A tower-induced go-round [Archive] - Page 2

TheSmokingGnu

April 2nd 07, 04:45 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
> before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
> did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.

Hey, smacktard. You might want to use the grey squishy stuff between
your ears once in a while.

Jim's message, posted Mar 27:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/f49fc06a96c2e42f

Not only are the procedure images named VFR, the cards themselves SAY
they're VFR procedures.

> VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.

And a Cessna at best rate has 40 seconds closing time at that
visibility, what's your point? (Best angle's got a whole 53!)

> Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?

Jim has not yet come quite to the realization of how far your fantasy
land extends.

>> Are you really that dense?
>>
> I'm not at all dense.

Oh, then how come you haven't floated away yet?

:P

I'm sorry, this really needed to be posted. I'm not usually this
venomous. Take your head out of your ass, man!

TheSmokingGnu

Larry Dighera

April 2nd 07, 04:50 AM

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:35:02 GMT, wrote in
>:

>
>I say it is most prudent not to doing something the other people in
>the pattern are not expecting someone to do.

Oh, you mean like Mr. Honeck's suggestion of a 360 instead of a
go-around? :-)

Or don't you think any of the other pilots in the pattern would
possibly expect to find others, perhaps not familiar with the local
noise abatement procedures (that are unpublished in official
publications), who are merely complying with the FAA documented
traffic pattern procedures? (I believe Mr. McNicoll has referenced
them earlier in this message thread.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for flying as quietly as possible without
compromising safety. But one of the strengths of our nation's
internationally exemplary NAS is its uniformity throughout, from shore
to shore.

It's unreasonable to require, indeed expect, airmen planning to
operate at a given airport, with informal noise abatement procedures,
to have to search unofficial documents for that information. However
courteous and thoughtful pilots may make an effort to comply. At
least, that's the way I see it.

[email protected]

April 2nd 07, 05:35 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:35:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >
> >I say it is most prudent not to doing something the other people in
> >the pattern are not expecting someone to do.

> Oh, you mean like Mr. Honeck's suggestion of a 360 instead of a
> go-around? :-)

Apples, oranges.

I believe he was talking about a towered airport, in which case the
question is whether or not you should do something the controller
isn't expecting you to do.

> Or don't you think any of the other pilots in the pattern would
> possibly expect to find others, perhaps not familiar with the local
> noise abatement procedures (that are unpublished in official
> publications), who are merely complying with the FAA documented
> traffic pattern procedures? (I believe Mr. McNicoll has referenced
> them earlier in this message thread.)

At any non-towered airport, the vast majority of users are locals, and
all the locals are most likely following the local procedures.

This is probably true for towered airports, but irrelevant as ATC is
telling you what to do.

One of the things you are supposed to do at a non-towered airport
is monitor the other traffic.

If all the local traffic is announcing, 3 to the north entering on
the crosswind for left 24, or 3 to the south, entering on the 45 for
left 24, what do you think the appropriate action is?

I think the appropriate action is to join the crowd and do what they
are doing even if it takes me a mile or two to do it.

And there is that little thing about obtaining all pertinent information
before flight.

I have never had any problem finding noise abatement procedures, but
then again, I popped the extra bucks for a Flight Guide subscription
which has a hell of a lot more usefull information than the AF/D.

> Don't get me wrong. I'm all for flying as quietly as possible without
> compromising safety. But one of the strengths of our nation's
> internationally exemplary NAS is its uniformity throughout, from shore
> to shore.

There is little to nothing uniform about the VFR approach and
departure procedures at either non-towered, or towered airports.

Some towered airports do straight ins and straight outs, others
may do one but not the other, some do neither in normal operation.

Ditto for non-towered airports.

> It's unreasonable to require, indeed expect, airmen planning to
> operate at a given airport, with informal noise abatement procedures,
> to have to search unofficial documents for that information. However
> courteous and thoughtful pilots may make an effort to comply. At
> least, that's the way I see it.

Well, while Flight Guide isn't an "official document", it sure is
handy, lists the noise abatement procedures, and is damn handy to
have if for nothing else than the noise abatement procedures and
whether or not there is a restaurant on the airport.

I think we basically agree.

I have a problem with people that put forth no effort and plow
through an otherwise peaceful pattern with the excuse that they
are legal and everyone else can just get the hell out of the way..

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

April 2nd 07, 06:05 AM

Jose > wrote:
> > I thought it was obvious I meant when the other traffic was following
> > whatever the procedure is, but maybe not.

> It was not obvious. You stated it as a universal. It doesn't matter
> however.

> > I also thought it was obvious I meant when not following whatever
> > procedure you do something that surprises the other traffic, but, again,
> > maybe not.

