Class D Sucks

Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D (so-called)
"controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.

Yesterday we once again had the misfortune of flying into Class D, when we
flew to Dubuque (DBQ) for breakfast -- and again witnessed a potentially
dangerous situation.

The University of Dubuque has their flight school there, which means
high-density student traffic in the pattern. There are also four regular
airline flights into/out of DBQ every day. Add to this the occasional $100
hamburger flight and corporate charters, and you've got an airport which
can, on occasion, rival Chicago for business.

Yesterday was one of those days. After several days of crap, the skies
cleared and the wind, while gusting to 23 knots, was right down Rwy 18. As
a result the pattern was full of students and people like us, enjoying the
day.

As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a left
downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is hard to
spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous targets in
the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had his hands
full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.

After extending our downwind quite a ways, we finally spotted the 182 we
were to follow. As Mary was turning right base, we heard the controller
tell an older guy in a different 182 "Okay, that's not going to work. Fly
directly toward the tower now and re-enter the right downwind for 18..."

By now we were turning base to final, with Mary fighting the burbles and
updrafts caused by the 20+ knot wind. Out of the corner of my eye I spotted
a Cessna angling toward us from high and to the right, in what seemed like a
very awkward position, given the traffic density in the pattern. He was in
a shallow bank to the right, but, as long as he didn't descend, we would
pass under him as we turned final, so I didn't mention him to Mary.

As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
out of position. My thoughts were that this *must* be the guy that the
tower had told to "head toward the tower" and that the controllers surely
knew where he was, and that he/they knew what they were doing.

Wrong.

As we were on short final the guy passed above us, and out of sight. I was
now getting pretty uncomfortable, being unable to see him, but I was
confident that we weren't in any danger of collision -- he'd have had to be
a Harrier to land on top of us from that position. Mary was busy fighting
the wind, and I didn't want to interrupt her battle with bitching about this
doofus, but I sure was wondering what the heck the guy was doing
above/behind and now to our left. Besides, the controller surely knew
where he was, right?

Wrong.

Suddenly the controller spotted the transgressor, and started a rapid-fire
interrogation of the guy, asking him what he was doing and where he was
going. The guy responded that he was told to "fly to the tower" -- so he
did! He had missed the second half of the controller's instruction, and
was apparently going to be content doing 360 degree turns over the tower, or
something, awaiting further instructions? More likely he had no idea what
to do when he got over the tower, but couldn't get a word in edgewise for
further instructions...

Needless to say, the controller laid into the guy, at one point stating "I
assume you are a student pilot?" (to which the guy actually answered "No.").
He continued talking to him until we shut down to go into the FBO, so I
don't know if he had to go "visit the tower" or not.

This type of thing has happened to us so many times in Class D airspace,
it's just not funny anymore. There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance with the
parallax caused by trying to judge distance from the ground. In my opinion,
we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace, because
at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be flying
opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.
Also, everyone would be more on their toes, without the false security
blanket of being in "controlled" airspace.

IMHO, the FAA should either:

1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really a
Semi-Controlled.

We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Copy this text onto a NASA Form 277 and ship it off to the ASRS for
action. If you don't complaint to the right people, nothing gets done!

Jay Honeck wrote:
Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D (so-called)
"controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.

Yesterday we once again had the misfortune of flying into Class D, when we
flew to Dubuque (DBQ) for breakfast -- and again witnessed a potentially
dangerous situation.

The University of Dubuque has their flight school there, which means
high-density student traffic in the pattern. There are also four regular
airline flights into/out of DBQ every day. Add to this the occasional $100
hamburger flight and corporate charters, and you've got an airport which
can, on occasion, rival Chicago for business.

Yesterday was one of those days. After several days of crap, the skies
cleared and the wind, while gusting to 23 knots, was right down Rwy 18. As
a result the pattern was full of students and people like us, enjoying the
day.

As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a left
downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is hard to
spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous targets in
the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had his hands
full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.

After extending our downwind quite a ways, we finally spotted the 182 we
were to follow. As Mary was turning right base, we heard the controller
tell an older guy in a different 182 "Okay, that's not going to work. Fly
directly toward the tower now and re-enter the right downwind for 18..."

By now we were turning base to final, with Mary fighting the burbles and
updrafts caused by the 20+ knot wind. Out of the corner of my eye I spotted
a Cessna angling toward us from high and to the right, in what seemed like a
very awkward position, given the traffic density in the pattern. He was in
a shallow bank to the right, but, as long as he didn't descend, we would
pass under him as we turned final, so I didn't mention him to Mary.

As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
out of position. My thoughts were that this *must* be the guy that the
tower had told to "head toward the tower" and that the controllers surely
knew where he was, and that he/they knew what they were doing.

Wrong.

As we were on short final the guy passed above us, and out of sight. I was
now getting pretty uncomfortable, being unable to see him, but I was
confident that we weren't in any danger of collision -- he'd have had to be
a Harrier to land on top of us from that position. Mary was busy fighting
the wind, and I didn't want to interrupt her battle with bitching about this
doofus, but I sure was wondering what the heck the guy was doing
above/behind and now to our left. Besides, the controller surely knew
where he was, right?

