A tower-induced go-round

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

I presumed nothing, other than that I was cleared to land. When the
controller revoked that clearance (by inadvertently misjudging the
spacing between aircraft) I went around -- simple as that.


Previously you said the spacing was good and the controller initiated the go
around when the 172 unexpectedly stopped on the runway. Now you say the
spacing was poor and you chose to go around. Which is it?

I believe you were formerly in the newspaper business. Were you forced out
of that career by an inability to keep a story straight?

"Tim" wrote in message
...

I have been to many fine class D airports. I would take most over the
uncontrolled fields I have been. Cowboys for sure at the uncontrolled
airport near me. I was put on a waiting list at KFRG - glad I decided to
skip that. It is too busy - busier than the class c near here and the
controllers are rude. Then went to KHWV - that is a dangerous place to
fly - non-towered - insane amounts of scary piloting there and I am
finally at KISP - class C. I like it. Very professional people. Itis
nice to have radar services as the default and good for IFR flights
instead of going non towered.

I agree about KFRG, the controllers are regulars at being jerks, I think
mostly because they are underqualified for what they have to deal with. I
was put in a hold over the bridge near the shore for 30 minutes with 10
other planes all looking to not crash into each other. I was glad for the
TIS-A that day. Finally I headed north and called up from the northeast
where I was promptly let into the pattern.

I trained and was based at KHPN and they have more traffic and a more
difficult mix what with students, spamcans, corporates and commuter
airliners. They rarely got surly and were much more accomodating. Perhaps
KFRG needs NY Approach to assign a squawk and sequence arrivals like they do
for KHPN.

KISP was always a joy to fly into. Much sleepier than KFRG.

wrote in message
oups.com...

A tower controller has NEVER been killed because of their screw up. It is
always the
pilot who bites the dust. When I stated a 360 for spacing was my first
choice I never
said I wasn't going to make a radio report to the tower, in fact That has
happened to
me before and as I started my 360 the tower was notified by me, it is then
up to them
to fix the mess they created.


Yup, just as it's up to them to fix the messes pilots create.



I am going home alive, **** on the incompetent tower controller who
stuffed a plane
right in front of me after I was cleared to land.


Was spacing a problem?



Funny ol Steven P. Mc Nicoll threw in the side line of tower operators not
making
enough money, and there will be a shortage of them because of it. One day
he might
even admit a controller actually made a mistake and a pilot fixed it and
lived to fly
again.


Me? Admit a controller made a mistake? I'm as likely to do that as you are
to admit a pilot made a mistake.



I have to admit he can quote all the rules and seems up to speed on
traffic flows
and probably was a great controller before he became mighter then the rest
of
us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He still is.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)


No, but he may very well have had radar. Mizzou approach's ASR is about 7
miles north of JEF. With a BRITE scope in the tower the controller would be
in a far better position to judge spacing than you were. (And we've already
established how well you can judge spacing, even with GPS... :-)

TheSmokingGnu wrote:
You'll get lots of people
that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
because he thought he could depart via the upwind),

What's wrong with departing via the upwind?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

Alan Gerber wrote:
What's wrong with departing via the upwind?

I think you'd find it exceedingly difficult to do so when you must fly
_through_ the gentleman in front of you.

The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.

Even more distressing was the fact that he didn't divert properly around
the obviously slower traffic (that is, to the right; he kept on his
departure vector), and was either oblivious or didn't care about giving
or listening to position reports.

But whadda ya gonna do? Kick the ball, fly around George, kick the ball...

TheSmokingGnu

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
dangerous airspace in America.

I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of
the week.


Why would the presence of a control tower render airspace unsafe?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:

a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
control too many things going on.


What things is the guy in the tower trying to see and control?



b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
of traffic effectively.


So it's pilots that make Class D unsafe?

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

In non-radar D, very much so. You have to be on the ball all the time and
be sure to make precise radio calls.


Precise radio calls are a rarity.



Contrariwise, uncontrolled space can be a zoo, with a high traffic
density, and weekend warriors that don't (or won't) follow proper
procedure, in the cockpit or on the radio. You'll get lots of people that,
for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had a
from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed because
he thought he could depart via the upwind), or omitting initial position
calls, calls to final, calls clear of runway, omitting the ident, etc.
etc. etc. Add in some jet traffic along with the standard piston
assortment, and things can get ugly, really fast.


Part 91 specifies direction of turns for arriving aircraft, but not for
departing aircraft. The AIM states; "If departing the traffic pattern,
continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a
left?hand traffic pattern; to the right when in a right?hand traffic
pattern) beyond the departure end of the runway, after reaching pattern
altitude." Things like that probably lead people to believe departing via
the upwind is entirely proper.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.


What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?