> Flying inherently includes surprises. Some are dangerous, some are not.
> You stated as a categorical imperative that all traffic MUST do the
> same thing or insane danger will result. I disagree. There are many
> things that are not part of "what everyone is doing" that are not going
> to cause insand danger, or even any significant danger.

I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't
you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such
as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of
the other participants?

You never know if the other guy has 20,000 hours with nerves of steel
or a student 5 minutes into his first solo and on the verge of wetting
his pants.

Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5
minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin.

> > BTW, you do realize, that all else, such as terrain, obstructions,
> > other runways, etc., being equal, the choice of left or right traffic
> > at an airport is usually based on minimizing noise to "sensitive" areas
> > and those are mandatory?

> Actually, that just boils down to "noise is a consideration". Things
> are rarely equal. And the mandatory left/right pattern rules are in the
> AF/D and FAA approved. You were talking about homegrown procedures that
> are not necessarily FAA approved, not mandatory, and not necessarily
> well publicized.

I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people, though most
specific details of an airports operation are in fact "home grown",
including the mandatory, FAA approved, ones.

> You made a big deal out of something small. I don't think it's a big
> deal, but it's a big deal to try to make it a big deal.

I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes
charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone
to be coming from like the genius this morning who decided to do a
go around and turn cross wind mid field in front of downwind traffic
which included me. I guess he didn't want to spend the gas money to go
where everyone else was turning crosswind.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jose

April 2nd 07, 02:42 PM

> I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't
> you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such
> as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of
> the other participants?

Well, you did imply something that dramatic, and that's what set me off.
If you merely mean it's nice to follow noise abatement procedures, and
it's generally a good idea to follow the local procedures, then I
heartily (but not stridently) agree.

> Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5
> minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin.

Several well known "five minute students" flew with a turbin. They had
a turbine too. (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I know "turban" is
misspelled too)

> I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people,

Not the "home grown" part, but the "imposed as a mandatory procedure by
some local yokel who has no authority to do so" part which was implied
by the stridency of your original advocacy.

> I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes
> charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone
> to be coming from...

No, that's not a big deal. That's just life. You're not in the cockpit
with him, and it's your job to watch for that kind of thing.

I will agree though that what he did did not appear to be too bright or
considerate, but this has little to do with a noise abatement procedure.

Or maybe it does. Maybe he was "avoiding" the "noise sensitive area"
where his great aunt lives, right under the approach end. How's that
for a local procedure?

:) Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[email protected]

April 2nd 07, 04:15 PM

Jose > wrote:
> > I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't
> > you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such
> > as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of
> > the other participants?

> Well, you did imply something that dramatic, and that's what set me off.
> If you merely mean it's nice to follow noise abatement procedures, and
> it's generally a good idea to follow the local procedures, then I
> heartily (but not stridently) agree.

> > Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5
> > minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin.

> Several well known "five minute students" flew with a turbin. They had
> a turbine too. (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I know "turban" is
> misspelled too)

> > I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people,

> Not the "home grown" part, but the "imposed as a mandatory procedure by
> some local yokel who has no authority to do so" part which was implied
> by the stridency of your original advocacy.

If you think I was strident, you should be around when I do get worked
up over something...

Locals can't impose a mandatory procedure in any form unless the
FAA approves it, but all those mandatory procedures were formulated
by the locals.

If you run across procedure a local trys to make mandatory without
going through the approval process, complain to the FAA.

> > I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes
> > charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone
> > to be coming from...

> No, that's not a big deal. That's just life. You're not in the cockpit
> with him, and it's your job to watch for that kind of thing.

As well as morons that cruise through stop lights and stop signs and
turn right from the left lane.

I have (perhaps unrealistic) higher expectations of pilots.

> I will agree though that what he did did not appear to be too bright or
> considerate, but this has little to do with a noise abatement procedure.

It is just an example of doing the unexpected.

> Or maybe it does. Maybe he was "avoiding" the "noise sensitive area"
> where his great aunt lives, right under the approach end. How's that
> for a local procedure?

No, just another self centered moron that doesn't think the "rules",
whether they be mandatory or simple courtesy, apply to him.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jose

April 2nd 07, 04:37 PM

> As well as morons that cruise through stop lights and stop signs and
> turn right from the left lane.

Cruising through stop lights is illegal. Crusing through the pattern is
not.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 05:24 PM

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> No you didn't, otherwise you would have found the answer in the Great
> Repository of Human Knowledge. But then, I don't expect trolls to be able
> to read in the first place.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks#Emphasis_.28incorrect.29

>
> Do you have to take classes to be so pedantic? I've already explained the
> vernacular, the onus is now on you to understand the topic at hand.
>

You've got it backward. I'm explaining these things to help you understand
them.

