Controller screwed up?

[Paul Tomblin]

I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
functions that return void.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 10, 4:11 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
> instructions.
>
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
> unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
> functions that return void.

I could see him putting the NW flight into position and hold, but not
clearing him to take off. Clearing him before you were off the runway
was definitely an error on his part.

[Denny]

> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
> unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
> functions that return void.

Take a deep breath... The big guy has to taxi forward and make a 90
degree turn, center up on the rwy, lock the brakes, do the final TO
list, and then and only then spool up... You were long gone off the
rwy by then... Forget the form, you have nothing to report...

cheers ... denny

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 10, 3:11 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
> instructions.
>
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

I thought the same time the first time I was cleared to land on a
runway where the previous guy was clearly not going to be off before I
touched down. Tower explained that two planes can use the runway at
the same time as long as the tower can antisipate separation. I"m sure
some of the ATC guys on this list can explain it better though.

-Robert

[Newps]

It's called anticipated separation. By the time the MD80 gets on the
runway you're long gone.




Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
> instructions.
>
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?
>

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> I could see him putting the NW flight into position and hold, but not
> clearing him to take off. Clearing him before you were off the runway
> was definitely an error on his part.

No, it was not.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:


>
> I thought the same time the first time I was cleared to land on a
> runway where the previous guy was clearly not going to be off before I
> touched down. Tower explained that two planes can use the runway at
> the same time as long as the tower can antisipate separation. I"m sure
> some of the ATC guys on this list can explain it better though.

You have it essentially correct. You can land your single behind
another single or twin as long as that guy is 3000 feet down the runway.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Newps" > wrote in message ...
> You have it essentially correct. You can land your single behind another
> single or twin as long as that guy is 3000 feet down the runway.

I agree and find it a safe landing practice, but I've not heard it before on
a TO clearance. At the minimum I would expect an advisory from tower of the
presence of the landing traffic still on the runway. Also I'm not sure how
that fits in with the company's corp operating rules; it was an MD-80
afterall.

[Newps]

All cleared for takeoff and cleared to land mean is that when you get to
the runway it will meet certain requirements. For takeoff the runway
will be clear when you actually use it. Not necessary for it to be
clear before or after.

Mike Isaksen wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message ...
>
>> You have it essentially correct. You can land your single behind another
>>single or twin as long as that guy is 3000 feet down the runway.
>
>
> I agree and find it a safe landing practice, but I've not heard it before on
> a TO clearance. At the minimum I would expect an advisory from tower of the
> presence of the landing traffic still on the runway. Also I'm not sure how
> that fits in with the company's corp operating rules; it was an MD-80
> afterall.
>
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Relax, and don't dally on the runway.


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
> instructions.
>
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
> unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
> functions that return void.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Newps > said:
>It's called anticipated separation. By the time the MD80 gets on the
>runway you're long gone.

Are there at least some restrictions on when this can be used? I'm hoping
that it can only be done in good VFR conditions when the tower can see
both aircraft?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Fly the airplane, then work the problem"
-- Rick Grant (quoting RCAF pilot training)

[Judah]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fc4fe3$1ab$1
@xen1.xcski.com:

> I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
> instructions.
>
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

Hi Paul,
It's a pretty common practice at the larger airports.

There are a few realities here:

1) The takeoff clearance is just that - a clearance. The pilot is still
responsible for safety of flight. ie: Just because you're cleared into
class B airspace doesn't mean you can fly into traffic in the air either.
Certainly, while the MD-80 was sitting #1 waiting to take off, he heard
tower clearing you to land, and saw you land and watched as you turned off
the runway.

2) As others have pointed out, you certainly had enough of a head start on
him that unless you had some sort of engine failure you would be clear of
the runway long before he caught up to you.

That said, in that situation, if you were to have some sort of problem and
couldn't clear the runway in a responsible amount of time, I would
immediately let Tower know.

[Newps]

>
>
> Are there at least some restrictions on when this can be used? I'm hoping
> that it can only be done in good VFR conditions when the tower can see
> both aircraft?

No restrictions but common sense come in to play there.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 10, 6:11 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

Buy new underwear?

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
> instructions.
>
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

Well I've read a few replies, and most seem to say it was ok. However,
they could be wrong, as surely it depends on the seperation. So I want
to know (and only you can tell us), where on the RWY *they* were, and
where did *you* land (eg. threshold?) and how long is the RWY.

Some of the replies could be incorrect IMO, cos surely the controller
has to take into account that you may be forced to go round (for
whatever reason), and their seperation rule should take that into
account (at least I bloody hope it would :)

--
Duncan

[donzaemon]

How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get off the
runway ?
I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it doesn't
sound right logically.
A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other plane is
actually in the process of turning off, then when some clear action toward
the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as cleared and give a takeoff
clearance.




"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> It's called anticipated separation. By the time the MD80 gets on the
> runway you're long gone.
>
>
>
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
>> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
>> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
>> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
>> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
>> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
>> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
>> instructions.
>>
>> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
>> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
>> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?
>>

[El Maximo]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

No matter what everyone else has writen, I agree it was a dangerous
situation, and thing you should file the NASA form. If something delayed
your exit from the runway (mechanical?) you could have been killed.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Judah > said:
>2) As others have pointed out, you certainly had enough of a head start on
>him that unless you had some sort of engine failure you would be clear of
>the runway long before he caught up to you.

In an interesting coincidence, I was just bringing the plane back from
maintenance to deal with a problem where the engine would fail when
taxiing off the runway. It had happened twice at the end of a series of
touch and goes, never in the air or on a regular point to point flight.
They'd replaced the mags, and the problem seems like it might be fixed -
at least I did 4 touch and goes back at Genesee County where the work had
been done with no evidence of problems.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
So logically, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and
therefore a witch.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dave Doe > said:
>In article >,
>says...
>> I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
>> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
>> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
>> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
>> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
>> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
>> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
>> instructions.
>Well I've read a few replies, and most seem to say it was ok. However,
>they could be wrong, as surely it depends on the seperation. So I want
>to know (and only you can tell us), where on the RWY *they* were, and
>where did *you* land (eg. threshold?) and how long is the RWY.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0709/00351AD.PDF
RWY 4 is 8001 feet long. The NWA flight was at the threshold. I had
touched down on the threshold and had just rolled past A1 and was trying
to decide if I should try to turn off A2 or not (it's a high speed in the
other direction, but wide enough that it doesn't look like it.) So I'd
guess I was 2000 feet from him.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I [was] looking at 30-40 of the most beautiful women in the world, each
eating a lollipop. Weirdly, every one had a different technique, but none
were doing it wrong. --Bob Church

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:38:13 +1200, Dave Doe > wrote in
>:

>I've read a few replies, and most seem to say it was ok. However,
>they could be wrong, ...


