Class D Sucks

My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
is (and is not) being provided.

This would be because pilots, like all other people, have this idea
that authority and responsibility go together. In other words, if the
controller has the authority to tell you how to fly your pattern, when
to turn, etc - then the responsibility for separation in the air should
also be his. Well, it doesn't work that way. THAT is the primary
weakness of Class D airspace, and it can't be fixed unless you either
make the controller responsible for separation (meaning that unless the
pilot disregarded the controller's instructions, it's controller error,
not pilot error, in the event of a mid-air or near miss) or you give
the pilot the authority to disregard the controller's instructions at
will, not just in the event of an emergency (thus making the airspace
uncontrolled). But while this is an issue in theory, in practice it's
usually not an issue.

In reality, at most Class D's most controllers treat separation as if
it were their responsibility. That means they issue clear and
comprehensible instructions and ask for a readback of the key points,
just as if they were issuing clearances. When that happens, pilots
treat the instructions as if they were clearances - meaning they
question those they don't understand, read back those they do, and
comply - and things work OK - a little better than they would if the
airspace was uncontrolled. Sometimes you get a bad or overloaded
controller, and then things are MUCH worse than they would be if the
airspace was uncontrolled. That's when you get the problems.

I will be the first to admit that I will let a situation that looks
ugly develop a lot further in Class D than I will in Class E or G. I
Class E/G, I know there's nobody looking out for me but me, and if I
don't have a plan nobody does. So when I see things not going to plan
(someone too close for comfort) I take action immediately. Not so in
Class D. Unless the controller has given me reason to doubt his
competence (by doing things like issuing nonsensical or illegal
instructions, chewing out pilots on the frequency rather than calmly
giving them a number to call, and generally acting like he lost SA) I'm
going to assume he has a plan, and I'm going to stick with his plan
until there's just no way. I think most pilots would too. I guess
this is what you call inappropriate comfort level. You are of course
entitled to your opinion, but I don't consider it inappropriate given
the way Class D normally operates. Given the legalities, you have a
point.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...

This would be because pilots, like all other people, have this idea
that authority and responsibility go together.


Actually, there are quite a few people that don't understand that.

On 17 Dec 2004 08:29:29 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
is (and is not) being provided.

This would be because pilots, like all other people, have this idea
that authority and responsibility go together. In other words, if the
controller has the authority to tell you how to fly your pattern, when
to turn, etc - then the responsibility for separation in the air should
also be his. Well, it doesn't work that way. THAT is the primary
weakness of Class D airspace, and it can't be fixed unless you either
make the controller responsible for separation (meaning that unless the
pilot disregarded the controller's instructions, it's controller error,
not pilot error, in the event of a mid-air or near miss) or you give
the pilot the authority to disregard the controller's instructions at
will, not just in the event of an emergency (thus making the airspace
uncontrolled). But while this is an issue in theory, in practice it's
usually not an issue.

In reality, at most Class D's most controllers treat separation as if
it were their responsibility. That means they issue clear and
comprehensible instructions and ask for a readback of the key points,
just as if they were issuing clearances. When that happens, pilots
treat the instructions as if they were clearances - meaning they
question those they don't understand, read back those they do, and
comply - and things work OK - a little better than they would if the
airspace was uncontrolled. Sometimes you get a bad or overloaded
controller, and then things are MUCH worse than they would be if the
airspace was uncontrolled. That's when you get the problems.

I will be the first to admit that I will let a situation that looks
ugly develop a lot further in Class D than I will in Class E or G. I
Class E/G, I know there's nobody looking out for me but me, and if I
don't have a plan nobody does. So when I see things not going to plan
(someone too close for comfort) I take action immediately. Not so in
Class D. Unless the controller has given me reason to doubt his
competence (by doing things like issuing nonsensical or illegal
instructions, chewing out pilots on the frequency rather than calmly
giving them a number to call, and generally acting like he lost SA) I'm
going to assume he has a plan, and I'm going to stick with his plan
until there's just no way. I think most pilots would too. I guess
this is what you call inappropriate comfort level. You are of course
entitled to your opinion, but I don't consider it inappropriate given
the way Class D normally operates. Given the legalities, you have a
point.