>
> I find it funny that you only considered /me/ to be the one under these
> influences. Time to think outside the troll box.
>

I can only work with what you write.

>
> I departed. I corrected for winds and flew a proper upwind in-line with
> the runway. He departed, and did not. The winds were such that his track
> was inside of mine. I made the turn crosswind. He did not inform anyone of
> his intentions beyond taking the runway. Our tracks nearly intersected. He
> was distracted by something (else he would have been making
> intent/position reports, or responding to ours). There were a lot of other
> aircraft in that patch of sky that day, and I was working a scan not
> entirely in his direction at the time of the incident. My copilot did spot
> him, and we managed to avoid each other.
>

As I recall, your complaint was that his failure to depart from the downwind
was the cause of the incident. That clearly was not the case.

>
> Ad hominem. You wanted an example?
>

Yes, and that is not an example.

>
> I assume nothing, remember? I expect him to be doing both, and will look
> for that first. Failing that, we go into contingency mode.
>

If you weren't assuming that he'd be adhering to a non-required "standard"
practice why are you complaining?

>
> Faculty, not facility. I goofed there (and bad. I dunno how that got in
> there).
>

CTAF is a frequency, not a faculty.

>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary
>
> That's not an FAA source. How can I know what officially constitutes
> "unnecessary" chatter when the FAA doesn't define it?
>

Good question. Let's get back to "standard". Please provide an official
FAA definition of "standard" before we move on.

>
> I already have, multiple times. Want it again?
>
> They don't expect traffic there, in that direction, at that altitude, at
> that speed.
>

Why do they assume traffic won't be there, in that direction, at that
altitude, at that speed? Didn't you say assuming was bad?

>
> My god, do you take everything literally?
>
> I meant "better than Freud". I will refrain in the future from trying to
> make snide inferences, so that your limited ability to understand
> articulated speech is not questioned.
>

How does one make a snide inference?

>
> Why, since not only is it painfully obvious, but you refuse to make one of
> mine?
>

Because citing one is the only way to make your case. If there was one to
cite, you'd have cited it.

>
> Such as?
>

"Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
the RUNWAY."

"You'll get lots of people that, for example, won't depart the pattern on
the
downwind..."

And there was that cryptic reference to "descent vectors".

>
> Where did you establish that? As I recall, you're relying on Jay's
> assumptions about spacing and separation, and whether they were
> appropriate or not. How can you both disprove a point and rely on its
> premise for your conclusion?
>

Yes, we're relying on Jay's statements about the spacing. If the spacing
was as he reported then there was sufficient spacing.

>
> Besides, without definitive objective proof, the premise could never be
> established in the first place, since it's an anecdote, and made under no
> pretense of authority.
>

The problem is his anecdote does not support his conclusion.

>
> The controller was expected in this circumstance to amend the 172's
> clearance such that they were told to either land long or continue
> rolling. Expected, not required. You cannot make the argument that the
> controller did not share the bulk of the responsibility in this case to
> properly inform and administer the aircraft in his care. A simple
> amendment, comment, or otherwise remark to EITHER aircraft would have
> avoided the entire situation, but instead the controller allowed it to
> unfold and then attempted to clean up afterwards. It's a sign of poor
> controller-dom.
>

That was an unreasonable expectation on Jay's part. I can easily make the
argument that the controller does not share the bulk of the responsibility
in this case to by demonstrating that the controller did not make an error.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 05:26 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You have trouble with the word "cutting"? I believe that says it
> all.
>

I'm having trouble with your usage of the word. Please explain what you
mean.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 05:34 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The controller's instructions put both the 172 and I on a course that
> -- in the controller's opinion -- was going to cause a collision on
> the runway. This is why he sent me around, after clearing me to
> land.
>

Previously you said the controller's instructions put you about 4500' behind
the 172 at the moment it landed. What is your revised distance?

>
> "Road rage"? What are you *talking* about? No one was angry, no one
> raised their voice, and nothing unsafe happened. This is simply a
> discussion of a very unusual event. If there's any "rage" being felt
> here, it must be yours.
>

"Road rage" is a bit extreme, but it's pretty clear you started this thread
because you were irked at being issued the go around.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 05:37 PM

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> No. He thought his instructions would work. When he realised that he had
> made a mistake, he resolved the situation by sending you around. Pretty
> much what I expect from a controller.
>

The controller's instructions did work. Jay has stated he was 4500' behind
the 172 when it landed. The controller issued the go around because the 172
unexpectedly stopped on the runway.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 05:40 PM

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> 5,000 public-use airports.
> 500 controlled aerodromes.
>
> 4,500 uncontrolled public-use airports.
>
> 10 mid-airs a year.
> 2 NMAC's a year.
> 6 ground collisions a year.
>
> Just how are all those dumb-ass pilots managing to miss each other so
> often without the controller's help?
>

I'm pretty sure all of those incidents involved pilots. How many of them
involved controllers?

