Class D Sucks

Stefan wrote:
You don't understand what I mean. Airspace classification is an
international thing, an ICAO thing. The worst a country could do is
to
leave that international system. If you don't like airspace D, then
your
approach should be not to apply it in the USA.

First off, we've already done it with Class F airspace - we don't have
any in the US. We don't have to have class D either.

Second, we are already non-compliant with some aspects of ICAO. For
example, in the US, Class C does not require a celarance for VFR.

Third, I don't see what the big deal is about local regulation. Yes,
it makes things more complicated for the huge international operator,
giving the smaller local operator an advantage. IMO this is a feature,
not a bug.

So I understand what you mean perfectly - I just don't agree.

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting
loss of
separation. That's a bug.

No. It allows a controller to provide some "big scale separation",
leaving the "fine separation" to the pilots.

I think this is nonsense, considering there IS no big scale in US Class
D - the typical radius is less than 5 nm.

It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come
up.

Intuition is a very personal thing. What may be intuitive to you may
not
be so to me and vice versa.

Actually, that's not true. There is a whole science of ergonomics, and
one aspect of it, the design of user interfaces, is all about what is
intuitive. In the modern software world, the more progressive
companies actually have people unfamiliar with the software work with
it. If people keep right-clicking somewhere where such an action has
no effect, the fix is not to train the users - it is to change the
software so that right clicking there does what they expect.

The trained people (software engineers) often complain about this, but
they are wrong. It's really that simple. It's about time some modern
thinking like that was introduced into the national airspace system.
Michael

"john szpara" wrote:
a "modified straight in" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean).

"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."

Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".

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

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...

First off, we've already done it with Class F airspace - we don't have
any in the US. We don't have to have class D either.


We don't have Class F airspace in the US because we have no airspace with
the properties of ICAO Class F airspace. We have Class D airspace because
we do have airspace with the properties of ICAO Class D airspace.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."


Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".


Where is it specified?

"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."

Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".

Where is it specified?


In the minds of the controllers, and of the pilots, as propagated by
instructors who teach at the airport in question. For example, at EMT
a modified straight in approach (from the North anyway) is one that
comes in over the cement trough that passes for a river in those
parts, and pretty much meets the approach end of the runway.

I learned this more or less through osmosis. (Actually my instructor
probably told me the first time we encounterd it while I was learning
how not to crash).

I don't know how it came about, or when (though I suspect it dates
from early in the history of that tower). I doubt it's specified in
writing anywhere, but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
"Modified" is ATC-speak for "sorta."

Yes, but it's a specific kind of "sorta".

Where is it specified?

In the minds of the controllers, and of the pilots, as propagated by
instructors who teach at the airport in question. For example, at EMT a
modified straight in approach (from the North anyway) is one that comes in
over the cement trough that passes for a river in those parts, and pretty
much meets the approach end of the runway.

I learned this more or less through osmosis. (Actually my instructor
probably told me the first time we encounterd it while I was learning how
not to crash).


So the meaning of "modified" varies with the location?



I don't know how it came about, or when (though I suspect it dates from
early in the history of that tower). I doubt it's specified in writing
anywhere, but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.


Of course it does.

So the meaning of "modified" varies with the location?

Right. Sort of like "ground rules" in baseball. Different ground,
different rules.

Actually the only "modified straight in" I've come in contact with has
been at EMT but the concept certainly generalizes, and recent posts
confirm at least a second instance.

...but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.

Of course it does.

No it doesn't.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

So the meaning of "modified" varies with the location?


Right. Sort of like "ground rules" in baseball. Different ground,
different rules.


So what does it mean to an itinerant pilot?



Actually the only "modified straight in" I've come in contact with has
been at EMT but the concept certainly generalizes, and recent posts
confirm at least a second instance.

...but that doesn't stop it from being, in fact, specified.

Of course it does.

No it doesn't.


You're mistaken.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=specified

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


So what does it mean to an itinerant pilot?

Widely scattered aluminum?