Apparently it's the controller's call:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf
FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until
prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable
assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff
roll.

3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding
departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway
by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the
runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See
FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by
reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft
needs only be airborne if the following minimum
distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)
1. When only Category I aircraft are involved-
3,000 feet.
2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a
Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.
3. When either the succeeding or both are
Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.
4. When either is a Category III aircraft-
6,000 feet.
5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
distance minima.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
in >:

>I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

[Newps]

donzaemon wrote:
> How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get off
> the runway ?

Experience. But if you miss an exit he'll just cancel the takeoff
clearance and have the MD80 hold in position.


> I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it
> doesn't sound right logically.

Nothing wrong with what the controller did.


> A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other plane
> is actually in the process of turning off, then when some clear action
> toward the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as cleared and give a
> takeoff clearance.
>

That's using more separation than needed and is inefficient.

[Newps]

Dave Doe wrote:


> Well I've read a few replies, and most seem to say it was ok. However,
> they could be wrong, as surely it depends on the seperation.



The separation is clear. The runway must be clear prior to an aircraft
starting its takeoff roll. You cannot start your takeoff roll until you
are on the runway.



So I want
> to know (and only you can tell us), where on the RWY *they* were,


He already said holding short at the approach end.




> Some of the replies could be incorrect IMO, cos surely the controller
> has to take into account that you may be forced to go round (for
> whatever reason),



If he goes around then there is no separation problem in the first place.


and their seperation rule should take that into
> account (at least I bloody hope it would :)


What?

[Ricky]

On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
> in >:
>
> >I'm not sure what the regulations technically say
>
> Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
> regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
> worldwide forum.

What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
answers I am looking for?
No shame in that.

Ricky

[Judah]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fc67l2$b2s$2
@xen1.xcski.com:

> In a previous article, Judah > said:
>>2) As others have pointed out, you certainly had enough of a head start on
>>him that unless you had some sort of engine failure you would be clear of
>>the runway long before he caught up to you.
>
> In an interesting coincidence, I was just bringing the plane back from
> maintenance to deal with a problem where the engine would fail when
> taxiing off the runway. It had happened twice at the end of a series of
> touch and goes, never in the air or on a regular point to point flight.
> They'd replaced the mags, and the problem seems like it might be fixed -
> at least I did 4 touch and goes back at Genesee County where the work had
> been done with no evidence of problems.

Interesting. Perhaps because of this you were slightly more anxious than
would be otherwise.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the MD-80 behind you wouldn't have started
barrelling down the runway until he actually saw you at least turn off, even
if you didn't cross the hold short line.

[Maxwell]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
>> in >:
>>
>> >I'm not sure what the regulations technically say
>>
>> Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
>> regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
>> worldwide forum.

>
> What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
> Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
> answers I am looking for?
> No shame in that.
>

Yeah, Larry. Lighten up a bit. Besides, I think he had a good point.

[Maxwell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
> the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
> slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
> off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
> rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
> Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
> for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
> instructions.
>
> I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
> that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
> a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?
>

Right or wrong, I think you have a valid gripe. Giving the MD80 clearance to
take off at that point served no valid purpose, and posed at least a
potential risk. What if you stalled, the controller got busy, the MD80
didn't see you stall, etc, etc.

If he was in a hurry to roll the MD80, a taxi to position and hold would got
him rolling, and he could have up dated it with clearance to take off, the
minute you cleared the active. If there was indeed plenty of time, the MD80
would have never had time to stop rolling, before receiving the final
clearance.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:41:34 -0700, Ricky >
wrote in m>:

>On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
>> in >:
>>
>> >I'm not sure what the regulations technically say
>>
>> Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
>> regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
>> worldwide forum.
>
>What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
>Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
>answers I am looking for?
>No shame in that.
>
>Ricky

When you admit you don't know what you are talking about, and freely
offer you opinion based on that lack of knowledge (as donzaemon did)
it benefits no one.

Those who drafted the charter for this newsgroup mandated that
articles posted here contain INFORMATION, not uninformed opinion.

Failure to invest the requisite effort to research a topic before
posting an article just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio in the
newsgroup.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:30:43 -0500, "Maxwell" >
wrote in >:

>I think he had a good point.

That's because you haven't read the FAA order pertinent to the
controller's issuing the takeoff clearance. Do a little research
before you publish your opinion.

[Maxwell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those who drafted the charter for this newsgroup mandated that
> articles posted here contain INFORMATION, not uninformed opinion.
>

Oh God forbid Larry. Do you mean to tell me someone actually posted an
uninformed opinion around here????


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:42:56 -0500, "Maxwell" >
wrote in >:

>Do you mean to tell me someone actually posted an uninformed opinion around here????

Are your expectations too low?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:59:35 -0600, Newps wrote:

> Experience. But if you miss an exit he'll just cancel the takeoff
> clearance and have the MD80 hold in position.

So there's no chance that two things will go wrong? I'm thinking, for
example, of a blown tire in the just-landed aircraft combined with a
communication failure (either "mechanical" or human) which prevents the
aircraft taking off from hearing the clearance cancellation.

How would that sort of thing be handled?

FWIW, I've never received a t/o clearance until someone is clear of the
runway. At best, I'll get "position and hold". But I can start my roll
in a 182 a hell of a lot more quickly than can an MD-80 <grin>. Makes me
wonder why people bother with the lumbering beasts <laugh>.

- Andrew

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:59:35 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Experience. But if you miss an exit he'll just cancel the takeoff
>>clearance and have the MD80 hold in position.
>
>
> So there's no chance that two things will go wrong? I'm thinking, for
> example, of a blown tire in the just-landed aircraft combined with a
> communication failure (either "mechanical" or human) which prevents the
> aircraft taking off from hearing the clearance cancellation.
>


Anything can happen at anytime. But it usually doesn't. When something
happens we'll adjust, but until then we'll use what is known to work.

