> Controllers tend to get angry when you swear on the radio.
I agree. And none of us really want to hear your pain, unhappiness,
inconvenience, etc. Try to be a professional and handle the situation
as you have been taught.

[Rachel]

Stubby wrote:
> Rachel wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Rachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nik" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok thank you...
>>>>>>> How would you say the intentions though?
>>>>>>> -Nik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to departing
>>>>>> traffic on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of
>>>>>> Runway **."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd probably say I was going around due to a fool on the runway,
>>>>> but otherwise I concur with what you suggest. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I normally unkey the mic and THEN say what I really want... :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why unkey the mic?
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Controllers tend to get angry when you swear on the radio.
>
> I agree. And none of us really want to hear your pain, unhappiness,
> inconvenience, etc. Try to be a professional and handle the situation
> as you have been taught.

Not sure if that was supposed to be an insult. I'm always professional
on the radio. But name one pilot who doesn't bitch when he gets on the
ground.

[Stubby]

Rachel wrote:
> Nik wrote:
>> Ok thank you...
>> How would you say the intentions though?
>> -Nik
>
>>
> "Going around, sidestepping to the right"
Isn't "Going around" sufficient. The default is "to the right" so you
don't tangle with other planes on crosswind and base.

[[email protected]]

>>>Depends on other factors, especially WHERE on final I am<<<

True enough. If you're far enough behind the departing acft and can
maintain a safe interval (maybe with S turns) then you can continue the
approach, otherwise I've taught my students to be spring-loaded for a
go-around.

[darthpup]

Just swing to the right and stay clear of the jerk and continue back
around the pattern.
I have had it happen to me at least a dozen times in the last thirty
years.

[Chris G.]

Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
with you sidestepping. That is, of course, if you didn't already
receive instructions telling you to get out of the way.

At a non-towered field, see the above, but announce intentions. If I
lose sight of the other traffic, it's no longer "See and Avoid". It
becomes, "I made a bad decision and hope the other plane avoids me."

Chris G.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In both cases, announce your intentions, offset your approach and fly an
>> upwind leg (typically to the right of the runway centerline). You should
>> adjust your upwind leg to keep the rogue aircraft/pilot in view until it
>> is no longer a collision threat.
>>
>
> At a controlled field, unless told otherwise, you should overfly the runway
> while climbing to traffic pattern altitude.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris G." > wrote in message
reenews.net...
>
> Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
> right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
> with you sidestepping. That is, of course, if you didn't already
> receive instructions telling you to get out of the way.
>

The instruction, "go around", by itself, means overfly the runway while
climbing to traffic pattern altitude. You're not complying with the
instruction if you sidestep to the right without being told to do so.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:11:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Chris G." > wrote in message
reenews.net...
>>
>> Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
>> right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
>> with you sidestepping. That is, of course, if you didn't already
>> receive instructions telling you to get out of the way.
>>
>
>The instruction, "go around", by itself, means overfly the runway while
>climbing to traffic pattern altitude. You're not complying with the
>instruction if you sidestep to the right without being told to do so.
>

Maybe so, but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
the safety of the flight....

For what it's worth, I'd only side-step if I didn't like what I saw
below and in front of me. Letting ATC know what I was doing
would of course be a polite thing to do!

Bela P. Havasreti

[tjd]

There were two rationales given in this thread, and both of them make
sense to me... but which one would you say is more correct?

a) stay to the right to make it easier to see the traffic (sitting in
the left seat),
b) stay to the right to stay away from the pattern (and away from the
departing plane's presumed crosswind turn).

The reason for asking, of course, is what should you do if the pattern
is RH - sidestep to the left or right?

I've only had to go around for traffic once and it was a weird
situation. I was cleared for T&G on 31. 28 starts to the right of 31,
intersects it, and obviously continues to the left. I was on short
final when tower cleared someone for takeoff on 28; he started rolling.
Since i wanted no part of playing chicken at the intersection, I
immediately went around (then announced it), flew the centerline and
probably the tower gave me right traffic to stay away from the
departure end of 28. The other guy's takeoff clearance was not
canceled, and he departed.

