is it just me?

In article ,
(C Kingsbury) wrote:

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.

consider adding the Needham towers and Minuteman to your list.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"RjL" wrote in message ...

Have fun! Im only 70 hrs ahead of you & mostly through IFR training. When I
finish the instrument rating I figure I'll be about as good a VFR pilot as I
hoped I would be when I got the PP. I figure 100-200 more hours and a
commercial rating & I'll be a decent instrument pilot. But why fly if not to
learn & get better? I mean besides the obvious "I can go 120 MPH in a
straight line isnt that amazing?" part


I'd generally agree but add the counsel to make sure that the quality
of your experience meets or exceeds the quantity. You can go from
student to CFII while almost never venturing more than 50 miles from
one airport with an instructor sitting next to you on sunny days. I'm
getting ready to take my instrument checkride and I have about 25
hours of actual IFR time, because my instructor makes a point of
teaching students in real weather.

After the examiner handed me my ticket two years ago, I asked him if
he would recommend that I get an instrument rating. He replied,
"Absolutely, but first you should go out alone and scare yourself for
50 hours or so."

-cwk.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:

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?"?

After a weekend away from the 'puter, here's how I put it last
Wednesday:

: Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: Robert Briggs wrote:
:
: 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 realise that (modulo Newps' comment).
:
: 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.

I guess I misunderstood your simple explanation of LAHSO to include
denial that it constituted a "form of dual runway occupancy" when the
other guy crosses your nose.

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...

After a weekend away from the 'puter, here's how I put it last
Wednesday:

: Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: Robert Briggs wrote:
:
: 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 realise that (modulo Newps' comment).
:
: 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.

I guess I misunderstood your simple explanation of LAHSO to include
denial that it constituted a "form of dual runway occupancy" when the
other guy crosses your nose.


Nope, if you're cleared to land and hold short of the intersecting runway
your runway effectively ends at the hold short point.

Newps wrote:
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.

That is why I wrote "suitably clear", rather than "empty".

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.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said?

It is quite likely that the controller *would* call the go-around, but
the lack of a landing clearance would (or jolly well should) keep the
second guy airborne.

That would never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping
at the tower controller wondering about his landing clearance.

I don't think the pilot would often be "wondering about his landing
clearance".

At a field with normally light(ish) traffic where you happened to be
unusually close to the guy in front the controller would tell you to
expect a late landing clearance.

Somewhere like LHR "late" landing clearances are the default.

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.

What do you mean by "all this talking"?

You can sort out things like the weather in plenty of time.

I wouldn't call issuing the landing clearance itself "doing all this
talking" - certainly not in comparison with a system which requires
time for the controller to call a go-around.

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.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said?


It is quite likely that the controller *would* call the go-around, but
the lack of a landing clearance would (or jolly well should) keep the
second guy airborne.

But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.




That would never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping
at the tower controller wondering about his landing clearance.


I don't think the pilot would often be "wondering about his landing
clearance".

Alas, they do.



At a field with normally light(ish) traffic where you happened to be
unusually close to the guy in front the controller would tell you to
expect a late landing clearance.

There's no reason for that and causes the controller to talk more than
he has to. "Follow the Cessna ahead, cleared to land." Assuming it
works out as expected with the required amount of separation no further
talking is required. If it doesn't then you tell the aircraft to go
around. It's foolish to be issuing landing clearances with the aircraft
on very short final. He's got more important things to worry about.





I wouldn't call issuing the landing clearance itself "doing all this
talking" - certainly not in comparison with a system which requires
time for the controller to call a go-around.

In my system I have a lot more time to talk because I am not giving
other airplanes farther out a stupid instruction like "continue inbound."

Newps wrote:


But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.

Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's not
a Good Thing.

- Andrew

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

Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's
not
a Good Thing.


No, but it happens. And it happens with the pros too.

Bob Noel wrote in message ...
In article ,
(C Kingsbury) wrote:

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.

consider adding the Needham towers and Minuteman to your list.

So long as we're at it let's not forget the nude beach on the Cape!

-cwk.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Newps wrote:


But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.


Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's not
a Good Thing.

Not for them, but it really doesn't matter.