[donzaemon]

Thanks for the warm welcome and vote of confidence Larry.

The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.
I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.
Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
several things that come together which would still cause an accident. for
example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
doing at all times.




"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
> in >:
>
>>I'm not sure what the regulations technically say
>
> Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
> regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
> worldwide forum.

[Larry Dighera]

[top posting repositioned so the flow of thought is chronological]

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
>> in >:
>>
>>>I'm not sure what the regulations technically say
>>
>> Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
>> regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in a
>> worldwide forum.
>

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:39:10 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
in >:

>Thanks for the warm welcome and vote of confidence Larry.
>

While you may feel that you are entitled to respect solely by virtue
of your ability access this forum, until a participant has
demonstrated his worth, I'll reserve my warm welcome.

My admonishment was meant to cause you think, and perform some
_research_, BEFORE committing your follow up comments to Deja's
eternal Usenet database archive: <http://www.deja.com>.

It's a simple matter to lookup the pertinent regulation* on the FAA
web site before you post your (admittedly uninformed) opinions. After
all, aviation has trundled along for over a century now, and it is
reasonable to think that most of the gotchas have been addressed by
FAA regulations, that have been continually honed and amended over the
decades, so as to have created the safest, most efficient ATC system
existent.

To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
without you even bothering to expend the effort to consult them, seems
the height of blind hubris to me.

>The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
>group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
>a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.

Without even bothering to consult the regulations, how can you
possibly be qualified to pass judgment on what others assume or not?

>I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
>effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.

To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to the
existing regulation, without even knowing what it is (and so
admitting), reveals a certain self-assured certainty reminiscent of
the only US president to hold office by virtue of Judicial Department
decision, who consulted a "higher source" to reach the decision to
plunge our nation into an unjustified, $3-billion per week war for at
least the next decade. Thankfully, the scientific mind consults
reality (not his imaginary friend) before reaching a conclusion. And
so should airmen.

>Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
>depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
>light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
>there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
>you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
>are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
>statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
>balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
>accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
>several things that come together which would still cause an accident. for
>example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
>stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
>first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
>the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
>etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
>this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
>normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
>that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
>an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
>guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
>given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
>scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
>doing at all times.
>

As a certificated airman, you should be aware, that it is your
responsibility to operate your aircraft safely at all times. That's
why FAA regulations make room for the PIC to deviate from regulations
when his judgment dictates it. If you are only coming to the
realization of that responsibility now, I must conclude that you
haven't too much experience yet, or ...

Too many airmen act as though piloting is an inconsequential "hobby"
worthy of no more concern than a game of Chess. In my opinion, if the
act of becoming a pilot didn't change an airman's life, s/he has not
fully appreciated the responsibility expected of him by the FAA, his
passengers, his fellow airmen, and the public over whom he navigates.
A blasé attitude toward regulations reveals a lack of appreciation
for that responsibility.

Over the past couple of decades, the level of cognitive, informed
discourse in this newsgroup has declined to where now there are many
who feel that inane, prattling chit-chat (I'm accusing you of this.)
is appropriate here. Due to that influx of noise, it appears that
many newly among the readership of this newsgroup have very low
expectations for participation in this forum. These lowered standards
lead to further lowering standards, and most importantly, drive away
those with valuable experience and insights to share. After all, who
want's to who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of
them?



*
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until
prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable
assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff
roll.

3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding
departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway
by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the
runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See
FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by
reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft
needs only be airborne if the following minimum
distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)
1. When only Category I aircraft are involved-
3,000 feet.
2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a
Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.
3. When either the succeeding or both are
Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.
4. When either is a Category III aircraft-
6,000 feet.
5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
distance minima.

[Richard Carpenter]

Huh. Well folks, I'm very new to this particular Usenet group, having
just last week started my Cessna pilot training program, but I have
been around the Usenet block a time or two, and thought I might offer
up my own take on this particular issue...

On Sep 13, 11:18 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> [top posting repositioned so the flow of thought is chronological]
>
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
> >> in >:
>
> >>>I'm not sure what the regulations technically say
>
> >> Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
> >> regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in a
> >> worldwide forum.
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:39:10 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
> in >:
>
> >Thanks for the warm welcome and vote of confidence Larry.
>
> While you may feel that you are entitled to respect solely by virtue
> of your ability access this forum, until a participant has
> demonstrated his worth, I'll reserve my warm welcome.
>
> My admonishment was meant to cause you think, and perform some
> _research_, BEFORE committing your follow up comments to Deja's
> eternal Usenet database archive: <http://www.deja.com>.
>
> It's a simple matter to lookup the pertinent regulation* on the FAA
> web site before you post your (admittedly uninformed) opinions. After
> all, aviation has trundled along for over a century now, and it is
> reasonable to think that most of the gotchas have been addressed by
> FAA regulations, that have been continually honed and amended over the
> decades, so as to have created the safest, most efficient ATC system
> existent.
>
> To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
> without you even bothering to expend the effort to consult them, seems
> the height of blind hubris to me.

First off, if everyone meticulously poured over all relevant FAA
guidelines and came to their own conclusions prior to posting their
thoughts here for feedback, two things would happen:

1) As you mention, the signal to noise ratio would very likely
increase, but only at the cost of actual productive discussion. The
"knuckleheads" will still be showing their "knuckleheadedness".

2) Many misinterpretations of FAA rules and established protocols
would occur, as people would, in the interests of avoiding any
incidental offenses to the sensibilities of hard-liners such as
yourself, creating unecessary risks as the pilots proceed to operate
under their own, possibly mistaken, understanding of established code.
This, IMHO, is not worth the Usenet utopia for which would strive.

> >The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
> >group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
> >a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.
>
> Without even bothering to consult the regulations, how can you
> possibly be qualified to pass judgment on what others assume or not?

Why would such prejudicial inclinations even be expected? Good Lord, I
can only imagine if my CFI were to follow your line of reasoning on
every uninformed question I might think to ask. Sure, there is a
rec.aviation.student group, but, gee, where do I go once I receive my
certificate? Would you suggest that the newly-certified pilot be left
to make their own sense out of FAA regulations??

