Jay, as has been pointed out here before, class D controllers do not
control air traffic. They control ground traffic, and sequence air
traffic to the ground.

I think you'd get a pretty stiff argument from the Dubuque controllers on
this issue. They seem to firmly believe that they are "controlling" traffic
inside their airspace -- while it is Mary and me who are arguing otherwise.

While in the air, see and avoid remains fully in force.

See and avoid remains fully in force in ALL classes of airspace, regardless
of radar control.

The events you describe are not unique to class D. There are yoyos at
uncontrolled airports too.

True. But at least we're all expecting the same thing from each other,
rather than having a binocular-equipped controller trying to send us in
different directions. Personally, I'll trust the other guy in the pattern
to do the right thing -- most of the time -- whereas almost every time I fly
into busy non-radar Class D airspace, I witness something stupid and/or
borderline dangerous.

They just wouldn't be =told= to. But given the same number of airplanes,
splitting them into left and right traffic spreads them out in the air.
Were they all in the same pattern, they'd be tighter. I see nothing
=inherently= wrong with split patterns in class D.

What makes them wrong in non-radar Class D airspace is the fact that the
controller is still relying on each of us seeing each other for proper
spacing. Since he's directed half the traffic to fly an opposing pattern,
spotting the correct plane in the sky is problematic. Turning your base leg
in too soon and following the wrong plane is a real possibility.

This is not a job for the FAA. It's a job for pilots. They MUST become
comfortable in class D when operating there, and they MUST become
comfortable at uncontrolled airports when operating there.

That's my point. After ten years and 1400 hours, we're far more comfortable
flying into busy non-controlled airspace than we are flying into so-called
controlled Class D airspace. That is a clear indication that Class D is not
working properly. (Class B and C, in contrast, are almost absurdly simple
and fool-proof. I feel far more comfortable flying into Albuquerque, NM,
Milwaukee, WI, or Birmingham, AL than I do flying into Dubuque.)

As for your (4), changing the terminology will =not= enhance safety.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't help a horse to walk.

Perhaps not -- but at least the terminology would be accurate. Class D is
NOT controlled by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. But I'd reccomend as a solution that pilots practice more in
environments with which they are unfamiliar. I fly class D all the time
(I'm in the northeast) and have not found them to be more or less safe
than uncontrolled (or as they like to say now, "nontowered") airports.

Well, I fly into Class D -- usually Janesville, WI (JVL ) or Dubuque (DBQ)
maybe once a month, and have done so for ten years. When the airspace is
dead (as it usually is at a Class D tower), everything works fine --
although certainly no better than in "non-towered" airspace.

It's only when traffic picks up that things can get hairy -- which is truly
absurd when you consider that there wouldn't even BE a reason for a tower
except for those busy times.

But all pilots need to pay attention to the transparant high resolution
datascreen that surrounds the airplane, rather than rely on a headset.

On this we all agree!

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