Wrong.

Suddenly the controller spotted the transgressor, and started a rapid-fire
interrogation of the guy, asking him what he was doing and where he was
going. The guy responded that he was told to "fly to the tower" -- so he
did! He had missed the second half of the controller's instruction, and
was apparently going to be content doing 360 degree turns over the tower, or
something, awaiting further instructions? More likely he had no idea what
to do when he got over the tower, but couldn't get a word in edgewise for
further instructions...

Needless to say, the controller laid into the guy, at one point stating "I
assume you are a student pilot?" (to which the guy actually answered "No.").
He continued talking to him until we shut down to go into the FBO, so I
don't know if he had to go "visit the tower" or not.

This type of thing has happened to us so many times in Class D airspace,
it's just not funny anymore. There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance with the
parallax caused by trying to judge distance from the ground. In my opinion,
we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace, because
at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be flying
opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.
Also, everyone would be more on their toes, without the false security
blanket of being in "controlled" airspace.

IMHO, the FAA should either:

1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really a
Semi-Controlled.

We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.

In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time.

Jay, as has been pointed out here before, class D controllers do not
control air traffic. They control ground traffic, and sequence air
traffic to the ground. While in the air, see and avoid remains fully
in force. It is thinking that they "control" air traffic that leads
to relaxed vigilance, and bent aluminum.

The events you describe are not unique to class D. There are yoyos at
uncontrolled airports too.

There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance

Exactly right. But that's not their job (though it really helps their
job!)

In my opinion,
we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace, because
at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be flying
opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.

Wrong.

They just wouldn't be =told= to. But given the same number of
airplanes, splitting them into left and right traffic spreads them out
in the air. Were they all in the same pattern, they'd be tighter. I
see nothing =inherently= wrong with split patterns in class D.

IMHO, the FAA should either:

1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really a
Semi-Controlled.

This is not a job for the FAA. It's a job for pilots. They MUST
become comfortable in class D when operating there, and they MUST
become comfortable at uncontrolled airports when operating there.

As for your (4), changing the terminology will =not= enhance safety.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't help a horse to walk.

We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.

Agreed. But I'd reccomend as a solution that pilots practice more in
environments with which they are unfamiliar. I fly class D all the
time (I'm in the northeast) and have not found them to be more or less
safe than uncontrolled (or as they like to say now, "nontowered")
airports. But all pilots need to pay attention to the transparant
high resolution datascreen that surrounds the airplane, rather than
rely on a headset.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

This is not a job for the FAA. It's a job for pilots.

Indeed.

Put the same amount/mix of traffic at an untowered airport. Would it be
better or worse?

My club moved from TEB to CDW about the time I joined. TEB gets relatively
little student/pattern traffic (as it charges a landing fee), and the tower
has real RADAR. CDW gets a *lot* of student/pattern traffic, and the
"RADAR" is incredibly primitive (for one: no codes, just VFR vs. IFR; for
two: blind spots in the traffic pattern).

Many of the club members have indicated a strong dislike for the chaotic
nature of CDW. They're certainly right that the place is busier, and with
a greater number of inexperienced pilots, than TEB. But with a good
controller in the tower, it's still better than an untowered airport for
"sanity".

However, put a bad controller in place and it gets *much* worse *very*
quickly. There's nothing particular about a class D that causes a
controller to waste precious airtime...period.

Even w/o the stupidity of wasting airtime, controller skill makes a major
difference (and is probably the paramount variable by far). I was in the
pattern with about six or eight other planes one day, with others coming in
and leaving. A normal weekend day at CDW. It became a mess, as the
controller lost track of who was where.

A new controller took over, and in minutes the same planes were in a well
oiled dance (to mix metaphors {8^). That's with the same crappy RADAR and
the same mix of traffic.

- Andrew

This is so true. At a busy Class D around here, they must have been
training a new controller as I didn't recognize the voice. Traffic was a
disaster, extending down winds for miles and miles, holding, nobody getting
off of the ground and the run-up area stacked. Then ah, that beautiful
friendly voice. Planes started getting in and out with incredible ease and
things were clearing up very quickly. I so badly wanted to say, "Student
Controller, eh?" but figured we hate hearing that pointed our way.


Even w/o the stupidity of wasting airtime, controller skill makes a major
difference (and is probably the paramount variable by far). I was in the
pattern with about six or eight other planes one day, with others coming
in
and leaving. A normal weekend day at CDW. It became a mess, as the
controller lost track of who was where.

A new controller took over, and in minutes the same planes were in a well
oiled dance (to mix metaphors {8^). That's with the same crappy RADAR and
the same mix of traffic.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Jay, as has been pointed out here before, class D controllers do not
control air traffic.

The FARs say that class D is controlled airspace. They also say that you
have to obey ATC instructions. What are the tower controllers controlling
there if not air traffic? Ground controllers control ground traffic. They
are sometimes the same person as the tower controller, sometimes they are
not.

