A tower-induced go-round

[Jay Honeck]

Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.

Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....

Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.

Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.

Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.

The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TheSmokingGnu]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely.

You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.

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.

If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.

I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
doing his job, but YMMV. :)

TheSmokingGnu

[Tony]

On the other hand, here was a student pilot trying to land on a windy
day, and we don't know how many approaches he aborted.

It wasn't done correctly, but he assumed you had the skill to do what
was needed, and you did. Besides, flying a miss from time to time when
not expected is good for you (I read that once -- or maybe it was
something MX said).





On Mar 17, 12:09 am, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> > Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> > a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> > Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> > was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> > to land safely.
>
> You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
> pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
>
> 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.
>
> If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
> clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
> be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
> place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
> lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
> hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
>
> I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
> doing his job, but YMMV. :)
>
> TheSmokingGnu

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 9:09 pm, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> > Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> > a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> > Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> > was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> > to land safely.
>
> You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
> pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
>
> 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.
>
> If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
> clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
> be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
> place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
> lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
> hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
>
> I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
> doing his job, but YMMV. :)
>
> TheSmokingGnu

I can't agree.
Don't try telling anyone anything over the air. Land, and have a
polite discussion with the person. Leave the airways clear.

[tony roberts]

> 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.

Really?
Student pilot, clear air turbulence, 30kt gusty headwind . . .

--
Tony

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 7:58 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
> -- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
> the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
>
> Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
> 25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
> the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
> runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
> ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
> power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
>
> Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
> Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
> blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
> -- as if he does this all day long.
>
> Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
> during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
> tongue as I dutifully went around.
>
> The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
> Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
> good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
> one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
> know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
> Midwest.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I am not sure I would have gotten " behind the power curve" in gusty
conditions. A sooner bailout on your determination would have been
prudent. A 360 for spacing while still on final seems better then
dragging it in. After all you are PIC and responsible for the safety
of the flight. Glad you got home safely..

Ben

[Jim[_14_]]

On 16 Mar 2007 18:58:53 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
>Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
>a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30
<snipped a bunch of good stuff> What type of aircraft were you flying?
--

Jim in Houston

Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tim]

TheSmokingGnu wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
>> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
>> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>>
>> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
>> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
>> to land safely.
>
>
> You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
> pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
>
> 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.
>
> If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
> clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
> be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
> place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
> lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
> hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
>
> I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
> doing his job, but YMMV. :)
>
> TheSmokingGnu

Ah bull****. If the person was a student he had every right to make
modifications. He made a mistake probably.

It happens all the time. Just deal with it and keep flying. I wish all
the complaints I had about the controllers in this area were as benign
as that.

[BDS]

> TheSmokingGnu wrote:
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> >> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> >> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
> >>
> >> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> >> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> >> to land safely.
> >
> > You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
> > pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
> >
> > 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.

Why make a big deal out of a minor issue? Anyway, after a tirade like you
suggest all the controller would have had to do was tell you that your
landing clearance was now canceled and to go around.

BDS

[Jay Honeck]

> I am not sure I would have gotten " behind the power curve" in gusty
> conditions. A sooner bailout on your determination would have been
> prudent. A 360 for spacing while still on final seems better then
> dragging it in. After all you are PIC and responsible for the safety
> of the flight. Glad you got home safely..

Yeah, I thought about doing a 360, but it was so danged gusty that
turning at low altitude was very uncomfortable. (More for the family
than for me, of course.)

It was one of those days where, if you kept the wind on your nose, it
wasn't bad, but as soon as you turned and had the relative gusts
hitting you from the side, things got rolly-polly pretty quickly.
Nothing more uncomfortable (for me, anyway) than having turbulence
trying to lift the high wing to vertical in a turn.

Having landed at OSH and SNF a bunch of times, I'm pretty used to slow
flight and close spacing. Everything would have worked out, if the
controller had told the 172 to land long and exit immediately -- but
it wasn't to be.

No big deal, but at the end of a very long flight it was more work
than I needed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Guy Elden Jr]

> No big deal, but at the end of a very long flight it was more work
> than I needed.

As my flight instructor used to say, consider it a "character building
exercise".

--
jr

[Jay Honeck]

> <snipped a bunch of good stuff> What type of aircraft were you flying?

'74 Piper Pathfinder -- PA28-235.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 16 Mar 2007 18:58:53 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
>Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
>a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>

Yeah, well he should have canceled your landing clearance, or at least
communicated with you. Or, if you couldn't accept a delay in your
clearance (and a medical emergency is as valid as a mechanical emergency),
you should have communicated with him.

He knew he had a student pilot so was giving him priority, I guess (can't
be sure without reading his mind).

Unless you ask him (and I'd do that on the ground), you can't really be
sure of all the nuances of the situation.

At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land
without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting
he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it
works out. Sometimes not <shrug>.

I get that frequently going into KASH, which has a lot of student activity.
Most of the time it works out with me doing slow flight and waiting for the
the a/c ahead to land; sometimes I request a 360 for spacing; and rarely
I'll get a go-around (usually from a controller who doesn't realize how
slowly I can fly my Mooney).
--ron

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>

What was your position at the time?


>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
> -- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
> the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
>
> Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
> 25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
> the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
> runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
> ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
> power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
>

He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's
3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that
won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far
out were you when he touched down?


>
> Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
> Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
> blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
> -- as if he does this all day long.
>

If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make
it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's
unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you?


>
> Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
> during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
> tongue as I dutifully went around.
>
> The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
> Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
> good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
> one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
> know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
> Midwest.
>

It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to
say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it.
The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced
pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less
capable people in the near future.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
> pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
>
> 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.
>

Actually it is planes on final that have the right of way, but that's
irrelevant here as it was a controlled field.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:58:26 -0500, "Peter Dohm" >
wrote:

>>
>> At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land
>> without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting
>> he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it
>> works out. Sometimes not <shrug>.
>>
>The controllers at one of the local Class D airports in southeast Florida
>have a reputation for being rather cautious--and not doing that. (That's a
>deliberate understatement, although there some extenuating
>circumstances--including a high volume of IFR traffic.)
>
>I strongly suspect that many (perhaps most) pilots pilots usng that airport
>would be much happier with a quicker flow of traffic and more frequent
>go-arounds.
>
>

It's places like BOS and other big city airports where the practice is
common.

I've been in situations where I've not been given a landing clearance until
the runway was clear.

I've also been in a situation where I was flying a Cessna 150 cleared to
land 15 hold short of Rwy 5 -- This was just after clearances to land had
been issued to a KC-135 for RWY 5; and a C-130 for Rwy 33!! (The C-130 was
practicing downwind landings).

--ron

[Peter Dohm]

>
> At many airports (in the US), giving multiple a/c clearances to land
> without the runway being clear is not unusual. The controller is betting
> he'll have the required clearance when you get there. Most of the time it
> works out. Sometimes not <shrug>.
>
The controllers at one of the local Class D airports in southeast Florida
have a reputation for being rather cautious--and not doing that. (That's a
deliberate understatement, although there some extenuating
circumstances--including a high volume of IFR traffic.)

I strongly suspect that many (perhaps most) pilots pilots usng that airport
would be much happier with a quicker flow of traffic and more frequent
go-arounds.

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1174096733.803538.270650
@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

Clearly the controller either made a mistake or is a dolt.

Either way, a few good S-Turns would have saved you some gas and turbulence.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> > Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> > a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> What was your position at the time?

Hard to say (I wasn't looking at my GPS). I'd say a mile out, maybe
two?

> He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's
> 3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that
> won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far
> out were you when he touched down?

Probably 1/2 mile.

> If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make
> it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's
> unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you?

There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, but the controller
should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
neither.

> It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to
> say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it.
> The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced
> pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less
> capable people in the near future.

I doubt it, but we'll see.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Yeah, I thought about doing a 360, but it was so danged gusty that
> turning at low altitude was very uncomfortable. (More for the family
> than for me, of course.)
>


Aeronautical Information Manual
Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures

Chapter 4. Air Traffic Control

Section 3. Airport Operations

4-3-5. Unexpected Maneuvers in the Airport Traffic Pattern

There have been several incidents in the vicinity of controlled airports
that were caused primarily by aircraft executing unexpected maneuvers. ATC
service is based upon observed or known traffic and airport conditions.
Controllers establish the sequence of arriving and departing aircraft by
requiring them to adjust flight as necessary to achieve proper spacing.
These adjustments can only be based on observed traffic, accurate pilot
reports, and anticipated aircraft maneuvers. Pilots are expected to
cooperate so as to preclude disrupting traffic flows or creating conflicting
patterns. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for
and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. On occasion
it may be necessary for pilots to maneuver their aircraft to maintain
spacing with the traffic they have been sequenced to follow. The controller
can anticipate minor maneuvering such as shallow "S" turns. The controller
cannot, however, anticipate a major maneuver such as a 360 degree turn. If a
pilot makes a 360 degree turn after obtaining a landing sequence, the result
is usually a gap in the landing interval and, more importantly, it causes a
chain reaction which may result in a conflict with following traffic and an
interruption of the sequence established by the tower or approach
controller. Should a pilot decide to make maneuvering turns to maintain
spacing behind a preceding aircraft, the pilot should always advise the
controller if at all possible. Except when requested by the controller or in
emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
controller.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Hard to say (I wasn't looking at my GPS). I'd say a mile out, maybe
> two?
>

What did you do before GPS? You were approaching a 6000' runway. Were you
one runway-length out, or were you two runway-lengths out?


>
> Probably 1/2 mile.
>

Sounds like plenty of room to me.


>
> There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
> agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, ...
>

If you believed the basic problem was the 172's unexpected stop why was your
ire directed solely at the controller?


>
> but the controller
> should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
> neither.
>

Why should he have done either? You said the 172 touched down 1500' from
the threshold, he DID land long. You said the unexpected stop was the
problem, there'd have been plenty of room if not for that. The AIM tells
pilots, "At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop
or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval." Why
should the controller have expected the 172 to act contrary to that?


>
> I doubt it, but we'll see.
>

You think people will choose to be control tower operators when they can
make more money doing something else?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's
> > decision to make it number one does not sound too bad. The
> > problem seems to be the 172's unexpected stop. Was there
> > additional traffic behind you?
>
> There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
> agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, but the controller
> should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
> neither.

But on the other hand, you should not space yourself in the circuit
with such a presumption. Even if the controller makes such an
instruction, there is no guarantee that a pilot will be able to carry
out out in a way convenient to you.

- FChE

[Newps]

TheSmokingGnu wrote:

>
> 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.

There are no right of way rules at controlled airports.



>
> If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
> clearance.



No.

[Jay Honeck]

> Except when requested by the controller or in
> emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
> traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
> controller.

Yep, although I couldn't quote chapter and verse, this is what I
figured the rules were.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
> > agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, ...
>
> If you believed the basic problem was the 172's unexpected stop why was your
> ire directed solely at the controller?

Because I'm not going to blame a student for stopping short. Hell, he
probably didn't even know I was behind him, if he was nervous.

Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)

> > but the controller
> > should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
> > neither.
>
> Why should he have done either?

Because it would have easily fixed the mess the controller caused.
Stretching out his roll-out would have made everything mesh
effortlessly. Instead, the controller kept mum, and caused a runway
conflict.

> You think people will choose to be control tower operators when they can
> make more money doing something else?

Yes -- for many of the same reasons that I choose to run a little
aviation themed hotel next to an airport, even though I could be
making exponentially more money doing something else.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> But on the other hand, you should not space yourself in the circuit
> with such a presumption. Even if the controller makes such an
> instruction, there is no guarantee that a pilot will be able to carry
> out out in a way convenient to you.

I presumed nothing, other than that I was cleared to land. When the
controller revoked that clearance (by inadvertently misjudging the
spacing between aircraft) I went around -- simple as that.

The only reason I posted this experience here was because it was a
"first" for Mary and me, in over 1700 hours of flying over 12 years.
It wasn't dangerous, or difficult -- but it *was* unusual.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tim]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Except when requested by the controller or in
>>emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
>>traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
>>controller.
>
>
> Yep, although I couldn't quote chapter and verse, this is what I
> figured the rules were.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport. the tower and the
conflicting traffic forgot about me. I was on final. he turned traffic
following me inthe pattern in front of me. The other traffic had no
awareness... I keyed the mike to let them know what was going on...
doh. got stepped on. did a 360 and then called AFTER. I was not
worried about doing something wrong - I was worried about getting killed
by the controller who dropped the ball and two pilots in the other plane
who were not paying attention to what the heck was going on in the pattern.

It happens too often. Do what you need to do to stay alive.

[Jay Honeck]

> I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.

That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
dangerous airspace in America.

I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of
the week.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

On Mar 18, 5:57 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.
>
> That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
> dangerous airspace in America.

Sorry, Tim -- that came out sounding like I thought you were stupid
for making a 360 in the pattern. That's NOT what I meant -- I only
mean that Class D is a dangerous place, thanks to us relying on guys
in a tower with binoculars for spacing, and controllers relying on
guys in airplanes who don't know where the heck they really are.

I agree completely with your rationale for doing what you had to do.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tim]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.
>
>
> That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
> dangerous airspace in America.
>
> I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of
> the week.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


I have been to many fine class D airports. I would take most over the
uncontrolled fields I have been. Cowboys for sure at the uncontrolled
airport near me. I was put on a waiting list at KFRG - glad I decided
to skip that. It is too busy - busier than the class c near here and
the controllers are rude. Then went to KHWV - that is a dangerous place
to fly - non-towered - insane amounts of scary piloting there and I am
finally at KISP - class C. I like it. Very professional people. Itis
nice to have radar services as the default and good for IFR flights
instead of going non towered.

I was at KPHF - that was a great class D.

[Tim]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> On Mar 18, 5:57 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>>I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.
>>
>>That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
>>dangerous airspace in America.
>
>
> Sorry, Tim -- that came out sounding like I thought you were stupid
> for making a 360 in the pattern. That's NOT what I meant -- I only
> mean that Class D is a dangerous place, thanks to us relying on guys
> in a tower with binoculars for spacing, and controllers relying on
> guys in airplanes who don't know where the heck they really are.
>
> I agree completely with your rationale for doing what you had to do.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


I did not take it that way. Thanks for the follow up. Students really
need to be told to watch out for themselves - it is all too easy to
assume the controllers are omnipotent and never erring gods. The sooner
you see in training some screw-ups by controllers and other pilots, the
better off you are. Always watch out for yourself and be safe.

I don;t think I will ever find myself near Iowa City, but if I do your
place has been on my list for a while. Congrats on the longevity of the
endeavor.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 4:43 pm, Tim > wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>Except when requested by the controller or in
> >>emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
> >>traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
> >>controller.
>
> > Yep, although I couldn't quote chapter and verse, this is what I
> > figured the rules were.
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> >www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> A tower controller has NEVER been killed because of their screw up. It is always the pilot who bites the dust. When I stated a 360 for spacing was my first choice I never said I wasn't going to make a radio report to the tower, in fact That has happened to me before and as I started my 360 the tower was notified by me, it is then up to them to fix the mess they created. I am going home alive, **** on the incompetent tower controller who stuffed a plane right in front of me after I was cleared to land. Funny ol Steven P. Mc Nicoll threw in the side line of tower operators not making enough money, and there will be a shortage of them because of it. One day he might even admit a controller actually made a mistake and a pilot fixed it and lived to fly again. I have to admit he can quote all the rules and seems up to speed on traffic flows and probably was a great controller before he became mighter then the rest of us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




> I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport. the tower and the
> conflicting traffic forgot about me. I was on final. he turned traffic
> following me inthe pattern in front of me. The other traffic had no
> awareness... I keyed the mike to let them know what was going on...
> doh. got stepped on. did a 360 and then called AFTER. I was not
> worried about doing something wrong - I was worried about getting killed
> by the controller who dropped the ball and two pilots in the other plane
> who were not paying attention to what the heck was going on in the pattern.
>
> It happens too often. Do what you need to do to stay alive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[BT]

never trust a controller..
you are PIC..

Tower controllers here are known to put two aircraft on crossing runways..
one landing.. one taking off..
and yes.. they did meet at the intersection.. luckily no one died that
day.. but two aircraft were totaled

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
> -- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
> the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
>
> Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
> 25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
> the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
> runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
> ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
> power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
>
> Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
> Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
> blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
> -- as if he does this all day long.
>
> Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
> during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
> tongue as I dutifully went around.
>
> The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
> Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
> good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
> one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
> know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
> Midwest.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[BT]

never trust a controller..
you are PIC..

Tower controllers here are known to put two aircraft on crossing runways..
one landing.. one taking off..
and yes.. they did meet at the intersection.. luckily no one died that
day.. but two aircraft were totaled

BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
> Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
> a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
>
> Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
> was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
> to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
> -- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
> the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
>
> Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
> 25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
> the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
> runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
> ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
> power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
>
> Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
> Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
> blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
> -- as if he does this all day long.
>
> Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
> during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
> tongue as I dutifully went around.
>
> The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
> Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
> good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
> one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
> know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
> Midwest.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:57:15 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of the
> week.

I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
airport. It can be better.

But I do agree that a pilot is not absolved of situational awareness by
being in class D airspace, and too many pilot's fail to realize this.

