is it just me?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:
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.

Hmm ... I think I *do* understand that: you land and hold short of that
150-foot portion (more specifically, short of some marked holding
point).

I guess that at least one of us needs a caffeine fix and/or a weekend
away from the 'puter. Good night.

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

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...

Hmm ... I think I *do* understand that: you land and hold short of that
150-foot portion (more specifically, short of some marked holding
point).


Well, if you understood that, why did you ask "... why bother holding short
if the other guy's runway doesn't include 150 feet or so of your own?"?



I guess that at least one of us needs a caffeine fix and/or a weekend
away from the 'puter. Good night.


I think you're right. I suggest rest.

Andrew Gideon wrote:



That's not the same thing as saying that it cannot occur, though.

Fer cryin' out loud, of course anything can happen. And yet we still
allow planes to takeoff.


If we did
have a wreck caused by such an unfortunate and unlikely event, would the
rules be changed?

Probably, because that's how the FAA works. Controller forgets
Metroliner on runway at an intersection at night, clears 737 to land,
which promptly lands on Metroliner. As a direct result I am no longer
allowed to put aircraft in postion at an intersection at night.


If so, why wait?

Because it's reasonable to wait.

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.

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

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

Og course. He was trundling down the runway.


That was the first you saw of him?

What difference does that make? I suspect you're playing your usual one sentence post
game that ends in something like "well, we do that, but that's not the proper term
for that here." If so, finish it up, 'cause you're on record so far as saying that,
if the runway gets blocked by one aircraft, no U.S. controller would cancel the
landing clearance of a following aircraft, and that's BS. Been there.

Pertinent quote:
When a number of independent aircraft (i.e., excluding formation
teams and the like) wish to land in quick succession, AIUI only
one will be "cleared to land" at any time in the UK, so if a
landing aeroplane doesn't clear the runway in time then the guy
behind who has not been "cleared to land" will be going around
anyway.

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

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

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

Peter Clark wrote in message . ..

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

BED gets even more interesting when you add in the heavy bizjet
traffic. You can easily have a handful of Katanas and Tomahawks
sharing the pattern with Challengers and G-Vs.

Also you need to keep your eyes peeled out by the "golf ball" off to
the Northeast, and the old Wang Towers. I always make a point of not
passing directly overhead of either one.

-cwk.