is it just me?

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...

Er, that's what I was saying.


No, you said "the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so of your
own".



I suspect my caffeine fix was overdue when I read your previous
article:

: AFAIK, our CAA doesn't approve of LAHSO, so I've not seen
: that form of dual runway occupancy.
:
: LAHSO involves operations on intersecting runways.

I now think that all you were doing there was (unnecessarily)
explaining something of which I *have* read, even though I've
not seen it in action - but for some reason I took it to be a
claim that the rhomboidal patch at the intersection is part of
the "other" runway only!


I explained it because your message indicated you did not understand it. In
LAHSO operations, if you've been instructed to hold short, "the rhomboidal
patch at the intersection IS part of the 'other' runway only!" It's not
available to you because another aircraft is using it to either land or
takeoff.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Og course. He was trundling down the runway.


That was the first you saw of him?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I have experienced controllers issuing a go-around.
I've also been the cause of this, I'm sorry to say, when a tire failed on
landing.

So if you've never experienced a controller issuing a go around, then you
are lacking in that experience. Lucky you.


So a blown tire means the controller didn't provide proper spacing?

No. They can occur independently. Both, though, may require the next
aircraft in sequence - which may have been cleared to land in the US - to
go around.

You claimed:

In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
around would not be necessary.

to which I replied:

Where I live, controllers attempt to do so. They don't
always succeed. Sometimes they err, sometimes tires fail, ...

to which you replied:

Apparently your just inexperienced.

which makes as much sense as asking whether a blown tire means that the
controller failed to provide proper sequencing.

- Andrew

Newps wrote:

[...]
In general, I'd expect the landing pilot to notice the aircraft with the
blown tire sitting on the runway. But in sufficiently poor weather...?

Those are all potential problems that haven't caused a wreck here in the
States because a controller wasn't able to send someone around when he
had to.

That's not the same thing as saying that it cannot occur, though. If we did
have a wreck caused by such an unfortunate and unlikely event, would the
rules be changed? If so, why wait?

That's what I'm not understanding...or I'm missing what makes this unlikely
scenario impossible.

- Andrew

Newps wrote:



Andrew Gideon wrote:




In the US on Earth, the controller has to make certain assumptions.

We make thousands of assumptions everyday.

True.

[...]

That happens all the time. There is no such thing as a go around proof
sequence.

I know.

**** happens.

I forgot that reason: animal incursion (and activities {8^) on the runway.

- Andrew

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:

Er, that's what I was saying.

No, you said "the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so
of your own".

Er, what I wrote was:

"... why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
include 150 feet or so of your own?"

See the "why bother ... if ..." construct?

Robert Briggs wrote:


Proper spacing on final approach would be sufficient for the second
guy to have a suitably clear runway on which to land if the first one
has no problems and vacates the runway promptly.

Remeber here in the States most aircraft don't have to be off the runway
for the next one to land, just a certain distance down the runway.



However, if something *does* go wrong, the second guy may *not* have
a suitably clear runway, and so will have to go around.

Some airplanes only.



If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said? That would
never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping at the tower
controller wondering about his landing clearance. In your scenario
there are many more miles separation than the minimum if there is that
kind of time to be doing all this talking.

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:

Er, that's what I was saying.

No, you said "the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so
of your own".

Er, what I wrote was:

"... why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
include 150 feet or so of your own?"

See the "why bother ... if ..." construct?


Yes, I saw it the first time. The part you still don't understand is that
the other guy's runway DOES include 150 feet or so of your own. You can't
use that portion of the runway because someone else is using it.

Andrew Gideon wrote:



More seriously: I've only had a tire fail once during my 400+ hours of
flying, so perhaps it isn't terribly likely. However, I have been waved
off in the past for other reasons. Perhaps these can all be classified as
"controller missequencing", but - given that a lot of students are flying
around my "home" airport - I'd be surprised if none of the blame falls to
those students.

I worked for four years at an airport where 95% of the traffic was from
the University of North Dakota. Nothing but flight training. Students
beat the hell out of airplanes and I don't recall any flat tires on the
trainers. The flats all seem to happen to the biz jets and big twins.


But this is all beside the point (although interesting). The fact is that
controllers do occasionally have to wave off an aircraft previously cleared
for landing.

At GFK we had probably 50 go arounds a day for any number of reasons.
However disabled aircraft on the runway wasn't one of the top 10
factors. Here at BIL we have hardly any flight training anymore and I
can't remember the last time I saw a go around. Although there are a
few reasons for that too.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...

Steven, I don't think anyone is saying that.


I think Andrew Gideon is saying that.


What I wrote was:

Where I live, controllers attempt to do so. They don't
always succeed. Sometimes they err, sometimes tires fail, ...

It would take creative reading to take that to mean, as you asked:

a blown tire means the controller didn't provide proper spacing?

I assume that you're doing this deliberately, creating noise to cover your
statement:

In the US, controllers would sequence the arriving aircraft so that a go
around would not be necessary.

which ignores that it is occasionally necessary for controllers to wave off
aircraft in the US. I might have assumed this "creative reading" to be an
error on your part, but you then accused me of being "inexperienced" merely
because I had experienced controllers issuing go-around instructions.
That's too silly, given that inexperience would be a *lack* of experience.

- Andrew