At the time (pre-solo), I was a little rattled, the tower said "sorry
about that" and my instructor said I did the right thing. But, after
reading this thread, it made me think about it some more, and I realize
I likely did not keep the traffic in sight and in fact may have passed
directly over him at some point (certainly a possibility even if it
didn't actually happen that way). So, now I think perhaps I should
have done something differently, but what?

Not crossing 28 would be difficult at best (the airport is KAGC if
anyone wants to look at a diagram) - for one, it's going to involve
really low altitude turns - no way you're missing the approach end by
turning right, and if you go left you're headed towards the hangars and
tower. You're also not going to have a lot of choice about your
airspeed during the initial stages of the go-around. So what to do? I
know now that a 172 should easily be able to land and stop before the
intersection, but even now (a whopping ~25 hours later) I wouldn't be
entirely comfortable with that...

todd

[Morgans]

"Stubby" > wrote

> I agree. And none of us really want to hear your pain, unhappiness,
> inconvenience, etc. Try to be a professional and handle the situation as
> you have been taught.

I don't see the harm in adding just one more word in the previously
suggested transmission such as:

Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to ^"unexpected"^ departing
traffic on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway **."


It would constructively point out to the departing plane that he/she had
done a poor job of scanning for traffic on short final, and might save an
incident at some later date.
--
Jim in NC

[Rachel]

Chris G. wrote:
> Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
> right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
> with you sidestepping.

ATC is usually not ok with you doing something unless they've told you
to do it or they know you're going to do it.

[Rachel]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Stubby" > wrote
>
>> I agree. And none of us really want to hear your pain, unhappiness,
>> inconvenience, etc. Try to be a professional and handle the situation
>> as you have been taught.
>
>
> I don't see the harm in adding just one more word in the previously
> suggested transmission such as:
>
> Your Location Traffic, NXYZ is going around due to ^"unexpected"^ departing
> traffic on Runway **, will fly an upwind on the Right side of Runway **."
>
>
> It would constructively point out to the departing plane that he/she had
> done a poor job of scanning for traffic on short final, and might save
> an incident at some later date.

LOL....I can't believe some people think it's impossible to sound
professional AND annoyed by an idiot in the same tone.

[darthpup]

Keep the fool in sight and stay out of his way. ATC is on the ground,
you are in the air inside a whole lot of expensive hardware.

[Flyingmonk]

>What would you do in the following situtation:
>
>You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
>stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
>off roll.

I'd just do this <g>

http://i1.tinypic.com/neuv4g.jpg

The Monk

[Kyle Boatright]

"Rachel" > wrote in message
. ..
> Chris G. wrote:
>> Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
>> right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
>> with you sidestepping.
>
> ATC is usually not ok with you doing something unless they've told you to
> do it or they know you're going to do it.

True, but ATC isn't likely to suffer the ultimate price should there be a
mid-air collision. I'm announcing intentions and keeping the rogue aircraft
in sight. If ATC has a problem with that, we can sort it out later.

KB

[Newps]

Nik wrote:
> What would you do in the following situtation:
>
> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll.

How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.

[[email protected]]

I was rather on the OTHER side of that once, as a solo student.

Class D airport got real busy for a while; there were several lined up
for takeoff, and quite a number in the pattern, including several on
long final.

I was told to take position and hold, which I did. I was not overly
comfortable with this, because incoming traffic was behind me, which I
thought was getting sorta close. I was cleared to take off, and
started rolling. Another aircraft shortly radioed that he was going
around. I wasn't sure what to do, but continued the takeoff. My
reasoning on-the-spot was that I could continue to fit in. I spotted
the go-around traffic high and to my right, and kept him glued in my in
sight until I lifted off, and watched him pull away as I accelerated
and slowly climbed. It all worked, but I'm not sure that it was the
BEST way. I believe the controller was in error by telling me to roll
while someone was that close on final (duh).

Thinking back, taking position and hold doesn't mean I have to be
pointed down the runway. If it's that busy, perhaps I can be in
postion but pointed sideways, so I can see the approaching traffic.
Dunno, might work.