>
> Never mind that 61 accidents a year are caused by miscommunication or ATC.
>

How many of them are caused by ATC?

What is your source for these statistics?

BDS[_2_]

April 2nd 07, 05:42 PM

I hope that everyone realizes that if the runway was a conveyor belt none of
this would have happened in the first place.

BDS

Gig 601XL Builder

April 2nd 07, 05:56 PM

BDS wrote:
> I hope that everyone realizes that if the runway was a conveyor belt
> none of this would have happened in the first place.
>
> BDS

Oh God don't start that again.

Jon Woellhaf

April 2nd 07, 06:13 PM

Hee, hee. Good one!

"BDS" > wrote in message
t...
>I hope that everyone realizes that if the runway was a conveyor belt none
>of
> this would have happened in the first place.
>
> BDS
>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 06:51 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Bwahahahahahahah!
>
> Er, ahem. Sorry. Happy April Fools Day.
>
> Right, Steven. ATC saved us...
>
> Have you always had delusions of grandeur?
>

I said he MAY very well have saved your lives by issuing the go around.
Recall that you were contemplating landing over the Skyhawk.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 06:55 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dang, Steven, I didn't know you were there? Where *were* you hiding?
> Or was that you in the tower?
>

I wasn't there, I'm relying on your report of the incident. You said you
were about 4500' behind the 172 when it touched down. If your estimate is
correct there was sufficient space available. Do you want to change your
story to fit your conclusion, or do you want to change your conclusion to
fit your story?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 10:03 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> Because you keep bringing up the IFR procedures as though they were
> relevant to VFR.
>
> Of course I knew local prodedures are VFR; I've always known that.
>

If you always knew that why did you initially say they applied to all
operations? Why didn't you identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

>
> One more time, we are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>

You wrote; "The 6 IFR departure would be illegal to do without a radio, and
if you did it with a radio, while legal, it would **** of the class C tower
which is expecting you to use the VFR procedure and call them when you get
close to midfield if you intend to cross their airspace." That sounds like
you're talking about an IFR procedure. If I followed that procedure it
would be during an IFR flight with an IFR clearance and it would not affect
the Class C tower in any way.

>
> You can't legally fly the IFR departure unless you file IFR and then,
> no, you are not talking to the Class C tower, you are talking to the
> Class C departure.
>

Now you're catching on.

>
> Since you don't seem to get it:
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>
> We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.
>

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 10:14 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> That is what happens.
>

Doubtful.

>
> Because no one has ever claimed there was.
>
> Because there are no incident or accident reports.
>

That wouldn't mean there haven't been any, that would just mean nobody's
reported any. And you can't even be sure nobody's reported any.

>
> Not knowing they are voluntary is totally irrelevant and hardly a
> problem.
>

I've already explained the relevance and how it can be a problem. Review
the thread.

>
> Any pilot that doesn't know they are voluntary is ignorant, which is
> a totally separate issue.
>

There are many ignorant pilots.

>
> BTW, here's a web site you might want to visit:
>
> http://www.faa.gov
>
> This organization encourages and supports the concept of local noise
> abatement procedures and pilots following them as long as:
>
> They are not discriminitory.
>
> They don't produce a special right.
>
> They are safe.
>
> They don't conflict with law.
>

You should encourage the CCB airport manager to develop procedures like
that.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 10:30 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> I have no idea what percentage of all pilots know that local VFR
> procedures are not mandatory nor what percentage of all pilots know
> that part 150 procedures are, and it makes no difference to the
> arguement of whether or not following local VFR procedures are safe.
>
> Yes.
>
> Yes.
>
> It is not.
>

Yes it is. It says, "LEFT TURNS ONLY, NO STRAIGHT-OUT DEPARTURES, NO RIGHT
DEPARTURES, NO DOWN-WIND DEPARTURES, NO STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES". A bit
further down it says, "NOTE: There are no downwind, straight-out, or right
departures." The only part that is actually mandatory is "left turns only",
and then only on approach. Nothing at all that says compliance is strictly
voluntary.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 10:45 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> An estimation based on long observation.
>
> If it were a formal measurment, there would be error bars on the number.
>

It's an unreliable number.