> >I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
> >effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.
>
> To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to the
> existing regulation, without even knowing what it is (and so
> admitting), reveals a certain self-assured certainty reminiscent of
> the only US president to hold office by virtue of Judicial Department
> decision, who consulted a "higher source" to reach the decision to
> plunge our nation into an unjustified, $3-billion per week war for at
> least the next decade. Thankfully, the scientific mind consults
> reality (not his imaginary friend) before reaching a conclusion. And
> so should airmen.

Textbook non-sequitur.

> >Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
> >depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
> >light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
> >there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
> >you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
> >are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
> >statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
> >balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
> >accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
> >several things that come together which would still cause an accident. for
> >example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
> >stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
> >first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
> >the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
> >etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
> >this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
> >normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
> >that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
> >an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
> >guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
> >given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
> >scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
> >doing at all times.
>
> As a certificated airman, you should be aware, that it is your
> responsibility to operate your aircraft safely at all times. That's
> why FAA regulations make room for the PIC to deviate from regulations
> when his judgment dictates it. If you are only coming to the
> realization of that responsibility now, I must conclude that you
> haven't too much experience yet, or ...

You said it yourself - "when his judgement dictates it". Yet when a
pilot comes here seeking clarity and feedback on just such a judgement
call, both on their part and on the part of the ATC at the time, you
chide them? I'd say that hubris is at fault here, but not on the part
of the one seeking enlightenment.

> Too many airmen act as though piloting is an inconsequential "hobby"
> worthy of no more concern than a game of Chess. In my opinion, if the
> act of becoming a pilot didn't change an airman's life, s/he has not
> fully appreciated the responsibility expected of him by the FAA, his
> passengers, his fellow airmen, and the public over whom he navigates.
> A blasé attitude toward regulations reveals a lack of appreciation
> for that responsibility.

Wow. Did you have to file a flight plan before making a leap of that
magnitude? Seriously. Did you honestly take the OP's post as a slap in
the face of the FAA and GA in general??

> Over the past couple of decades, the level of cognitive, informed
> discourse in this newsgroup has declined to where now there are many
> who feel that inane, prattling chit-chat (I'm accusing you of this.)
> is appropriate here. Due to that influx of noise, it appears that
> many newly among the readership of this newsgroup have very low
> expectations for participation in this forum. These lowered standards
> lead to further lowering standards, and most importantly, drive away
> those with valuable experience and insights to share. After all, who
> want's to who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of
> them?

Really?? "Unworthy"? There are many different standards that can
decline for a community such as this. I might point out fellowship,
civil discourse and a healthy, on-going desire to both learn and teach
as appropriate being right up there near the top of the list.

> *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_or...
>
> 3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
> Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until
> prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable
> assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff
> roll.
>
> 3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
> Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding
> departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway
> by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
> a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the
> runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See
> FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by
> reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft
> needs only be airborne if the following minimum
> distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)
> 1. When only Category I aircraft are involved-
> 3,000 feet.
> 2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a
> Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.
> 3. When either the succeeding or both are
> Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.
> 4. When either is a Category III aircraft-
> 6,000 feet.
> 5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
> visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
> distance minima.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"...if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft
starts takeoff roll."

You could have stopped right there and had all the topic you needed
for discussion. "Reasonable assurance" is nothing if not subjective.

I really don't mean to over-step my bounds or imply a higher level of
knowledge or experience than I possess, but this just seem to me to be
more of an issue of social skills, than whether or not a particular
point of discussion is justified.

--
Rich

[donzaemon]

well , you certainly have something to prove. Aside from commenting that
I'm sorry to hear you favor erring on the side of being 'less safe' than
more I'll leave the last word to you , You and whomever else might want to
play your immature name calling games. If this kind of hostility is a
regular occurance with you I might also suggest a psychologist to help you
along before your problems at home and work get too out of hand.

[Larry Dighera]

Best of luck in your "Cessna pilot training program."

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:08 -0000, Richard Carpenter
> wrote in
. com>:
[...]

>> To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
>> without you even bothering to expend the effort to consult them, seems
>> the height of blind hubris to me.
>
>First off, if everyone meticulously poured over all relevant FAA
>guidelines and came to their own conclusions prior to posting their
>thoughts here for feedback, two things would happen:
>
>1) As you mention, the signal to noise ratio would very likely
>increase, but only at the cost of actual productive discussion.

So you find explicitly stated uninformed opinion contributes to
productive discussion?

I find it reveals a mind that is too lazy to become informed.

>The "knuckleheads" will still be showing their "knuckleheadedness".

If the readership tolerates such, there is no question that it will
continue. Usenet is built upon self-governance after all.

>2) Many misinterpretations of FAA rules and established protocols
>would occur, as people would, in the interests of avoiding any
>incidental offenses to the sensibilities of hard-liners such as
>yourself, creating unecessary risks as the pilots proceed to operate
>under their own, possibly mistaken, understanding of established code.
>This, IMHO, is not worth the Usenet utopia for which would strive.

I'm having some difficulty parsing that "sentence." But without
researching the governing regulations, how can one intelligently
discuss them?

>> >The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
>> >group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
>> >a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.
>>
>> Without even bothering to consult the regulations, how can you
>> possibly be qualified to pass judgment on what others assume or not?
>
>Why would such prejudicial inclinations even be expected?

Huh? You find the expectation that the author of an article perform
some research before publishing it to be a "prejudicial inclination?"
I believe it is an airman's responsibility to be aware of the
regulations and orders governing aviation. If that's "a "prejudicial
inclination" in your opinion, than so be it.

>Good Lord,

Oh, now you're going to invoke your deity....

>I can only imagine if my CFI were to follow your line of reasoning on
>every uninformed question I might think to ask.

Questions are not uninformed opinion. Why do you raise that issue?

>Sure, there is a rec.aviation.student group, but, gee, where do I go once
>I receive my certificate? Would you suggest that the newly-certified pilot
>be left to make their own sense out of FAA regulations??

Talk about "textbook non-sequitur" ...

I suggesting that authors make an effort to research the subject
before offering their opinion. Do you find that unreasonable?