I've posted this here before, but I think it worth repeating: the last
flight I took right-seat with a particular someone was when we were
approaching a class D and we'd a clear view of traffic on climb-out that
we knew from radio calls was closed traffic. That traffic and we were
destined to reach downwind at about the same time.

I suggested to my friend that he deviate a little so as to come into the
pattern behind that traffic. He said that it wasn't necessary as the
tower would keep us apart.

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
> airport. It can be better.

Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:

a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
control too many things going on.

b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
of traffic effectively.

At an uncontrolled airport, everyone KNOWS they are on their own, and
events transpire accordingly and (mostly) predictably. In Class D'oh
airspace, on the other hand, too many pilots believe that the
controller is actually controlling the airspace, when, in fact, he is
not.

This type of confusion is a recipe for conflicts -- and I've seen them
often.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TheSmokingGnu]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
> because:
> <snip>
> This type of confusion is a recipe for conflicts -- and I've seen them
> often.

In non-radar D, very much so. You have to be on the ball all the time
and be sure to make precise radio calls. However, with radar coverage, D
is a whole new ballgame. Out here in the boonies (heretofore known as
"the LA basin" :D ), almost all the controlled airports either carry
radar themselves or can tap into them, and so controlled flight is a
breeze (and the controllers really do administer their airspace, with
xpndr checks and traffic reports, as well as non-talking violators).

Contrariwise, uncontrolled space can be a zoo, with a high traffic
density, and weekend warriors that don't (or won't) follow proper
procedure, in the cockpit or on the radio. You'll get lots of people
that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
because he thought he could depart via the upwind), or omitting initial
position calls, calls to final, calls clear of runway, omitting the
ident, etc. etc. etc. Add in some jet traffic along with the standard
piston assortment, and things can get ugly, really fast.

So, I think it's all a matter of degrees and personal experience at its
essence, just like having a bad time in Class C can sour your attitude
for that 'space.

TheSmokingGnu

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
>>airport. It can be better.
>
>
> Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
> because:
>
> a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
> control too many things going on.
>
> b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
> they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
> impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
> of traffic effectively.


Compare a class D to an uncontrolled field with similar traffic counts
and the class D is much safer and the traffic flows much more orderly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Because I'm not going to blame a student for stopping short. Hell, he
> probably didn't even know I was behind him, if he was nervous.
>

How did you know you were following a student? Why do you hold the
controller responsible for the student's actions?


>
> Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
> misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)
>

But you've already admitted spacing was fine, the problem was the 172s
unexpected stop on the runway. Do you believe the controller applied the
brakes?


>
> Because it would have easily fixed the mess the controller caused.
> Stretching out his roll-out would have made everything mesh
> effortlessly. Instead, the controller kept mum, and caused a runway
> conflict.
>

Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?


>
> Yes -- for many of the same reasons that I choose to run a little
> aviation themed hotel next to an airport, even though I could be
> making exponentially more money doing something else.
>

What are the reasons? What could you be doing that would earn exponentially
more money?

[Jay Beckman]

Good God, you sound just like The Albatross...

"PLONK"

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I presumed nothing, other than that I was cleared to land. When the
> controller revoked that clearance (by inadvertently misjudging the
> spacing between aircraft) I went around -- simple as that.
>

Previously you said the spacing was good and the controller initiated the go
around when the 172 unexpectedly stopped on the runway. Now you say the
spacing was poor and you chose to go around. Which is it?

I believe you were formerly in the newspaper business. Were you forced out
of that career by an inability to keep a story straight?

[Steve S]

"Tim" > wrote in message
...

> I have been to many fine class D airports. I would take most over the
> uncontrolled fields I have been. Cowboys for sure at the uncontrolled
> airport near me. I was put on a waiting list at KFRG - glad I decided to
> skip that. It is too busy - busier than the class c near here and the
> controllers are rude. Then went to KHWV - that is a dangerous place to
> fly - non-towered - insane amounts of scary piloting there and I am
> finally at KISP - class C. I like it. Very professional people. Itis
> nice to have radar services as the default and good for IFR flights
> instead of going non towered.

I agree about KFRG, the controllers are regulars at being jerks, I think
mostly because they are underqualified for what they have to deal with. I
was put in a hold over the bridge near the shore for 30 minutes with 10
other planes all looking to not crash into each other. I was glad for the
TIS-A that day. Finally I headed north and called up from the northeast
where I was promptly let into the pattern.

I trained and was based at KHPN and they have more traffic and a more
difficult mix what with students, spamcans, corporates and commuter
airliners. They rarely got surly and were much more accomodating. Perhaps
KFRG needs NY Approach to assign a squawk and sequence arrivals like they do
for KHPN.

KISP was always a joy to fly into. Much sleepier than KFRG.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> A tower controller has NEVER been killed because of their screw up. It is
> always the
> pilot who bites the dust. When I stated a 360 for spacing was my first
> choice I never
> said I wasn't going to make a radio report to the tower, in fact That has
> happened to
> me before and as I started my 360 the tower was notified by me, it is then
> up to them
> to fix the mess they created.
>

Yup, just as it's up to them to fix the messes pilots create.


>
> I am going home alive, **** on the incompetent tower controller who
> stuffed a plane
> right in front of me after I was cleared to land.
>

Was spacing a problem?


>
> Funny ol Steven P. Mc Nicoll threw in the side line of tower operators not
> making
> enough money, and there will be a shortage of them because of it. One day
> he might
> even admit a controller actually made a mistake and a pilot fixed it and
> lived to fly
> again.
>

Me? Admit a controller made a mistake? I'm as likely to do that as you are
to admit a pilot made a mistake.


>
> I have to admit he can quote all the rules and seems up to speed on
> traffic flows
> and probably was a great controller before he became mighter then the rest
> of
> us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

He still is.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
> misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)
>

No, but he may very well have had radar. Mizzou approach's ASR is about 7
miles north of JEF. With a BRITE scope in the tower the controller would be
in a far better position to judge spacing than you were. (And we've already
established how well you can judge spacing, even with GPS... :-)

[Alan Gerber]

TheSmokingGnu > wrote:
> You'll get lots of people
> that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
> a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
> because he thought he could depart via the upwind),

What's wrong with departing via the upwind?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[TheSmokingGnu]

Alan Gerber wrote:
> What's wrong with departing via the upwind?

I think you'd find it exceedingly difficult to do so when you must fly
_through_ the gentleman in front of you. :)

The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.

Even more distressing was the fact that he didn't divert properly around
the obviously slower traffic (that is, to the right; he kept on his
departure vector), and was either oblivious or didn't care about giving
or listening to position reports.

But whadda ya gonna do? Kick the ball, fly around George, kick the ball...

TheSmokingGnu

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
> dangerous airspace in America.
>
> I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of
> the week.
>

Why would the presence of a control tower render airspace unsafe?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
> because:
>
> a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
> control too many things going on.
>

What things is the guy in the tower trying to see and control?


>
> b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
> they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
> impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
> of traffic effectively.
>

So it's pilots that make Class D unsafe?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> In non-radar D, very much so. You have to be on the ball all the time and
> be sure to make precise radio calls.
>

Precise radio calls are a rarity.


>
> Contrariwise, uncontrolled space can be a zoo, with a high traffic
> density, and weekend warriors that don't (or won't) follow proper
> procedure, in the cockpit or on the radio. You'll get lots of people that,
> for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had a
> from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed because
> he thought he could depart via the upwind), or omitting initial position
> calls, calls to final, calls clear of runway, omitting the ident, etc.
> etc. etc. Add in some jet traffic along with the standard piston
> assortment, and things can get ugly, really fast.
>

Part 91 specifies direction of turns for arriving aircraft, but not for
departing aircraft. The AIM states; "If departing the traffic pattern,
continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a
left?hand traffic pattern; to the right when in a right?hand traffic
pattern) beyond the departure end of the runway, after reaching pattern
altitude." Things like that probably lead people to believe departing via
the upwind is entirely proper.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
> only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
> "standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.
>

What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

[Jay Honeck]

> Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
> caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
> what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
> inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?

Jeebus, Steven. I give up.

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

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

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 7:12 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
> > caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
> > what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
> > inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?
>
> Jeebus, Steven. I give up.
>
> While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
> controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
> outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.
>
> See ya!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the
> > problem was caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was
> > inadequate regardless what the 172 did after touchdown. [...]
>
> While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
> controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
> outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

Thing is, Jay, he has a point. Many a time you've posted stories
about something odd happening during a flight. When your aspects of
judgement ended up being questioned, you consistently deflected
criticism. That's only natural, but sometimes saying "I should have
done that differently!" would be healthy.

- FChE

[Larry Dighera]

On 21 Mar 2007 06:12:22 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>you have outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

You mean he has exposed your muddled thinking, and caused you to doubt
your own analysis of the incident?

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
> > only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
> > "standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.
> >

> What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard"
crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and
influential) housing developments some wonderful person decided needed
to be direct off the end of a GA airport.

Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining
a civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to
flying off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't
going to tell anyone first.

TheSmokingGnu

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jeebus, Steven. I give up.
>
> While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
> controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
> outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.
>
> See ya!
>

Gee, Jay, and usefulness to you was my primary purpose here!

Sounds more like you just find my questions too difficult to answer.

See ya!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
> process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
> would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
> danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
> thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

You're free to believe whatever you choose. I rarely even mention that I'm
a controller, anyone here can claim to be anything they choose. Rather than
post, "I'm a controller and this is the way it is...", my messages tend to
take the form, "This is the way it is because FAA Order 1234.56A says..."
Which form do you find more convincing?

[Jay Honeck]

> Thing is, Jay, he has a point. Many a time you've posted stories
> about something odd happening during a flight. When your aspects of
> judgement ended up being questioned, you consistently deflected
> criticism. That's only natural, but sometimes saying "I should have
> done that differently!" would be healthy.

There is absolutely nothing in my story that is inconsistent, nor is
there anything that I would have -- or should have -- done
differently.

Nothing in my telling of the tale has changed from start to finish,
either. It is only Steven -- and you, apparently -- that sees change
where none exists.

If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far out I was when the
student was in front of me, that's his option -- but please don't side
with his form of anal insanity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 2:32 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
> > process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
> > would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
> > danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
> > thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You're free to believe whatever you choose. I rarely even mention that I'm
> a controller, anyone here can claim to be anything they choose. Rather than
> post, "I'm a controller and this is the way it is...", my messages tend to
> take the form, "This is the way it is because FAA Order 1234.56A says..."
> Which form do you find more convincing?

Neither,,,because the Pilot incommand has the FINAL responsibility for
the safety of any given flight. That leaves out a controller that
spaces planes too closely and any FAA order that can't conform to a
given situation on short notice.

[Jay Honeck]

> You mean he has exposed your muddled thinking, and caused you to doubt
> your own analysis of the incident?

Oh, God help me. Now the *other* King of Anal is on board.

No, Larry, that's not what I mean. The only muddled thinking here was
mine when I thought people like you might benefit from hearing about
my experience.

I'll say it again: If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far
out I was when the student was cleared to land in front of me, that's
his option -- but please don't side with his form of insanity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Sounds more like you just find my questions too difficult to answer.

Nope, just too stupid.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Nope, just too stupid.
>

Jay, I thought you'd given up! I thought I had outlived my usefulness to
you in this thread!

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> Part 91 specifies direction of turns for arriving aircraft, but not for
> departing aircraft. The AIM states; "If departing the traffic pattern,
> continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a
> left?hand traffic pattern; to the right when in a right?hand traffic
> pattern) beyond the departure end of the runway, after reaching pattern
> altitude." Things like that probably lead people to believe departing via
> the upwind is entirely proper.

Gee, ya think? :-)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> Why would the presence of a control tower render airspace unsafe?

I wouldn't agree with that, but it could be a risk factor.

There's a phenomenon that's been observed that people change their safety
margins in the face of safety equipment. People wearing bicycle helmets
tend to cycle in a riskier manner; people with ABS brakes drive a little
faster, and a little more aggressively, trusting the brakes to save them
if needed.

I suspect this is also a factor when there's a tower -- people let up on
their traffic scan, and lose some common sense, assuming the controller
won't let anything bad happen to them.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wouldn't agree with that, but it could be a risk factor.
>
> There's a phenomenon that's been observed that people change their safety
> margins in the face of safety equipment. People wearing bicycle helmets
> tend to cycle in a riskier manner; people with ABS brakes drive a little
> faster, and a little more aggressively, trusting the brakes to save them
> if needed.
>
> I suspect this is also a factor when there's a tower -- people let up on
> their traffic scan, and lose some common sense, assuming the controller
> won't let anything bad happen to them.
>

It appears many pilots believe ATC provides VFR/VFR separation in Class D
airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.

[Alan Gerber]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> It appears many pilots believe ATC provides VFR/VFR separation in Class D
> airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
> any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.

That's sort of a chicken-and-egg question. I agree with you, but the net
result is that class D airspace *can* be more dangerous, due to the
presence of those ignorant pilots. And it's definitely more dangerous for
exactly those ignorant pilots.

I trained at a class D airport, and my instructor made very sure that I
knew exactly what the controllers were there for, and what they weren't
there for.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> There is absolutely nothing in my story that is inconsistent, nor is
> there anything that I would have -- or should have -- done
> differently.
>
> Nothing in my telling of the tale has changed from start to finish,
> either. It is only Steven -- and you, apparently -- that sees change
> where none exists.
>

Let's check the record.

On 3/16 you wrote:
"Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway."

On 3/18 you wrote:
"Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing."

Going from "spaced just fine" to "he misjudged the spacing" sure looks like
a change to me.


>
> If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far out I was when the
> student was in front of me, that's his option -- but please don't side
> with his form of anal insanity.
>

I don't recall quibbling about how far out you were. I recall asking how
far out you were and you being unable to provide an accurate response,
despite having GPS. You finally decided you were about 1/2 mile out when
the student landed 1500' down the runway. If your estimates are accurate
there was proper spacing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Neither,,,because the Pilot incommand has the FINAL responsibility for
> the safety of any given flight. That leaves out a controller that
> spaces planes too closely and any FAA order that can't conform to a
> given situation on short notice.
>

What controller spaces planes too closely?

FAR 91.3(a) states; "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
aircraft." If a preceding properly-spaced aircraft uses his final authority
as to the operation of his aircraft and stops on the runway ahead of you,
forcing the tower controller to issue a go around, who would you hold
directly responsible?

[Jay Honeck]

> It appears many pilots believe ATC provides VFR/VFR separation in Class D
> airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
> any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.

Ah, forever the non-radar Class D controller's cop-out. "We only
provide sequencing, not separation."

In other words, you THINK you know where we are, and you HOPE we'll
follow your directions, and you PRAY it will all work out, and we had
BETTER follow your instructions (or else!) -- but, oh, shoot, it
*didn't* work out when I directed both of you to land on the same
runway? Dang, sorry about that -- we were only providing sequencing
(not!) -- it was up to YOU to not actually hit each other.

To which I say: Either give the poor sap in the tower radar, or stay
home. Go away. Save our tax money and possibly our lives. Uncontrolled
airports work just fine, thank you very much, and I'll trust my
skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
guy on the ground with binoculars.

We don't need Class D'oh! faux air traffic "control", anywhere.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Mar 22, 4:27 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Neither,,,because the Pilot incommand has the FINAL responsibility for
> > the safety of any given flight. That leaves out a controller that
> > spaces planes too closely and any FAA order that can't conform to a
> > given situation on short notice.
>
> What controller spaces planes too closely?
>
> FAR 91.3(a) states; "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
> responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
> aircraft." If a preceding properly-spaced aircraft uses his final authority
> as to the operation of his aircraft and stops on the runway ahead of you,
> forcing the tower controller to issue a go around, who would you hold
> directly responsible?

You just don't give up, !!!! In the 25 years I have been flying in
EVERY instance I was cleared to land by a controller in a tight
spacing situation the call from the tower to the preceding plane was "
N12345 exit runway as soon as possible, landing aircraft on a 1/2 mile
final behind you" Jay stated there was no communication from that
tower to the offending aircraft stopped on the runway. So, my question
to you ,almighty controller, Isn't the tower operator responsible for
the traffic on 'HIS" runway? A simple one word answer will do. YES or
NO ? I can't wait to see how you will spin this one. <GGGGG>

[Jay Honeck]

I swore I wouldn't do this, but here goes....

> On 3/16 you wrote:
>
> "Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway."
>
> On 3/18 you wrote:
>
> "Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
> misjudged the spacing."
>
> Going from "spaced just fine" to "he misjudged the spacing" sure looks like
> a change to me.

"Spaced just fine for Oshkosh" -- in pilot-speak -- means that I
probably won't die, but it's TOO DAMNED CLOSE FOR REGULAR OPERATIONS
AT A ONE-HORSE AIRPORT.

Get it now?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ...and I'll trust my
> skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
> guy on the ground with binoculars.