AS for the original situation, I'd sidestep right and keep traffic in
sight. If there was another parallel runway, I'd make the sidestep
pretty narrow, and maybe even slip to lower my wing and keep the other
traffic IN SIGHT.

[napd]

Well I would do the following....
Aviate...Slip to the right side or the runway.... Full
throttle....establish airspeed and start climbout... and KEEP offending
plane in site... once plane is settled into that I would then
Communicate...Let ATC that I was making missed approach and listen for
instructions... or if at a non tower field I woujld annnounce via raido
my intentions
Then come around as instructed to try again...

Newps wrote:
> Nik wrote:
> > What would you do in the following situtation:
> >
> > You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> > stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> > off roll.
>
> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.

[TaxSrv]

"Newps "wrote:>
>
> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.

What if the Cessna rolls a bit and aborts? Mechanical problem. Forgot his
Jepps.

Fred F.

[Matt Whiting]

Flyingmonk wrote:
>>What would you do in the following situtation:
>>
>>You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
>>stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
>>off roll.
>
>
> I'd just do this <g>
>
> http://i1.tinypic.com/neuv4g.jpg
>
> The Monk
>

I'd prefer to "switch to guns", but the Arrow I fly has no 30mm cannon. :-(


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> How would you say the intentions though?

"Too close for missiles...switching to guns."

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

[Dave Stadt]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps "wrote:>
>>
>> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
>> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
>
> What if the Cessna rolls a bit and aborts? Mechanical problem. Forgot
> his
> Jepps.
>
> Fred F.

Then go around. Chances are if he aborts he will be off the runway before
you touchdown.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article <9hyGf.763279$_o.354991@attbi_s71>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > How would you say the intentions though?
>
> "Too close for missiles...switching to guns."

I had that happen to me one day I was #3 in a 3-ship returning. #2 went
around to clear #1, while an Apache was waiting in the runup area.

Just as I was about to turn short base-to-final, the Apache took the
runway. I radioed, "Apache, what are you doing?" Apache: "Taking off."

I was tempted to slip down and stick my wingtip in his lap but put
discretion ahead of valor.

As I cleaned up and slid to the right of the runway, I noticed that, not
only had the Apache pilot taken the runway without making sure of clear
traffic, but he apparently had full flaps and an open door. Somehow, he
managed to close the door on the takeoff roll and gain flight.

I later talked to the owner, who said that there apparently was a rogue
instructor who was selling lessons in the plane without permission.

looking back, I am glad I DIDN'T stick my wingtip in his lap, because he
apparently had his hands full enough already.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Newps "wrote:>
> >>
> >> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
> >> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
> >
> > What if the Cessna rolls a bit and aborts? Mechanical problem. Forgot
> > his
> > Jepps.
> >
> > Fred F.
>
> Then go around. Chances are if he aborts he will be off the runway before
> you touchdown.

And even if he's not, landing behind him may still be the safest thing. If
the other guy is on the runway in front of me, I can see him and know
exactly where he is. If I go-around, there's a pretty good chance I'll
lose sight of him (especially if I'm flying a low-wing).

Most of the things most of us fly can be stopped in under 1000 feet. There
just aren't that many scenarios where a guy starts rolling and then stops
leaving me less than 1000 feet behind him. And even in that case, I can
probably do a high-speed turn off into the grass with little or no damage.

[TaxSrv]

"Dave Stadt" wrote:
> > What if the Cessna rolls a bit and aborts? Mechanical
problem.
> > Forgot his Jepps.
> >
> > Fred F.
>
> Chances are if he aborts he will be off the runway before
> you touchdown.
>

If there is a nearby turnoff. In the posed situation, the
Cessna pilot isn't even aware of like us on short final.
Quick thinking rules the day in all cases, and I was
reacting only to the suggestion that a mere, perceived 1,000
feet separation poses no hazard. Usually works at Oshkosh
AirVenture, though. :-)

Fred F.

[B a r r y]

wrote:
>I've taught my students to be spring-loaded for a
> go-around.