>
>> >I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
>> >effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.
>>
>> To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to the
>> existing regulation, without even knowing what it is (and so
>> admitting), reveals a certain self-assured certainty reminiscent of
>> the only US president to hold office by virtue of Judicial Department
>> decision, who consulted a "higher source" to reach the decision to
>> plunge our nation into an unjustified, $3-billion per week war for at
>> least the next decade. Thankfully, the scientific mind consults
>> reality (not his imaginary friend) before reaching a conclusion. And
>> so should airmen.
>
>Textbook non-sequitur.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

>
>> >Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
>> >depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
>> >light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
>> >there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
>> >you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
>> >are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
>> >statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
>> >balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
>> >accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
>> >several things that come together which would still cause an accident. for
>> >example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
>> >stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
>> >first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
>> >the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
>> >etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
>> >this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
>> >normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
>> >that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
>> >an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
>> >guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
>> >given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
>> >scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
>> >doing at all times.
>>
>> As a certificated airman, you should be aware, that it is your
>> responsibility to operate your aircraft safely at all times. That's
>> why FAA regulations make room for the PIC to deviate from regulations
>> when his judgment dictates it. If you are only coming to the
>> realization of that responsibility now, I must conclude that you
>> haven't too much experience yet, or ...
>
>You said it yourself - "when his judgement dictates it". Yet when a
>pilot comes here seeking clarity and feedback on just such a judgement
>call, both on their part and on the part of the ATC at the time, you
>chide them?

Please provide an example of my words that you feel supports that
allegation.

My comments were regarding stated uninformed opinion, not an author
"seeking clarity and feedback." Here's the text of the offending
article so that you can see that there was no real request for
clarity; there was effectively a proposal by the author to amend FAA
Order 7110.65 without a clear understanding of the responsibilities of
air traffic controllers and pilots in command:

Message-ID: >
How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get
off the runway ?
I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it
doesn't sound right logically.
--> A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other
plane is actually in the process of turning off, then when some
clear action toward the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as
cleared and give a takeoff clearance.

Air traffic controllers issue their clearances based on their
judgment, and they amend them based on their judgment. The PIC uses
his certified visual acuity to assure that the takeoff path is clear
before commencing takeoff. It's simple. It works. And it emphasizes
the crucial role of situational awareness incumbent on the PIC.

If the OP's suggested policy thesis were to be spread among the
existing regulations, the increases in separation requirements in the
misguided attempt to increase safety, and resulting delays would make
the National Airspace System unworkable.

At what point would YOU implement pilot judgment in lieu of failsafe
operations? As long as humans are involved in the decision making
process, it's inevitable that compromises are made.

>I'd say that hubris is at fault here, but not on the part
>of the one seeking enlightenment.

One does not seek enlightenment through proselytizing uninformed
opinion.

>> Too many airmen act as though piloting is an inconsequential "hobby"
>> worthy of no more concern than a game of Chess. In my opinion, if the
>> act of becoming a pilot didn't change an airman's life, s/he has not
>> fully appreciated the responsibility expected of him by the FAA, his
>> passengers, his fellow airmen, and the public over whom he navigates.
>> A blasé attitude toward regulations reveals a lack of appreciation
>> for that responsibility.
>
>Wow. Did you have to file a flight plan before making a leap of that
>magnitude? Seriously. Did you honestly take the OP's post as a slap in
>the face of the FAA and GA in general??

I believe the OP fails to appreciate the wisdom contained in
regulations honed by decades of experience.

>> Over the past couple of decades, the level of cognitive, informed
>> discourse in this newsgroup has declined to where now there are many
>> who feel that inane, prattling chit-chat (I'm accusing you of this.)
>> is appropriate here. Due to that influx of noise, it appears that
>> many newly among the readership of this newsgroup have very low
>> expectations for participation in this forum. These lowered standards
>> lead to further lowering standards, and most importantly, drive away
>> those with valuable experience and insights to share. After all, who
>> want's to who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of
>> them?
>
>Really??

You find it surprising?

>"Unworthy"?

Serious airmen take airmanship seriously. Those who don't are
unworthy of being an airman.

>There are many different standards that can decline for a community such
>as this.

To which specific "community" are you referring, the community of
airman, the readership of this newsgroup, the participants in Usenet,
....?

>I might point out fellowship, civil discourse and a healthy, on-going
>desire to both learn and teach as appropriate being right up there near
>the top of the list.

Why do you feel that it is appropriate for the standards of
"fellowship, civil discourse and a healthy, on-going desire to both
learn and teach" to decline. (If that wasn't what you meant to say,
perhaps you can rephrase your statement.)

>> *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_or...
>>
>> 3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
>> Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until
>> prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable
>> assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff
>> roll.
>>
>> 3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
>> Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding
>> departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway
>> by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
>> a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the
>> runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See
>> FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by
>> reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft
>> needs only be airborne if the following minimum
>> distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)
>> 1. When only Category I aircraft are involved-
>> 3,000 feet.
>> 2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a
>> Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.
>> 3. When either the succeeding or both are
>> Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.
>> 4. When either is a Category III aircraft-
>> 6,000 feet.
>> 5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
>> visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
>> distance minima.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>"...if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft
>starts takeoff roll."
>
>You could have stopped right there and had all the topic you needed
>for discussion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Did you notice, that I had
posted the regulations in a follow up article in this message thread
previous to the in question?

>"Reasonable assurance" is nothing if not subjective.

You seem to have a firm grasp of the obvious. Is there a reason you
mention that?

>I really don't mean to over-step my bounds or imply a higher level of
>knowledge or experience than I possess, but this just seem to me to be
>more of an issue of social skills, than whether or not a particular
>point of discussion is justified.

It's not either.

You claim to have "been around the Usenet block a time or two,"
therefore you are probably familiar with newsgroup charters. Here's
the charter that was hammered out and agreed upon for
rec.aviation.piloting"

From: Geoff Peck )
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:

************************************************** *****************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
* ground support facilities, etc.
************************************************** *****************

I call your attention to the first word of the newsgroup charter:
INFORMATION. Uninformed opinion is not information.

--

"Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent."
- Dionysus the Elder

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:30:56 +0900, "donzaemon" > wrote
in >:

>I'll leave the last word to you , You and whomever else might want to
>play your immature name calling games.

I called no names.

And apparently, you didn't learn anything. Oh well....