I just had the weirest flashback/visual of Arte Johnson, in that goofy
German costume on Laugh-In, peering over the sandbags with binoculars...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
> To which I say: Either give the poor sap in the tower radar, or stay
> home. Go away. Save our tax money and possibly our lives. Uncontrolled
> airports work just fine, thank you very much, and I'll trust my
> skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
> guy on the ground with binoculars.
>
I don't agree. In the case of closely spaced airports with many kinds of
traffic, I would think it is good to know the local activity. An example;
Cleveland's Burke Lakefront airport (Class D) is close enough to Hopkin's
Class B's first layer (2000') that all local VFR is scooting under that,
and by the time you've left Burke's airspace to the East, you're in
Cuyahoga County airport's Class D space, which is still under Hopkin's
4,000. Both County and Burke have BizJet traffic as well as GA, and Burke
has a lot of helo traffic as well. I don't think that making those
airports uncontrolled would make that airspace safer. On some days it gets
your adrenalin flowing fast to fly in there.

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You just don't give up, !!!!
>

Would you give up if you were in my position?


>
> In the 25 years I have been flying in
> EVERY instance I was cleared to land by a controller in a tight
> spacing situation the call from the tower to the preceding plane was "
> N12345 exit runway as soon as possible, landing aircraft on a 1/2 mile
> final behind you" Jay stated there was no communication from that
> tower to the offending aircraft stopped on the runway. So, my question
> to you ,almighty controller, Isn't the tower operator responsible for
> the traffic on 'HIS" runway? A simple one word answer will do. YES or
> NO ? I can't wait to see how you will spin this one. <GGGGG>
>

I'll be happy to answer your question, right after you answer mine. That's
only fair, I asked first. To make it easy for you, here it is again:

FAR 91.3(a) states; "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
aircraft." If a preceding properly-spaced aircraft uses his final authority
as to the operation of his aircraft and stops on the runway ahead of you,
forcing the tower controller to issue a go around, who would you hold
directly responsible?

A simple one word answer will do. PILOT or CONTROLLER?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ah, forever the non-radar Class D controller's cop-out. "We only
> provide sequencing, not separation."
>

What makes that a cop-out?


>
> In other words, you THINK you know where we are, and you HOPE we'll
> follow your directions, and you PRAY it will all work out, and we had
> BETTER follow your instructions (or else!) -- but, oh, shoot, it
> *didn't* work out when I directed both of you to land on the same
> runway? Dang, sorry about that -- we were only providing sequencing
> (not!) -- it was up to YOU to not actually hit each other.
>

Not me, I've never worked a non-radar tower. I also doubt those that do
think that.


>
> To which I say: Either give the poor sap in the tower radar, or stay
> home. Go away. Save our tax money and possibly our lives. Uncontrolled
> airports work just fine, thank you very much, and I'll trust my
> skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
> guy on the ground with binoculars.
>

So you'll be driving to AirVenture from now on.


>
> We don't need Class D'oh! faux air traffic "control", anywhere.
>

I can't see any competent pilot having the problems that you have with Class
D airspace. It's become obvious the problem is you, your skills are just
not up to it. For your own safety and the safety of others you should just
avoid Class D airspace until you upgrade your skills and knowledge.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I swore I wouldn't do this, but here goes....
>

To thine own self be true.


>>
>> On 3/16 you wrote:
>>
>> "Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
>> fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway."
>>
>> On 3/18 you wrote:
>>
>> "Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
>> misjudged the spacing."
>>
>> Going from "spaced just fine" to "he misjudged the spacing" sure looks
>> like
>> a change to me.
>>
>
> "Spaced just fine for Oshkosh" -- in pilot-speak -- means that I
> probably won't die, but it's TOO DAMNED CLOSE FOR REGULAR OPERATIONS
> AT A ONE-HORSE AIRPORT.
>

That's swell, Jay, but "Spaced just fine for Oshkosh" did not appear in any
of your previous messages.


>
> Get it now?
>

I sure do. You hold an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC
and you hold controllers responsible for pilot's actions.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:55:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>For your own safety and the safety of others you should just
>avoid Class D airspace until you upgrade your skills and knowledge.

Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 22, 2:15 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > You just don't give up, !!!!
>
> Would you give up if you were in my position?
>
>
>
> > In the 25 years I have been flying in
> > EVERY instance I was cleared to land by a controller in a tight
> > spacing situation the call from the tower to the preceding plane was "
> > N12345 exit runway as soon as possible, landing aircraft on a 1/2 mile
> > final behind you" Jay stated there was no communication from that
> > tower to the offending aircraft stopped on the runway. So, my question
> > to you ,almighty controller, Isn't the tower operator responsible for
> > the traffic on 'HIS" runway? A simple one word answer will do. YES or
> > NO ? I can't wait to see how you will spin this one. <GGGGG>
>
> I'll be happy to answer your question, right after you answer mine. That's
> only fair, I asked first. To make it easy for you, here it is again:
>
> FAR 91.3(a) states; "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
> responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
> aircraft." If a preceding properly-spaced aircraft uses his final authority
> as to the operation of his aircraft and stops on the runway ahead of you,
> forcing the tower controller to issue a go around, who would you hold
> directly responsible?
>
> A simple one word answer will do. PILOT or CONTROLLER?

Hell, Thats an easy answer. Even a caveman or a pilot can answer that.
<G>

Read this real slow thickhead...

A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
preceding plane was still on the rollout. He/she should not have
waited for the guy/girl to make a complete stop on the runway. If you
just go back and reread this whole thread it should become crystal
clear to a sane and competent controller that Jay was given a go
around because of the tower controller was asleep at the switch. There
are those of us who make a living in the private sector and have to
prove ourselves every day to stay employed. Then there is the
government workers who BS their way though life and the system to make
it to retirement, milking the system the whole time.... Jay and I and
alot of others work for the private sector and are surviving in the
black. Your employer is the US government who is 9+ trillion in the
red. It is either your move or checkmate on our part...

In closing I still admit that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll knows his regs
probably better then most other aviation people ,, But he forgot his
common sense at the office..

Blueskies and tailwinds......

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
> inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.
>

If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Hell, Thats an easy answer. Even a caveman or a pilot can answer that.
> <G>
>

Well, as you didn't answer it, I'll have to assume you are neither.


>
> Read this real slow thickhead...
>

No need. I can read it quickly, no matter how slowly you wrote it.


>
> A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
> landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
> cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
> runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
> preceding plane was still on the rollout.
>

There was no need for that.


>
> He/she should not have
> waited for the guy/girl to make a complete stop on the runway.
>

The pilot should not have made a complete stop on the runway regardless.


>
> If you
> just go back and reread this whole thread it should become crystal
> clear to a sane and competent controller that Jay was given a go
> around because of the tower controller was asleep at the switch.
>

How could the controller give Jay a go around while he was asleep at the
switch?

To those of us that have read this whole thread and also have some knowledge
of ATC procedures it is crystal clear that Jay had plenty of room behind the
preceding 172, and that an alert controller issued a go around to Jay when
he observed the 172 had stopped on the runway. Good for him.


>
> There
> are those of us who make a living in the private sector and have to
> prove ourselves every day to stay employed.
>

Just like the controllers at JEF.


>
> Then there is the
> government workers who BS their way though life and the system to make
> it to retirement, milking the system the whole time.... Jay and I and
> alot of others work for the private sector and are surviving in the
> black. Your employer is the US government who is 9+ trillion in the
> red. It is either your move or checkmate on our part...
>

You can only hope to perform your job as well as I perform mine.


>
> In closing I still admit that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll knows his regs
> probably better then most other aviation people ,, But he forgot his
> common sense at the office..
>

Those with common sense don't hold controllers responsible for a pilot's
mistake.

[Shirl]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
> > landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
> > cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
> > runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
> > preceding plane was still on the rollout.
>
> There was no need for that.

Most people know that the first order of business when you've landed is
to get OFF the runway as soon as able. If this was a student with an
instructor, the instructor KNOWS that, and should have also been aware
that someone was on final behind them. Perhaps there was a valid reason
for stopping that they just did not announce on the radio?

> The pilot should not have made a complete stop on
> the runway regardless.

Unless there was some emergency/safety factor that prompted them to stop
on the runway.

> > If you just go back and reread this whole thread it
> > should become crystal clear to a sane and competent
> > controller that Jay was given a go around because of
> > the tower controller was asleep at the switch.

Maybe so, but if you're only 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed,
you should be *ready* to do a go-round if they don't exit the runway
promptly REGARDLESS of whether or not the controller tells you to do so.
At least, that's what I was taught.

> To those of us that have read this whole thread and also have
> some knowledge of ATC procedures it is crystal clear that
> Jay had plenty of room behind the preceding 172, and that
> an alert controller issued a go around to Jay when he observed
> the 172 had stopped on the runway. Good for him.

Yeah...so what's the problem? No offense, Jay, but IMO you should have
been prepared for the go-around.

> Those with common sense don't hold controllers
> responsible for a pilot's mistake.

To which pilot are you referring? the one who stopped on the runway?
Unless you talked with him/her, hard to know if that was a "mistake" or
if he/she had a valid reason for stopping there. I wouldn't assume they
didn't just because they didn't announce it on frequency.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most people know that the first order of business when you've landed is
> to get OFF the runway as soon as able. If this was a student with an
> instructor, the instructor KNOWS that, and should have also been aware
> that someone was on final behind them. Perhaps there was a valid reason
> for stopping that they just did not announce on the radio?
>
>> The pilot should not have made a complete stop on
>> the runway regardless.
>
> Unless there was some emergency/safety factor that prompted them to stop
> on the runway.
>

Recall that Jay discussed the situation with "the guys in the FBO", that's
where he learned it was a student. Had there been an emergency or some
valid reason for stopping I'm sure it would have been mentioned.


>
> Maybe so, but if you're only 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed,
> you should be *ready* to do a go-round if they don't exit the runway
> promptly REGARDLESS of whether or not the controller tells you to do so.
> At least, that's what I was taught.
>

But he wasn't 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed, he was 1/2 mile from
the threshold when the guy landed 1500' down the runway.


>
> To which pilot are you referring? the one who stopped on the runway?
>

Yes.


>
> Unless you talked with him/her, hard to know if that was a "mistake" or
> if he/she had a valid reason for stopping there. I wouldn't assume they
> didn't just because they didn't announce it on frequency.
>

See above.

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:55:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>:
>
>>For your own safety and the safety of others you should just
>>avoid Class D airspace until you upgrade your skills and knowledge.
>
> Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
> inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.

I'm not sure I understand, but didn't the controller appear to make a
mistake with regard to section "2.1.2 Duty Priority" of Order 7110.65R:

"Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as
required in this order."?

There appear to be other sections of 7110.65R that may be more or less
relevant to the situation, though I'm not sure to what extent or manner, if
any, controllers are held responsible for complying with the instructions
(or guidance?) in that Order.

Also, I am not sure why a mistake by the pilot who landed ahead of Jay to
promptly clear the runway necessaily excludes the possibility that the
controller made mistakes. Is there some sort of exclusion principle I'm not
aware of that is operative here?

Lastly, I sense a claim implied here that FAR § 91.3 absolves controllers
of all responsibility for consequences for their orders or lack thereof
issued under the authority of § 91.123 - at least with respect to Class D
VFR operations. Is that correct? If so, I can see some merit to Jay's
complaint with regard to the wisdom or utility of Class D airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'm not sure I understand, but didn't the controller appear to make a
> mistake with regard to section "2.1.2 Duty Priority" of Order 7110.65R:
>
> "Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as
> required in this order."?
>

No.


>
> There appear to be other sections of 7110.65R that may be more or less
> relevant to the situation, though I'm not sure to what extent or manner,
> if
> any, controllers are held responsible for complying with the instructions
> (or guidance?) in that Order.
>

Please identify them.


>
> Also, I am not sure why a mistake by the pilot who landed ahead of Jay to
> promptly clear the runway necessaily excludes the possibility that the
> controller made mistakes. Is there some sort of exclusion principle I'm
> not
> aware of that is operative here?
>

No, there just wasn't anything that suggested the controller made a mistake.


>
> Lastly, I sense a claim implied here that FAR § 91.3 absolves controllers
> of all responsibility for consequences for their orders or lack thereof
> issued under the authority of § 91.123 - at least with respect to Class D
> VFR operations. Is that correct? If so, I can see some merit to Jay's
> complaint with regard to the wisdom or utility of Class D airspace.
>

How did you infer that?

[Jose]

> Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
> inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.

What would that accomplish? More and more I'm coming to believe that
some pilots from Iowa are in the clouds enough as it is. :)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:44:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
>> inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.
>>
>
>If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
>system.
>

Not without additional training.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 22, 11:56 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> >If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
> >system.
> >
>
> Not without additional training.
>

I don't think that would help.

Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 7:02 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:56 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > >If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
> > >system.
>
> > Not without additional training.
>
> I don't think that would help.
>
> Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
> include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
> Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
> the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
> provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
> Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
> Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
> airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
> deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
> he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.

Kool,,, New ammunition....

Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
land. <G>

Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
me of this thread.... ):).

Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 23, 10:04 am, " > wrote:
>
> Kool,,, New ammunition....
>

And again you shoot yourself in the foot.


>
> Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
> observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
> can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
> close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
> they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
> by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
> separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
> just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
> land. <G>
>
> Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
> travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
> can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
> Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
> the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
> No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
> still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
> McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
> toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
> by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
> in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
> through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
> me of this thread.... ):).
>
> Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....- Hide quoted text -
>

"No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft" in Class D
AIRSPACE. All control towers, whether the overlying airspace is Class
B, C, D, E, or G, provide RUNWAY separation. Minimum same runway
separation between two piston singles is 3000 feet. Recall that Jay
said he was about 1/2 mile out from the threshold when the 172 touched
down 1500' from the threshold. Let's see if you're any better at
simple arithmetic than you are at answering simple questions.

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
> airspace.

Where did he make that explicit claim? Jay Honeck has stated a least this
much in this thread:

"In Class D'oh airspace, on the other hand, too many pilots believe that
the controller is actually controlling the airspace, when, in fact, he is
not."

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Mar 23, 11:49 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> Where did he make that explicit claim?
>

Who said it was explicit?

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=1174571147.671792.219450@b75g2000 hsg.googlegroups.com

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 10:51 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:04 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Kool,,, New ammunition....
>
> And again you shoot yourself in the foot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
> > observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
> > can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
> > close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
> > they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
> > by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
> > separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
> > just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
> > land. <G>
>
> > Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
> > travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
> > can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
> > Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
> > the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
> > No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
> > still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
> > McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
> > toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
> > by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
> > in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
> > through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
> > me of this thread.... ):).
>
> > Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....- Hide quoted text -
>
> "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft" in Class D
> AIRSPACE. All control towers, whether the overlying airspace is Class
> B, C, D, E, or G, provide RUNWAY separation. Minimum same runway
> separation between two piston singles is 3000 feet. Recall that Jay
> said he was about 1/2 mile out from the threshold when the 172 touched
> down 1500' from the threshold. Let's see if you're any better at
> simple arithmetic than you are at answering simple questions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ha ha. This gettin fun. You have posted 28 times to this silly thread.
Real controllers are taught to be short and to the point with their
answers. What we have here folks is a MX Mc Nicoll..... I bet he
doesn't even have a Pilots cert.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ha ha. This gettin fun.
>

You find amusement in appearing stupid?


>
> You have posted 28 times to this silly thread.
> Real controllers are taught to be short and to the point with their
> answers.
>

That is amusing. In the past others have complained about my brevity.


>
> What we have here folks is a MX Mc Nicoll..... I bet he
> doesn't even have a Pilots cert.
>

Is a pilot's certificate required to post here?

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
> include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
> Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
> the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
> provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
> Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
> Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
> airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
> deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
> he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.

*sigh* No where did I ever say that I expect the Class D'oh!
controllers to provide separation services. I neither expect it, nor
want it from them, because quite frankly they couldn't do it if they
tried. Not without radar.

Which is my point. The controllers at these non-radar facilities do,
effectively, NOTHING. They need to simply admit that fact, pack up
their binoculars, save the taxpayers a bundle, and go home.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> *sigh* No where did I ever say that I expect the Class D'oh!
> controllers to provide separation services. I neither expect it, nor
> want it from them, because quite frankly they couldn't do it if they
> tried. Not without radar.
>
> Which is my point. The controllers at these non-radar facilities do,
> effectively, NOTHING. They need to simply admit that fact, pack up
> their binoculars, save the taxpayers a bundle, and go home.
>

The point is, Jay, you lack a proper understanding of Class D airspace and
ATC. In the interest of safety you should avoid all controlled fields until
you can gain that understanding.

[Montblack]

wrote)
...... I bet he doesn't even have a Pilots cert.


I'll take that bet!


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> > Get it now?
>
> I sure do. You hold an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC
> and you hold controllers responsible for pilot's actions.- Hide quoted text -

Wrong again? Dang.

Well, at least you're consistent.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Wrong again? Dang.
>
> Well, at least you're consistent.
>

You're short on integrity.

[Newps]

wrote:

The tower controller didn't care how
> close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
> they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
> by spouting off this reg.

It would cost the FAA millions, already has. It is irrelavant that the
rules say controllers don't separate airplanes in the air within the
class D. If two aircraft run together while talking to the tower you
the taxpayers will buy both airplanes and compensate the families.








Maintain situational awareness - class D controllers are only
responsible for separation on the ground



Would you like to bet $25 Million on that statement?


A Broward jury has awarded $25.2 million to the family of a pilot killed
in a collision of two planes near Deerfield Beach almost three years ago.