Always a good idea to be ready. Options are good. <G>

[B a r r y]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:11:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>>>
>> The instruction, "go around", by itself, means overfly the runway while
>> climbing to traffic pattern altitude. You're not complying with the
>> instruction if you sidestep to the right without being told to do so.
>>
>
> Maybe so, but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
> the safety of the flight....

Right on...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Nik wrote:
>> What would you do in the following situtation:
>>
>> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
>> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
>> off roll.
>
> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
>

And what happens if he aborts his takeoff and stops?

[Dave Stadt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>
>> Nik wrote:
>>> What would you do in the following situtation:
>>>
>>> You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
>>> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
>>> off roll.
>>
>> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
>> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
>>
>
> And what happens if he aborts his takeoff and stops?

1,000 feet is much more than needed for most singles to land and stop.

[Ron Lee]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

>
>"Rachel" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Chris G. wrote:
>>> Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
>>> right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
>>> with you sidestepping.
>>
>> ATC is usually not ok with you doing something unless they've told you to
>> do it or they know you're going to do it.
>
>True, but ATC isn't likely to suffer the ultimate price should there be a
>mid-air collision. I'm announcing intentions and keeping the rogue aircraft
>in sight. If ATC has a problem with that, we can sort it out later.
>
>KB

I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least
everyone is alive to vent.

Ron Lee
>

[Ron Lee]

ORVAL FAIRAIRN > wrote:

>In article <9hyGf.763279$_o.354991@attbi_s71>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> > How would you say the intentions though?
>>
>> "Too close for missiles...switching to guns."
>
>I had that happen to me one day I was #3 in a 3-ship returning. #2 went
>around to clear #1, while an Apache was waiting in the runup area.
>
>Just as I was about to turn short base-to-final, the Apache took the
>runway. I radioed, "Apache, what are you doing?" Apache: "Taking off."
>
>I was tempted to slip down and stick my wingtip in his lap but put
>discretion ahead of valor.

Do you fly a RV?

Ron Lee

[B a r r y]

Ron Lee wrote:

>
> I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least
> everyone is alive to vent.

I've heard the saying: "Be alive at the hearing."

[Newps]

TaxSrv wrote:

> "Newps "wrote:>
>
>>How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
>>leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
>
>
> What if the Cessna rolls a bit and aborts? Mechanical problem. Forgot his
> Jepps.

That's why I want about a 1000 feet. I only need half that.

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Nik wrote:
>>
>>>What would you do in the following situtation:
>>>
>>>You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
>>>stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
>>>off roll.
>>
>>How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
>>leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
>>
>
>
> And what happens if he aborts his takeoff and stops?

Then there will be two of us on the runway. Big deal.

[Big John]

Let me add.

If you go around you clear the R/W ASAP. No if's, and's or but's.

Been the rule for years.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:45:53 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
>
>> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Newps "wrote:>
>> >>
>> >> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
>> >> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
>> >
>> > What if the Cessna rolls a bit and aborts? Mechanical problem. Forgot
>> > his
>> > Jepps.
>> >
>> > Fred F.
>>
>> Then go around. Chances are if he aborts he will be off the runway before
>> you touchdown.
>
>And even if he's not, landing behind him may still be the safest thing. If
>the other guy is on the runway in front of me, I can see him and know
>exactly where he is. If I go-around, there's a pretty good chance I'll
>lose sight of him (especially if I'm flying a low-wing).
>
>Most of the things most of us fly can be stopped in under 1000 feet. There
>just aren't that many scenarios where a guy starts rolling and then stops
>leaving me less than 1000 feet behind him. And even in that case, I can
>probably do a high-speed turn off into the grass with little or no damage.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> ORVAL FAIRAIRN > wrote:
>
> >In article <9hyGf.763279$_o.354991@attbi_s71>,
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> >> > How would you say the intentions though?
> >>
> >> "Too close for missiles...switching to guns."
> >
> >I had that happen to me one day I was #3 in a 3-ship returning. #2 went
> >around to clear #1, while an Apache was waiting in the runup area.
> >
> >Just as I was about to turn short base-to-final, the Apache took the
> >runway. I radioed, "Apache, what are you doing?" Apache: "Taking off."
> >
> >I was tempted to slip down and stick my wingtip in his lap but put
> >discretion ahead of valor.
>
> Do you fly a RV?
>
> Ron Lee

Nope -- Johnson Rocket

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>
> Maybe so,
>

There's no "maybe" about it. The Pilot/Controller Glossary was compiled to
promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control
system. The instruction "Go Around" is defined as:

"Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional
instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or
an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while
climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the
crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach
should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as
instructed by ATC; e.g., "Go around" (additional instructions if required)."


