fun with controllers at OSU

In article , Newps
wrote:


Read his post. The controller was ****ed off about the fact that he
stopped, not that he wanted to back taxi.

I guess that wasn't clear from the original message. I read it as he
stopped on the runway, then asked a question about a 180 on the runway
while sitting stopped on the runway, and THAT'S what annoyed him.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

In a previous article, Newps said:
We have an instructor here that will ask for options
and then have his student fly the length of our 2 mile runway at about 3
agl. In that 2 miles the student may touch the runway 5 or 6 times.
The instructor just can't understand why this is a problem.

A touch and go, an option or a stop and go allows you one operation. As
soon as you takeoff again you cannot then land without another
clearance. As soon as you takeoff I can launch the next departure. Now
if you land again that is certain to be a pilot deviation as you have
caused a loss of seperation.

That wasn't multiple operations, just one t&g with a lot of bounces. I'd
hate to think how many pilot deviations I've done with some of my
landings. :-)


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
please excuse my typing, but my whole left arm is in a cast. and i don't
mean _the king and i_.

Garner Miller wrote:

In article , Bob Gardner
wrote:


According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, you were right and the
controller was wrong. You might want to talk to a quality control person at
OSU.


How do you figure?

From the P/CG:

"OPTION APPROACH- An approach requested and conducted by a pilot which
will result in either a touch-and-go, missed approach, low approach,
stop- and-go, or full stop landing."

Says the same thing the AIM says. A back-taxi is not on the above list.


The OP said he "requested a back taxi", it didn't say he just did it
without asking. Prior to requesting the back taxi, he said he landed
and stopped on the runway. That clearly IS permitted by the "option"
landing clearance. I say he did nothing wrong and the controller
doesn't understand what "cleared for the option" means. Now, the
controller certainly wasn't obligated to approve a back-taxi, but the OP
certainly did nothing wrong based on the description given.

Matt

IIRC the tower operators at OSU are non-Federal. They're definitely
less cooperative than any other facility in the area.

It sounds like you were right, if that means much except from the point of
education or personal gratification. If this is the worst thing that a
controller has said you're doing pretty well- you didn't violate any FAR's,
no one was hurt, and you didn't damage anything.

The controllers are human too, and get tired, make mistakes, and have a hard
time knowing all of the often ridiculous FAA regulations, just like pilots.
If the particular controller has had a habit of snapping at people and
berating them over the air, then it should be reported to the tower supe as
well as the customer assurance controller at the nearest facility (Newps can
provide the exact job titles). You can call them and report the time and
date of the incident, and ask that they review the tapes.

Also, you should take it up with the airport staff as well as the FBO, since
such individuals have a negative impact on business (who wants to go to an
airport with a bad reputation and the anticipation that you'll get yelled
at, particularly if you're unfamiliar?) If enough pilots complain about
their treatment over the air, you can bet that something will be done
quickly.

The worst thing would be to get into a ****ing contest on the air. Also, if
you did make a major error like a runway incursion, etc remember that if you
call the tower and admit you did something majorly wrong (like an obvious
FAR violation) your comments could potentially be used against you in an FAA
action.

IIRC the tower operators at OSU are non-Federal. They're definitely
less cooperative than any other facility in the area.

Services provided by Midwest.
The office of one flying club based on the field has the address for
filing complaints about the services received, provided by the FAA.

Viperdoc wrote:
then it should be reported to the tower supe as
well as the customer assurance controller at the nearest facility (Newps can
provide the exact job titles). You can call them and report the time and
date of the incident, and ask that they review the tapes.

If it's a nonfederal tower then a call to the nearest big city FAA tower
is in order. The FAA oversees these towers and can have an impact on
stuff like this.

Don Poitras wrote:



And I think this is where the op messed up. To my mind, a "full stop
landing" is one in which you land and exit the runway before stopping.
A stop-and-go means you will stop and immediately take off again. None
of these options includes stopping and then doing something other than
taking off from that point and I believe this is what the controller
was miffed about.

An immediate "go" isn't required. Nice, but not required.

"Montblack" wrote

At OSH I saw a low 'departure' on 27 the final Saturday evening. It was
low
enough to wonder if the prop(s) would hit. Don't recall the make/model.
IIRC
they retracted the wheels then stayed low for (what looked like) some hot
doggin' - scary. And I'm all for a little fun.

While it is certainly possible that hot doggin' was going on, it also could
be that someone took off with more fuel and cargo than they should have, and
therefore had a high seat suckin' - pucker factor goin' on. g
--
Jim in NC

Alan Gerber wrote:



It sounded to me like the problem was that the OP actually stopped on the
runway, and then called to request the back-taxi *while* stopped on the
runway. I can see how the controller would object to this.


No reason for a controller to be upset about this, particularly since
the controller told him on the radio there was no other traffic. The
controller was wrong on all counts.