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>My admonishment was meant to cause you think, and perform some
>_research_, BEFORE committing your follow up comments to Deja's
>eternal Usenet database archive: <http://www.deja.com>.
> just a few lines clipped ; )
Perhaps you could help ease the load on the database (noise) by putting this
degenerating thread to rest.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Richard Carpenter]

On Sep 13, 1:44 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Best of luck in your "Cessna pilot training program."
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:08 -0000, Richard Carpenter
> > wrote in
> . com>:
> [...]
>
> >> To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
> >> without you even bothering to expend the effort to consult them, seems
> >> the height of blind hubris to me.
>
> >First off, if everyone meticulously poured over all relevant FAA
> >guidelines and came to their own conclusions prior to posting their
> >thoughts here for feedback, two things would happen:
>
> >1) As you mention, the signal to noise ratio would very likely
> >increase, but only at the cost of actual productive discussion.
>
> So you find explicitly stated uninformed opinion contributes to
> productive discussion?

You bet I do. There are words to describe an environment where
discussion of ideas that may be contrary to established rule are
discouraged - few of them are positive.

> I find it reveals a mind that is too lazy to become informed.

It can, I suppose, but not necessarily.

> >The "knuckleheads" will still be showing their "knuckleheadedness".
>
> If the readership tolerates such, there is no question that it will
> continue. Usenet is built upon self-governance after all.

I agree. However, what I *do* dispute is the claim that this is one of
those instances.

> >2) Many misinterpretations of FAA rules and established protocols
> >would occur, as people would, in the interests of avoiding any
> >incidental offenses to the sensibilities of hard-liners such as
> >yourself, creating unecessary risks as the pilots proceed to operate
> >under their own, possibly mistaken, understanding of established code.
> >This, IMHO, is not worth the Usenet utopia for which would strive.
>
> I'm having some difficulty parsing that "sentence." But without
> researching the governing regulations, how can one intelligently
> discuss them?

Basically through experience. Besides, you keep claiming the OP came
in here and started spouting misinformation. It looked a *lot* more to
me like he was stating opinion - a disagreement with how a particular
situation was handled, whether it was according to regs or not.

> >> >The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
> >> >group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
> >> >a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.
>
> >> Without even bothering to consult the regulations, how can you
> >> possibly be qualified to pass judgment on what others assume or not?
>
> >Why would such prejudicial inclinations even be expected?
>
> Huh? You find the expectation that the author of an article perform
> some research before publishing it to be a "prejudicial inclination?"
> I believe it is an airman's responsibility to be aware of the
> regulations and orders governing aviation. If that's "a "prejudicial
> inclination" in your opinion, than so be it.

Prejudicial inclinations in this case would be the tendancy to assume
everything in the FAA regs is undeniably correct and illustrating of
best practice and above any sort of review. The mere fact that is is a
law/regulation doesn't automatically mean it's the best solution in
all situations.

> >Good Lord,
>
> Oh, now you're going to invoke your deity....

Right. That's exactly what that meant. Now you're just being
argumentative.

> >I can only imagine if my CFI were to follow your line of reasoning on
> >every uninformed question I might think to ask.
>
> Questions are not uninformed opinion. Why do you raise that issue?

The thread subject was phrased as a question. Most of the OP's initial
post was based on concepts that began with something to the effect of,
"How does the controller know..." or "...it doesn't sound right
logically."

> >Sure, there is a rec.aviation.student group, but, gee, where do I go once
> >I receive my certificate? Would you suggest that the newly-certified pilot
> >be left to make their own sense out of FAA regulations??
>
> Talk about "textbook non-sequitur" ...

Not at all. This question pertained directly to the execution of
normal flight procedures as they may or may not be dictated by the
FAA. The only leg to stand on here is the fact that the OP didn't
track down the specific article addressing the scenario in question,
even though it wouldn't really be relevant, anyway, as they were at
the same time expressing their disagreement with that particular reg.
Take a look back. It's been illustrated clearly that the ATC followed
protocol, so the question has been answered. That still leaves the
point that the OP disagreed with that protocol, at least at first
thought.

Basically, getting bent out of shape just because someone asks a
question about or takes issue with any regulation that is clearly
spelled out in the FAA regs is pretty judgemental on your part,
whether they looked it up or not.

> I suggesting that authors make an effort to research the subject
> before offering their opinion. Do you find that unreasonable?

Suggesting they do? Not really. Being so snarky about it? Yeah, pretty
much.

> >> >I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
> >> >effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.
>
> >> To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to the
> >> existing regulation, without even knowing what it is (and so
> >> admitting), reveals a certain self-assured certainty reminiscent of
> >> the only US president to hold office by virtue of Judicial Department
> >> decision, who consulted a "higher source" to reach the decision to
> >> plunge our nation into an unjustified, $3-billion per week war for at
> >> least the next decade. Thankfully, the scientific mind consults
> >> reality (not his imaginary friend) before reaching a conclusion. And
> >> so should airmen.
>
> >Textbook non-sequitur.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

Ain't Usenet grand? ;)

> >> >Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
> >> >depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
> >> >light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
> >> >there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
> >> >you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
> >> >are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
> >> >statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
> >> >balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
> >> >accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
> >> >several things that come together which would still cause an accident.. for
> >> >example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
> >> >stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
> >> >first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
> >> >the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
> >> >etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
> >> >this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
> >> >normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
> >> >that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
> >> >an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
> >> >guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
> >> >given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
> >> >scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
> >> >doing at all times.
>
> >> As a certificated airman, you should be aware, that it is your
> >> responsibility to operate your aircraft safely at all times. That's
> >> why FAA regulations make room for the PIC to deviate from regulations
> >> when his judgment dictates it. If you are only coming to the
> >> realization of that responsibility now, I must conclude that you
> >> haven't too much experience yet, or ...
>
> >You said it yourself - "when his judgement dictates it". Yet when a
> >pilot comes here seeking clarity and feedback on just such a judgement
> >call, both on their part and on the part of the ATC at the time, you
> >chide them?
>
> Please provide an example of my words that you feel supports that
> allegation.

Well, just for one example: "To think that your opinion would be
superior to those regulations, without you even bothering to expend
the effort to consult them, seems the height of blind hubris to me."

