A tower-induced go-round

On 31 Mar 2007 06:55:42 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
tower in his district.

Said senator's vote was probably influenced by airline lobbying.

When you start using the IFR system, you'll begin to understand the
need for ATC better.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

An idiotic comment.


A question, actually, seeking clarification of your previous statement.

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.


Where's the conflict?


The ODP calls for a climbing right turn off of runway 6, the CCB noise
abatement procedure says "left turns only" and "no right departures".

One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.

The IFR procedure does not cause a safety conflict with any VFR
procedure. VFR traffic turns left, IFR right.

Runway 6 is designated left traffic in ALL official publications
including the AF/D.

Babbling nonsense.

The procedures are for VFR operations.


Is that because only VFR operations generate noise?

No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.

Under IFR conditions, you couldn't see the mountains and going North
would take you away from your first fix, i.e. the VORTAC the IFR
procedure turns you towards.

All the VFR traffic in the area that is not going through the class C
airspace follows a path about 2 miles South of the mountains, whether
they are going to CCB or not.

How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?

The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.


Apparently I assumed you were a more experienced pilot than is the case. My
bad. Visiting a few of these sites should answer your question:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...Sear ch&gbv=2

I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.

You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.

In any case, you aren't going to be able to scud run through the
rising terrain to the north as eventually you get to a mountain
range that averages 8-9 thousand feet.

And before you even try to bring it up, that mountain range is many
miles away and well out of the airport area.

Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.

The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.


What is the proof?

Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.

Are you really that dense?

QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
proper use of quotation marks.

No you didn't, otherwise you would have found the answer in the Great
Repository of Human Knowledge. But then, I don't expect trolls to be
able to read in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks

But that
wouldn't make it the standard practice.

Do you have to take classes to be so pedantic? I've already explained
the vernacular, the onus is now on you to understand the topic at hand.

Why don't you correct for winds? What distracted you? What section of sky
was very busy and how did it affect your interaction with the pilot you're
complaining about?


I find it funny that you only considered /me/ to be the one under these
influences. Time to think outside the troll box.

I departed. I corrected for winds and flew a proper upwind in-line with
the runway. He departed, and did not. The winds were such that his track
was inside of mine. I made the turn crosswind. He did not inform anyone
of his intentions beyond taking the runway. Our tracks nearly
intersected. He was distracted by something (else he would have been
making intent/position reports, or responding to ours). There were a lot
of other aircraft in that patch of sky that day, and I was working a
scan not entirely in his direction at the time of the incident. My
copilot did spot him, and we managed to avoid each other.

I never did get an apology, though.


I'm not asking you to assume anything, I'm telling you it's assumed that
since he departed after you he knows where you are and is properly avoiding
you.

Assume? BY WHO? Define your indefinite.

Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?

Since it didn't occur, yes. I have very strong reason to believe he was
not doing that.

Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the operation of your own
aircraft and a little less to the operator behind you'd be less distracted
and better able to manage wind drift.

Ad hominem. You wanted an example?

Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?

I assume nothing, remember? I expect him to be doing both, and will look
for that first. Failing that, we go into contingency mode.

CTAF is a frequency, not a facility. Where does it say he must use CTAF?
Are you saying he made no calls on CTAF?

Faculty, not facility. I goofed there (and bad. I dunno how that got in
there).

He was on the CTAF. He made two calls, one to announce taxi, and another
to announce that he was taking the runway. Neither of these calls
announced an intention to leave the pattern (he had previously been
doing closed patterns), nor his departure direction.

At no time after takeoff did he make any other CTAF transmissions at
all, nor to Unicom, nor to FSS.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary

That's not an FAA source. How can I know what officially constitutes
"unnecessary" chatter when the FAA doesn't define it?

It's not only nonstandard it's also a poor practice.

Source?

Please explain why.

I already have, multiple times. Want it again?

They don't expect traffic there, in that direction, at that altitude, at
that speed.

Really? How do you know? Have we met?

My god, do you take everything literally?

I meant "better than Freud". I will refrain in the future from trying to
make snide inferences, so that your limited ability to understand
articulated speech is not questioned.

Since you used them improperly I have to
conclude that you do not.

And you've yet to make a definitive proof of such, which I must conclude
is a failing on your part to make yet another ad hominem attack on my
person. You'll have to do a lot better than grammatical pandering.

Now cite an applicable message of mine to make your case.

Why, since not only is it painfully obvious, but you refuse to make one
of mine?

How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill?

Here's your Word of the Day:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flippant

It was written
after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
aviation knowledge.

Such as?

Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?

Sorry, sorry. Forgot about that "you can't read into anything at all"
disease you have.

