slightly o.t. landing at big airports

[[email protected]]

i live near a big airport in the nw all kinds of jumbo, extended, huge
planes landing all the time
and

every now and then you see a little single engine one landing

what is the deal?

a death wish or?
can they just land if they want to?

thanks

bill

[Wally Samuelson]

Most likely is an air taxi from somewhere nearby. Or someone just dropping
off or picking up a passenger. I don't know how they handle TSA scrrening
these days.

The problem is not so much landing as it is leaving. Not only do you have
to get ATC clearance, but the problem of getting sufficient separation to
avoid wake turbulence can cause major delays. You can find yourself
sitting in the grass waiting for a line of jets to clear.

Wally
been there done that

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <zhs3b.286009$Ho3.39431@sccrnsc03>,
"Wally Samuelson" > wrote:

> Most likely is an air taxi from somewhere nearby. Or someone just dropping
> off or picking up a passenger. I don't know how they handle TSA scrrening
> these days.
>
> The problem is not so much landing as it is leaving. Not only do you have
> to get ATC clearance, but the problem of getting sufficient separation to
> avoid wake turbulence can cause major delays. You can find yourself
> sitting in the grass waiting for a line of jets to clear.
>
> Wally
> been there done that
>
>

It is a "no brainer" to land at major airports. The big problem is
uaually that FBOs and airport operators at the majors hate small planes
and their pilots. To discourage thaem they often impose landing fees,
ramp fees and exhorbitant fuel prices.

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

[vincent p. norris]

>The problem is not so much landing as it is leaving. Not only do you have
>to get ATC clearance, but the problem of getting sufficient separation to
>avoid wake turbulence can cause major delays. You can find yourself
>sitting in the grass waiting for a line of jets to clear.

I just happened to post about that on another newsgroup yesterday, so
I'll repeat it here with minor changes:

I haven't found that getting in or out of big airports is a problem,
except at rush hours, when everyone else waits in line, too.

At DCA, the tower guys are sharp; they clear me to land my Chrokee on
one of the two cross-runways while the big iron is landing or taking
off on the long one (18-36).

They get me out the same way, while the big jets suffer long waiting
lines. One morning, after sleeping in the lounge because the
thunderstorms had closed the field, I heard ATIS saying to expect a
two-hour delay in departing. Ground cleared me to runway 3 and then
the tower cleared me to take off between two jets taking off on 36. I
was out of there about as fast as if I'd had the field to myself.

Little guys are treated just as well as the big guys. Once I called
Dulles approach and was cleared in. The next voice
said, in a heavy accent,

"Dooles Approach, thees ees Air Frawnce 224, landing Dooles."

Dulles came back, "Air France 224, you're number two behind the
Cherokee."

Made my day!

I always get "into the system" by requesting flight following long
before I arrive at a big airport. (I do it on almost all flights,
anyway.) That way, Approach Control is expecting me, I get handed off
to them and it goes like clockwork.

vince norris

[Thomas Schoene]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message

> At DCA, the tower guys are sharp; they clear me to land my Chrokee on
> one of the two cross-runways while the big iron is landing or taking
> off on the long one (18-36).

This is really past tense, isn't it? DCA (National Airport) has been closed
to general aviation aircraft without specific TSA waivers since 9/11.


--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Cub Driver]

At most American airports, most of the time, a Cessna 172 (or even a
Piper Cub if has the requisite communications gear, to wit: a two-way
radio and a transponder) can land if the pilot is willing to pay the
landing fee.

For obvious reasons--having to do with cost and the time wasted in the
pattern and taxiing--most private pilots prefer to land at smaller
airports within commuting distance of the large city. Teeterboro is
one such for Manhattan. You take a limo into the city.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>Cub Driver > wrote:

>At most American airports, most of the time, a Cessna 172 (or even a
>Piper Cub if has the requisite communications gear, to wit: a two-way
>radio and a transponder) can land if the pilot is willing to pay the
>landing fee.

I've been flying since 1987 as both a professional and recreational
pilot (more than 4000 hrs. logged) and have *never* paid a landing fee
regardless of airport size.