>
> but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
> the safety of the flight....
>

"The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the
final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Authority and
responsibility go hand-in-hand. So if you're instructed to overfly the
runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude, but instead use your PIC
authority and begin a climbing turn to the right and collide with an
aircraft on downwind, you're responsible for all damages, injuries, and
lives lost.


>
> For what it's worth, I'd only side-step if I didn't like what I saw
> below and in front of me. Letting ATC know what I was doing
> would of course be a polite thing to do!
>

It would also make any potential enforcement action of your violation of FAR
91.123(b) easier.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"darthpup" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Keep the fool in sight and stay out of his way. ATC is on the ground,
> you are in the air inside a whole lot of expensive hardware.
>

The guy on downwind that you just turned towards is also in the air inside a
whole lot of expensive hardware. Safety is not generally enhanced by acting
contrary to ATC instructions.

[Allen]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>

> "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the
> final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Authority and
> responsibility go hand-in-hand. So if you're instructed to overfly the
> runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude, but instead use your
PIC
> authority and begin a climbing turn to the right and collide with an
> aircraft on downwind, you're responsible for all damages, injuries, and
> lives lost.
>

> It would also make any potential enforcement action of your violation of
FAR
> 91.123(b) easier.
>

And if you follow ATC instructions and the departing aircraft collides with
you you are still at fault for not seeing and avoiding and you are still
dead.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, but ATC isn't likely to suffer the ultimate price should there be a
> mid-air collision. I'm announcing intentions and keeping the rogue
> aircraft in sight. If ATC has a problem with that, we can sort it out
> later.
>

A midair with the rogue departure? That seems unlikely. You're behind and
above the aircraft taking off. For a collision to occur it would have to
climb significantly faster than your aircraft. If it can it do that it is
probably significantly faster as well and will stay in front of you. The
safest thing to do is comply with the instruction and overfly the runway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>> How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he
>> leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing.
>>
>
> And what happens if he aborts his takeoff and stops?
>

How much room is there?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least
> everyone is alive to vent.
>

Not if you turn and collide with somebody on downwind.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allen" > wrote in message
t...
>
> And if you follow ATC instructions and the departing aircraft collides
> with you you are still at fault for not seeing and avoiding and you are
> still
> dead.
>

So the best course of action is to comply with ATC's instruction and overfly
the runway. There's less risk of collision and no risk of enforcement
action.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:39:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Maybe so,
>>
>
>There's no "maybe" about it. The Pilot/Controller Glossary was compiled to
>promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control
>system. The instruction "Go Around" is defined as:
>
>"Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional
>instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or
>an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while
>climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the
>crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach
>should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as
>instructed by ATC; e.g., "Go around" (additional instructions if required)."
>
>
>>
>> but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
>> the safety of the flight....
>>
>
>"The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the
>final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Authority and
>responsibility go hand-in-hand. So if you're instructed to overfly the
>runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude, but instead use your PIC
>authority and begin a climbing turn to the right and collide with an
>aircraft on downwind, you're responsible for all damages, injuries, and
>lives lost.
>
>
>>
>> For what it's worth, I'd only side-step if I didn't like what I saw
>> below and in front of me. Letting ATC know what I was doing
>> would of course be a polite thing to do!
>>
>
>It would also make any potential enforcement action of your violation of FAR
>91.123(b) easier.

ATC can issue whatever instructions they want. If a collision is
imminent, or likely, based upon their instruction and based upon
what I'm seeing out of the windshield as PIC, I'm going to do whatever
it takes to keep from colliding with another aircraft. As someone
else pointed out, the idea is to be around for the hearing, or the
inevitable "talk" one might have with the feds.

