A tower-induced go-round

Jay Honeck wrote:
On Mar 18, 5:57 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.

That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
dangerous airspace in America.


Sorry, Tim -- that came out sounding like I thought you were stupid
for making a 360 in the pattern. That's NOT what I meant -- I only
mean that Class D is a dangerous place, thanks to us relying on guys
in a tower with binoculars for spacing, and controllers relying on
guys in airplanes who don't know where the heck they really are.

I agree completely with your rationale for doing what you had to do.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



I did not take it that way. Thanks for the follow up. Students really
need to be told to watch out for themselves - it is all too easy to
assume the controllers are omnipotent and never erring gods. The sooner
you see in training some screw-ups by controllers and other pilots, the
better off you are. Always watch out for yourself and be safe.

I don;t think I will ever find myself near Iowa City, but if I do your
place has been on my list for a while. Congrats on the longevity of the
endeavor.

On Mar 18, 4:43 pm, Tim wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
Except when requested by the controller or in
emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
controller.

Yep, although I couldn't quote chapter and verse, this is what I
figured the rules were.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
A tower controller has NEVER been killed because of their screw up. It is always the pilot who bites the dust. When I stated a 360 for spacing was my first choice I never said I wasn't going to make a radio report to the tower, in fact That has happened to me before and as I started my 360 the tower was notified by me, it is then up to them to fix the mess they created. I am going home alive, **** on the incompetent tower controller who stuffed a plane right in front of me after I was cleared to land. Funny ol Steven P. Mc Nicoll threw in the side line of tower operators not making enough money, and there will be a shortage of them because of it. One day he might even admit a controller actually made a mistake and a pilot fixed it and lived to fly again. I have to admit he can quote all the rules and seems up to speed on traffic flows and probably was a great controller before he became mighter then the rest of us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport. the tower and the
conflicting traffic forgot about me. I was on final. he turned traffic
following me inthe pattern in front of me. The other traffic had no
awareness... I keyed the mike to let them know what was going on...
doh. got stepped on. did a 360 and then called AFTER. I was not
worried about doing something wrong - I was worried about getting killed
by the controller who dropped the ball and two pilots in the other plane
who were not paying attention to what the heck was going on in the pattern.

It happens too often. Do what you need to do to stay alive.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

never trust a controller..
you are PIC..

Tower controllers here are known to put two aircraft on crossing runways..
one landing.. one taking off..
and yes.. they did meet at the intersection.. luckily no one died that
day.. but two aircraft were totaled

BT

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.

Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....

Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.

Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.

Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.

The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

never trust a controller..
you are PIC..

Tower controllers here are known to put two aircraft on crossing runways..
one landing.. one taking off..
and yes.. they did meet at the intersection.. luckily no one died that
day.. but two aircraft were totaled

BT

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.

Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....

Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.

Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.

Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.

The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:57:15 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of the
week.

I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
airport. It can be better.

But I do agree that a pilot is not absolved of situational awareness by
being in class D airspace, and too many pilot's fail to realize this.

I've posted this here before, but I think it worth repeating: the last
flight I took right-seat with a particular someone was when we were
approaching a class D and we'd a clear view of traffic on climb-out that
we knew from radio calls was closed traffic. That traffic and we were
destined to reach downwind at about the same time.

I suggested to my friend that he deviate a little so as to come into the
pattern behind that traffic. He said that it wasn't necessary as the
tower would keep us apart.

- Andrew

I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
airport. It can be better.

Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:

a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
control too many things going on.

b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
of traffic effectively.

At an uncontrolled airport, everyone KNOWS they are on their own, and
events transpire accordingly and (mostly) predictably. In Class D'oh
airspace, on the other hand, too many pilots believe that the
controller is actually controlling the airspace, when, in fact, he is
not.

This type of confusion is a recipe for conflicts -- and I've seen them
often.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:
snip
This type of confusion is a recipe for conflicts -- and I've seen them
often.

In non-radar D, very much so. You have to be on the ball all the time
and be sure to make precise radio calls. However, with radar coverage, D
is a whole new ballgame. Out here in the boonies (heretofore known as
"the LA basin" ), almost all the controlled airports either carry
radar themselves or can tap into them, and so controlled flight is a
breeze (and the controllers really do administer their airspace, with
xpndr checks and traffic reports, as well as non-talking violators).

Contrariwise, uncontrolled space can be a zoo, with a high traffic
density, and weekend warriors that don't (or won't) follow proper
procedure, in the cockpit or on the radio. You'll get lots of people
that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
because he thought he could depart via the upwind), or omitting initial
position calls, calls to final, calls clear of runway, omitting the
ident, etc. etc. etc. Add in some jet traffic along with the standard
piston assortment, and things can get ugly, really fast.

So, I think it's all a matter of degrees and personal experience at its
essence, just like having a bad time in Class C can sour your attitude
for that 'space.

TheSmokingGnu

Jay Honeck wrote:

I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
airport. It can be better.


Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:

a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
control too many things going on.

b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
of traffic effectively.


Compare a class D to an uncontrolled field with similar traffic counts
and the class D is much safer and the traffic flows much more orderly.

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

Because I'm not going to blame a student for stopping short. Hell, he
probably didn't even know I was behind him, if he was nervous.


How did you know you were following a student? Why do you hold the
controller responsible for the student's actions?



Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)


But you've already admitted spacing was fine, the problem was the 172s
unexpected stop on the runway. Do you believe the controller applied the
brakes?



Because it would have easily fixed the mess the controller caused.
Stretching out his roll-out would have made everything mesh
effortlessly. Instead, the controller kept mum, and caused a runway
conflict.


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?



Yes -- for many of the same reasons that I choose to run a little
aviation themed hotel next to an airport, even though I could be
making exponentially more money doing something else.


What are the reasons? What could you be doing that would earn exponentially
more money?

Good God, you sound just like The Albatross...

"PLONK"

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