is it just me?

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Newps wrote:


I guess it's something of a matter of emphasis, but I prefer the
idea that the second guy is flying a missed approach until the
controller tells him that the runway *is* his, rather than that
he is flying a normal approach unless and until the controller
tells him that the runway is *not* his (or he breaks out of any
overcast and sees for himself).

Well we don't do that here, never have.


Any idea why not?

Because it's not a problem.


It's not just "emphasis". If communication fails when someone is about to
be waved off, there's a problem. If communication fails when someone is
about to be cleared to land, there's far less of a problem.

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.

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.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

You have it backwards.


Actually, I'm dead on.



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?

"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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Andrew Gideon 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?

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

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.

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

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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:

That said, why bother holding short if the other guy's runway doesn't
include 150 feet or so of your own? The tarmac is the same, even if
his label for it is different from yours.

Eh? If you're instructed to hold short, the other guy's runway DOES include
150 feet or so of the runway you'd otherwise be entitled to use.

Er, that's what I was saying.

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!

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

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

The controller told me so.


Did you not have the previous airplane in sight?

Og course. He was trundling down the runway.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

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

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...

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


I think Andrew Gideon is saying that.



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.


In the US, the first one does not have to vacate the runway for it to be
suitably clear.



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


I think most of us understand that.



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.


The UK rules appear very inefficient.

Robert Briggs wrote:


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.

Right. This is my point. Since someone stated:

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

I thought it useful to point out that, in this US, this is usually but not
always the case. What I wrote:

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

is pretty clear. Why Steven concludes that a blown tire implies a failure
to provide proper spacing is odd, but really doesn't have anything to do
with the discussion here.

- Andrew