-Mike (don't do no steenkin' landing fees) Marron

[[email protected]]

ok
thanks

so it is not that unusual but i still think you kind of have to have
very big gonads and be very very confident and knowledgable

thanks

bill

[vincent p. norris]

>> At DCA, the tower guys are sharp; they clear me to land my Chrokee on
>> one of the two cross-runways while the big iron is landing or taking
>> off on the long one (18-36).
>
>This is really past tense, isn't it? DCA (National Airport) has been closed
>to general aviation aircraft without specific TSA waivers since 9/11.

Yeah, Tom, I suppose I should have added "ed" to that word "clear."

But the tower cleared me that way a number of times, so I thought of
it as an ongoing situation.

Obviously I haven't landed there since 9-11.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>so it is not that unusual but i still think you kind of have to have
>very big gonads
On the contrary. I'm an old pilot because I've always avoided being a
bold pilot.

>and be very very confident and knowledgable

Yes, you have to know what you're doing, and equally important, SOUND
(on the radio) like you know what you're doing, to generate confidence
on the part of the controllers that you can and will do what they
clear you to do, and won't cause a disaster.

vince norris

[Cub Driver]

>I've been flying since 1987 as both a professional and recreational
>pilot (more than 4000 hrs. logged) and have *never* paid a landing fee
>regardless of airport size.

Have you landed at Boston or La Guardia?

Crikey, I've seen landing fees posted at non-towered airports, for
planes with turbo engines or more than one engine. Auburn-Lewiston ME
is one such. (I can't swear that anyone actually pays the fee,
however; I've only seen the sign.)

I just checked the AOPA Airport Directory. BOS (Boston) charges a
landing fee, amount unspecified. Same for LEW (Auburn-Lewiston),
though as I recall it doesn;t apply to lightplanes.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>very big gonads and be very very confident and knowledgable

Gonads aren't at all necessary, but it certainly helps (in all flying,
not just into large airports) to be confident and knowledgable.
Especially knowledgable :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Or believe or not, me in my ULTRALIGHT trike! I'm one of just
> a tiny handful of pilots in the entire U.S. who can legally take my
> tube 'n fabric, 400 pound little space probe into a major Class "B"
> airport and mix it up with the Boeing 777's...
>

What makes you and the rest of the tiny handful so special? Anyone can
operate an ultralight in Class B airspace if they if they get prior
authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.


§103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class
C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area
of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior
authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.

[Amdt. 103-17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 1991]

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Or believe or not, me in my ULTRALIGHT trike! I'm one of just
>>a tiny handful of pilots in the entire U.S. who can legally take my
>>tube 'n fabric, 400 pound little space probe into a major Class "B"
>>airport and mix it up with the Boeing 777's...

>What makes you and the rest of the tiny handful so special? Anyone can
>operate an ultralight in Class B airspace if they if they get prior
>authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.

Good question. I loosely used the term "Ultralight" only so that folks
would know what type of A/C I was talking about. My particular
"ultralight" trike is actually no longer classified as such because I
have N-numbered it. Me and the "special tiny handful" whom have
N-numbers on our former "ultralights" (a few others like mine are
based in Southern California) enjoy all the privileges of GA pilots
and operate under Part 91, not Part 103 (see below).

>§103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
>No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class
>C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area
>of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior
>authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.

First, ultralight pilots (and I also use the term "pilots" loosely as
*most* ultralight "pilots" quite frankly suck!) can ask all they want,
but extremely doubtful they'll get permission from ATC to enter
any of those surface-based controlled airspace categories
mentioned in the FAR above. Whether or not a controller wants
to work with an ultralight is up to the discretion of the controller.
Second, even IF an ultralight pilot is granted permission (which they
wouldn't)...but *if* they would, they still cannot fly over congested
areas per 103.15 which stipulates thusly:

"No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any
congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
open air assembly of persons."

Because I operate under Part 91, I can base my ultralight trike
in the city (instead of way out in the boonies like 99.9-percent of
ultralights) and fly right over the top of the skyscrapers and
buildings downtown and land at Tampa Int'l, LAX, O'Hare, etc.
if I choose to do so (which I don't, but if I wanted to I could which
is extremely rare). I can also legally fly at night -- a privilege
that no other ultralight and/or microlight pilots (in Europe they're
called "microlights") on Earth enjoy besides us fortunate few.

My craft is the first and only one of its kind based in Florida
(or entire Southeastern U.S.A. for that matter) and I fly it almost
daily since I am able to conveniently hangar it downtown. It's
the greatest!