I said Jay holds an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and
he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions. Since Jay's
statements about Class D airspace and ATC are demonstrably incorrect, if we
assume he is sincere when he states them, we have to conclude that he holds
an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC.

You would have to ask him on that. My comment was not about that
specifically, but the manner in which you dismissed him and his piloting
skill /flippantly/, with an air of superiority, and told him in so many
words that he wasn't good enough to use controlled airspace.

Since we have
established that there was sufficient spacing and that minimum same runway
separation would have been achieved if the 172 had not unexpectedly stopped
on the runway

Where did you establish that? As I recall, you're relying on Jay's
assumptions about spacing and separation, and whether they were
appropriate or not. How can you both disprove a point and rely on its
premise for your conclusion?

Besides, without definitive objective proof, the premise could never be
established in the first place, since it's an anecdote, and made under
no pretense of authority.

but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.

The controller was expected in this circumstance to amend the 172's
clearance such that they were told to either land long or continue
rolling. Expected, not required. You cannot make the argument that the
controller did not share the bulk of the responsibility in this case to
properly inform and administer the aircraft in his care. A simple
amendment, comment, or otherwise remark to EITHER aircraft would have
avoided the entire situation, but instead the controller allowed it to
unfold and then attempted to clean up afterwards. It's a sign of poor
controller-dom.

And, it's also about time for a new killfile.

TheSmokingGnu

Jay Honeck wrote:


Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.


Never? At any distance?

Jay Honeck wrote:


My "event horizon" of GA is only 13 years -- perhaps someone who has
been flying longer (and doesn't have a vested interest in supporting
ATC) can comment on the history and usage of Class D towers?




Some places don't rate a tower but the people who run the airport want
one. Happened at Bozeman, MT. They didn't meet the minimum number of
ops for an FAA tower, so the city built one anyways and now there are
non FAA controllers there. But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient. I've been to busy
uncontrolled fields and I know how **** poor the weekend pilot is at
being able to aviate, navigate and communicate at the same time. Once
you get about four airplanes in the area I'll take the tower.

On 31 Mar 2007 06:55:42 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:


Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
tower in his district.

Congress has very little to do with it. Think local.

In article om,
Jay Honeck wrote:

I used to assume that Class D existed because air traffic was once
heavier than it is today, and (as with all things government) newly-
useless facilities are slow to be closed. But now I'm not sure --
maybe they were *never* needed?

Castle Airport (formerly Castle AFB) was an uncontrolled field for
years after going civilian, and has just re-opened the control
tower. According to the traffic numbers[1] on Airnav, it has 579
operations per day.

Checking the traffic numbers of local airports on Airnav, it looks
like all the airports with over ~300 operations a day have control
towers. My experience with the ones in the 300-400 range (Sac Exec
(KSAC), Napa (KAPC), Santa Rosa (KSTS)) is that they really don't
need a control tower except when everyone decides to show up at
once. All the ones above that range (Palo Alto (KPAO), Livermore
(KLVK), San Carlos (KSQL)) have enough traffic that the control
tower is useful. Palo Alto and San Carlos have radar, and will
give vectors as needed. Livermore doesn't have radar, but does a
good job sequencing traffic as long as the position reports are
good. Bad position reports are a problem at uncontrolled airports
too, so I don't hold it against ATC when the position reports are
wrong.

None of the above airports have airline traffic. KSAC, KAPC, KSTS
and KLVK have jet traffic and multiple runways. KPAO (single 2400ft
runway) and KSQL (single 2600ft runway) are just piston and turboprop.

BTW, Iowa City lists 53 operations per day, and Oshkosh lists 283
through the wonder of averaging.

John
[1] These numbers are probably similar in accuracy to the flight
hours numbers, but I expect the numbers between airports to be in
the same margin for error.
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.

Never? At any distance?

You have trouble with the word "cutting"? I believe that says it
all.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient.

People fly to North Dakota?

ducking!

I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
but most do not.)

This weird mish-mash of some Class D's with, and some without radar,
makes for a pretty bizarre set of circumstances for pilots.
Personally I find it just a bit odd, and a little uncomfortable, not
knowing if I'm being controlled by Mr. Magoo with binoculars, or
George Jetson with radar.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Which the student may or may not have done while you've committed to
landing. I also would not want to be in the pattern with someone
suddenly pulling a 360 on final, either. IMO, the scenrios you're
presenting do not reflect the most courteous or safe options.

Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.

I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous, but
it may not always reflect the best judgement, so there are appropriate
responses for the PIC in those instances, e.g. "unable". I'm not too
surprised that a student wouldn't be comfortable using that option.

Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.

This thread seemed more like an aero version of "road rage" to me. In a
newsgroup with a lot of folks seeking to learn, that can't be a Good
Thing.

Neil