is it just me?

Andrew Gideon wrote:




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

We make thousands of assumptions everyday.



That #1
won't blow a tire is one of those assumptions, of course.

In the 16 or so years I've been doing this I've seen less than 5 blown
tires that required the aircraft to get towed off the runway. In that
time I have witnessed well over a million takeoffs and landings.


Others include
that #1 won't slow a lot on final or dally on the runway.

That happens all the time. There is no such thing as a go around proof
sequence. **** happens. If it didn't there wouldn't be any need for a
controller in the first place.



And just to make matters "worse", I've been cleared as #3 or #4 to land. So
the controller is making a fairly lengthy chain of assumptions (even on
small planes, we're speaking now of 9 tires holding together {8^).

What exactly are the tires you use made of...Jello? They just don't
fail with the regularity that you are worried about.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

In the 16 or so years I've been doing this I've seen less than 5 blown
tires that required the aircraft to get towed off the runway. In that
time I have witnessed well over a million takeoffs and landings.


That's unlikely. To witness that many you'd have to spend your full forty
hour work week in the tower every week for sixteen years and average thirty
operations per hour.

Newps wrote:

What exactly are the tires you use made of...Jello? They just don't
fail with the regularity that you are worried about.

I no longer rent from the FBO that maintained the plane I was flying when
the tire failed, so it isn't terribly convenient for me to check to see if
the tires are jello. I expect I'd have noticed this sort of thing during
the preflight, but - given that I don't preflight with a spoon and whipped
cream - perhaps not.

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.

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. Someone - not you, BTW - claimed:

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

I was merely pointing out that this was usually, but not always, the case in
my country which also happens to be called "the US".

- Andrew

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.

Newps wrote:

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.

Interesting. Well, it happened to me once.

[Yes, it was in a 172 also used for training.]


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.

That *is* interesting. It helps explain why I've experienced this more at
CDW than elsewhere. I thought it because most of my landings, over the
years, have been there (it's where I did my primary and instrument
training). But CDW is also a "training heavy" airport.

Not that this is too meaningful, but I cannot recall a single instance of a
go-around being required at a controlled airport not CDW. I can recall
hearing a go-around issued at CDW just this past week.

- Andrew

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:02:09 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:


Not that this is too meaningful, but I cannot recall a single instance of a
go-around being required at a controlled airport not CDW. I can recall
hearing a go-around issued at CDW just this past week.

FWIW, I've been told to go-around while attempting to get in a landing
at BED on any number of occasions during my training here.

Peter Clark wrote:

FWIW, I've been told to go-around while attempting to get in a landing
at BED on any number of occasions during my training here.

Is that a training-heavy airport?

- Andrew

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:55:51 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

FWIW, I've been told to go-around while attempting to get in a landing
at BED on any number of occasions during my training here.

Is that a training-heavy airport?

Yes, at least 2 schools based there. I believe they do a lot of
controller training as well. Makes for an exciting pattern towards
the end of the scheduled blocks when everyone is coming back from the
practice areas

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

Andrew Gideon wrote:



**** happens.


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

Yep, a few weeks ago aHorizon Dash 8 told me "Tower, we just hit
something on the runway." We send the truck out onto the runway and
they needed a shovel to pick up the remains of some animal. It wasn't
until the Horizon pilot checked his nosewheel and found a few hundred
quills stuck in the tire did we realize it was a porcupine.