>
> You know, this whole thing started out rather simply.
>
> The original issue is, is it more prudent to follow the actions of the
> rest of the VFR traffic in the pattern of a non-towered airport, or does
> one do what they want, no matter the consequences, just because it is
> legal to do and you want to do it?
>
> So far, you have tried to side track the issue into:
>
> The ODP, AF/D, Part 150, and the CFR.
>
> IFR procedures.
>
> Whether or not I know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary.
>
> How long I've known voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary.
>
> Whether or not all pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are
> voluntary.
>
> What percentage of pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are
> voluntary.
>
> The qualifications and job history of an airport manager.
>
> How I know something with decades of no accident history has no
> accident history.
>
> Scud running.
>
> What you think local ATC would do as opposed to what I've seen local
> ATC do.
>
> And probably several others that, mercifully, I can't remember at
> the moment.
>
> Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you.
>
> You provide no usefull information and constantly attempt to side
> track things into non-related issues or into issues which have, at
> best, a tenuous relationship to the discussion at hand.
>
> You are a total, absolute, worthless, waste of time.
>

You're not going to learn anything with that attitude.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 10:50 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly what I just said.
>

You said a dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it.
That is an idiotic comment.

>
> Another attempt to side track the issue; that a local noise abatement
> procedure doesn't apply when IFR is obvious to the most casual observer.
>

I don't think so. I don't think you were aware it was for VFR operations
only when you first posted it.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 11:07 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> BTW, you do realize, that all else, such as terrain, obstructions,
> other runways, etc., being equal, the choice of left or right traffic
> at an airport is usually based on minimizing noise to "sensitive" areas
> and those are mandatory?
>

Yes, and that information is published in the A/FD, where pilots expect to
find such information.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 2nd 07, 11:41 PM

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey, smacktard. You might want to use the grey squishy stuff between your
> ears once in a while.
>

That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.

>
> Jim's message, posted Mar 27:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/f49fc06a96c2e42f
>
> Not only are the procedure images named VFR, the cards themselves SAY
> they're VFR procedures.
>

Yup, he posted that on Mar 27 at 12:15 PM. On Mar 21 he posted:

"Lots of places have specific 'standard' arrivals and departures for
noise abatement. Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav
is spotty, but Flight Guide is pretty good. An example is KCCB.
To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
control channel. To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn
north over the 24. There are no downwind, straight-out or right
departures. And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this."

On Mar 24 he posted:

"Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point."

That was the one that in response to I pointed out the conflict with the
ODP.

Earlier on Mar 27 he posted:

"There is no difference in practice between a local noise abatement
procedure and an established ATC procedure. The only difference is
in the legal fine print."

and

"If a departing (or arriving, CCB has procedures for both) aircraft comes
to grief following the noise abatement procedures, it will only be because
some anal legal eagle such as yourself chose to ignore them and caused
havoc in an otherwise peaceful pattern full of students expecting the
rest of the traffic to be following the same procedures."

Even in the message that included the links to the procedure he doesn't
mention they're for VFR operations only. I don't think he was aware of that
fact even then.

>
> And a Cessna at best rate has 40 seconds closing time at that visibility,
> what's your point? (Best angle's got a whole 53!)
>

See my previous message with links to scud running.

TheSmokingGnu

April 3rd 07, 04:43 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks#Emphasis_.28incorrect.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks#Irony

> You've got it backward. I'm explaining these things to help you understand
> them.

Ad hominem. I'll keep pointing them out, so you can get an idea of what
they are.

> I can only work with what you write.

No common sense inference?

The sky is red, Steven. Red.

> As I recall, your complaint was that his failure to depart from the downwind
> was the cause of the incident. That clearly was not the case.

My complaint was that he didn't follow local procedures, that he didn't
inform anyone of his actions, and that he put himself on a collision
course with my aircraft such that I was the one forced to take
corrective action.

And that he departed the upwind, not the crosswind as he should have,
and definitely not the downwind.

> Yes, and that is not an example.

Heh.

> If you weren't assuming that he'd be adhering to a non-required "standard"
> practice why are you complaining?

Expect != assume.

> CTAF is a frequency, not a faculty.

CTAF is a faculty of the airport. It's arbitrary definition anyway.

> Good question. Let's get back to "standard". Please provide an official
> FAA definition of "standard" before we move on.

Please provide an official FAA definition of "unecessary" before we move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man

> Why do they assume traffic won't be there, in that direction, at that
> altitude, at that speed? Didn't you say assuming was bad?

Expect != assume. That's two strikes.

> How does one make a snide inference?

I couldn't explain it to you with three linguistics professors, a jar of
peanut butter and a hungry badger.