The family of Steve Ross, a Boca Raton chaplain, filed the
wrongful-death suit against Robinson Aviation, a private contractor
operating the Boca Raton and Pompano Beach control towers.

Ross, who is survived by his wife and four children, was one of five
people who died when two small planes crashed in the water off Deerfield
Beach on June 16, 2003.

The jury in Circuit Judge Victor Tobin's courtroom Wednesday awarded
$1.2 million for economic damages and, for pain and suffering, $10
million to Ross' wife, Julie, and $3.5 million to each of the four children.

Steve Ross and a longtime friend, Douglas Bauer, 48, were flying a
Cessna 182 north to Boca Raton Airport. They were returning from a
missionary trip in the Bahamas and had just cleared U.S. Customs at Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

A Cessna 172, with a family of three aboard, was headed south to Fort
Lauderdale Executive Airport. At the controls was private pilot Johnny
Mark Willey, 39, of Margate, who was learning to be an airline pilot at
Gulfstream Training Academy. Willey was taking his wife and daughter for
a ride along the coast.

The two planes plowed into each other about 1,000 feet above the
Deerfield Beach International Fishing Pier and plunged into the water as
stunned beachgoers looked on.

According to the suit, the planes collided moments after both pilots
made contact with air-traffic controllers in Pompano Beach and Boca Raton.

"Robinson Aviation . . . otherwise directed or failed to direct air
traffic so as to avoid the midair collision of the two aircraft," the
suit reads.

Attorneys for Robinson Aviation could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The Ross family settled with Gulfstream Training Academy for an
undisclosed amount more than a year ago, contending that Willey was "not
fit, qualified or properly trained."

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> The point is, Jay, you lack a proper understanding of Class D airspace and
> ATC. In the interest of safety you should avoid all controlled fields
> until you can gain that understanding.

It is possible for a person to understand, but not agree with it, or you.

D'uoh!
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 1:44 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > ha ha. This gettin fun.
>
> You find amusement in appearing stupid?
>
>
>
> > You have posted 28 times to this silly thread.
> > Real controllers are taught to be short and to the point with their
> > answers.
>
> That is amusing. In the past others have complained about my brevity.
>
>
>
> > What we have here folks is a MX Mc Nicoll..... I bet he
> > doesn't even have a Pilots cert.
>
> Is a pilot's certificate required to post here?

I guess I will contact you directly at your email address
.

This will keep others from laughing too loud......

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is possible for a person to understand, but not agree with it, or you.
>
> D'uoh!
>

That would be true if this was a matter of opinion. It isn't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.



Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
"standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.

[Montblack]

wrote)
> I guess I will contact you directly at your email address

> [e-mail addy snipped!!!!!]


That was sooooooo WRONG!

Your apology is already past due - DUDE


Montblack :-(

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard"
> crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and influential)
> housing developments some wonderful person decided needed to be direct off
> the end of a GA airport.
>

The A/FD says:

"All departures.noise sensitive areas to N and S, best rate of climb to TPA
before departing the pattern. Calm wind.use Rwy 18."

Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure.


>
> Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining a
> civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to flying
> off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't going to
> tell anyone first.
>

So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
that a problem?

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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.
> >

> Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
> 401.3 states:

> (a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

> (1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
> airspace of the United States.

> (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
> through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
> Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
> Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
> Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
> or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
> accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
> handicapped individuals.

> (b) Use of Airspace.-

> (1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
> develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
> regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
> of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
> or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

> (2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
> flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

> (A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

> (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

> (C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

> (D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
> land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.



> Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
> aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
> Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
> control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
> FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
> formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
> procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

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

It appears the system is broken.

> An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
> like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
> "standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.

And if they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.

So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
on your side?

Yep, sure sounds like the way to go to me.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure.

Note the use of quotation marks to denote the fact that it is not an
established, official procedure, but an agreed-upon and accepted modus
of operation while at the airport.

> So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
> that a problem?

It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a
problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem
when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem
when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern. It's a problem
when he flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors
(following the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when
he does it at 140 knots.

Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way
you treated Jay.

TheSmokingGnu

[Jay Honeck]

> > So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
> > that a problem?
>
> It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a
> problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem
> when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem
> when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern. It's a problem
> when he flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors
> (following the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when
> he does it at 140 knots.

These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
because they're "charter captains".

I know most of the charter pilots in our area, and they are invariably
good about announcing their intentions (some even apologize for
barging in) -- but there are always those select few SOBs who have
just been handed off from approach and simply can't be bothered with
such mundane duties as making position reports on Unicom. They are
truly menaces of the air, in my humble opinion.

> Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way
> you treated Jay.

You *do* realize that you're wasting your time arguing with Steven,
right? Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
prose is simply not in his nature.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 24 Mar 2007 15:00:43 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
>prose is simply not in his nature.

The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective
inference is that intended by the author.

While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they
have little place in aviation, IMO.

[Jay Honeck]

> The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
> the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective
> inference is that intended by the author.
>
> While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they
> have little place in aviation, IMO.

I have dealt with folks like Steven my whole life; the world is full
of them. You are very much like Steven, but -- on occasion -- seem to
have breakthroughs into understanding. I guess that makes you a
savant?

:-)

As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he
did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I
knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing
between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh-
experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle
remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures
might have picked up on it as well.

Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a
diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply
not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither
experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but
linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to
guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not
in black and white, it's wrong.

That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of
the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending
structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes
sense.

This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way.

In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts
heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
> > the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective
> > inference is that intended by the author.
> >
> > While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they
> > have little place in aviation, IMO.

> I have dealt with folks like Steven my whole life; the world is full
> of them. You are very much like Steven, but -- on occasion -- seem to
> have breakthroughs into understanding. I guess that makes you a
> savant?

> :-)

> As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he
> did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I
> knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing
> between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh-
> experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle
> remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures
> might have picked up on it as well.

> Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a
> diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply
> not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither
> experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but
> linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to
> guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not
> in black and white, it's wrong.

> That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of
> the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending
> structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes
> sense.

> This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way.

> In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts
> heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers.

The guy reminds me of a cartoon I saw once.

Picture two guys in a sailboat about 6 feet long and an aircraft carrier
is bearing down on them full steam.

One guy says to the other, "Don't worry, we have the right of way."

For the boating impaired, change the sailboat to sailplane and the
aircraft carrier to 747.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 24, 8:21 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
> 401.3 states:
>
> (a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-
>
> (1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
> airspace of the United States.
>
> (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
> through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
> Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
> Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
> Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
> or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
> accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
> handicapped individuals.
>
> (b) Use of Airspace.-
>
> (1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
> develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
> regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
> of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
> or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.
>
> (2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
> flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-
>
> (A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
>
> (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
>
> (C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
>
> (D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
> land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.
>
> Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
> aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
> Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
> control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
> FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
> formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
> procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.
>
> An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
> like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
> "standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is this the same administrator that wanted to forbid controllers from
wearing shorts.?????

Flame suit on Scotty.. <G>

[Jon Woellhaf]

Jay Honeck wrote [about operations at uncontrolled fields]
> These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
> on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
> because they're "charter captains".

Does this happen often at Class-D airports?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
> don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point.
>
> It appears the system is broken.
>

What "system" would that be?

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.


>
> And if they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
> authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
> and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.
>
> So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
> whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
> airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
> those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
> on your side?
>

No, what I'm saying is local actions cannot regulate routes, altitudes, or
any other flight procedures. Do you really think the CCB "noise abatement"
procedure limits exposure to lawsuits? It conflicts with the ODP. What if
a departing aircraft comes to grief while following the noise abatement
procedure?

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
> > don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point.
> >
> > It appears the system is broken.
> >

> What "system" would that be?

> Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
> identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
> dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
> mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.

The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
conflict.

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 they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
> > authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
> > and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.
> >
> > So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
> > whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
> > airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
> > those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
> > on your side?
> >

> No, what I'm saying is local actions cannot regulate routes, altitudes, or
> any other flight procedures. Do you really think the CCB "noise abatement"
> procedure limits exposure to lawsuits? It conflicts with the ODP. What if
> a departing aircraft comes to grief while following the noise abatement
> procedure?

Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.

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.

As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
who would rather be right than safe.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

>>Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
>> identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
>> dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
>> mandatory.
>
> Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
make them safe.

> The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
> "official"

It's not always a perfectly reasonable procedure. Sometimes it's
downright dangerous.

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

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> >>Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
> >> identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
> >> dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
> >> mandatory.
> >
> > Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


> Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
> make them safe.

Non sequitur.

Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

This isn't rocket science.

> > The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
> > "official"

> It's not always a perfectly reasonable procedure. Sometimes it's
> downright dangerous.

Yeah, so what?

That just means that a specific procedure needs to be modified and
says absolutely nothing about the desirablity of following noise
abatement procedures in general.

There have been established ATC procedures that were changed because
they were deemed to be dangerous.

How would this be any different?

Look at the procedures for CCB:

http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr24.gif
http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr6.gif

See anything unsafe there?

Oh, I'm sure there are some idiotic and unsafe procedures out there
that need to be changed, but that is a totally different issue.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

>>> Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
>>> identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
>>> dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
>>> mandatory.

>> Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.
>> Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
>> make them safe.

> Non sequitur.

Sequitur.


> Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
> no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

That's not only not true, it is laughable. Not everyone has to depart
right downwind, and having somebody depart straight out or left
crosswind is not unsafe =just= because everyone else is going out right
downwind.

It could be unsafe because there is a mountain in the way. It could be
unsafe because it crosses another arrival path. But if everyone is
excercising normal vigilance, there is nothing intrinsically unsafe
about departing in a direction different from other departures.

> If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

That is true. But if two different procedures are safe, the pilot gets
to choose which to execute. And if one procedure (say, the noise
abatement one) is not safe under some circumstances, the pilot gets to
use a different procedure. That's what "pilot in command" means.

And as to the alleged safety of a noise abatement procedure, I won't
trust the yahoos who live under a flight path and don't like airplane
noise to decide for me what is safe and what is not. They may well come
up with a safe procedure. They might not. I don't assume it's safe
just because "somebody" came up with it.

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

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> >>> Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
> >>> identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
> >>> dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
> >>> mandatory.

> >> Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.
> >> Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
> >> make them safe.

> > Non sequitur.

> Sequitur.


> > Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
> > no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

> That's not only not true, it is laughable. Not everyone has to depart
> right downwind, and having somebody depart straight out or left
> crosswind is not unsafe =just= because everyone else is going out right
> downwind.

The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
crosswind.

> It could be unsafe because there is a mountain in the way. It could be
> unsafe because it crosses another arrival path. But if everyone is
> excercising normal vigilance, there is nothing intrinsically unsafe
> about departing in a direction different from other departures.

You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
at most airports?

Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

> > If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

> That is true. But if two different procedures are safe, the pilot gets
> to choose which to execute. And if one procedure (say, the noise
> abatement one) is not safe under some circumstances, the pilot gets to
> use a different procedure. That's what "pilot in command" means.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

> And as to the alleged safety of a noise abatement procedure, I won't
> trust the yahoos who live under a flight path and don't like airplane
> noise to decide for me what is safe and what is not. They may well come
> up with a safe procedure. They might not. I don't assume it's safe
> just because "somebody" came up with it.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
normally done by the airport manager.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
> and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
> North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
> into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
> crosswind.

This is not an example of noise abatement. It is not an example of a
procedure being dangerous =solely= =because= it differs from a different
procedure. It does not support the idea that everyone should do the
same thing, and it does not support the idea that everyone should do a
locally created noise abatement procedure for safety reasons.

Instead, this is an example of a procedure that is (perhaps) dangerous
due to local air traffic conditions.

> You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
> at most airports?

There is? That's news to me.

At the high-rise where I used to live, they have two elevators. One for
going up, and the other for going down. :)

> Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
> arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

That's not what I am advocating.

> What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
> are you incapable of understanding?

The part about what the pilot does between the time he enters the
airspace and the time the unsafe procedure is changed.

> The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
> normally done by the airport manager.

.... under political pressure from influential neighbors and sympathetic
press. I consider such procedures to be advisory, not mandatory. The
pilot in command makes a decision as to whether to follow them or not.
It might be a good idea to follow them, no doubt. However, sometimes it
might not.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> Note the use of quotation marks to denote the fact that it is not an
> established, official procedure, but an agreed-upon and accepted modus of
> operation while at the airport.
>

Agreed upon by whom?


>
> It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me.
>

Wouldn't that be true regardless which way he left the area? Wouldn't
leaving the area in a different direction make it less likely that he'd go
through you?


>
> It's a problem
> when he doesn't announce his departure vector.
>

Why?


>
> It's a problem when he
> doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports.
>

What's the benefit in acknowledging position reports?


>
> It's a problem when he
> disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern.
>

How does departing via the upwind disrupt the pattern?

>
> It's a problem when he
> flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors (following
> the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when he does it
> at 140 knots.
>

What's a descent vector?


>
> Did you not actually read my responses?
>

I read all of them. I ask questions in order to make sense of them?


>
> It seems likely, after the way you
> treated Jay.
>

I asked him questions too.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
> on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
> because they're "charter captains".
>

How foolish of them to expect pattern traffic to abide by the FARs.


>
> You *do* realize that you're wasting your time arguing with Steven,
> right? Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
> prose is simply not in his nature.
>

Interesting how a misstatement becomes "subtle or nuanced prose" after
you're called on it.

[Jay Honeck]

> > These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
> > on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
> > because they're "charter captains".
>
> Does this happen often at Class-D airports?

Worse. At Class D they report that they're on a 3-mile final, when
they're still 10 miles out...

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

[TheSmokingGnu]

You're just trolling, now.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Agreed upon by whom?

The pilots in the pattern and on the tarmac. Duh.

> Wouldn't that be true regardless which way he left the area? Wouldn't
> leaving the area in a different direction make it less likely that he'd go
> through you?

Yes, and to the second, no. Not in this particular instance.

> Why?

BECAUSE I HAVE NO BLOODY ****ING IDEA WHERE HE IS OR WHERE HE'S GOING.
My god, are you dense.

> What's the benefit in acknowledging position reports?

Acknowledging a report involves making your own report, ergo someone
could have figured out where he is.

> How does departing via the upwind disrupt the pattern?

Because after departing crosswind and climbing south, most traffic
leaves by turning back north and following a radial along the mountain
ridge. Now, they have non-announcing traffic from an unexpected
direction, flying much faster than they do.

Alternately, aircraft are approaching the area in the same manner (but
at different altitudes). Now _THEY_ have traffic in unexpected
directions without knowledge of location or intention.

> What's a descent vector?

If you have to ask, you haven't used one.

> I read all of them. I ask questions in order to make sense of them?

No, you ask questions like a two-year-old asks "Why"; to annoy and
frustrate.

> I asked him questions too.

You accosted him and then used ad hominem attacks on his intelligence
and piloting skill.

**** off, dear.

TheSmokingGnu

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he
> did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I
> knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing
> between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh-
> experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle
> remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures
> might have picked up on it as well.
>
> Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a
> diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply
> not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither
> experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but
> linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to
> guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not
> in black and white, it's wrong.
>
> That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of
> the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending
> structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes
> sense.
>
> This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way.
>
> In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts
> heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers.
>


Ahh, so it's all a misunderstanding, caused by my inability to understand
nuanced prose, a result of my linear thinking.

What a load of crap.

Jay, you said you had plenty of room when you said you were 1/2 mile out
when the 172 touched down 1500 feet from the threshold. Minimum separation
in the "normal world of controlled airspace" is 3000 feet, Oshkosh has
nothing to do with it. If you're uncomfortable with minimum separation just
tell the controller you'd like more room. I'm sure he'll happily
accommodate you, but you'll probably have to wait for the more experienced
pilots to land first.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.
>

A dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it?


>
> The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
> "official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
> because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
> conflict.
>

A perfectly reasonable procedure does not conflict with an ODP.


>
> 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.
>

Established ATC procedures do not conflict with ODPs. That seems like a
rather significant difference.


>
> Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.
>
> 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.
>

I can think of other reasons, you're short on imagination.

A departing aircraft attempts to follow the flood control channel in poor
visibility and crashes, the pilot's estate sues the airport citing the noise
abatement procedure as the cause.


>
> As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
> of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
> procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
> all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
> who would rather be right than safe.
>

Since I prefer to be right and safe I would not comply with the CCB noise
abatement procedure.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
> no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.
>

Having some local yahoo publish a "mandatory" noise abatement procedure is
not safe.


>
> If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.
>
> This isn't rocket science.
>

Agreed. As the procedure conflicts with the ODP it is clearly unsafe and
needs to be changed.



>
> Yeah, so what?
>
> That just means that a specific procedure needs to be modified and
> says absolutely nothing about the desirablity of following noise
> abatement procedures in general.
>
> There have been established ATC procedures that were changed because
> they were deemed to be dangerous.
>
> How would this be any different?
>
> Look at the procedures for CCB:
>
> http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr24.gif
> http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr6.gif
>
> See anything unsafe there?
>

Yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
> normally done by the airport manager.
>

The airport manager appears to be no more qualified than the neighbors.
Does he have any aviation background at all?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're just trolling, now.
>

Never.


