A tower-induced go-round

You mean he has exposed your muddled thinking, and caused you to doubt
your own analysis of the incident?

Oh, God help me. Now the *other* King of Anal is on board.

No, Larry, that's not what I mean. The only muddled thinking here was
mine when I thought people like you might benefit from hearing about
my experience.

I'll say it again: If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far
out I was when the student was cleared to land in front of me, that's
his option -- but please don't side with his form of insanity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Sounds more like you just find my questions too difficult to answer.

Nope, just too stupid.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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

Nope, just too stupid.


Jay, I thought you'd given up! I thought I had outlived my usefulness to
you in this thread!

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
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.

Gee, ya think? :-)

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Why would the presence of a control tower render airspace unsafe?

I wouldn't agree with that, but it could be a risk factor.

There's a phenomenon that's been observed that people change their safety
margins in the face of safety equipment. People wearing bicycle helmets
tend to cycle in a riskier manner; people with ABS brakes drive a little
faster, and a little more aggressively, trusting the brakes to save them
if needed.

I suspect this is also a factor when there's a tower -- people let up on
their traffic scan, and lose some common sense, assuming the controller
won't let anything bad happen to them.

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

"Alan Gerber" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't agree with that, but it could be a risk factor.

There's a phenomenon that's been observed that people change their safety
margins in the face of safety equipment. People wearing bicycle helmets
tend to cycle in a riskier manner; people with ABS brakes drive a little
faster, and a little more aggressively, trusting the brakes to save them
if needed.

I suspect this is also a factor when there's a tower -- people let up on
their traffic scan, and lose some common sense, assuming the controller
won't let anything bad happen to them.


It appears many pilots believe ATC provides VFR/VFR separation in Class D
airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
It appears many pilots believe ATC provides VFR/VFR separation in Class D
airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.

That's sort of a chicken-and-egg question. I agree with you, but the net
result is that class D airspace *can* be more dangerous, due to the
presence of those ignorant pilots. And it's definitely more dangerous for
exactly those ignorant pilots.

I trained at a class D airport, and my instructor made very sure that I
knew exactly what the controllers were there for, and what they weren't
there for.

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

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

There is absolutely nothing in my story that is inconsistent, nor is
there anything that I would have -- or should have -- done
differently.

Nothing in my telling of the tale has changed from start to finish,
either. It is only Steven -- and you, apparently -- that sees change
where none exists.


Let's check the record.

On 3/16 you wrote:
"Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway."

On 3/18 you wrote:
"Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing."

Going from "spaced just fine" to "he misjudged the spacing" sure looks like
a change to me.



If Steven wants to quibble about how precisely far out I was when the
student was in front of me, that's his option -- but please don't side
with his form of anal insanity.


I don't recall quibbling about how far out you were. I recall asking how
far out you were and you being unable to provide an accurate response,
despite having GPS. You finally decided you were about 1/2 mile out when
the student landed 1500' down the runway. If your estimates are accurate
there was proper spacing.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Neither,,,because the Pilot incommand has the FINAL responsibility for
the safety of any given flight. That leaves out a controller that
spaces planes too closely and any FAA order that can't conform to a
given situation on short notice.


What controller spaces planes too closely?

FAR 91.3(a) states; "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly
responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that
aircraft." If a preceding properly-spaced aircraft uses his final authority
as to the operation of his aircraft and stops on the runway ahead of you,
forcing the tower controller to issue a go around, who would you hold
directly responsible?

It appears many pilots believe ATC provides VFR/VFR separation in Class D
airspace. It's not the presence of the control tower that's responsible for
any perceived decrease in safety, it's ignorant pilots.

Ah, forever the non-radar Class D controller's cop-out. "We only
provide sequencing, not separation."

In other words, you THINK you know where we are, and you HOPE we'll
follow your directions, and you PRAY it will all work out, and we had
BETTER follow your instructions (or else!) -- but, oh, shoot, it
*didn't* work out when I directed both of you to land on the same
runway? Dang, sorry about that -- we were only providing sequencing
(not!) -- it was up to YOU to not actually hit each other.

To which I say: Either give the poor sap in the tower radar, or stay
home. Go away. Save our tax money and possibly our lives. Uncontrolled
airports work just fine, thank you very much, and I'll trust my
skills, and the skills of my fellow airmen before I EVER again trust a
guy on the ground with binoculars.

We don't need Class D'oh! faux air traffic "control", anywhere.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"