>> Such as?
>>
> "Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
> have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
> the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
> the RUNWAY."

Nothing wrong with reminding him of the rules.

>
> "You'll get lots of people that, for example, won't depart the pattern on
> the
> downwind..."

Will you?

>
> And there was that cryptic reference to "descent vectors".

I already explained that one.

> Yes, we're relying on Jay's statements about the spacing. If the spacing
> was as he reported then there was sufficient spacing.

Which report are you using? The initial? The revised? Or the one you
coerced with ad hominem attacks on his piloting skill?

> The problem is his anecdote does not support his conclusion.

Then if it is false as a premise in one argument, how can you turn it
around and use it as a pillar of truth in yours?

Logic begs the question.

> That was an unreasonable expectation on Jay's part. I can easily make the
> argument that the controller does not share the bulk of the responsibility
> in this case to by demonstrating that the controller did not make an error.

Please by all means do so. I would like to see the physical proof you
have no doubt obtained in this case, the objective and nonpartisan fact
which will prove the correct spacing and correct actions taken by both
parties.

TheSmokingGnu

TheSmokingGnu

April 3rd 07, 04:45 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> I'm pretty sure all of those incidents involved pilots. How many of them
> involved controllers?

None, as it's very hard to achieve best rate in a control tower.

> How many of them are caused by ATC?

I can't say, the statistics don't get more granular than that.

>
> What is your source for these statistics?

The NTSB 2002 Accident Statistics report, available on their website.

TheSmokingGnu

TheSmokingGnu

April 3rd 07, 04:53 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.

Hurrah, another ad hominem (although I give this one to you, since it's
answered in kind).

> Yup, he posted that on Mar 27 at 12:15 PM. On Mar 21 he posted:
>
> "Lots of places have specific 'standard' arrivals and departures for
> noise abatement. Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav
> is spotty, but Flight Guide is pretty good. An example is KCCB.
> To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
> control channel. To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn
> north over the 24. There are no downwind, straight-out or right
> departures. And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

>
> On Mar 24 he posted:
>
> "Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
> don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

> Earlier on Mar 27 he posted:
>
> "There is no difference in practice between a local noise abatement
> procedure and an established ATC procedure. The only difference is
> in the legal fine print."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

>
> and
>
> "If a departing (or arriving, CCB has procedures for both) aircraft comes
> to grief following the noise abatement procedures, it will only be because
> some anal legal eagle such as yourself chose to ignore them and caused
> havoc in an otherwise peaceful pattern full of students expecting the
> rest of the traffic to be following the same procedures."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

> Even in the message that included the links to the procedure he doesn't
> mention they're for VFR operations only. I don't think he was aware of that
> fact even then.

He expected you to be more observant and use common sense. It was an
unfortunate choice.

He knew they were VFR procedures, he was quoting from the damned cards
in the first place.

> See my previous message with links to scud running.

That's not a point, nor is it applicable.

TheSmokingGnu

Steven P. McNicoll

April 3rd 07, 12:59 PM

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> And that he departed the upwind, not the crosswind as he should have, and
> definitely not the downwind.
>

By itself, there's nothing wrong with departing upwind.

>
> CTAF is a faculty of the airport. It's arbitrary definition anyway.
>

CTAF is not a faculty of the airport. It is a frequency, nothing more.
There may be a UNICOM at the airport that operates on CTAF. CTAF is defined
in the P/CG as:
COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF)? A frequency designed for the
purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while operating to or
from an airport without an operating control tower. The CTAF may be a
UNICOM, Multicom, FSS, or tower frequency and is identified in appropriate
aeronautical publications.

>
> Nothing wrong with reminding him of the rules.
>

You got the rule wrong.

>
> Will you?
>

Sure.

>
> I already explained that one.
>

You didn't.

>
> Which report are you using? The initial? The revised?
>

The one where Jay says he was 1/2 mile from the threshold when the 172
landed 25% down the 6000' runway.

>
> Please by all means do so. I would like to see the physical proof you have
> no doubt obtained in this case, the objective and nonpartisan fact which
> will prove the correct spacing and correct actions taken by both parties.
>

I have no physical proof, I'm relying on Jay's statements. Jay's statements
indicate there was sufficient spacing and do not suggest any controller
error.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 3rd 07, 05:40 PM

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> None, as it's very hard to achieve best rate in a control tower.
>

So pilots experience ten mid-airs, two NMACs, and six ground collisions
each year without any controller involvement. Good point, well taken.

>
> I can't say, the statistics don't get more granular than that.
>

What point were you trying to make?