Class D towers do a lot more than sequencing. They can also keep you out of
their airspace, issue instructions to aircraft within their airspace and
expect to be obeyed (or know the reason why not) and so forth. They will
also issue advisories of other traffic and they will control the traffic
pattern.

The FARs say that class D is controlled airspace. They also say that you
have to obey ATC instructions. What are the tower controllers controlling
there if not air traffic?

They are not controlling air traffic in the sense of taking
responsibility for separation (which they do in IFR for example, and
perhaps in positive control areas - a controller will certainly jump
in and clarify)

That they can keep you out is true, but not relevant to my point (of
it being primarily a pilot's responsibility to see and avoid)

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
news
The FARs say that class D is controlled airspace. They also say that you
have to obey ATC instructions. What are the tower controllers
controlling
there if not air traffic?

They are not controlling air traffic in the sense of taking
responsibility for separation (which they do in IFR for example, and
perhaps in positive control areas - a controller will certainly jump
in and clarify)


I want to put to rest once and for all the idea that class D controllers do
not control air traffic, however. They do. They issue vectors, departure and
arrival instructions for both VFR and IFR traffic, and routing instructions
through their airspace for both VFR and IFR traffic. They also make an
attempt to maintain separation and controllers who fail that responsibility
have been found at least partially at fault in NTSB reports.

I agree with you that separation is primarily the pilot's responsibility,
but this is not a peculiarity of class D. It is true no matter what airspace
you are in.

I want to put to rest once and for all the idea that class D controllers
do
not control air traffic, however. They do. They issue vectors, departure
and
arrival instructions for both VFR and IFR traffic, and routing
instructions
through their airspace for both VFR and IFR traffic. They also make an
attempt to maintain separation and controllers who fail that
responsibility
have been found at least partially at fault in NTSB reports.

I agree with you that separation is primarily the pilot's responsibility,
but this is not a peculiarity of class D. It is true no matter what
airspace
you are in.

Last I remember, a CLASS D tower is a VFR tower.. they can only handle 1 IFR
aircraft at a time, and then it is on a relayed clearance from an IFR
facility, they cannot issue or change an IFR clearance without permission
from the IFR controlling facility.

A VFR tower cannot issue a "radar vector", they can provide recommended
headings to fly.

But then again, it's been more than a few years since I was on the other
side of the headset, sitting at the radar scope.

BT

Jay, as has been pointed out here before, class D controllers do not
control air traffic. They control ground traffic, and sequence air
traffic to the ground.

I think you'd get a pretty stiff argument from the Dubuque controllers on
this issue. They seem to firmly believe that they are "controlling" traffic
inside their airspace -- while it is Mary and me who are arguing otherwise.

While in the air, see and avoid remains fully in force.

See and avoid remains fully in force in ALL classes of airspace, regardless
of radar control.

The events you describe are not unique to class D. There are yoyos at
uncontrolled airports too.

True. But at least we're all expecting the same thing from each other,
rather than having a binocular-equipped controller trying to send us in
different directions. Personally, I'll trust the other guy in the pattern
to do the right thing -- most of the time -- whereas almost every time I fly
into busy non-radar Class D airspace, I witness something stupid and/or
borderline dangerous.

They just wouldn't be =told= to. But given the same number of airplanes,
splitting them into left and right traffic spreads them out in the air.
Were they all in the same pattern, they'd be tighter. I see nothing
=inherently= wrong with split patterns in class D.

What makes them wrong in non-radar Class D airspace is the fact that the
controller is still relying on each of us seeing each other for proper
spacing. Since he's directed half the traffic to fly an opposing pattern,
spotting the correct plane in the sky is problematic. Turning your base leg
in too soon and following the wrong plane is a real possibility.

This is not a job for the FAA. It's a job for pilots. They MUST become
comfortable in class D when operating there, and they MUST become
comfortable at uncontrolled airports when operating there.

That's my point. After ten years and 1400 hours, we're far more comfortable
flying into busy non-controlled airspace than we are flying into so-called
controlled Class D airspace. That is a clear indication that Class D is not
working properly. (Class B and C, in contrast, are almost absurdly simple
and fool-proof. I feel far more comfortable flying into Albuquerque, NM,
Milwaukee, WI, or Birmingham, AL than I do flying into Dubuque.)

As for your (4), changing the terminology will =not= enhance safety.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't help a horse to walk.

Perhaps not -- but at least the terminology would be accurate. Class D is
NOT controlled by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. But I'd reccomend as a solution that pilots practice more in
environments with which they are unfamiliar. I fly class D all the time
(I'm in the northeast) and have not found them to be more or less safe
than uncontrolled (or as they like to say now, "nontowered") airports.

Well, I fly into Class D -- usually Janesville, WI (JVL ) or Dubuque (DBQ)
maybe once a month, and have done so for ten years. When the airspace is
dead (as it usually is at a Class D tower), everything works fine --
although certainly no better than in "non-towered" airspace.

It's only when traffic picks up that things can get hairy -- which is truly
absurd when you consider that there wouldn't even BE a reason for a tower
except for those busy times.

But all pilots need to pay attention to the transparant high resolution
datascreen that surrounds the airplane, rather than rely on a headset.

On this we all agree!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"