>
> The pilots in the pattern and on the tarmac. Duh.
>

So it's strictly a matter of choice then, it's not "standard".


>
> Yes, and to the second, no. Not in this particular instance.
>

Why not in this particular instance?


>
> BECAUSE I HAVE NO BLOODY ****ING IDEA WHERE HE IS OR
> WHERE HE'S GOING.
>

SO WHAT? IT'S ASSUMED THAT SINCE HE DEPARTED AFTER YOU HE KNOWS WHERE YOU
ARE AND IS PROPERLY AVOIDING YOU. IF YOU TURN CROSSWIND AND HE STAYS UPWIND
YOU'RE DIVERGING. DIVERGING TRAFFIC IS NOT A FACTOR.


>
> Acknowledging a report involves making your own report, ergo someone could
> have figured out where he is.
>

No, acknowledging a report involves just making receipt known. By itself
it's just unnecessary chatter.


>
> Because after departing crosswind and climbing south, most traffic leaves
> by turning back north and following a radial along the mountain ridge.
> Now, they have non-announcing traffic from an unexpected direction, flying
> much faster than they do.
>

But by then above the pattern and thus not a factor. You seem rather new to
the flying game. Student?



>
> If you have to ask, you haven't used one.
>

I have to ask because it's not standard terminology.


>
> No, you ask questions like a two-year-old asks "Why"; to annoy and
> frustrate.
>

You're wrong. Believe me, I am the worlds foremost authority on why I do
anything.


>
> You accosted him and then used ad hominem attacks on his intelligence and
> piloting skill.
>

You might want to look up those terms.

I attacked nobody's intelligence or piloting skill. I said Jay holds an
incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and he hold controllers
responsible for pilot's actions. His statements in this thread prove that
to be true.

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
> > and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
> > North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
> > into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
> > crosswind.

> This is not an example of noise abatement. It is not an example of a
> procedure being dangerous =solely= =because= it differs from a different
> procedure. It does not support the idea that everyone should do the
> same thing, and it does not support the idea that everyone should do a
> locally created noise abatement procedure for safety reasons.

> Instead, this is an example of a procedure that is (perhaps) dangerous
> due to local air traffic conditions.

No, it is an example of a local procedure where it is possible, and
likely, to cause a conflict if some cowboy decides no one is going
to tell him what to do and ignores it just because he has a legal right
to do so.

The reason the procedure is as it is is to minimize noise over the
housing area to the North, the college to the West, and facilitate
no-radio VFR traffic in and out avoiding the surrounding class D
and class C airspaces.

It has been in place for decades and no one, except maybe you, has
any problem with.

> > You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
> > at most airports?

> There is? That's news to me.

> At the high-rise where I used to live, they have two elevators. One for
> going up, and the other for going down. :)

> > Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
> > arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

> That's not what I am advocating.

It most certainly is.

> > What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
> > are you incapable of understanding?

> The part about what the pilot does between the time he enters the
> airspace and the time the unsafe procedure is changed.

> > The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
> > normally done by the airport manager.

> ... under political pressure from influential neighbors and sympathetic
> press. I consider such procedures to be advisory, not mandatory. The
> pilot in command makes a decision as to whether to follow them or not.
> It might be a good idea to follow them, no doubt. However, sometimes it
> might not.

Egotistical nonsense; you have a certificate that says you can be pilot
in command, and by god, you are going to be in command and no local
is going to have any say in that.

The part you are lacking is that to be in command of anything, whether
it be an airplane, an army, or your own life, you not only have to
follow whatever regulations exist, you also have to have the maturity
to understand that not everything is covered by a black and white
regulation and that your decisions and actions also require other
inputs besides those regulations to avoid unintended consequences.

In the case of ignoring the CCB procedure and departing to the North
on downwind, even though such is allowed by regulation, the unintended
consequence could well be a midair with an arriving student following
the local procedure which has been drummed into him by his CFI.

I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
actions of those in command back in 1945.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
> > normally done by the airport manager.
> >

> The airport manager appears to be no more qualified than the neighbors.
> Does he have any aviation background at all?

About 40 years worth, all at the same airport, if you are referring to
CCB.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
> > no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.
> >

> Having some local yahoo publish a "mandatory" noise abatement procedure is
> not safe.

Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
and been in existance for decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.

> >
> > If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.
> >
> > This isn't rocket science.
> >

> Agreed. As the procedure conflicts with the ODP it is clearly unsafe and
> needs to be changed.

That isn't clear to the pilots who have been safely following it for
decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.

> >
> > Yeah, so what?
> >
> > That just means that a specific procedure needs to be modified and
> > says absolutely nothing about the desirablity of following noise
> > abatement procedures in general.
> >
> > There have been established ATC procedures that were changed because
> > they were deemed to be dangerous.
> >
> > How would this be any different?
> >
> > Look at the procedures for CCB:
> >
> > http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr24.gif
> > http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr6.gif
> >
> > See anything unsafe there?
> >

> Yes.

Like what that has escaped the observation of thousands of pilots for
the past several decades?

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.
> >

> A dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it?

An idiotic comment.

> >
> > The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
> > "official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
> > because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
> > conflict.
> >

> A perfectly reasonable procedure does not conflict with an ODP.

Where's the conflict?

> > 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.
> >

> Established ATC procedures do not conflict with ODPs. That seems like a
> rather significant difference.

Ledalistic backpeddling.

> > Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.
> >
> > 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.
> >

> I can think of other reasons, you're short on imagination.

> A departing aircraft attempts to follow the flood control channel in poor
> visibility and crashes, the pilot's estate sues the airport citing the noise
> abatement procedure as the cause.

Babbling nonsense.

The procedures are for VFR operations.

How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?

The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.


> > As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
> > of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
> > procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
> > all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
> > who would rather be right than safe.
> >

> Since I prefer to be right and safe I would not comply with the CCB noise
> abatement procedure.

Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.

The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> So it's strictly a matter of choice then, it's not "standard".

I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which
are understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.

For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread
Sovereign Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and
expected of pilots within the vicinity.

> Why not in this particular instance?

Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
section of sky.

> SO WHAT? IT'S ASSUMED THAT SINCE HE DEPARTED AFTER YOU HE KNOWS WHERE YOU
> ARE AND IS PROPERLY AVOIDING YOU.

Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me?
The only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that
gravity will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see
it happening.

Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
sees and avoids me?

Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
facility?

> IF YOU TURN CROSSWIND AND HE STAYS UPWIND
> YOU'RE DIVERGING. DIVERGING TRAFFIC IS NOT A FACTOR.

See the twice above.

> No, acknowledging a report involves just making receipt known. By itself
> it's just unnecessary chatter.

The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
cite a source for that?

It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.

> But by then above the pattern and thus not a factor.

Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
arriving area traffic, though.

> I have to ask because it's not standard terminology.

I hear it used all the time. The "areas of likely traffic ingress or
egress".

> You're wrong. Believe me, I am the worlds foremost authority on why I do
> anything.

Heh. Freud would be proud.

(I, of course, know better)

> You might want to look up those terms.

I know what they mean. Do you?

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

Especially:

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Especially:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


> I attacked nobody's intelligence or piloting skill.

Bull****. Just in this post:

> You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?

And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.


> I said Jay holds an
> incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and he hold controllers
> responsible for pilot's actions.

You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
statement (of which there was none stated in the first).

After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to
use controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting
skill was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his
own creation.

You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the
situation itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a
pilot's license, nor ever will be.

You, sir, are the very definition of a pedantic ass, and may go fold
your attitude until it's all pointy corners and shove it where ever a
troll procreates from. I'll have no more to do with you or this
absolutely silly line of inquiry.

TheSmokingGnu

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:05:04 GMT, wrote in
>:

>I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
>actions of those in command back in 1945.



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf-lovers/msg/84426456ad1724f2

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
From: (Mike Godwin)
Date: 18 Aug 91 21:50:29 GMT
Local: Sun, Aug 18 1991 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: Nazis (was Re: Card's Article on Homosexuality

In article >
(J Eric Townsend) writes:

>Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis
>on USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."? (Or
>something to that effect.)


I said it.

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one.

--Mike

--
Mike Godwin, | "Someday, some way."
|
(617) 864-1550 | --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

[Jay Honeck]

> If you're uncomfortable with minimum separation just
> tell the controller you'd like more room. I'm sure he'll happily
> accommodate you, but you'll probably have to wait for the more experienced
> pilots to land first.

You know, for a linear thinker, you can't seem to keep on the track
with your train of thought.

The controller told ME to go around, remember? I would have landed
behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if
the controller hadn't given the order to go around.

Obviously by sending me around the controller was admitting his
failure to maintain what he judged to be proper spacing between us.

This situation had nothing to do with my comfort, and everything to do
with a Class D'oh! controller who was looking through the wrong end of
his binoculars.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> No, it is an example of a local procedure where it is possible, and
> likely, to cause a conflict if some cowboy decides no one is going
> to tell him what to do and ignores it just because he has a legal right
> to do so.
>
> The reason the procedure is as it is is to minimize noise over the
> housing area to the North, the college to the West, and facilitate
> no-radio VFR traffic in and out avoiding the surrounding class D
> and class C airspaces.
>
> It has been in place for decades and no one, except maybe you, has
> any problem with.

I haven't looked over the procedure in question, and the "problem I
have" isn't with the procedure, it's with the =idea= that a few locals
can dummy up a procedure that is in conflict with generally accepted
flying procedures (like the AIM) and with FAA mandated procedures (like
an ODP if it applies).

>>That's not what I am advocating.
>
> It most certainly is.

No it isn't. Is this the five minute argument, or did you want the full
half hour?

> ...you also have to have the maturity
> to understand that not everything is covered by a black and white
> regulation and that your decisions and actions also require other
> inputs besides those regulations to avoid unintended consequences.

I certainly understand that. It seems that you don't. Perhaps this is
just an artifact of Usenet discussion, but your posts are also black and
white - "the local yokels came up with this procedure because they don't
like noise, and you claim it is unsafe to differ from it, no matter what
the FAA says".

> the unintended
> consequence could well be a midair with an arriving student following
> the local procedure which has been drummed into him by his CFI.

A local procedure that causes an unsafe condition (such as a midair with
an aircraft on a standard procedure) should probably be reconsidered.

There may be situations where nonstandard procedures are warranted.
They should be publicized where pilots would look for them. That would
be the AF/D. To make up a nonstandard procedure which is dangerous when
mixed with standard procedures, and not promulgate it via NOTAM or AF/D
is a problem. It's more than just "legal words".

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

[Montblack]

("TheSmokingGnu" wrote)
> For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
> (clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
> direction.


(Pg. 52+53)
<http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf>
Beware ..."The Circle of Death," ...driving your boat around that pond.

Drive ...boats? <g>


Montblack (landof10klakes)
On "the river" it's Red-Right-Returning

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I haven't looked over the procedure in question, and the "problem I have"
> isn't with the procedure, it's with the =idea= that a few locals can dummy
> up a procedure that is in conflict with generally accepted flying
> procedures (like the AIM) and with FAA mandated procedures (like an ODP if
> it applies).
>

TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES

SW-3
07074


UPLAND, CA
CABLE

TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 6, 300-1 or std. with a min. climb of 240' per NM to
1900.

DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 6, climbing right turn. Rwy 24, climbing left turn.
All aircraft climb direct PDZ VORTAC. Aircraft departing PDZ R-091 CW R-140
and R-231 CW R-280 climb on course. All others continue climb in PDZ holding
pattern (E, right turns, 258° inbound) to cross PDZ VORTAC at or above:
R-281 CW R-090, 6700; R-141 CW R-230, 4000.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:05:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
> >actions of those in command back in 1945.

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf-lovers/msg/84426456ad1724f2
>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
> From: (Mike Godwin)
> Date: 18 Aug 91 21:50:29 GMT
> Local: Sun, Aug 18 1991 2:50 pm
> Subject: Re: Nazis (was Re: Card's Article on Homosexuality

> In article >
> (J Eric Townsend) writes:
>
> >Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis
> >on USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."? (Or
> >something to that effect.)
>
>
> I said it.
>
> Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows
> longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
> approaches one.
>
> --Mike
>
> --
> Mike Godwin, | "Someday, some way."
> |
> (617) 864-1550 | --Marshall Crenshaw
> EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Yeah, I know.

I hesitated to use that line just because of Godwin's Rule, but it
seems so appropriate for the anal retentive types that insist that
all they have to follow is the CFAR's and their actions are justifiable
irregardless of the consequence of their acts because they are in
command.

I'm open to other analogies, how about:

Just because the law allows you a cell phone doesn't mean it is OK
to carry on a loud conversation in a restaurant/theater.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:05:02 GMT, wrote in
>:

>irregardless

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:irregardless
Pronunciation:*ir-i-*g*rd-l*s
Function:adverb
Etymology:probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date:circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it
to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
frequently repeated remark about it is that *there is no such
word.* There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily
in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited
prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is
still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > No, it is an example of a local procedure where it is possible, and
> > likely, to cause a conflict if some cowboy decides no one is going
> > to tell him what to do and ignores it just because he has a legal right
> > to do so.
> >
> > The reason the procedure is as it is is to minimize noise over the
> > housing area to the North, the college to the West, and facilitate
> > no-radio VFR traffic in and out avoiding the surrounding class D
> > and class C airspaces.
> >
> > It has been in place for decades and no one, except maybe you, has
> > any problem with.

> I haven't looked over the procedure in question, and the "problem I
> have" isn't with the procedure, it's with the =idea= that a few locals
> can dummy up a procedure that is in conflict with generally accepted
> flying procedures (like the AIM) and with FAA mandated procedures (like
> an ODP if it applies).

Nonsense.

Local procedures aren't a "dummy up" process by "a few locals", they
are based on the known conditions of the airport in question and done
by the airport management.

Also, they are not in conflict with anything, as, as several have
noted, they are not mandatory by any stretch of the imagination.

Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.

Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
of aviation.

> >>That's not what I am advocating.
> >
> > It most certainly is.

> No it isn't. Is this the five minute argument, or did you want the full
> half hour?

> > ...you also have to have the maturity
> > to understand that not everything is covered by a black and white
> > regulation and that your decisions and actions also require other
> > inputs besides those regulations to avoid unintended consequences.

> I certainly understand that. It seems that you don't. Perhaps this is
> just an artifact of Usenet discussion, but your posts are also black and
> white - "the local yokels came up with this procedure because they don't
> like noise, and you claim it is unsafe to differ from it, no matter what
> the FAA says".

Your repeated disparagement of the airport management, which in most
cases has many decades of experience, is noted.

Your inablility to understand that local procedures are formulated
by the airport management and not a mob is noted.

Your inabliity to realize such things have been around since the
beginning of aviation and that the FAA has no objection to it is
noted.

> > the unintended
> > consequence could well be a midair with an arriving student following
> > the local procedure which has been drummed into him by his CFI.

> A local procedure that causes an unsafe condition (such as a midair with
> an aircraft on a standard procedure) should probably be reconsidered.

> There may be situations where nonstandard procedures are warranted.
> They should be publicized where pilots would look for them. That would
> be the AF/D. To make up a nonstandard procedure which is dangerous when
> mixed with standard procedures, and not promulgate it via NOTAM or AF/D
> is a problem. It's more than just "legal words".

This is probably the only thing we can agree on.

While you are required to obtain all relevant information to a flight
before takeoff, a lot of local procedures are not in the AF/D which
makes it difficult for everyone to find them.

But, since common sense, and I do believe a regulation somewhere,
requires you to observe the existing traffic and blend in with it
at none-towered airports, there is not much of an excuse not to
follow what everyone else is doing.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
> are recomnended, not mandatory.

.... as is the "local procedure"

> Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
> minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

Ditto AIM.

> If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
> to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
> of aviation.

I have no problem playing nicely with others. I have a problem with
others telling me deciding for me what I should do, rather than letting
me decide for myself how I want to play nicely with others.

Or not.

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

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > I haven't looked over the procedure in question, and the "problem I have"
> > isn't with the procedure, it's with the =idea= that a few locals can dummy
> > up a procedure that is in conflict with generally accepted flying
> > procedures (like the AIM) and with FAA mandated procedures (like an ODP if
> > it applies).
> >

> TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES

> SW-3
> 07074


> UPLAND, CA
> CABLE

> TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 6, 300-1 or std. with a min. climb of 240' per NM to
> 1900.

> DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 6, climbing right turn. Rwy 24, climbing left turn.
> All aircraft climb direct PDZ VORTAC. Aircraft departing PDZ R-091 CW R-140
> and R-231 CW R-280 climb on course. All others continue climb in PDZ holding
> pattern (E, right turns, 258? inbound) to cross PDZ VORTAC at or above:
> R-281 CW R-090, 6700; R-141 CW R-230, 4000.

Yep, those are the IFR procedures.

Which part of the local procedures being for VFR are you having trouble
understanding?

The 24 IFR departure is identical to the 24 VFR departure to the South
except the IFR departure references a VORTAC while the VFR departure
references a VFR landmark. The path in the area of the airport is the
same in both cases.

The 6 IFR departure does not conflict with any VFR procedure.

The 6 IFR departure takes you immediately into class C airspace, while
the 6 VFR departure takes you away from it.