TheSmokingGnu

April 3rd 07, 06:03 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> So pilots experience ten mid-airs, two NMACs, and six ground collisions
> each year without any controller involvement. Good point, well taken.

No, no, no. With and without controllers available. If your
prognostication that the Godly controllers save all we pitiful pilots
from slamming into each other, then there should be a comiserate
increase in the number of such events. That it is so low is a testament
of how little controller involvement A): exists, and B): is necessary to
safe separation of traffic.

> What point were you trying to make?

That communication and/or ATC causes at least as many accidents as there
are mid-airs and NMACs. If it's included as a header title, there is at
least one directly-attributable accident to ATC, which soundly disproves
that said Godly controllers are A): infallible, as you seem to think
them, and B): that they always give proper instruction in a situation,
disproving your absolutes.

TheSmokingGnu

TheSmokingGnu

April 3rd 07, 06:27 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> By itself, there's nothing wrong with departing upwind.

And so the merry-go-round turns. Yes, we've already turned the dead
horse to puree on this one.

There is a problem when departing upwind puts you on a collision course
with departing traffic. There, that's all. There's no more point here
for you to argue.

> CTAF is not a faculty of the airport. It is a frequency, nothing more.

Pedantic, and useless to try to explain to you the subtleties of the
English language.

> You got the rule wrong.

Did not.

> Sure.

So how was the statement incorrect?

> You didn't.

I did, you just didn't read it.

> The one where Jay says he was 1/2 mile from the threshold when the 172
> landed 25% down the 6000' runway.

So, the subjective judgement is now usable as objective premise?

Maybe you should apply for the Nobel, inventing new methods of logic as
you do.

> I have no physical proof

And so you cannot make physical claims.

> Jay's statements
> indicate there was sufficient spacing and do not suggest any controller
> error.

Jay's statements specifically point out controller error to properly
manage the spacing between aircraft. The failure of the controller to
properly amend the 172's clearance to include either a long landing or a
continued roll-out caused the incident in the first place.

Jay's statements also profer that spacing was sufficient only until the
172, acting on the controller's statement (or lack thereof) stopped on
the runway (also not wrong or illegal in and of itself). It was the
controller's inherent responsibility to recognize the developing
situation and amend the clearance, even if it's not a required function
of his station. Jay did all he could to both get the 172 in front of
him, and maintain the spacing previously established by him. Without the
controller's intervention, the 172 was free to cause an incident with
sequenced traffic.

To say nothing of how the controller improperly sequenced the traffic in
the first place. If Jay had simply been allowed, as he was cleared, to
be #1, it wouldn't have mattered if the 172 stopped on the runway,
dropped a tent, and had a picnic.

And, since the argument now has nothing to it other than to turn unto
itself ad nauseum, I'm done. Save your sycophantic meanderings for
someone else who doesn't care.

TheSmokingGnu

Steven P. McNicoll

April 4th 07, 12:13 PM

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, no, no. With and without controllers available.
>

So some happened without controllers available and some happened with
controllers available but not involved. What the hell is your point?

>
> If your
> prognostication that the Godly controllers save all we pitiful pilots from
> slamming into each other, then there should be a comiserate increase in
> the number of such events. That it is so low is a testament of how little
> controller involvement A): exists, and B): is necessary to safe separation
> of traffic.
>

I said nothing remotely like that.

>
> That communication and/or ATC causes at least as many accidents as there
> are mid-airs and NMACs. If it's included as a header title, there is at
> least one directly-attributable accident to ATC, which soundly disproves
> that said Godly controllers are A): infallible, as you seem to think them,
> and B): that they always give proper instruction in a situation,
> disproving your absolutes.
>

You said the statistics don't state the cause. It sounds like you're
misinterpreting data. If you can tell me what you're referring to I'm sure
I can make sense of it for you.

Steven P. McNicoll

April 4th 07, 01:05 PM

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> And so the merry-go-round turns. Yes, we've already turned the dead horse
> to puree on this one.
>
> There is a problem when departing upwind puts you on a collision course
> with departing traffic. There, that's all. There's no more point here for
> you to argue.
>

It seems you're determined not to understand. So be it.

>
> Pedantic, and useless to try to explain to you the subtleties of the
> English language.
>

You're not in a position to explain language to anyone.

>
> Did not.
>

Yes you did. You said the rules give planes below the right-of-way over
planes above. FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the right of way.

>
> So how was the statement incorrect?
>

It implied that not departing the pattern on the downwind was an error.

>
> I did, you just didn't read it.
>

I can't read what you don't write.

>
> So, the subjective judgement is now usable as objective premise?
>
> Maybe you should apply for the Nobel, inventing new methods of logic as
> you do.
>

Logic is not new, it's just new to you.