-Mike Marron

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Good question. I loosely used the term "Ultralight" only so that folks
>>would know what type of A/C I was talking about. My particular
>>"ultralight" trike is actually no longer classified as such because I
>>have N-numbered it. Me and the "special tiny handful" whom have
>>N-numbers on our former "ultralights" (a few others like mine are
>>based in Southern California) enjoy all the privileges of GA pilots
>>and operate under Part 91, not Part 103 (see below).

>If you've got an N-number you've also got an airworthiness certificate and
>your trike is NOT an ultralight.

Er um...that's what I just said!

>You're just another experimental aircraft operating under Part 91.

Except as an experimental glider (motorized) I don't require
a medical certificate. Big difference! Also, most people still think
I'm an ultralight which allows me to do certain things [ahem] that
your average experimental airplane pilot in his right mind would
dream of doing...

-Mike (nevermind) Marron

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:58:39 GMT, "Wally Samuelson"
> wrote:

>Most likely is an air taxi from somewhere nearby. Or someone just dropping
>off or picking up a passenger. I don't know how they handle TSA scrrening
>these days.
>
>The problem is not so much landing as it is leaving. Not only do you have
>to get ATC clearance, but the problem of getting sufficient separation to
>avoid wake turbulence can cause major delays. You can find yourself
>sitting in the grass waiting for a line of jets to clear.
>
>Wally
>been there done that
>
When in the pattern at John Wayne International in a 172 the tower
advised me to "increase speed or depart the pattern" as the DC-10
behind me was about to run over us :-) Landing can be an adventure.

Al Minyard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Er um...that's what I just said!
>

Which indicates you knew you weren't operating an ultralight when you
submitted your original message.

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> When talking to ATC on the radio we sometimes use the term
>> "experimental ultralight" so they know what to look for. In other
>> words, I was simply trying to be polite. Had I used the term "trike"
>> most folks wouldn't have known what I talking about. Comprende?

>There are no "experimental ultralights". An ultralight vehicle by
>definition has no airworthiness certificate, so it follows that an aircraft
>with an experimental airworthiness certificate cannot be an ultralight.

I'm one of the "pioneers" who built my own trike and N-numbered
it so it follows that you're not telling me anything I don't already
know. As I said, when talking to ATC on the radio we sometimes
mix and match terms so-to-speak (e.g: "experimental ultralight") so
the nice folks in the control tower will know what type of flying
machine to look for and how to sequence other traffic in the airport
traffic area. In other words, the glider-trike program is new and
practically unheard of in the aviation community so if we call up ATC
and simply say, for example, "experimental seven bravo papa" chances
are controller(s) will think we're an Lancair, RV, Glasair, or some
other type of aerodynamically controlled 3-axis aircraft instead of a
tailless, slow-moving ultralight-type aircraft that resembles a big
kite or hang-glider with an engine on it. But if you're interested in
N-numbering an ultralight trike of your own as an experimental
"glider" (self-launched), obtaining a "self-launch" endorsement to
your glider rating (assuming you already have one), the name of the
one and only DE in the country who administers flight checks, a
cooperative DAR (e.g: one who actually knows what a "trike" is),
the advantages/disadvantages of the glider-trike program vis a vis
the Sport Pilot initiative including the creation of the new Private
Pilot weight shift category, etc. etc...I'd be more than happy to
answer any questions you might have. N-numbering an ultralight isn't
cheap and it's a lot of hard work but trust me, in the long run it's
well worth it if you love to fly. Comprende?

-Mike Marron
Commercial, Multi-Engine, CFII, A&P, UFI
(weightshift/fixed wing -- land & sea)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm one of the "pioneers" who built my own trike and N-numbered
> it so it follows that you're not telling me anything I don't already
> know. As I said, when talking to ATC on the radio we sometimes
> mix and match terms so-to-speak (e.g: "experimental ultralight") so
> the nice folks in the control tower will know what type of flying
> machine to look for and how to sequence other traffic in the airport
> traffic area. In other words, the glider-trike program is new and
> practically unheard of in the aviation community so if we call up ATC
> and simply say, for example, "experimental seven bravo papa" chances
> are controller(s) will think we're an Lancair, RV, Glasair, or some
> other type of aerodynamically controlled 3-axis aircraft instead of a
> tailless, slow-moving ultralight-type aircraft that resembles a big
> kite or hang-glider with an engine on it. But if you're interested in
> N-numbering an ultralight trike of your own as an experimental
> "glider" (self-launched), obtaining a "self-launch" endorsement to
> your glider rating (assuming you already have one), the name of the
> one and only DE in the country who administers flight checks, a
> cooperative DAR (e.g: one who actually knows what a "trike" is),
> the advantages/disadvantages of the glider-trike program vis a vis
> the Sport Pilot initiative including the creation of the new Private
> Pilot weight shift category, etc. etc...I'd be more than happy to
> answer any questions you might have. N-numbering an ultralight isn't
> cheap and it's a lot of hard work but trust me, in the long run it's
> well worth it if you love to fly. Comprende?
>