Pilots are human beings and sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes
sheet metal gets bent, and other times, folks get hurt or killed.
Controllers are not exempt from "being human" and making mistakes....
(it's happened many times before, and it'll no doubt happen again).

Bela P. Havasreti

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATC can issue whatever instructions they want.
>

Well, no, there are limits to the instructions ATC can issue.


>
> If a collision is
> imminent, or likely, based upon their instruction and based upon
> what I'm seeing out of the windshield as PIC, I'm going to do whatever
> it takes to keep from colliding with another aircraft. As someone
> else pointed out, the idea is to be around for the hearing, or the
> inevitable "talk" one might have with the feds.
>

It is unlikely that proper compliance with an instruction to "go around"
will make a collision imminent or even likely. Following the improper
action that you espouse is more likely to do that. If you do not understand
the procedures or terminologies commonly used at towered airports it would
be best from the standpoint of safety for you to avoid towered airports.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:32:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:


>It is unlikely that proper compliance with an instruction to "go around"
>will make a collision imminent or even likely. Following the improper
>action that you espouse is more likely to do that. If you do not understand
>the procedures or terminologies commonly used at towered airports it would
>be best from the standpoint of safety for you to avoid towered airports.

I am perfectly comfortable flying into towered airports (been flying
since 1976, and have lived in a large, metropolitan area most of
my life). I'm not a "rebel" and I do comply with ATC instructions the
vast majority of the time (in case you're wondering, yes... I have
used the "unable" card with ATC on occasion when the situation
warranted it). I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm the PIC of the
aircraft I'm flying and I decide what the safest way is to operate
said aircraft, not ATC. If you still feel the need to quote FARs and
post insulting comments about my ability to fly safely, knock
yourself out....

I apologize for having to point this out, but you can't make others
think exactly the way you do by pressing arguments on usenet....
During your tenure on this good green earth, there just may
be times when others don't agree with what you have to say.
The sooner you learn to live with that fact, the sooner you can
begin to enjoy life (don't sweat the small stuff...).

Be safe, and have a nice flight.

Bela P. Havasreti

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am perfectly comfortable flying into towered airports (been flying
> since 1976, and have lived in a large, metropolitan area most of
> my life). I'm not a "rebel" and I do comply with ATC instructions the
> vast majority of the time (in case you're wondering, yes... I have
> used the "unable" card with ATC on occasion when the situation
> warranted it). I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm the PIC of the
> aircraft I'm flying and I decide what the safest way is to operate
> said aircraft, not ATC. If you still feel the need to quote FARs and
> post insulting comments about my ability to fly safely, knock
> yourself out....
>

I was merely pointing out that the course of action you proposed is unsafe
and explained why that is so. If you choose to feel insulted by that then
that is your privilege.

[Chris G.]

helloooooo.....

I wouldn't sidestep THAT far... NOR would I sidestep into traffic (that
I know about). Steve, Give it a rest. As PIC, I'm responsible for the
safety of my aircraft and of my actions. You quoted the regs saying
just that. If I feel that I *need* to deviate from ATC instructions to
avoid an imminent collision, then I believe that would constitute and
EMERGENCY. In an emergency, it is well known that I may deviate from
the FARs to meet the needs of that emergency. Also, remember, Aviate,
Nagivate, and Communicate. I'll tell ATC what is going on, but not
before I ensure the safety of my flight. That being said, I don't doubt
that ATC will not intentionally issue an instruction that would put me
in harm's way. That still does not relieve me of being situationally
aware and ready to respond appropriately to a given situation/instruction.

Chris G.
PP-ASEL and still alive to talk about it cuz I fly safely!

