A tower-induced go-round

Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?

Jeebus, Steven. I give up.

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

See ya!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mar 21, 7:12 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?

Jeebus, Steven. I give up.

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

See ya!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the
problem was caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was
inadequate regardless what the 172 did after touchdown. [...]

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

Thing is, Jay, he has a point. Many a time you've posted stories
about something odd happening during a flight. When your aspects of
judgement ended up being questioned, you consistently deflected
criticism. That's only natural, but sometimes saying "I should have
done that differently!" would be healthy.

- FChE

On 21 Mar 2007 06:12:22 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

you have outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.


What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

Lots of places have specific "standard" arrivals and departures for
noise abatement.

Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav is spotty, but Flight
Guide is pretty good.

An example is KCCB.

To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
control channel.

To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn north over the 24.

There are no downwind, straight-out or right departures.

And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard"
crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and
influential) housing developments some wonderful person decided needed
to be direct off the end of a GA airport.

Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining
a civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to
flying off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't
going to tell anyone first.

TheSmokingGnu

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

Jeebus, Steven. I give up.

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

See ya!


Gee, Jay, and usefulness to you was my primary purpose here!

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

See ya!

wrote in message
oups.com...

I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You're free to believe whatever you choose. I rarely even mention that I'm
a controller, anyone here can claim to be anything they choose. Rather than
post, "I'm a controller and this is the way it is...", my messages tend to
take the form, "This is the way it is because FAA Order 1234.56A says..."
Which form do you find more convincing?

Thing is, Jay, he has a point. Many a time you've posted stories
about something odd happening during a flight. When your aspects of
judgement ended up being questioned, you consistently deflected
criticism. That's only natural, but sometimes saying "I should have
done that differently!" would be healthy.

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.

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

On Mar 21, 2:32 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're free to believe whatever you choose. I rarely even mention that I'm
a controller, anyone here can claim to be anything they choose. Rather than
post, "I'm a controller and this is the way it is...", my messages tend to
take the form, "This is the way it is because FAA Order 1234.56A says..."
Which form do you find more convincing?

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.