You're still not getting it. Identifying yourself as something you're not
doesn't help the nice folks in the control tower know what type of flying
machine to look for.

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> I'm one of the "pioneers" who built my own trike and N-numbered
>> it so it follows that you're not telling me anything I don't already
>> know. As I said, when talking to ATC on the radio we sometimes
>> mix and match terms so-to-speak (e.g: "experimental ultralight") so
>> the nice folks in the control tower will know what type of flying
>> machine to look for and how to sequence other traffic in the airport
>> traffic area. In other words, the glider-trike program is new and
>> practically unheard of in the aviation community so if we call up ATC
>> and simply say, for example, "experimental seven bravo papa" chances
>> are controller(s) will think we're an Lancair, RV, Glasair, or some
>> other type of aerodynamically controlled 3-axis aircraft instead of a
>> tailless, slow-moving ultralight-type aircraft that resembles a big
>> kite or hang-glider with an engine on it. But if you're interested in
>> N-numbering an ultralight trike of your own as an experimental
>> "glider" (self-launched), obtaining a "self-launch" endorsement to
>> your glider rating (assuming you already have one), the name of the
>> one and only DE in the country who administers flight checks, a
>> cooperative DAR (e.g: one who actually knows what a "trike" is),
>> the advantages/disadvantages of the glider-trike program vis a vis
>> the Sport Pilot initiative including the creation of the new Private
>> Pilot weight shift category, etc. etc...I'd be more than happy to
>> answer any questions you might have. N-numbering an ultralight isn't
>> cheap and it's a lot of hard work but trust me, in the long run it's
>> well worth it if you love to fly. Comprende?

>You're still not getting it. Identifying yourself as something you're not
>doesn't help the nice folks in the control tower know what type of flying
>machine to look for.

Er um, I'm afraid you're the one whose clueless. Please
post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
right here -->____________


-Mike (newbies, ya' just gotta' love 'em!) Marron

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>> Er um, I'm afraid you're the one whose clueless.

>No, it really is you.

Tell ya' what Steven. The founder of the glider-trike program is
a Delta airline captain, ex-Navy guy (flew F-4's off carriers during
'Nam), and practicing attorney. Why don't you go tell him how
clueless he is and how clueless the folks in the tower are where
he flies simply for using the term "ultralight" instead of "trike" and
then report back to us?

>>Please post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
>>right here -->____________

>Zero,

Suspicions confirmed.

>and irrelevant.

No, YOU are irrelevant.

-Mike Marron

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tell ya' what Steven. The founder of the glider-trike program is
> a Delta airline captain, ex-Navy guy (flew F-4's off carriers during
> 'Nam), and practicing attorney. Why don't you go tell him how
> clueless he is and how clueless the folks in the tower are where
> he flies simply for using the term "ultralight" instead of "trike" and
> then report back to us?
>

I've already explained the situation to you as simply as I can. I've
provided verifiable supporting documentation. If you cannot see the folly
of your position it can only be due to the inability to think logically.
Show these messages to your friend, if he's as sharp as you think he is he
will tell you you're full of ****.

