Handheld Tranceiver Recommendation

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
As separation is a function of traffic control, when would traffic control
not include separation?

Separation is not always a function of traffic control. In fact the AIM
says for Class D airports "No separation is provided for VFR aircraft." The
AIM is very clear as to what traffic services are provided for each class of
airport.

Who would be responsible for separation and sequencing under these
circumstances?

Ahhhh that would be you Bill, by the use of your eyes. The guy in the tower
with binoculars just doesn't cut it for separation or sequencing and the FAA
realizes that.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Let's first jump back to my original subject on the specifics of the
accident:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------
You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and
avoiding."

However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not
mentioned
as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident."

Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to
maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which
is
in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the
accident."

Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's
Collins']
poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide
effective sequencing,"

And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his estimate
of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's
Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline.""

You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for
separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to
many
pilots."

However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and
sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan.

A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The
report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or understand
the government and quite honestly hope I never do.

Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will
provide
traffic control in the Class D airspace.

Give paragraph 3-2-5 a read. Very last sentence of that section.

Thanks for turning me on to AIM 4-3-2; it doesn't get much clearer than
that.

Is it possible that Waukegan has some special stuff going on because the
center of the airport is only 2 nm from the Chicago Class B?

BTW: I'm not one of those "argument for argument's sake" dudes, I'm just
trying to make sure I learn and thoroughly understand this stuff. Thanks for
your help!



"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Let's first jump back to my original subject on the specifics of the
accident:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------
You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and
avoiding."

However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not
mentioned
as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident."

Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to
maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which
is
in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the
accident."

Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's
Collins']
poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide
effective sequencing,"

And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his
estimate
of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's
Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline.""

You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible
for
separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to
many
pilots."

However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and
sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan.

A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The
report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or
understand
the government and quite honestly hope I never do.

Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will
provide
traffic control in the Class D airspace.

Give paragraph 3-2-5 a read. Very last sentence of that section.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Thanks for turning me on to AIM 4-3-2; it doesn't get much clearer than
that.

Is it possible that Waukegan has some special stuff going on because the
center of the airport is only 2 nm from the Chicago Class B?

No. Flying into UGN is as normal as normal can be. The class B is at 3600
feet which isn't really a factor. At the time of the accident UGN had no
radar which makes the NTSB report even more absured. The accident was used
as justification to get tower radar.

BTW: I'm not one of those "argument for argument's sake" dudes, I'm just
trying to make sure I learn and thoroughly understand this stuff. Thanks
for
your help!

Several years ago a flight of 52 near identical planes flew into Oshkosh as
a pretty tight gaggle. (Not during Airventure BTW) As we called in the
controller simply cleared each of us for landing. Didn't matter if someone
called in 10 miles out or 20 miles out, the response was "Cessna 12345
cleared to land." The controller made no attempt to sequence or separate
but simply stated "if you have to go around the procedure is such and such."
Really drove home the point we were each on our own as far as S & S was
concerned.

Letters of Agreement with overlapping, adjacent ATC facilities, for instance.

Dave Stadt wrote:
A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The
report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or understand
the government and quite honestly hope I never do.