A tower-induced go-round

wrote in message
ups.com...

Hell, Thats an easy answer. Even a caveman or a pilot can answer that.
G


Well, as you didn't answer it, I'll have to assume you are neither.



Read this real slow thickhead...


No need. I can read it quickly, no matter how slowly you wrote it.



A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
preceding plane was still on the rollout.


There was no need for that.



He/she should not have
waited for the guy/girl to make a complete stop on the runway.


The pilot should not have made a complete stop on the runway regardless.



If you
just go back and reread this whole thread it should become crystal
clear to a sane and competent controller that Jay was given a go
around because of the tower controller was asleep at the switch.


How could the controller give Jay a go around while he was asleep at the
switch?

To those of us that have read this whole thread and also have some knowledge
of ATC procedures it is crystal clear that Jay had plenty of room behind the
preceding 172, and that an alert controller issued a go around to Jay when
he observed the 172 had stopped on the runway. Good for him.



There
are those of us who make a living in the private sector and have to
prove ourselves every day to stay employed.


Just like the controllers at JEF.



Then there is the
government workers who BS their way though life and the system to make
it to retirement, milking the system the whole time.... Jay and I and
alot of others work for the private sector and are surviving in the
black. Your employer is the US government who is 9+ trillion in the
red. It is either your move or checkmate on our part...


You can only hope to perform your job as well as I perform mine.



In closing I still admit that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll knows his regs
probably better then most other aviation people ,, But he forgot his
common sense at the office..


Those with common sense don't hold controllers responsible for a pilot's
mistake.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

A competent tower controller that just stuck a slower and higher
landing trafffic in front of another aircraft that he/she ALREADY
cleared to land should have stated to the preceding plane " exit the
runway without delay, landing traffic on a 1/2 mile final" while the
preceding plane was still on the rollout.

There was no need for that.

Most people know that the first order of business when you've landed is
to get OFF the runway as soon as able. If this was a student with an
instructor, the instructor KNOWS that, and should have also been aware
that someone was on final behind them. Perhaps there was a valid reason
for stopping that they just did not announce on the radio?

The pilot should not have made a complete stop on
the runway regardless.

Unless there was some emergency/safety factor that prompted them to stop
on the runway.

If you just go back and reread this whole thread it
should become crystal clear to a sane and competent
controller that Jay was given a go around because of
the tower controller was asleep at the switch.

Maybe so, but if you're only 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed,
you should be *ready* to do a go-round if they don't exit the runway
promptly REGARDLESS of whether or not the controller tells you to do so.
At least, that's what I was taught.

To those of us that have read this whole thread and also have
some knowledge of ATC procedures it is crystal clear that
Jay had plenty of room behind the preceding 172, and that
an alert controller issued a go around to Jay when he observed
the 172 had stopped on the runway. Good for him.

Yeah...so what's the problem? No offense, Jay, but IMO you should have
been prepared for the go-around.

Those with common sense don't hold controllers
responsible for a pilot's mistake.

To which pilot are you referring? the one who stopped on the runway?
Unless you talked with him/her, hard to know if that was a "mistake" or
if he/she had a valid reason for stopping there. I wouldn't assume they
didn't just because they didn't announce it on frequency.

"Shirl" wrote in message
...

Most people know that the first order of business when you've landed is
to get OFF the runway as soon as able. If this was a student with an
instructor, the instructor KNOWS that, and should have also been aware
that someone was on final behind them. Perhaps there was a valid reason
for stopping that they just did not announce on the radio?

The pilot should not have made a complete stop on
the runway regardless.

Unless there was some emergency/safety factor that prompted them to stop
on the runway.


Recall that Jay discussed the situation with "the guys in the FBO", that's
where he learned it was a student. Had there been an emergency or some
valid reason for stopping I'm sure it would have been mentioned.



Maybe so, but if you're only 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed,
you should be *ready* to do a go-round if they don't exit the runway
promptly REGARDLESS of whether or not the controller tells you to do so.
At least, that's what I was taught.


But he wasn't 1/2 mile behind the guy who just landed, he was 1/2 mile from
the threshold when the guy landed 1500' down the runway.



To which pilot are you referring? the one who stopped on the runway?


Yes.



Unless you talked with him/her, hard to know if that was a "mistake" or
if he/she had a valid reason for stopping there. I wouldn't assume they
didn't just because they didn't announce it on frequency.


See above.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:55:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:

For your own safety and the safety of others you should just
avoid Class D airspace until you upgrade your skills and knowledge.

Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.

I'm not sure I understand, but didn't the controller appear to make a
mistake with regard to section "2.1.2 Duty Priority" of Order 7110.65R:

"Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as
required in this order."?

There appear to be other sections of 7110.65R that may be more or less
relevant to the situation, though I'm not sure to what extent or manner, if
any, controllers are held responsible for complying with the instructions
(or guidance?) in that Order.

Also, I am not sure why a mistake by the pilot who landed ahead of Jay to
promptly clear the runway necessaily excludes the possibility that the
controller made mistakes. Is there some sort of exclusion principle I'm not
aware of that is operative here?

Lastly, I sense a claim implied here that FAR § 91.3 absolves controllers
of all responsibility for consequences for their orders or lack thereof
issued under the authority of § 91.123 - at least with respect to Class D
VFR operations. Is that correct? If so, I can see some merit to Jay's
complaint with regard to the wisdom or utility of Class D airspace.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not sure I understand, but didn't the controller appear to make a
mistake with regard to section "2.1.2 Duty Priority" of Order 7110.65R:

"Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as
required in this order."?


No.



There appear to be other sections of 7110.65R that may be more or less
relevant to the situation, though I'm not sure to what extent or manner,
if
any, controllers are held responsible for complying with the instructions
(or guidance?) in that Order.


Please identify them.



Also, I am not sure why a mistake by the pilot who landed ahead of Jay to
promptly clear the runway necessaily excludes the possibility that the
controller made mistakes. Is there some sort of exclusion principle I'm
not
aware of that is operative here?


No, there just wasn't anything that suggested the controller made a mistake.



Lastly, I sense a claim implied here that FAR § 91.3 absolves controllers
of all responsibility for consequences for their orders or lack thereof
issued under the authority of § 91.123 - at least with respect to Class D
VFR operations. Is that correct? If so, I can see some merit to Jay's
complaint with regard to the wisdom or utility of Class D airspace.


How did you infer that?

Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.

What would that accomplish? More and more I'm coming to believe that
some pilots from Iowa are in the clouds enough as it is.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:44:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.


If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.


Not without additional training.

On Mar 22, 11:56 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.


Not without additional training.


I don't think that would help.

Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.

On Mar 23, 7:02 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:56 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:



If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.

Not without additional training.

I don't think that would help.

Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.

Kool,,, New ammunition....

Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
land. G

Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
me of this thread.... ).

Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....

On Mar 23, 10:04 am, " wrote:

Kool,,, New ammunition....


And again you shoot yourself in the foot.



Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
land. G

Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
me of this thread.... ).

Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....- Hide quoted text -


"No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft" in Class D
AIRSPACE. All control towers, whether the overlying airspace is Class
B, C, D, E, or G, provide RUNWAY separation. Minimum same runway
separation between two piston singles is 3000 feet. Recall that Jay
said he was about 1/2 mile out from the threshold when the 172 touched
down 1500' from the threshold. Let's see if you're any better at
simple arithmetic than you are at answering simple questions.