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.

The tower would direct you to follow a path that is roughly the same
as the VFR departure path though perhaps inside their airspace while
the VFR path keeps you out of it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >irregardless

> Merriam-Webster:

> Main Entry:irregardless
> Pronunciation:*ir-i-*g*rd-l*s
> Function:adverb
> Etymology:probably blend of irrespective and regardless
> Date:circa 1912
>
> nonstandard : REGARDLESS
> usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
> early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it
> to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
> frequently repeated remark about it is that *there is no such
> word.* There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily
> in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited
> prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is
> still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Language changes; adapt or die.

Have you had a gay time lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
> > are recomnended, not mandatory.

> ... as is the "local procedure"

> > Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
> > minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

> Ditto AIM.

> > If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
> > to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
> > of aviation.

> I have no problem playing nicely with others. I have a problem with
> others telling me deciding for me what I should do, rather than letting
> me decide for myself how I want to play nicely with others.

> Or not.

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.

Doing what you want just because it isn't illegal without any regard
for how it effects others is the definition of arrogance.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
> overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
> others.

Except that in this case "The rest of the world" is just you.

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

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
> > overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
> > others.

> Except that in this case "The rest of the world" is just you.

In this case, "the rest of the world" is thousands of other pilots
over several decades, and that is just at one, small, airport.

If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

It appears most people don't have a problem with the concept.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
> of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

Tens of thousands of pilots have subscribed to your local noise
procedure? They also subscribe to the idea that everyone must follow it
or unsafe conditions result?

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

<jimp@specsol.> wrote

> Doing what you want just because it isn't illegal without any regard
> for how it effects others is the definition of arrogance.

Funny how that definition fits a few of the posters in this group... to a
"T."
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
> > of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

> Tens of thousands of pilots have subscribed to your local noise
> procedure? They also subscribe to the idea that everyone must follow it
> or unsafe conditions result?

They aren't "my" procedures, nor are they the procedures of some mob of
home owners, they are the procedures established by the airport
management.

Airport management is the person or group responsible for the operation
of an airport.

What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

And yes, the vast majority of pilots follow the local airport procedures
because most pilots aren't arrogant, pig-headed, assholes.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jon Woellhaf]

Jay,

Do you intentionally clip the name of the person you're replying to, or is
it my reader that's doing it?

Jon

[TheSmokingGnu]

Montblack wrote:
> Beware ..."The Circle of Death," ...driving your boat around that pond.

I like the illustration with the guy being thrown to the inside of the
turn; Newtonian physics still up for debate in Minnesota? <G>

>
> Drive ...boats? <g>
>

Got a steerin' wheel, ain't it?

I could say "pilot", but that would just terribly confuse the heck out
of the example.

TheSmokingGnu

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:05:02 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Language changes; adapt or die.

I was only trying to be helpful. I'd want someone to call my
attention to my errors, so that I didn't continue to make them. Poor
English diction reflects poorly on the author's education standards.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Language changes; adapt or die.

> I was only trying to be helpful. I'd want someone to call my
> attention to my errors, so that I didn't continue to make them. Poor
> English diction reflects poorly on the author's education standards.

The language style I use on USENET is the same as I use with the next door
neighbor while drinking beer.

However, if you are willing to pay the $100/hour I get for writting
professional documents, I will be more than happy to proof read, spell
check, format, and grammar check my USENET postings.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay,
>
> Do you intentionally clip the name of the person you're replying to, or is
> it my reader that's doing it?

I haven't intentionally cut names, but have perhaps done it without
thought.

Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Do you intentionally clip the name of the person you're replying to, or is
> > it my reader that's doing it?
>
> I haven't intentionally cut names, but have perhaps done it without
> thought.
>
> Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
> makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

No it doesn't. Don't assume people want to see all the previously read messages
when opening a group.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

[Jon Woellhaf]

I asked Jay if he intentionally clipped names and he said he didn't.

He asked,

> Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
> makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

Yes, it does (Outlook Express), but I had my View set to Hide Read Messages
so I don't see the full tree. I'll leave it on Show All Messages and see if
I like it.

Thanks,

Jon

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:35:02 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:05:02 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>
>> >Language changes; adapt or die.
>
>> I was only trying to be helpful. I'd want someone to call my
>> attention to my errors, so that I didn't continue to make them. Poor
>> English diction reflects poorly on the author's education standards.
>
>The language style I use on USENET is the same as I use with the next door
>neighbor while drinking beer.
>
>However, if you are willing to pay the $100/hour I get for writting
>professional documents, I will be more than happy to proof read, spell
>check, format, and grammar check my USENET postings.


It's a pity good grammar doesn't come naturally for you. Oh well....

[Larry Dighera]

On 29 Mar 2007 17:23:02 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>
>Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
>makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
find.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> However, if you are willing to pay the $100/hour I get for writting
> professional documents,
> --
> Jim Pennino

Not sure how professional the documents are that you are 'writting'!

[Jose]

> If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
> following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
> find.

How does one use the message ID (other than on google)?

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

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:35:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:05:02 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> >Language changes; adapt or die.
> >
> >> I was only trying to be helpful. I'd want someone to call my
> >> attention to my errors, so that I didn't continue to make them. Poor
> >> English diction reflects poorly on the author's education standards.
> >
> >The language style I use on USENET is the same as I use with the next door
> >neighbor while drinking beer.
> >
> >However, if you are willing to pay the $100/hour I get for writting
> >professional documents, I will be more than happy to proof read, spell
> >check, format, and grammar check my USENET postings.


> It's a pity good grammar doesn't come naturally for you. Oh well....

In my life I have been, among other things, an Army Sargent and a
senior manager at a multi-billion dollar company.

My language, vocabulary, grammar, and delivery style in those two
positions have nothing in common.

I use whatever I feel appropriate for the audience.

If you are looking for the great American novel from me, you have to
pay for it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Crash Lander > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > However, if you are willing to pay the $100/hour I get for writting
> > professional documents,
> > --
> > Jim Pennino

> Not sure how professional the documents are that you are 'writting'!

Like I said, I don't proof read, spell check, or do anything other
than pound keys for USENET postings. I could care less if there are
typos.

What part of that needs explaining?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Montblack]

wrote)
> Like I said, I don't proof read, spell check, or do anything other than
> pound keys for USENET postings. I could care less if there are typos.

> What part of that needs explaining?


The $100/hour part. <g>


Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:25:34 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
>> following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
>> find.
>
>How does one use the message ID (other than on google)?
>

With my newsreader client, Forte Agent, you just right-click on the
message-id and select Launch, and it jumps to that message.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:45:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Like I said, I don't proof read, spell check, or do anything other
>than pound keys for USENET postings. I could care less if there are
>typos.

So as a spokesman in an archived, worldwide forum, you have no
compunction about putting on a less than literate face by which the
world can judge airmen everywhere for decades?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> About 40 years worth, all at the same airport, if you are referring to
> CCB.
>

Just as an airport manager? Nothing that might qualify him to create a
proper procedure?

[[email protected]]

Montblack > wrote:
> wrote)
> > Like I said, I don't proof read, spell check, or do anything other than
> > pound keys for USENET postings. I could care less if there are typos.

> > What part of that needs explaining?


> The $100/hour part. <g>

I'm a consultant in a specialized field.

You think that's bad, I know a guy in this field that charges, and gets,
$4/minute.

I need to raise my rates.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:45:03 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Like I said, I don't proof read, spell check, or do anything other
> >than pound keys for USENET postings. I could care less if there are
> >typos.

> So as a spokesman in an archived, worldwide forum, you have no
> compunction about putting on a less than literate face by which the
> world can judge airmen everywhere for decades?

I'm not a spokesman for anyone or anything other than myself on
USENET.

USENET is nothing more than an electronic version of a hanger BS
session.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:

> USENET is nothing more than an electronic version of a hanger BS
> session.
>

You are exactly right. And people are shocked when we go off on non-aviation
tangents. The only difference between hanger BS and what happens here is
that certain people would have been run off in real life long ago.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > About 40 years worth, all at the same airport, if you are referring to
> > CCB.
> >

> Just as an airport manager? Nothing that might qualify him to create a
> proper procedure?

He started as a kid being a gopher for the airport owner, founder, and
builder and worked his way up.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

Since it is a privately owned airport, I would imagine he has to pass
major decisions past the owners, who also have decades of experience
and have been around since shortly after the first dirt was moved to
build the runway, but since I'm not part of the airport management
I can't say for sure.

The towers at the adjacent class D and class C airports are also
expecting pilots to follow the local VFR procedure.

The class C tower is expecting departing traffic that will transition
their airspace to be departing following the local procedure.

Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.

For traffic between the class D, the class D tower expects arriving
traffic to be coming from the local departure area and vectors
departing traffic towards the local arrival area.

So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.

Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> wrote:

> > USENET is nothing more than an electronic version of a hanger BS
> > session.
> >

> You are exactly right. And people are shocked when we go off on non-aviation
> tangents. The only difference between hanger BS and what happens here is
> that certain people would have been run off in real life long ago.

If you want to see inane, totally off topic crap, read sci.physics for
a while.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
> it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
> and been in existance for decades.
>
> To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.
>

How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
> > it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
> > and been in existance for decades.
> >
> > To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.
> >

> How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
> before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
> mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?

Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
damn?

FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.

The signs in the runup area say "Please".

Any more nits to pick?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:45:02 GMT, wrote in
>:

>
>USENET is nothing more than an electronic version of a hanger BS
>session.

Verbal communications only reach those listeners within earshot, and
more importantly, they are ephemeral.

Usenet articles are read throughout the world, and because they are
archived for decades, they are persistent.

Hopefully you are able to understand the distinction between the two?

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:45:02 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >
> >USENET is nothing more than an electronic version of a hanger BS
> >session.

> Verbal communications only reach those listeners within earshot, and
> more importantly, they are ephemeral.

I remember converstation from the Korean war; that's barely ephemeral.

> Usenet articles are read throughout the world, and because they are
> archived for decades, they are persistent.

And most people realize USENET an electronic BS session.

Archived BS is still BS.

> Hopefully you are able to understand the distinction between the two?

Hopefully you are able to understand the distinction between a BS
session and a conference.

Let's look at some achived, persistent, erudite posts to USENET that
the whole world can see:

By tj Frazer:

"we are mixing maths.
a piston engine has no HP at 5 rpm.

2000 HP piston engine at 5 rpm is 0 hp.

But ssvr 650 foot pounds at 5 RPM is 1/2 HP on paper with the piston
math.
1/2 HP engine pistons ,,wount pull ****.
The V8 wount bust the 650 pound rope ..
the 1/2 hp wount pull the rope out of my hand.
The 650 pounds going forward bust the rope easy.
all at the same speed down road 5 rpm wheel."

A treasure to be sure

Or perhaps this gem from habshi:

" In Canada farmers are desperate for snow in wintertime because
it insulates the earth and stops the ground from freezing rock hard.
I am not sure if earth is a good or bad conductor , but assuming its
bad then we can make use of the fact that the ground soaks up 50% of
the trillions of barrels of oil equivalent energy the sun sends us
each day.
Why not put a blanket on the ground at night , street urchins
would then take it off in the day to allow more ground heating and
then put it on again at night. Within a few days the ground would get
piping hot and water can then flow on it and be used in a heat
exchanger.
The Brits have something called a tea cosy. They wrap the tea
pot in a padded jacket and it keeps the tea hot for long. I would be
the first to put a padded blanket on my roof but then Al Qaida would
know where I live. So maybe Jim can be the first one to do it and tell
us how much energy he saves ."

And yes, the Jim he is referring to is me because I keep telling him
he is a babbling idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
> The controller told ME to go around, remember? I would have landed
> behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if
> the controller hadn't given the order to go around.
>
So... let's see. If under option #1 you landed behind the student, you had
enough room to guarantee a full stop before running him down? Since your
option #2 would have been to scare the bejeezus out of the student by
landing "over him", I presume the student wasn't near the far end of the
runway, so some numbers just don't seem right, here. If you needed to be
told to "go around" in that scenario, perhaps the controller knows you
personally? ;-)

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:25:34 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>>> If you include the Message-ID of the article to which you are
>>> following up in the attribution, it makes it easy for everyone to
>>> find.
>>
>> How does one use the message ID (other than on google)?
>>
>
> With my newsreader client, Forte Agent, you just right-click on the
> message-id and select Launch, and it jumps to that message.
>
That technique does nothing useful in Outlook Express. I'd rather see
proper attributions in posts, as even using the "Show all Messages" option
is limited by the server mirroring the NG. If it only caches a relatively
small number of messages, the original source message may be clipped.

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> An idiotic comment.
>

A question, actually, seeking clarification of your previous statement.


>
> Where's the conflict?
>

The ODP calls for a climbing right turn off of runway 6, the CCB noise
abatement procedure says "left turns only" and "no right departures".


>
> Babbling nonsense.
>
> The procedures are for VFR operations.
>

Is that because only VFR operations generate noise?


>
> How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?
>
> The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.
>

Apparently I assumed you were a more experienced pilot than is the case. My
bad. Visiting a few of these sites should answer your question:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22scud+running%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=2


>
> Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.
>
> The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.
>

What is the proof?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:14:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>That technique does nothing useful in Outlook Express.


I'll bet OE renders all the html messages just fine for you though,
even following all the hyperlinks they contain for you (whether you
want it to or not).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which are
> understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.
>

I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
proper use of quotation marks. Please cite your source.


>
> For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
> (clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
> direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread Sovereign
> Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and expected of
> pilots within the vicinity.
>

I don't think so. If all the boats in the pond were going in one direction,
it would be the current practice to also go in that direction. But that
wouldn't make it the standard practice. Tomorrow they could all be going in
the other direction.


>
> Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
> section of sky.
>

Why don't you correct for winds? What distracted you? What section of sky
was very busy and how did it affect your interaction with the pilot you're
complaining about?


>
> Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me? The
> only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that gravity
> will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see it
> happening.
>

I'm not asking you to assume anything, I'm telling you it's assumed that
since he departed after you he knows where you are and is properly avoiding
you. Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?

Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the operation of your own
aircraft and a little less to the operator behind you'd be less distracted
and better able to manage wind drift.


>
> Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
> sees and avoids me?
>

Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?


>
> Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
> facility?
>

CTAF is a frequency, not a facility. Where does it say he must use CTAF?
Are you saying he made no calls on CTAF?


>
> The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
> cite a source for that?
>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary


>
> It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.
>

It's not only nonstandard it's also a poor practice.


>
> Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
> arriving area traffic, though.
>

Please explain why.


>
> Heh. Freud would be proud.
>
> (I, of course, know better)
>

Really? How do you know? Have we met?


>
> I know what they mean. Do you?
>

Yes, I know what they mean. Since you used them improperly I have to
conclude that you do not.


>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost
>
> Especially:
>
> 1. to confront boldly.
> 2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
>
> Especially:
>
> 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
> than to one's intellect or reason.
> 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
>

Now cite an applicable message of mine to make your case.


>
> Bull****. Just in this post:
>
>> You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?
>

How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill? It was written
after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
aviation knowledge.


>
> And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.
>

Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?


>
> You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
> proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
> statement (of which there was none stated in the first).
>

What messages are you referring to?

>
> After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to use
> controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting skill
> was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his own
> creation.
>
> You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the situation
> itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a pilot's
> license, nor ever will be.
>

I said Jay holds an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and
he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions. Since Jay's
statements about Class D airspace and ATC are demonstrably incorrect, if we
assume he is sincere when he states them, we have to conclude that he holds
an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC. Since we have
established that there was sufficient spacing and that minimum same runway
separation would have been achieved if the 172 had not unexpectedly stopped
on the runway but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 31, 7:10 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "TheSmokingGnu" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which are
> > understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.
>
> I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
> proper use of quotation marks. Please cite your source.
>
>
>
> > For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
> > (clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
> > direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread Sovereign
> > Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and expected of
> > pilots within the vicinity.
>
> I don't think so. If all the boats in the pond were going in one direction,
> it would be the current practice to also go in that direction. But that
> wouldn't make it the standard practice. Tomorrow they could all be going in
> the other direction.
>
>
>
> > Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
> > section of sky.
>
> Why don't you correct for winds? What distracted you? What section of sky
> was very busy and how did it affect your interaction with the pilot you're
> complaining about?
>
>
>
> > Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me? The
> > only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that gravity
> > will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see it
> > happening.
>
> I'm not asking you to assume anything, I'm telling you it's assumed that
> since he departed after you he knows where you are and is properly avoiding
> you. Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?
>
> Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the operation of your own
> aircraft and a little less to the operator behind you'd be less distracted
> and better able to manage wind drift.
>
>
>
> > Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
> > sees and avoids me?
>
> Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
> person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
> you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
> while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?
>
>
>
> > Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
> > facility?
>
> CTAF is a frequency, not a facility. Where does it say he must use CTAF?
> Are you saying he made no calls on CTAF?
>
>
>
> > The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
> > cite a source for that?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary
>
>
>
> > It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.
>
> It's not only nonstandard it's also a poor practice.
>
>
>
> > Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
> > arriving area traffic, though.
>
> Please explain why.
>
>
>
> > Heh. Freud would be proud.
>
> > (I, of course, know better)
>
> Really? How do you know? Have we met?
>
>
>
> > I know what they mean. Do you?
>
> Yes, I know what they mean. Since you used them improperly I have to
> conclude that you do not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost
>
> > Especially:
>
> > 1. to confront boldly.
> > 2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
>
> > Especially:
>
> > 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
> > than to one's intellect or reason.
> > 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
>
> Now cite an applicable message of mine to make your case.
>
>
>
> > Bull****. Just in this post:
>
> >> You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?
>
> How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill? It was written
> after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
> aviation knowledge.
>
>
>
> > And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.
>
> Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?
>
>
>
> > You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
> > proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
> > statement (of which there was none stated in the first).
>
> What messages are you referring to?
>
>
>
> > After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to use
> > controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting skill
> > was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his own
> > creation.
>
> > You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the situation
> > itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a pilot's
> > license, nor ever will be.
>
> I said Jay holds an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and
> he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions. Since Jay's
> statements about Class D airspace and ATC are demonstrably incorrect, if we
> assume he is sincere when he states them, we have to conclude that he holds
> an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC. Since we have
> established that there was sufficient spacing and that minimum same runway
> separation would have been achieved if the 172 had not unexpectedly stopped
> on the runway but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
> to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Steven. P Mc Nicolls wrote............

>Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
>person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
>you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
>while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?

Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
for????????????????????????????????

[Jay Honeck]

> > Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
> > makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.
>
> No it doesn't. Don't assume people want to see all the previously read messages
> when opening a group.

Sorry, Bob -- I had no idea.

I would find reading Usenet without the "tree" view to be VERY
confusing. I participate in many threads, and sometimes my
participation is spread over many different parts of my day (or week),
and I often must re-read a few posts to get back up to speed on what's
going on in the thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > The controller told ME to go around, remember? I would have landed
> > behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if
> > the controller hadn't given the order to go around.
>
> So... let's see. If under option #1 you landed behind the student, you had
> enough room to guarantee a full stop before running him down? Since your
> option #2 would have been to scare the bejeezus out of the student by
> landing "over him", I presume the student wasn't near the far end of the
> runway, so some numbers just don't seem right, here. If you needed to be
> told to "go around" in that scenario, perhaps the controller knows you
> personally? ;-)

What I thought I could or could not do is irrelevant. The controller
told me to go around, so I did -- end of story.

At an uncontrolled field, if the student had cut in front of me (as he
did when he was ordered to do so by the tower controller) I would have
executed a 360 degree turn for spacing, or landed short behind him. I
also would have got on the radio and asked him to land long and keep
it rolling.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
> >person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
> >you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
> >while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?
>
> Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
> for????????????????????????????????

Uh oh. I think you've reached the salient point.

The bottom line is that we *don't* need ATC for most GA operations.
In fact, as I've stated before, imposing Class D "controlled" airspace
actually reduces safety in many cases.

ATC is needed at Class B airports. ATC is handy to have at most Class
C airports, but only during peak operational hours. (Which is why, for
instance, Cedar Rapids Class C is only part-time.)

Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
tower in his district.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> You know, for a linear thinker, you can't seem to keep on the track
> with your train of thought.
>

What do you base that on?


>
> The controller told ME to go around, remember?
>

I recall your original post said the controller issued the go around, and I
recall in a later post you said you went around because the controller
misjudged the spacing.


>
> I would have landed
> behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if
> the controller hadn't given the order to go around.
>

Well, then it was a damned good thing you were at a towered field with an
alert controller! The 172 may have decided to continue down the runway
after a brief stop. He's out of your view beneath your nose, you land on
top of him. Had it happened at an uncontrolled field, or if the controller
hadn't been paying attention, you and your family and the occupants of the
172 could all be dead now. That controller may very well have saved your
life, and all you can do is complain about him having the audacity to insert
another airplane in to the available space in front of you. You should be
ashamed!


>
> Obviously by sending me around the controller was admitting his
> failure to maintain what he judged to be proper spacing between us.
>
> This situation had nothing to do with my comfort, and everything to do
> with a Class D'oh! controller who was looking through the wrong end of
> his binoculars.
>

If your story is accurate, the controller had proper spacing and was paying
close attention to the situation. The go around was issued after the 172
unexpectedly stopped on the runway, something the controller had no control
over. It was an action of the pilot that forced the go around, not
misjudged spacing by the controller. The controller did his job without
error and possibly saved your life. Instead of bitching about it you should
be thanking him.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:14:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> That technique does nothing useful in Outlook Express.
>
>
> I'll bet OE renders all the html messages just fine for you though,
> even following all the hyperlinks they contain for you (whether you
> want it to or not).
>
It may, if you set it to do so, I wouldn't know. I have always set OE to
"Plain Text", so all that stuff gets stripped.

Neil

[Gregg Germain]

Jay Honeck wrote:


> Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
> tower in his district.


Hi Jay,

Is that always the case? Or even usually? For example, I fly out of Hanscom
and Beverly fields in Massachusetts. Beverly is pretty small - couple of
5000+ foot runways. Still, we get pax carrying planes in and out of there -
small jets, 10-20 pax prop planes etc. So it's commercial. And therefore
need to operate in IMC, and therefore you need a tower, no?

Hanscom - MUCH busier, is also class D and has bigger pax jets. So it, too,
need to have IMC.

So could the existence of passenger service be a reason there are Class D's
around?

Just a thought,

Gregg

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> The controller told ME to go around, remember? I would have landed
>>> behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be --
>>> if the controller hadn't given the order to go around.
>>
>> So... let's see. If under option #1 you landed behind the student,
>> you had enough room to guarantee a full stop before running him
>> down? Since your option #2 would have been to scare the bejeezus out
>> of the student by landing "over him", I presume the student wasn't
>> near the far end of the runway, so some numbers just don't seem
>> right, here. If you needed to be told to "go around" in that
>> scenario, perhaps the controller knows you personally? ;-)
>
> What I thought I could or could not do is irrelevant. The controller
> told me to go around, so I did -- end of story.
>
My point was that had I been on that approach, and saw the plane ahead of
me stop dead on the runway, I would have _told the controller_ that I was
going around, not figure out how to land with the other plane still on the
runway.

> At an uncontrolled field, if the student had cut in front of me (as he
> did when he was ordered to do so by the tower controller) I would have
> executed a 360 degree turn for spacing, or landed short behind him. I
> also would have got on the radio and asked him to land long and keep
> it rolling.
>
Which the student may or may not have done while you've committed to
landing. I also would not want to be in the pattern with someone suddenly
pulling a 360 on final, either. IMO, the scenrios you're presenting do not
reflect the most courteous or safe options.

Neil

[BDS]

"Gregg Germain" > wrote

> Is that always the case? Or even usually? For example, I fly out of
Hanscom
> and Beverly fields in Massachusetts. Beverly is pretty small - couple of
> 5000+ foot runways. Still, we get pax carrying planes in and out of
there -
> small jets, 10-20 pax prop planes etc. So it's commercial. And therefore
> need to operate in IMC, and therefore you need a tower, no?

No, you don't need a tower in order to have instrument approaches at an
airport.

> So could the existence of passenger service be a reason there are Class
D's
> around?

I think it has to do with traffic density more than anything else, and yet
there are some pretty busy airports that are uncontrolled. A airport near
where I fly has an ILS and an NDB approach as well as a high density of both
piston and jet traffic, and it was uncontrolled up until about a year or so
ago. It used to be that you needed a shoe horn to get into the pattern on
any decent VFR day.

BDS

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Local procedures aren't a "dummy up" process by "a few locals", they
> are based on the known conditions of the airport in question and done
> by the airport management.
>

What qualifies airport management to create these procedures?


>
> Also, they are not in conflict with anything, as, as several have
> noted, they are not mandatory by any stretch of the imagination.
>

No, they're not, but how many people know they're not mandatory? The
procedure at CCB does not indicate it's not mandatory. Did you know it was
not mandatory before participating in this discussion?


>
> Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
> are recomnended, not mandatory.
>

But the AIM states up front that it is not mandatory, the CCB procedures do
not do that.


>
> Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
> minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.
>

How so?


>
> If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
> to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
> of aviation.
>

What do you consider to be the beginning of aviation and what are you
referring to that has been around since that time?


>
> Your repeated disparagement of the airport management, which in most
> cases has many decades of experience, is noted.
>

Decades of experience in airport management does not alone qualify anyone to
create noise abatement procedures.


>
> While you are required to obtain all relevant information to a flight
> before takeoff, a lot of local procedures are not in the AF/D which
> makes it difficult for everyone to find them.
>

So it would be a mistake to expect anyone to follow a procedure that is not
in the A/FD.


>
> But, since common sense, and I do believe a regulation somewhere,
> requires you to observe the existing traffic and blend in with it
> at none-towered airports, there is not much of an excuse not to
> follow what everyone else is doing.
>

There is no such regulation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
> overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
> others.
>

The rest of the world? The local CCB procedures have had very limited
distribution. You should expect most of the worlds pilots would not be
following them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> They aren't "my" procedures, nor are they the procedures of some mob of
> home owners, they are the procedures established by the airport
> management.
>
> Airport management is the person or group responsible for the operation
> of an airport.
>

Airport management has no authority over airspace.

[Jay Honeck]

> Which the student may or may not have done while you've committed to
> landing. I also would not want to be in the pattern with someone suddenly
> pulling a 360 on final, either. IMO, the scenrios you're presenting do not
> reflect the most courteous or safe options.

Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.

Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I recall your original post said the controller issued the go around, and I
> recall in a later post you said you went around because the controller
> misjudged the spacing.

Both of those statements are 100% true.

> If your story is accurate, the controller had proper spacing and was paying
> close attention to the situation. The go around was issued after the 172
> unexpectedly stopped on the runway, something the controller had no control
> over. It was an action of the pilot that forced the go around, not
> misjudged spacing by the controller. The controller did his job without
> error and possibly saved your life. Instead of bitching about it you should
> be thanking him.

What an incredible statement, from a guy who wasn't there. I'm
thankful you don't work for the NTSB.

The controller should have done one of the two following things:

1. He should not have revoked my previously issued landing clearance
and cut the 172 in ahead of me.

*or*

2. He should have ordered the 172 to land long, and keep it rolling.

Either choice would have worked out fine. He blew it, and did
neither. When he finally noticed the spacing issue, he ordered a go-
round.

In the end, it all worked out fine, and there was nothing unsafe about
it. But it was an unusual ATC lapse in judgement, which is why I
posted it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
> > overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
> > others.
> >

> The rest of the world? The local CCB procedures have had very limited
> distribution. You should expect most of the worlds pilots would not be
> following them.

So now you are down to nit picking the symantics?

The above text is about life in general, not about any particular
procedure or airport, or even aviation in particular.

As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB
for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures.

And of course, pilots don't follow the CCB VFR procedures at other
airports.

This is you most childish rebuttal to date.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On 31 Mar 2007 06:48:38 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in m>:

>At an uncontrolled field, if the student had cut in front of me (as he
>did when he was ordered to do so by the tower controller) I would have
>executed a 360 degree turn for spacing,

Such a maneuver would place you in the blind to arriving traffic
during certain quadrants of the 360* turn. What do you have against
S-turns to increase spacing?

>or landed short behind him.

>I also would have got on the radio and asked him to land long and keep
>it rolling.

Technically, that is not in accordance with the Self-announce FAA
policy for CTAF.

[Jay Honeck]

> So could the existence of passenger service be a reason there are Class D's
> around?

That's part of it, but there are many exceptions. Quincy, IL has
passenger service, as does Ottumwa, IA and Burlington, IA. All are
uncontrolled fields.

I used to assume that Class D existed because air traffic was once
heavier than it is today, and (as with all things government) newly-
useless facilities are slow to be closed. But now I'm not sure --
maybe they were *never* needed?

And there *are* examples of closed towers around. Galesburg, IL has
an abandoned control tower, for example.

My "event horizon" of GA is only 13 years -- perhaps someone who has
been flying longer (and doesn't have a vested interest in supporting
ATC) can comment on the history and usage of Class D towers?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 31 Mar 2007 06:55:42 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
>tower in his district.

Said senator's vote was probably influenced by airline lobbying.

When you start using the IFR system, you'll begin to understand the
need for ATC better.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > An idiotic comment.
> >

> A question, actually, seeking clarification of your previous statement.

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.

> >
> > Where's the conflict?
> >

> The ODP calls for a climbing right turn off of runway 6, the CCB noise
> abatement procedure says "left turns only" and "no right departures".

One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.

The IFR procedure does not cause a safety conflict with any VFR
procedure. VFR traffic turns left, IFR right.

Runway 6 is designated left traffic in ALL official publications
including the AF/D.

> > Babbling nonsense.
> >
> > The procedures are for VFR operations.
> >

> Is that because only VFR operations generate noise?

No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.

Under IFR conditions, you couldn't see the mountains and going North
would take you away from your first fix, i.e. the VORTAC the IFR
procedure turns you towards.

All the VFR traffic in the area that is not going through the class C
airspace follows a path about 2 miles South of the mountains, whether
they are going to CCB or not.

> > How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?
> >
> > The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.
> >

> Apparently I assumed you were a more experienced pilot than is the case. My
> bad. Visiting a few of these sites should answer your question:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22scud+running%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=2

I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.

You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.

In any case, you aren't going to be able to scud run through the
rising terrain to the north as eventually you get to a mountain
range that averages 8-9 thousand feet.

And before you even try to bring it up, that mountain range is many
miles away and well out of the airport area.

> > Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.
> >
> > The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.
> >

> What is the proof?

Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.

Are you really that dense?

QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
> proper use of quotation marks.

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

> But that
> wouldn't make it the standard practice.

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.

> Why don't you correct for winds? What distracted you? What section of sky
> was very busy and how did it affect your interaction with the pilot you're
> complaining about?
>

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

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.

I never did get an apology, though.


> I'm not asking you to assume anything, I'm telling you it's assumed that
> since he departed after you he knows where you are and is properly avoiding
> you.

Assume? BY WHO? Define your indefinite.

> Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?

Since it didn't occur, yes. I have very strong reason to believe he was
not doing that.

> Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the operation of your own
> aircraft and a little less to the operator behind you'd be less distracted
> and better able to manage wind drift.

Ad hominem. You wanted an example?

> Why do
> you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
> while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?

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

> CTAF is a frequency, not a facility. Where does it say he must use CTAF?
> Are you saying he made no calls on CTAF?

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

He was on the CTAF. He made two calls, one to announce taxi, and another
to announce that he was taking the runway. Neither of these calls
announced an intention to leave the pattern (he had previously been
doing closed patterns), nor his departure direction.

At no time after takeoff did he make any other CTAF transmissions at
all, nor to Unicom, nor to FSS.

> 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?

> It's not only nonstandard it's also a poor practice.

Source?

> Please explain why.

I already have, multiple times. Want it again?

They don't expect traffic there, in that direction, at that altitude, at
that speed.

> Really? How do you know? Have we met?

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.

> Since you used them improperly I have to
> conclude that you do not.

And you've yet to make a definitive proof of such, which I must conclude
is a failing on your part to make yet another ad hominem attack on my
person. You'll have to do a lot better than grammatical pandering.

> Now cite an applicable message of mine to make your case.

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

> How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill?

Here's your Word of the Day:

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

> It was written
> after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
> aviation knowledge.

Such as?

> Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?

Sorry, sorry. Forgot about that "you can't read into anything at all"
disease you have.

> I said Jay holds an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and
> he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions. Since Jay's
> statements about Class D airspace and ATC are demonstrably incorrect, if we
> assume he is sincere when he states them, we have to conclude that he holds
> an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC.

You would have to ask him on that. My comment was not about that
specifically, but the manner in which you dismissed him and his piloting
skill /flippantly/, with an air of superiority, and told him in so many
words that he wasn't good enough to use controlled airspace.

> Since we have
> established that there was sufficient spacing and that minimum same runway
> separation would have been achieved if the 172 had not unexpectedly stopped
> on the runway

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?

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.

> but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
> to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.

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.

And, it's also about time for a new killfile.

TheSmokingGnu

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
> voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>

Never? At any distance?

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> My "event horizon" of GA is only 13 years -- perhaps someone who has
> been flying longer (and doesn't have a vested interest in supporting
> ATC) can comment on the history and usage of Class D towers?




Some places don't rate a tower but the people who run the airport want
one. Happened at Bozeman, MT. They didn't meet the minimum number of
ops for an FAA tower, so the city built one anyways and now there are
non FAA controllers there. But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient. I've been to busy
uncontrolled fields and I know how **** poor the weekend pilot is at
being able to aviate, navigate and communicate at the same time. Once
you get about four airplanes in the area I'll take the tower.

[Newps]

> On 31 Mar 2007 06:55:42 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
>
>>Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
>>tower in his district.

Congress has very little to do with it. Think local.

[John Clear]

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>I used to assume that Class D existed because air traffic was once
>heavier than it is today, and (as with all things government) newly-
>useless facilities are slow to be closed. But now I'm not sure --
>maybe they were *never* needed?

Castle Airport (formerly Castle AFB) was an uncontrolled field for
years after going civilian, and has just re-opened the control
tower. According to the traffic numbers[1] on Airnav, it has 579
operations per day.