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>The only thing you've explained to me so far is that you have never
>flown an experimental trike. I doubt that you're even a pilot, much
>less a CFII, A&P, UFI with weightshift and fixed-wing (both land &sea)
>qualifications and thousands of hours logged as PIC.
>
Gee Mike, you sure that you're not a close blood relative of
Art?...(hint - in case you missed it - BTDT)
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Gee Mike, you sure that you're not a close blood relative of
>Art?...(hint - in case you missed it - BTDT)

Ya' never know, but after all's said and done if I did happen
to be related to Art I would consider it an honor just as I'm
honored to be related to my great-grandfather who immigrated
from Ireland (changed the name from O'Marron to Marron) and
fought on the union side during the American Civil War...two uncles
who served in WW2 (one flew P-40's and -47's and downed two
Japanese and the other was a marine "BTDT" grunt when they
raised Old Glory on Iwo Jima's Mt. Suribachi)...and my ol' man
who flew combat SAR including an undisclosed number of
"cloak and dagger" sorties over North Vietnam and Laos...

-Mike (salute Art) Marron

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>>Gee Mike, you sure that you're not a close blood relative of
>>Art?...(hint - in case you missed it - BTDT)
>
>Ya' never know, but after all's said and done if I did happen
>to be related to Art I would consider it an honor just as I'm
>honored to be related to my great-grandfather who immigrated
>from Ireland (changed the name from O'Marron to Marron) and
>fought on the union side during the American Civil War...two uncles
>who served in WW2 (one flew P-40's and -47's and downed two
>Japanese and the other was a marine "BTDT" grunt when they
>raised Old Glory on Iwo Jima's Mt. Suribachi)...and my ol' man
>who flew combat SAR including an undisclosed number of
>"cloak and dagger" sorties over North Vietnam and Laos...
>
>-Mike (salute Art) Marron
>
>
Mike...I don't want anyone to get the wrong slant here. I'm very
glad that Art and your relatives fought and risked their lives
for our freedom in those awful times, but what I object to is
Art's insistence that if you didn't fight in the wars then you
know jack about anything at all. If he'd only realize that
there's very few of us who are living now who 'could' possibly
have served in his wars he wouldn't run into so much opposition.

Aaaand the reason for my jab above is because you seem to be
showing a similar trait WRT the experimental ultra-light bit.

Steven gave what I'd say was a very calm, reasonable and lucid
explanation and you jumped on him for no good reason (hell, you
even changed the terms midstream).

I'm sure nobody hereabouts doubts your eminent qualifications in
the ultra-light field but you don't fare so well in the
confidence area when you lash out like Art does.

But....c'est la vie I suppose...<sigh>
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> Mike...I don't want anyone to get the wrong slant here. I'm very
>glad that Art and your relatives fought and risked their lives
>for our freedom in those awful times, but what I object to is
>Art's insistence that if you didn't fight in the wars then you
>know jack about anything at all. If he'd only realize that
>there's very few of us who are living now who 'could' possibly
>have served in his wars he wouldn't run into so much opposition.

No prob -- I think (I hope!) we've turned the corner in that regard.

>Aaaand the reason for my jab above is because you seem to be
>showing a similar trait WRT the experimental ultra-light bit.

Again, no prob. Like I said, Mr. McNicoll seemed to be under
the impression that he (of all people!) was somehow "educating"
me WRT the FAR's as they apply to ultralights vis a vis experimental
A/C...

Laughable!

>Steven gave what I'd say was a very calm, reasonable and lucid
>explanation and you jumped on him for no good reason (hell, you
>even changed the terms midstream).

Wrongo. Steven changed the terms midstream not me. The
gist of my first post in this thread was simply that I am one of
just a tiny handful of pilots in the entire U.S. who can legally take
my itty bitty little trike into a major Class "B" airport and mix it
up with the Boeing 777's. That's when Steve's ego went on
override and he attempted to change the subject to some
nit-noid argument over what does or does not constitute an
"ultralight." I subsequently disarmed his argument when I
explained to him that I am fully aware of the FAR's. Afterall,
you have to be extraordinarily well-versed in the FAR's
when you're asking the feds to allow you take an "ultralight" and
operate it in surface based controlled airspace and densely
populated urban areas even at night with, or without a medical(!)
Please re-read that last sentence because no other country on
the face of the planet (besides the good ol' U.S. of A.) would even
DREAM of allowing ultralights or "microlights" to do what me
and a select few of fellow glider-trikers do!

>I'm sure nobody hereabouts doubts your eminent qualifications in
>the ultra-light field but you don't fare so well in the
>confidence area when you lash out like Art does.

See above.

>But....c'est la vie I suppose...<sigh>

Now there's a Krameresque retort if I ever saw one...

-Mike (if you haven't noticed, he "sighs" a lot) Marron