I think we've passed the 80:20 point on this debate so I'll let it rest.
Needless to say I don't agree with all you say, but you've raised some point
of which awareness can only be a positive thing for me and other readers.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

The problem that started this discussion is one of the length of time an
aircraft is expected to sit on a runway. Five, ten, maybe even fifteen
seconds to wait for an IFR clearance seems perfectly reasonable. But
several minutes? No, not to me it doesn't.

No that wasn't what I intended, though I can see why you interpreted it that
way. I said it could be minutes between an aircraft receiving an IFR
clearance at the hold and being in a position to take off. In most cases I
would expect a clearance to come during the backtrack and to be available on
turnaround, within seconds. I don't think ATC would leave an aircraft
sitting there for minutes unless they anticipated a clearance from another
facility that didn't come.

Finally, let me remind you that the comment to which I took issue was the
"not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this." The bottom line
here
is that the reason for the aversion is clear. There are definitely safety
issues, regardless of how significant you think they are. You might as
well
say "not sure why there's such a strong aversion to spiders". After all,
all but a handful of spiders are safe. Yet, no one should be surprised
when
they come across another person who has a strong aversion to spiders.
It's
only natural. Your apparent argument to the contrary is a bit puzzling to
me, to say the least.

I think you do yourself no favours with that argument as fear of spiders
tends to be an irrational fear. You've eloquently outlined the hazards that
give rise to your aversion to sitting on the runway for longer than
necessary. They are quite rational, even if we disagree about the magnitude
of the risk.

Julian Scarfe