Go around, NOW!!

I understand that only the best controllers get selected for OSH duty

No. Anybody from the Great Lakes region, and only that region, is
eligible. That's the only criteria.

Just curious; where did you get that information?
--
Jim in NC

Jim...

The operative word here is "eligible". The statement is true on its face --
only Great Lakes region controllers are eligible. However, being "eligible"
and being "selected" are two totally different things.

I am "eligible" to pitch for the Red Sox this year. My chances of being
selected are slim.

Jim in GV



"Morgans" wrote in message
...

I understand that only the best controllers get selected for OSH duty

No. Anybody from the Great Lakes region, and only that region, is
eligible. That's the only criteria.

Just curious; where did you get that information?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

I understand that only the best controllers get selected for OSH duty

No. Anybody from the Great Lakes region, and only that region, is
eligible. That's the only criteria.


Just curious; where did you get that information?

I worked at GFK for 4 years. Every January the bid for OSH comes out.
Anybody interested fills out the paperwork and sends it in. To say that
only the best work at OSH is a joke. Same goes for Sun N Fun, only
Southern region controlelrs need apply. It's a government boondoggle.
Always has been. Out here in the West our boondoggle is fire towers.

Newps wrote:

No. Anybody from the Great Lakes region, and only that region, is
eligible. That's the only criteria.

It used to be that they were selected and invited based on their
ability. Now it's doled out as a union perk.

Jim Burns wrote:
Although he sounded rude it was obvious he wasn't having a good day
and at
the very least had his hands full, I'm just curious about what
standard
procedures are for tower controllers maintaining visual contact with
planes
once they are actually in the traffic pattern.

Standard procedure is to know where everyone is to the extent necessary
to ensure that separation on the runway is provided. It is actually
acceptable to clear an aircraft to land when not in sight, provided the
traffic situation is such that loss of separation on the runway will
not occur.

In a situation where there are lots of planes in the pattern, the
normal procedure is to use visual sequencing and that does mean
maintaining visual contact - but this is not always possible. Bright
sun and obstacles around the tower can interfere with this. This does
not relieve the controller of his responsibility for correct sequencing
and ensuring separation on the runway.

I believe it was the creator of Dilbert who pointed out that aviation
was an industry that had made no progress in decades, and that he
believed flight control RADAR still involved having interns on towers
with binoculars screaming "Turn right, turn right." Spookily accurate
for someone without aviation knowledge. My point is basically that
both pilot and controller made mistakes, but the system is such that
mistakes like this are guaranteed to happen.

I have also noticed that when pilots screw up in a situation where the
controller is ahead of the game and not screwing up, there is very
little chewing out on the radio. The pilot is, at worst, told to call
the tower - calmly and professionally. Every time a controller is
chewing out someone on the frequency, he is screwing up - and usually
it's not his first screwup either. He's mad because he knows he didn't
do a good job with the situation, and he's taking it out on the pilot.
Basically, it's unprofessional.

Michael

Michael wrote:
the tower - calmly and professionally. Every time a controller is
chewing out someone on the frequency, he is screwing up - and usually
it's not his first screwup either. He's mad because he knows he didn't
do a good job with the situation, and he's taking it out on the pilot.

But isn't this true of any situation? I've noticed road rage, nasty
people in parking lots, softball fields, etc. And the one being
hostile is always the one who is wrong -- and they probably realize
it and refuse to deal with it in a rational manner.

"Blanche" wrote in message

I've noticed road rage... And the one being
hostile is always the one who is wrong .....

I disagree. It is wrong to react with hostility, but the genesis of that
frustration and the ultimate cause of the rage is usually found elsewhere.
There are incredible numbers of oblivious people driving cars, some of them
truly stupid. The only real requirement is to *pay attention*, and they
fail at even that.

Jim Burns wrote:

This past Sunday, while visiting Lawrenceville, GA (KLZU Class C just under
the outer ATL Class B), traffic was landing and departing 25. The
controller was busy, coordinating with Atlanta, handling clearance delivery,
ground, and tower simultaneously. He was broadcasting on all frequencies,
while receiving GC/CD and Tower separately. We started engines and prepared
to call for taxi instructions when I heard him blurt out "Cessna 1234 go
around NOW!!! YOU ARE LINED UP WITH RUNWAY 7, YOU WERE CLEARED TO LAND
RUNWAY 25, 25 IS THE ACTIVE RUNWAY, RIGHT TURN, GO AROUND NOW!!! I HAVE
LANDING TRAFFIC 25!!" (this guy was rightfully ****ed and obviously
rattled) Then he issued a right turn and a go around to traffic landing 25
and lit into the Cessna driver again. "What were you doing? why were you
landing runway 7, I cleared you #2 on 25" The Cessna pilot must have
responded with some excuse about a mistake and the controller came back
"mistakes are what get people in airplanes killed, next time you make sure
you know where you are! Now join a left downwind for Runway 25, that's
runway 25, traffic at your 3:00 opposite direction, a Piper on an upwind leg
for runway 25, I said runway 25!"


And if the pilot would have landed and caused a loss of separation the
FAA would have hammered that facility for only having one controller
working. After that reaming if it would have been me I would have had
my passenger say "kiss my ass".

"Newps" wrote in message
...
And if the pilot would have landed and caused a loss of separation the
FAA would have hammered that facility for only having one controller
working. After that reaming if it would have been me I would have had
my passenger say "kiss my ass".

I've been wondering about the "second" controller. It's always been my
understanding that there is supposed to be 2 on duty, every controll tower
I've ever visited always had at least 2. Although at that particular time,
he only had 2 aircraft in the air, he was also talking to me and the fellow
behind me on the ground, a guy on clearance delivery, and a helicopter
inbound. I never heard the "second" controllers voice. Maybe #2 was taking
a #2?

Jim

Jim Burns wrote:



I've been wondering about the "second" controller. It's always been my
understanding that there is supposed to be 2 on duty, every controll tower
I've ever visited always had at least 2.

The number depends on how much traffic can be expected at a given time
of day and how many people are on duty. There's nothing worse for a
tower manager and his supervisors than to have something happen and the
investigation reveals controllers on the couch.


Although at that particular time,
he only had 2 aircraft in the air, he was also talking to me and the fellow
behind me on the ground, a guy on clearance delivery, and a helicopter
inbound. I never heard the "second" controllers voice. Maybe #2 was taking
a #2?

What time of day?