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least
>> everyone is alive to vent.
>>
>
> Not if you turn and collide with somebody on downwind.
>
>

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:14:55 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I am perfectly comfortable flying into towered airports (been flying
>> since 1976, and have lived in a large, metropolitan area most of
>> my life). I'm not a "rebel" and I do comply with ATC instructions the
>> vast majority of the time (in case you're wondering, yes... I have
>> used the "unable" card with ATC on occasion when the situation
>> warranted it). I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm the PIC of the
>> aircraft I'm flying and I decide what the safest way is to operate
>> said aircraft, not ATC. If you still feel the need to quote FARs and
>> post insulting comments about my ability to fly safely, knock
>> yourself out....
>>
>
>I was merely pointing out that the course of action you proposed is unsafe
>and explained why that is so. If you choose to feel insulted by that then
>that is your privilege.

It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so". You
quoted some regs. Regs are open to interpretation.

Nobody is talking about a 4+ G pitchout to the side to avoid
an aircraft that is 1000+ feet up-wind.

I'm guessing you're just one of those folks who like to "argue"
and/or get the last word in.....?

If so, be my guest and post your last word(s)
here -> <- 8^)

Be safe, and have a nice flight.

Bela P. Havasreti

[Scott Skylane]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:

/snip/
>
> I'm guessing you're just one of those folks who like to "argue"
> and/or get the last word in.....?
/snip/

Good Grief, Bela,

I thought you'd been around here long enough to know that! There's an
old saying involving mud wrestling and pigs, and it applies here.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so".
>

I did explain why turning towards an aircraft on downwind is more hazardous
than overflying the runway. You may not have seen that message, but you're
wrong when you say I didn't provide the explanation.


>
> You quoted some regs. Regs are open to interpretation.
>

Not this one.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> There's no "maybe" about it. The Pilot/Controller Glossary was compiled
to
> promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic
Control
> system. The instruction "Go Around" is defined as:
>
> "Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing.
Additional
> instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft
or
> an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while
> climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the
> crosswind leg.

I would consider sidesteping by 50 or 100 feet to increase ability to see
traffic, as still complying with the "overfly the runway" bit. I'm sure you
feel differently.
--
Jim in NC

[Kyle Boatright]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> True, but ATC isn't likely to suffer the ultimate price should there be a
>> mid-air collision. I'm announcing intentions and keeping the rogue
>> aircraft in sight. If ATC has a problem with that, we can sort it out
>> later.
>>
>
> A midair with the rogue departure? That seems unlikely. You're behind
> and above the aircraft taking off. For a collision to occur it would have
> to climb significantly faster than your aircraft. If it can it do that it
> is probably significantly faster as well and will stay in front of you.
> The safest thing to do is comply with the instruction and overfly the
> runway.

In *my* scenario, there isn't an instruction. Either I'm a step ahead of
the controller, or (more likely) I'm at an uncontrolled field with no tower.
I make the decision to abort the landing and announce my intentions,
regardless of my previous announcemets, clearances, whatever. My comfort
level dictates what I do, which will be what I percieve to be the safest
course of action.

KB

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least
>> everyone is alive to vent.
>>
>
>Not if you turn and collide with somebody on downwind.

If you choose to worry about that situation you may. It is not a
realistic scenario to me.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so".
>>
>
>I did explain why turning towards an aircraft on downwind is more hazardous
>than overflying the runway. You may not have seen that message, but you're
>wrong when you say I didn't provide the explanation.

Left hand traffic. You sided step a bit to the RIGHT of final. That
is on the opposite side of the runway to downwind.

No safety issue.

Steve, perhaps you feel that ATC is faultless but that would be an
inorrect assumption. Anyone who blindly follows ATC without
exercising proper pilot responsibilities may become a statistic.

Ron Lee

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:55:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so".
>>
>
>I did explain why turning towards an aircraft on downwind is more hazardous
>than overflying the runway. You may not have seen that message, but you're
>wrong when you say I didn't provide the explanation.
>
>
>>
>> You quoted some regs. Regs are open to interpretation.
>>
>
>Not this one.
>

I offer my congratulations on your coming to your own conclusion that
you were right. If it makes you feel better, you are welcome to that
thought!

I am cognizant of the fact that it might be a bit disturbing for you
to realize it, but there may be one or two of us (possibly more) on
this planet who think otherwise....

Be safe, have a nice flight.

