You noted: "And once again we see that one procedure does not fit all
situations."

Please allow me to respectfully disagree with your sentiments. A few weeks
ago their was a thread regarding the on-runway collision a few years ago in
the Canary Islands (?). One of the major causes of that collision was the
lack of a standard communications protocol.

Whether one protocol is superior to another for a given situation is totally
irrelevant. The important thing is to have a consistent protocol. A pilot
who normally flies in and out of Podunk Airport and is used to
"double-clicking" would be in bad shape when he headed toward O'Hare. The
"double-click" might be fine at Podunk, but would be totally unacceptable at
O'Hare. The protocol should be designed for O'Hare and other major airports,
then adopted at all other airports.

After all, the double-click that is fine at Podunk would be foreign to a
pilot whose base is O'Hare. And one of the beauties of our system is that on
a given day, most airports will see the majority of their operations
involving aircraft that are not based there. Are they going to know about
the "double-click"?



"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Bill Denton ) wrote:

And, if you are in a crowded area, your "double-click" would probably
"step
on" someone else's communication. If an acknowledgement is not required,
it
would seem the best practice would be not to acknowledge, especially in
congested airspace...

And once again we see that one procedure does not fit all situations.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---