I'll repeat. Why do automatically label a person unjustified in
voicing the opinion that a given regulation might not be as well
thought out as it could be, merely because they didn't look it up? The
fact that it *is* specified in the regs and they didn't go find it
really has little to do with their opinion that there may be a better
way, right or wrong.

> My comments were regarding stated uninformed opinion, not an author
> "seeking clarity and feedback."

So, what you're saying is that a person shouldn't voice an opinion
unless they've gone to a level of effort that you deem appropriate.

> Here's the text of the offending
> article so that you can see that there was no real request for
> clarity; there was effectively a proposal by the author to amend FAA
> Order 7110.65 without a clear understanding of the responsibilities of
> air traffic controllers and pilots in command:


> Message-ID: >
> How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get
> off the runway ?
> I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it
> doesn't sound right logically.
> --> A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other
> plane is actually in the process of turning off, then when some
> clear action toward the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as
> cleared and give a takeoff clearance.

Like I said. The subject, itself, was phrased as a question. The OP
stated that "it didn't sound right logically". Looks like stated
opinion inviting feedback to me.

> Air traffic controllers issue their clearances based on their
> judgment, and they amend them based on their judgment. The PIC uses
> his certified visual acuity to assure that the takeoff path is clear
> before commencing takeoff. It's simple. It works. And it emphasizes
> the crucial role of situational awareness incumbent on the PIC.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on either the letter of the reg or
it's validity - only on your assertion that the OP's opinion isn't
valid merely because he didn't confirm the existance of the reg in the
first place. He wasn't disputing that. He clearly stated that he
didn't know if that was according to reg or not. He merely stated that
he didn't feel it *should* be.

> If the OP's suggested policy thesis were to be spread among the
> existing regulations, the increases in separation requirements in the
> misguided attempt to increase safety, and resulting delays would make
> the National Airspace System unworkable.

No it wouldn't.

> At what point would YOU implement pilot judgment in lieu of failsafe
> operations? As long as humans are involved in the decision making
> process, it's inevitable that compromises are made.

Sure is. What's your point?

> >I'd say that hubris is at fault here, but not on the part
> >of the one seeking enlightenment.
>
> One does not seek enlightenment through proselytizing uninformed
> opinion.

Like you said yourself, we're all entitled to an opinion. You just
don't get to decide if it has to be correct or not.

> >> Too many airmen act as though piloting is an inconsequential "hobby"
> >> worthy of no more concern than a game of Chess. In my opinion, if the
> >> act of becoming a pilot didn't change an airman's life, s/he has not
> >> fully appreciated the responsibility expected of him by the FAA, his
> >> passengers, his fellow airmen, and the public over whom he navigates.
> >> A blasé attitude toward regulations reveals a lack of appreciation
> >> for that responsibility.
>
> >Wow. Did you have to file a flight plan before making a leap of that
> >magnitude? Seriously. Did you honestly take the OP's post as a slap in
> >the face of the FAA and GA in general??
>
> I believe the OP fails to appreciate the wisdom contained in
> regulations honed by decades of experience.

Another leap. Disagreement with one concept does not indicate a
disregard of them all.

> >> Over the past couple of decades, the level of cognitive, informed
> >> discourse in this newsgroup has declined to where now there are many
> >> who feel that inane, prattling chit-chat (I'm accusing you of this.)
> >> is appropriate here. Due to that influx of noise, it appears that
> >> many newly among the readership of this newsgroup have very low
> >> expectations for participation in this forum. These lowered standards
> >> lead to further lowering standards, and most importantly, drive away
> >> those with valuable experience and insights to share. After all, who
> >> want's to who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of
> >> them?
>
> >Really??
>
> You find it surprising?

No, "really??" as in "you're kidding me, right?"

> >"Unworthy"?
>
> Serious airmen take airmanship seriously. Those who don't are
> unworthy of being an airman.

Who said he doesn't take it seriously? You're really spinning this one
hard.

> >There are many different standards that can decline for a community such
> >as this.
>
> To which specific "community" are you referring, the community of
> airman, the readership of this newsgroup, the participants in Usenet,
> ...?

This newsgroup mainly, but it can certainly be applied to a wider
scope.

> >I might point out fellowship, civil discourse and a healthy, on-going
> >desire to both learn and teach as appropriate being right up there near
> >the top of the list.
>
> Why do you feel that it is appropriate for the standards of
> "fellowship, civil discourse and a healthy, on-going desire to both
> learn and teach" to decline. (If that wasn't what you meant to say,
> perhaps you can rephrase your statement.)

Read it again. That's not what I said.

> >> *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_or....
>
> >> 3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
> >> Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until
> >> prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable
> >> assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff
> >> roll.
>
> >> 3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
> >> Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding
> >> departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway
> >> by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
> >> a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the
> >> runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See
> >> FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by
> >> reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft
> >> needs only be airborne if the following minimum
> >> distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)
> >> 1. When only Category I aircraft are involved-
> >> 3,000 feet.
> >> 2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a
> >> Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.
> >> 3. When either the succeeding or both are
> >> Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.
> >> 4. When either is a Category III aircraft-
> >> 6,000 feet.
> >> 5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
> >> visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
> >> distance minima.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >"...if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft
> >starts takeoff roll."
>
> >You could have stopped right there and had all the topic you needed
> >for discussion.
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Did you notice, that I had
> posted the regulations in a follow up article in this message thread
> previous to the in question?

No. I'm saying you didn't have to quote the entire reg when the mere
inclusion of a term such as "reasonable assurance" opens it up to
interpretation. Are you just trying to be obtuse?

> >"Reasonable assurance" is nothing if not subjective.
>
> You seem to have a firm grasp of the obvious. Is there a reason you
> mention that?

Yes. The point is evidently lost on you. The regs aren't some exact
black and white no questions asked doctrine. As they are open to
interpretation, they are also open to debate.

> >I really don't mean to over-step my bounds or imply a higher level of
> >knowledge or experience than I possess, but this just seem to me to be
> >more of an issue of social skills, than whether or not a particular
> >point of discussion is justified.
>
> It's not either.
>
> You claim to have "been around the Usenet block a time or two,"
> therefore you are probably familiar with newsgroup charters. Here's
> the charter that was hammered out and agreed upon for
> rec.aviation.piloting"
>
> From: Geoff Peck )
> Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
>
> The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:
>
> ************************************************** *****************
> * Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
> * which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
> * rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
> * flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
> * characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
> * emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
> * flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
> * ground support facilities, etc.
> ************************************************** *****************
>
> I call your attention to the first word of the newsgroup charter:
> INFORMATION. Uninformed opinion is not information.
>

Perhaps not in this context, but it can most certainly facilitate the
passing on of such. At the very least it can be considered a
solicitation for informed and "more correct" information. As you more
specifically dictate, of course.