Bela P. Havasreti

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:51:40 -0900, Scott Skylane
> wrote:

>Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
>
>/snip/
>>
>> I'm guessing you're just one of those folks who like to "argue"
>> and/or get the last word in.....?
>/snip/
>
>Good Grief, Bela,
>
>I thought you'd been around here long enough to know that! There's an
>old saying involving mud wrestling and pigs, and it applies here.
>
>Happy Flying!
>Scott Skylane

You're right, I should know better....

For a nanosecond or two, I thought maybe a reasoned response would
elicit a meaningful exchange of information / ideas.

What was I thinking!. 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris G." > wrote in message
reenews.net...
>
> helloooooo.....
>

Howdy.


>
> I wouldn't sidestep THAT far...
>

Apparently there are those that would. At least one person here has stated
the reason to move to the right is to avoid other pattern traffic. If
you're not moving THAT far it doesn't matter which way you turn.


>
> NOR would I sidestep into traffic (that I know about).
>

Who would? You may not know about all of the traffic.


>
> Steve, Give it a rest.
>

Give what a rest?


>
> As PIC, I'm responsible for the safety of my aircraft and of my actions.
>

Yes, I've already pointed that out.


>
> You quoted the regs saying just that. If I feel that I *need* to deviate
> from
> ATC instructions to avoid an imminent collision, then I believe that would
> constitute and EMERGENCY. In an emergency, it is well known that I may
> deviate from the FARs to meet the needs of that emergency. Also,
> remember,
> Aviate, Nagivate, and Communicate. I'll tell ATC what is going on, but
> not
> before I ensure the safety of my flight. That being said, I don't doubt
> that ATC will not intentionally issue an instruction that would put me
> in harm's way. That still does not relieve me of being situationally
> aware and ready to respond appropriately to a given situation/instruction.
>

Nothing in the OP suggests a need to deviate from any ATC instructions to
avoid an imminent collision. The threat of an imminent collision was
averted by the go around maneuver which was initiated by the controller.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> In *my* scenario, there isn't an instruction. Either I'm a step ahead of
> the controller, or (more likely) I'm at an uncontrolled field with no
> tower. I make the decision to abort the landing and announce my
> intentions, regardless of my previous announcemets, clearances, whatever.
> My comfort level dictates what I do, which will be what I percieve to be
> the safest course of action.
>

I don't see where you introduced *your* scenario. We've been discussing the
scenario in the OP in which the go around was imitated by ATC.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Left hand traffic. You sided step a bit to the RIGHT of final. That
> is on the opposite side of the runway to downwind.
>
> No safety issue.
>

Towered field. The pattern is whatever ATC says it is. There could be left
hand traffic or right hand traffic or both simultaneously.



> Steve, perhaps you feel that ATC is faultless but that would be an
> inorrect assumption. Anyone who blindly follows ATC without
> exercising proper pilot responsibilities may become a statistic.
>

I'm well aware that ATC is not faultless, I've witnessed many ATC errors.
But nothing in the scenario under discussion here suggests any hazard from
properly following ATC's instruction to go around. What some here don't
seem to appreciate is the potential hazard in blindly violating an ATC
instruction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you choose to worry about that situation you may. It is not a
> realistic scenario to me.
>

Why not?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>
> For a nanosecond or two, I thought maybe a reasoned response would
> elicit a meaningful exchange of information / ideas.
>

So why did you decide not to?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I would consider sidesteping by 50 or 100 feet to increase ability to see
> traffic, as still complying with the "overfly the runway" bit. I'm sure
> you
> feel differently.
>

Then you'd be wrong. If you're still over the runway you're clearly
overflying the runway and are thus in compliance with the ATC instruction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> The OP introduced 2 scenarios. One at a controlled field and one:
>
> "You are approaching a non towered field, communicate right and all that
> stuff, your on final, suddenly a cessna pulls up and starts it's take
> off roll."
>

We're discussing the one at the controlled field.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 05:00:26 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> For a nanosecond or two, I thought maybe a reasoned response would
>> elicit a meaningful exchange of information / ideas.
>>
>
>So why did you decide not to?
>
Because I finally realized I was wrestling with a pig in mud.

Bela P. Havasreti