>
> And so you cannot make physical claims.
>

I'm not. I'm saying if the distances provided by Jay are accurate the
spacing was sufficient. What part of that are you having trouble with?

>
> Jay's statements specifically point out controller error to properly
> manage the spacing between aircraft. The failure of the controller to
> properly amend the 172's clearance to include either a long landing or a
> continued roll-out caused the incident in the first place.
>

No, the incident was caused by the 172's unexpected stop on the runway.

>
> Jay's statements also profer that spacing was sufficient only until the
> 172, acting on the controller's statement (or lack thereof) stopped on the
> runway (also not wrong or illegal in and of itself).
>

Not illegal, definitely wrong.

>
> It was the
> controller's inherent responsibility to recognize the developing situation
> and amend the clearance, even if it's not a required function of his
> station.
>

He did, when he saw the 172 stop he sent Jay around.

>
> To say nothing of how the controller improperly sequenced the traffic in
> the first place. If Jay had simply been allowed, as he was cleared, to be
> #1, it wouldn't have mattered if the 172 stopped on the runway, dropped a
> tent, and had a picnic.
>

If the 172 hadn't stopped on the runway Jay would have been allowed, as he
was cleared, to land. There is no clearance to be #1, #2, etc.

Sounds like you're about as inexperienced with ATC as Jay is.

TheSmokingGnu

April 4th 07, 06:01 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> It seems you're determined not to understand. So be it.

Neither are you.

> Yes you did. You said the rules give planes below the right-of-way over
> planes above. FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the right of way.

I think you need to see your eye doctor more regularly, it's obvious
your prescription is out of date.

Once you do, please feel free to re-read what I wrote.

> It implied that not departing the pattern on the downwind was an error.

Ah, I see how this game works. You can assume and find the implication
in any sentence so long as it is such that you can find issue with it.

Of course, set out something common sense and you fail to see even the
basic principle.

> I can't read what you don't write.

I did write it, you just don't read.

> Logic is not new, it's just new to you.

Brilliant ad hominem. It's unfortunate that callous wit doesn't win
arguments.

> I'm not. I'm saying if the distances provided by Jay are accurate the
> spacing was sufficient. What part of that are you having trouble with?

You ARE.

I'm having trouble with the part where you're trusting the word of an
eyewitness as physical, immutable truth in one sense, and then
discounting that very account in another.

You can't use the same statement as both a true premise and a false
conclusion.

> No, the incident was caused by the 172's unexpected stop on the runway.

Which was caused by the controller's lack of action or amendment. How
circular would you like the argument?

> Not illegal, definitely wrong.

And had the controller amended the clearance (or even mentioned in
passing, for all that it matters), would the 172 have taken the same
incorrect action?

No.

> He did, when he saw the 172 stop he sent Jay around.

The developing situation was the possible spacing issue between the
aircraft. The result was the go-around. The result is clean-up for a
situation which should never have occurred in the first place.

> If the 172 hadn't stopped on the runway Jay would have been allowed, as he
> was cleared, to land. There is no clearance to be #1, #2, etc.

Check your P/C under ATC Instructions. Jay's clearance was issued first,
inherently making him #1. If so chosen, the controller can explicitly
instruct and make clear the order of clearances given, as he should have
in this case. Jay was a much better candidate for #1 than a higher,
slower student aircraft.

> Sounds like you're about as inexperienced with ATC as Jay is.

You work in a ruddy tower and you don't know some of this stuff. Please
stay well clear of the microphone until you properly understand the
responsibilities therein necessitated.

TheSmokingGnu

TheSmokingGnu

April 4th 07, 06:10 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> So some happened without controllers available and some happened with
> controllers available but not involved. What the hell is your point?

Available and involved. Available and uninvolved. Unavailable. Three
options, covered under the same header.

> I said nothing remotely like that.

Your post dated 4/1:

"We don't need dumb ass controllers at all. One of the reasons we need
competent controllers, such as the one that may very well have saved
Jay's life at JEF, is because we have dumb ass pilots."

But here we get to play the "implication game", where you can't assume
anything until it suits your argument.

> You said the statistics don't state the cause.

I said they aren't more granular than that.

It means that there are 61 incidents listed as "miscommunication/ATC",
not how many are caused by either. The cause IS either miscommunication
or ATC. If all the incidents were caused solely by miscommunication,
then the ATC header would be omitted.

> It sounds like you're
> misinterpreting data. If you can tell me what you're referring to I'm sure
> I can make sense of it for you.

This is what leads me to suspect your prescription. I have explicitly
stated the source of the data. It's your ball now.

TheSmokingGnu