--
Rich

[Richard Carpenter]

On Sep 13, 1:44 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Best of luck in your "Cessna pilot training program."
>

By the way, I'm curious as to what point you were trying to make
there. Did I not use the correct terms to refer to the Cessna
curriculum employed at flight schools around the world?

Honestly. Get over yourself.

--
Rich

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Richard Carpenter" <> wrote

> Honestly. Get over yourself.

You will soon find that a good way to increase the signal to noise ratio is
to filter out MXSMANIC, and right after that, block Larry. MANY other
people who block nobody else, block Larry.

That is the best way for Larry to get over himself. Don't read him.

And welcome, and with whatever curriculum you use! <g>
--
Jim in NC

PS, for an easily recognized sig line, consider adding something other than
just Rich, perhaps like I do for Jim. There are already several of these
"Rich" people running around out there!

[Newps]

donzaemon wrote:

> Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
> depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has
> shed light on how it works in the real world.


I think you'll fit in real well around here.

[Newps]

Don't worry about Larry. His sole contribution to the group is to
repost Avweb articles and bitch when people don't explicitly follow some
long ago written "rules" for this newsgroup. As if anybody gives a rats
ass.




Richard Carpenter wrote:

> On Sep 13, 1:44 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>Best of luck in your "Cessna pilot training program."
>>
>
>
> By the way, I'm curious as to what point you were trying to make
> there. Did I not use the correct terms to refer to the Cessna
> curriculum employed at flight schools around the world?
>
> Honestly. Get over yourself.
>
> --
> Rich
>

[Ricky]

> You will soon find that a good way to increase the signal to noise ratio is
> to filter out MXSMANIC, and right after that, block Larry. MANY other
> people who block nobody else, block Larry.

LOL, that's exactly what I was thinking. I'm new here (though in
Usenet since 94?) and figured out mxsmaniac quickly. Thankfully with
this thread, Larry's probably gone, too.

Ricky

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> [top posting repositioned so the flow of thought is chronological]


What Larry means is, June is Top Posting Month at rec.aviation.
(Why? Just because it's June, June, June! <g>)

A montage of Larry's instinct driven posturing, bursting forth:

1. ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum.
2. entitled to respect solely by virtue demonstrated his worth,
3. meant to cause you [to] think,
4. your (admittedly uninformed) opinions.
5. To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
6. how can you possibly be qualified to pass judgment
7. To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to
8. the level of cognitive, informed discourse
9. These lowered standards lead to further lowering standards,
10. those with valuable experience and insights to share.

11. who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of them?

Oh no! He's (once again) entered his annual 'must steal the Enterprise and
return to Vulcan' ....rut.

I still read Larry, it's just now I sometimes need a shower afterward ...and
a cigarette. :-)


Montblack

[Richard Carpenter[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>> [top posting repositioned so the flow of thought is chronological]
>
>
> What Larry means is, June is Top Posting Month at rec.aviation.
> (Why? Just because it's June, June, June! <g>)
>
> A montage of Larry's instinct driven posturing, bursting forth:
>
> 1. ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum.
> 2. entitled to respect solely by virtue demonstrated his worth,
> 3. meant to cause you [to] think,
> 4. your (admittedly uninformed) opinions.
> 5. To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
> 6. how can you possibly be qualified to pass judgment
> 7. To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to
> 8. the level of cognitive, informed discourse
> 9. These lowered standards lead to further lowering standards,
> 10. those with valuable experience and insights to share.
>
> 11. who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of them?
>
> Oh no! He's (once again) entered his annual 'must steal the Enterprise
> and return to Vulcan' ....rut.
>
> I still read Larry, it's just now I sometimes need a shower afterward
> ...and a cigarette. :-)
>

All I know is that you often hear about how pilots are quick to mention the
fact that they are pilots, and I can't say as I blame them. The day I get
my certificate will be a very proud one indeed for me.

However, if it ever turns me into a pompous, judgemental pain in the
posterior, I hope someone is ready and willing to bludgeon me about the
noggin as necessary.

--
Richard Carpenter
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Morgans wrote:
>You will soon find that a good way to increase the signal to noise ratio is
>to filter out MXSMANIC, and right after that, block Larry. MANY other
>people who block nobody else, block Larry.

>And welcome, and with whatever curriculum you use! <g>

I would like to learn how to block some users.
I have searched and not found what I want to know.
Would someone please direct me to where I might find the information?
Thanks
K

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Montblack]

("Kloudy via AviationKB.com" wrote)
> I would like to learn how to block some users.
> I have searched and not found what I want to know.
> Would someone please direct me to where I might find the information?


What newsreader are you using?

I am using M$ Outlook Express 6.0.


Montblack

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Montblack wrote:
>
>What newsreader are you using?
>
>I am using M$ Outlook Express 6.0.
>
>Montblack
Escuse my ignorance. I mainly read stuff thru AviationKB.com. I have some
research to do about newsreaders and Usenet and what they are..
Then I will work out the performance features.

Thanks Montblack

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Richard Carpenter"> wrote

> All I know is that you often hear about how pilots are quick to mention
> the
> fact that they are pilots, and I can't say as I blame them. The day I get
> my certificate will be a very proud one indeed for me.
>
> However, if it ever turns me into a pompous, judgemental pain in the
> posterior, I hope someone is ready and willing to bludgeon me about the
> noggin as necessary.

<chuckle> I doubt if that will be a problem for you, but we will hold you
to it! <g>

I'm convinced that those with personality defects before they get the PPL
will usually still have them afterwards, and sometimes magnified a bit.
Those that begin with a level head will exit with the same.

Of course, then there are MX's. Crazy as a loon, nutso, clinically
classifiable, and he doesn't even want to fly, but just pretends that he is
superior to pilots in every way.

So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your airborne/ landbound
situation. Just another manifestation of human personalities and disorders.
--
Jim in NC