Checking the traffic numbers of local airports on Airnav, it looks
like all the airports with over ~300 operations a day have control
towers. My experience with the ones in the 300-400 range (Sac Exec
(KSAC), Napa (KAPC), Santa Rosa (KSTS)) is that they really don't
need a control tower except when everyone decides to show up at
once. All the ones above that range (Palo Alto (KPAO), Livermore
(KLVK), San Carlos (KSQL)) have enough traffic that the control
tower is useful. Palo Alto and San Carlos have radar, and will
give vectors as needed. Livermore doesn't have radar, but does a
good job sequencing traffic as long as the position reports are
good. Bad position reports are a problem at uncontrolled airports
too, so I don't hold it against ATC when the position reports are
wrong.

None of the above airports have airline traffic. KSAC, KAPC, KSTS
and KLVK have jet traffic and multiple runways. KPAO (single 2400ft
runway) and KSQL (single 2600ft runway) are just piston and turboprop.

BTW, Iowa City lists 53 operations per day, and Oshkosh lists 283
through the wonder of averaging.

John
[1] These numbers are probably similar in accuracy to the flight
hours numbers, but I expect the numbers between airports to be in
the same margin for error.
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Jay Honeck]

> > Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
> > voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>
> Never? At any distance?

You have trouble with the word "cutting"? I believe that says it
all.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
> a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
> where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
> far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient.

People fly to North Dakota?

<ducking!>

I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
but most do not.)

This weird mish-mash of some Class D's with, and some without radar,
makes for a pretty bizarre set of circumstances for pilots.
Personally I find it just a bit odd, and a little uncomfortable, not
knowing if I'm being controlled by Mr. Magoo with binoculars, or
George Jetson with radar.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> Which the student may or may not have done while you've committed to
>> landing. I also would not want to be in the pattern with someone
>> suddenly pulling a 360 on final, either. IMO, the scenrios you're
>> presenting do not reflect the most courteous or safe options.
>
> Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
> voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>
I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous, but
it may not always reflect the best judgement, so there are appropriate
responses for the PIC in those instances, e.g. "unable". I'm not too
surprised that a student wouldn't be comfortable using that option.

> Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.
>
This thread seemed more like an aero version of "road rage" to me. In a
newsgroup with a lot of folks seeking to learn, that can't be a Good
Thing.

Neil

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
> tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
> but most do not.)

Getting radar coverage for every control tower would be quite expensive.


>
> This weird mish-mash of some Class D's with, and some without radar,
> makes for a pretty bizarre set of circumstances for pilots.
> Personally I find it just a bit odd, and a little uncomfortable, not
> knowing if I'm being controlled by Mr. Magoo with binoculars, or
> George Jetson with radar.

Prior to 9/11, I would occasionally visit the tower at KBED on quiet mornings
(usually Sunday). They have a feed from the ASR-9 at Boston and optionally
the ASR at MHT. These radars are blinds below around 600 feet at the airport
and traffic to the southwest of KBED has to be up around 2000 feet to be
reliably visible on radar. Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Yep, those are the IFR procedures.
>
> Which part of the local procedures being for VFR are you having trouble
> understanding?
>

None. What made you think I did? Did you know the local procedures were
for VFR operations before you joined this discussion?


>
> 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.
>

Following an IFR procedure would not **** off the tower and I wouldn't be
calling them at all.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
> > voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>
> I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous

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.

You don't find this unusual?

> > Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.
>
> This thread seemed more like an aero version of "road rage" to me. In a
> newsgroup with a lot of folks seeking to learn, that can't be a Good
> Thing.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
> was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
> at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.

Wooo boy. I used to work with guys like that, back in the '80s. They
didn't trust us kids who were looking at a computer screen, instead of
writing the newspaper draws on clear plastic sheets with a grease
pencil. After all, it had worked for them for 50 years....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
> the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.
>

I think that unlikely.


>
> So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
> existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
> followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
> endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.
>

How do you know there have been no safety issues?


>
> Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.
>

That's fine, you're free to follow them if you choose. Just as anyone is
free to decline to participate. The problem is that many pilots may not
know that they're strictly voluntary.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>>
>> How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
>> before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
>> mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?
>>
>
> Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
> damn?
>

It matters to me. You can answer at least one of those questions, please
do.


>
> FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
> at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.
>
> The signs in the runup area say "Please".
>

I haven't been to the FBO or the runup area, but that's not what's on the
web site. The online procedures state at the top:

Cable Airport VFR Noise Abatement
Arrival and Departures


The runway 24 procedure has "suggested phraseology for flying in and out of
Cable Airport", and beneath a separator the runway 6 procedure has
"suggested VFR procedures for departures to the south or entries from the
south".

[Stefan]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> 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.
>
> You don't find this unusual?

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.

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
> for????????????????????????????????
>

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> At an uncontrolled field, if the student had cut in front of me (as he
> did when he was ordered to do so by the tower controller) I would have
> executed a 360 degree turn for spacing, or landed short behind him. I
> also would have got on the radio and asked him to land long and keep
> it rolling.
>

Cut in front of you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The bottom line is that we *don't* need ATC for most GA operations.
> In fact, as I've stated before, imposing Class D "controlled" airspace
> actually reduces safety in many cases.
>

Yes, you've stated it before, but in no case does Class D airspace actually
reduce safety.

>
> Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
> tower in his district.
>

His district? A Senator's district is a state. What state would not have
any control towers if not for the actions of a Senator?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gregg Germain" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is that always the case? Or even usually? For example, I fly out of
> Hanscom and Beverly fields in Massachusetts. Beverly is pretty
> small - couple of 5000+ foot runways. Still, we get pax carrying
> planes in and out of there - small jets, 10-20 pax prop planes etc.
> So it's commercial. And therefore need to operate in IMC, and
> therefore you need a tower, no?
>
> Hanscom - MUCH busier, is also class D and has bigger pax jets.
> So it, too, need to have IMC.
>
> So could the existence of passenger service be a reason there are Class
> D's around?
>

Many untowered airports have instrument approaches. There are also
scheduled passenger operations at untowered airports. But airports with
scheduled passenger service will get a control tower at a much lower total
traffic level than airports without scheduled passenger service.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
> voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>

That's true only if there isn't sufficient space available, which was not
the case here.


>
> Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.
>

It appears your point in starting this lengthy thread was solely to vent
about a controller issuing a go around made necessary by the actions of a
pilot.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> 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.

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?

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

:P

TheSmokingGnu

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yep, those are the IFR procedures.
> >
> > Which part of the local procedures being for VFR are you having trouble
> > understanding?
> >

> None. What made you think I did? Did you know the local procedures were
> for VFR operations before you joined this discussion?

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.

> >
> > 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.
> >

> Following an IFR procedure would not **** off the tower and I wouldn't be
> calling them at all.

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

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.

Following the IFR procedure while VFR will do a lot more than just
**** off the Class C tower.

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> > You don't find this unusual?
>
> 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.

Interesting. Apparently I have heretofore been blessed by only flying
into airports with excellent controllers. This atypical experience has
obviously given me unrealistic expectations.

>From now on, I will regard landing clearances with greater suspicion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
> > tower in his district.
>
> His district? A Senator's district is a state. What state would not have
> any control towers if not for the actions of a Senator?

We have state as well as federal Senators in our state government.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
> > the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.

> I think that unlikely.

You can think anything you like.

That is what happens.

If you are so sure of yourself, try going through the Class C and
tell them you want to turn for a straight in to CCB 24 and see what
happens.

> > So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
> > existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
> > followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
> > endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.

> How do you know there have been no safety issues?

Don't be a childish, petulant, ass.

Because no one has ever claimed there was.

Because there are no incident or accident reports.

> > Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.

> That's fine, you're free to follow them if you choose. Just as anyone is
> free to decline to participate. The problem is that many pilots may not
> know that they're strictly voluntary.

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

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

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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.

Bwahahahahahahah!

Er, ahem. Sorry. Happy April Fools Day.

Right, Steven. ATC saved us...

Have you always had delusions of grandeur?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> From now on, I will regard landing clearances with greater suspicion.

That is always a good idea. Things change.

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

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
> >> before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
> >> mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?
> >>
> >
> > Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
> > damn?
> >

> It matters to me. You can answer at least one of those questions, please
> do.

Actually, if you are no-radio, they are the only ways you can get in and
out legally, but I digress.

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.

> > FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
> > at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.
> >
> > The signs in the runup area say "Please".

> I haven't been to the FBO or the runup area, but that's not what's on the
> web site. The online procedures state at the top:

> Cable Airport VFR Noise Abatement
> Arrival and Departures


> The runway 24 procedure has "suggested phraseology for flying in and out of
> Cable Airport", and beneath a separator the runway 6 procedure has
> "suggested VFR procedures for departures to the south or entries from the
> south".

Oh, my God, you caught CCB managment in an oversight!!

Let's have them hung from the highest tree.

The 6 procedure has "SUGGESTED VFR PROCEDURES...", but they left it off
on the 24 procedure.

Call the FAA immediately!

The world is coming to an end!

Chaos reigns!

Oh, the humanity!

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> We have state as well as federal Senators in our state government.
>

So do we, but our state Senators have no control over federal expenditures.
Not the case in Iowa?

[Jay Honeck]

> > Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
> > voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>
> That's true only if there isn't sufficient space available, which was not
> the case here.

Dang, Steven, I didn't know you were there? Where *were* you hiding?
Or was that you in the tower?

> > Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.
>
> It appears your point in starting this lengthy thread was solely to vent
> about a controller issuing a go around made necessary by the actions of a
> pilot.

I posted the story because I found it interesting and unusual. The
only one venting here (for no apparent reason) is you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
TheSmokingGnu > wrote:

> Just how are all those dumb-ass pilots managing to miss each other so
> often without the controller's help?

PFM

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
>>>voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>>
>>Never? At any distance?
>
>
> You have trouble with the word "cutting"? I believe that says it
> all.



No, that's a very subjective distance. Some idiots out there announce a
five mile final and expect me to follow them. I'll stick a Beech 99
being flown by a freight dog in front of the typical weekend flyer on a
mile and a half final all day long.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
>>a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
>>where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
>>far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient.
>
>
> People fly to North Dakota?
>
> <ducking!>
>
> I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
> tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
> but most do not.)


Radar can help but but is too coarse for a busy class D. Nothing will
beat a good pair of eyes and good judgement.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
>>>voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>>
>>I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous
>
>
> 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.
>
> You don't find this unusual?

When I worked at GFK we'd have at least 50 go arounds a day, for any
number of reasons. Our typical traffic counts were on the order of 150
operations an hour. Students would land and then inexplicably stop,
they would go to take off and then do a Vx climb without telling us,
effectively stopping in mid air, they'd miss the turn off, etc. Had the
plane in front of you not stopped everything would have worked fine.
That's not the controllers fault, it wasn't his instruction that put you
on a collision course it was the first guys stopping on the runway.
Using your logic it was the controllers who cleared you for takeoff that
put you on a collision course.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
>>was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
>>at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.
>
>
> Wooo boy. I used to work with guys like that, back in the '80s. They
> didn't trust us kids who were looking at a computer screen, instead of
> writing the newspaper draws on clear plastic sheets with a grease
> pencil. After all, it had worked for them for 50 years....

You don't understand the limitations of radar.

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:

> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> You don't find this unusual?
>
>
> No. He thought his instructions would work. When he realised that he had
> made a mistake,

He didn't make a mistake, he simply reacted to conditions as they
change. That's what controllers do.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
>>> voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.
>>
>> I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous
>
> 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.
>
> You don't find this unusual?
>
Perhaps, but not nearly as unusual as some things I've experienced at
uncontrolled fields. I suspect that your experience is a multiple of mine,
so it made me wonder why it was so noteworthy as to warrant such a rant
about Class D fields.

>>> Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.
>>
>> This thread seemed more like an aero version of "road rage" to me.
>> In a newsgroup with a lot of folks seeking to learn, that can't be a
>> Good Thing.
>
> "Road rage"? What are you *talking* about?
>
I'm talking about your notions of landing short over the plane on the
runway. Why would such notions even cross your mind? Sorry, I thought
you'd understand that analogy. ;-)

> 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.
>
Why on Earth would I have any "rage" over YOUR experience? Please. As I
wrote in an earlier reply, if I were in that situation, the controller
would not have had to tell me to go around. I asked some questions of you
because it's pretty obvious that YOU had a problem with that experience,
and I wondered why, and still do.

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Both of those statements are 100% true.
>

No they're not. You also said you were 1/2 mile out when the 172 touched
down 1500' from the threshold. If that's correct the controller judged the
spacing just fine.


>
> What an incredible statement, from a guy who wasn't there. I'm
> thankful you don't work for the NTSB.
>

No, I wasn't there. That's why I have to rely on your account. The problem
here is that your story does not support your conclusion. You have to
change one of them.


>
> The controller should have done one of the two following things:
>
> 1. He should not have revoked my previously issued landing clearance
> and cut the 172 in ahead of me.
>

According to your story there was adequate spacing to put the 172 ahead of
you, doing that does not revoke your previously issued landing clearance.


>
> *or*
>
> 2. He should have ordered the 172 to land long, and keep it rolling.
>

Perhaps the controller isn't as comfortable telling pilots how to do their
jobs as you are telling controllers how to do theirs.

If your distances are accurate the 172 didn't need to land any longer than
he did. "Keep it rolling" is part of a normal landing, the pilot shouldn't
have to be told to do that.


>
> Either choice would have worked out fine. He blew it, and did
> neither. When he finally noticed the spacing issue, he ordered a go-
> round.
>

Did the controller tell you that? Your story makes it sound like he ordered
the go around when he noticed the 172's unexpected stop on the runway.


>
> In the end, it all worked out fine, and there was nothing unsafe about
> it. But it was an unusual ATC lapse in judgement, which is why I
> posted it.
>

If you're going to stick with your conclusion, that the controller misjudged
the spacing, you're going to have to put your plane closer to the threshold
when the 172 touches down.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB
> for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures.
>

How did you make that determination?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> It is still idiotic.
>
> No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.
>

So what did you intend to say?


>
> One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
> procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.
>

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.



>
> No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
> priority than noise abatement.
>
> The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
> about 4 miles away.
>
> If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
> see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
> miles before you get to them.
>

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


>
> I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
> are talking about.
>

Yes it does.


>
> You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
> nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
> procedures at CCB.
>

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?


>
> Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.
>

How do you know there have been no incidents where the procedure was a
contributing factor?


>
> Are you really that dense?
>

I'm not at all dense.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB
> > for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures.
> >

> How did you make that determination?

An estimation based on long observation.

If it were a formal measurment, there would be error bars on the 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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It is still idiotic.
> >
> > No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.
> >

> So what did you intend to say?

Exactly what I just said.


> > One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
> > procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.
> >

> 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.

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.

> >
> > No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
> > priority than noise abatement.
> >
> > The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
> > about 4 miles away.
> >
> > If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
> > see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
> > miles before you get to them.
> >

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

Another attempt to side track the issue; this time you are ignoring
the part about adjacent airspace, which has been flogged to death.

> > I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
> > are talking about.
> >

> Yes it does.

No, it doesn't and you are just trying to side track the issue once
again.


> > You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
> > nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
> > procedures at CCB.
> >

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

Now you are trying to side track the issue into why didn't I state
the obvious.

> > Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.
> >

> How do you know there have been no incidents where the procedure was a
> contributing factor?

Now you are trying to side track the issue into how I know there have
been no contributing factors when I already said there have been no
incidents.

> > Are you really that dense?
> >

> I'm not at all dense.

Maybe not; it could be you just want to argue for the sake of
arguement and not to ever reach a conclusion.

Your constant effort to side track the issue seems to point to that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> 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?

No, the original issue was, is it =inherently= unsafe to follow standard
AIM procedures just because some local guy invented a local procedure?

I say no. That is all.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
> > was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
> > at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.
>
> Wooo boy. I used to work with guys like that, back in the '80s. They
> didn't trust us kids who were looking at a computer screen, instead of
> writing the newspaper draws on clear plastic sheets with a grease
> pencil. After all, it had worked for them for 50 years....

Well, at KBED looking at the DBRITE isn't all that useful given the radar
coverage, especially to the southwest.

btw - these controllers were all years younger than we are, hardly old
farts set in their ways (I know, I know, I'm repeating myself).

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

[Jose]

> If the preponderance of existing traffic is following some procedure...

Then it may be a good idea to mesh with that procedure. It is not
however =inherently= unsafe to not follow it, as you had intimated.

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

I agree. But that statement is not the one that got me going.

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

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > 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?

> No, the original issue was, is it =inherently= unsafe to follow standard
> AIM procedures just because some local guy invented a local procedure?

> I say no. That is all.

I disagree.

If the preponderance of existing traffic is following some procedure, it
is an important part of the question.

If there is no existing traffic, it doesn't really matter what you
do as long as it isn't illegal, nor does it matter where the procedure
came from when the question is, is this prudent to do from a safety
standpoint.

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jose > wrote:
> > If the preponderance of existing traffic is following some procedure...

> Then it may be a good idea to mesh with that procedure. It is not
> however =inherently= unsafe to not follow it, as you had intimated.

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

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.


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

> I agree. But that statement is not the one that got me going.

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?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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