Michael

Perhaps a poor choice of works, Michael. By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is. Too many pilots lose just a little bit of the edge when
they think someone else is watching over their wellbeing. I'm
speaking specifically of VFR pilots, all of whom were taught that ATC
does not provide separation in the air for VFR aircraft in the Delta,
but many have "forgotten".
Rich Russell

Richard Russell wrote:

By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is.

This is, unfortunately, true. There's someone with whom I no longer fly who
refused to take preventative measures regarding traffic w/in CDW's class D
because "it's the controller's job". Scary.

But this is not the fault of class D airspace. Rather, it is the fault of
training, and perhaps the understanding of the phrase "controlled
airspace". I don't understand this confusion, myself, as any that exists
should be cleared up the moment the student asks "but why is class E called
'controlled'?".

- Andrew

By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is.

I understand what you're saying, I simply think this is one of those
situations where the national airspace system is poorly designed. It's
a bug. We have lots of people here making the point that this is a
well known, documented bug - and they are right. It's still a bug,
though, not a feature, and I think that Jay correctly identified it as
such, even if I don't agree with his solutions.

The national airspace system is full of those bugs. For example, you
might reasonably think that if you fly a published instrument approach,
with current plates and NOTAM's, equipment that meets the
specifications and passes the required operational checks, and you fly
the approach to well within PTS standards that means you shouldn't have
to worry about hitting any obstructions. You might think that - but
you would be wrong. It's a bug. This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

I'm
speaking specifically of VFR pilots, all of whom were taught that ATC
does not provide separation in the air for VFR aircraft in the Delta,
but many have "forgotten".

And I'm saying they have "forgotten" because it's just not a reasonable
situation to give the controller authority to tell the aircraft where
and when to fly without giving him the responsibility for separating
them. It's a situation that's guaranteed to cause problems for pilots,
so when pilots have problems with it, it's worth going beyond asking
whether they know the rules, and question whether those rules are
reasonable. The solution for a quirky system is not training in
dealing with the quirks - it's fixing the quirks.

Michael

Michael wrote:

The national airspace system is full of those bugs.

The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

It's no bug at all. It allows a controller to basically say: "stay in
that region" or "fly that altitude band" or even more important "stay
away from that region", but I won't be able to provide separation.

If you're talking about bugs, then I'd say that the biggest bug is a
system which allows people to become pilots without knowing the basics
of airspace classification.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
The national airspace system is full of those bugs.
The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

No, other nations ALSO have bugs in their systems, but since I haven't
flown in those other nations I'm not too interested on commenting on
them.

This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

It's no bug at all. It allows a controller to basically say: "stay in

that region" or "fly that altitude band" or even more important "stay

away from that region", but I won't be able to provide separation.

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
separation. That's a bug.

If you're talking about bugs, then I'd say that the biggest bug is a
system which allows people to become pilots without knowing the
basics
of airspace classification.

I don't agree. First, no system is ever perfect, and someone will
always slip through the net who doesn't understand something. Any
systems that relies on everyone knowing all aspects, including those
that are counterintuitive, is very poorly designed. Second, I haven't
actually met any pilots who made it through without knowing the basics
of airspace classification, although I don't doubt that it's possible.
It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come up.
And third, I think lack of understanding of systematic errors (as
opposed to procedural ones) is a much greater handicap to safety.
However, we don't teach pilots anything about system design - probably
because if we did, they would start to realize what a poorly designed
and quirky mess the national airspace system is.

Michael

Michael wrote:

The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

No, other nations ALSO have bugs in their systems, but since I haven't
flown in those other nations I'm not too interested on commenting on
them.

You don't understand what I mean. Airspace classification is an
international thing, an ICAO thing. The worst a country could do is to
leave that international system. If you don't like airspace D, then your
approach should be not to apply it in the USA. I wouldn't comment on
that. But airspace D may have its place in other countries. In mine, it
certainly does.

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
separation. That's a bug.

No. It allows a controller to provide some "big scale separation",
leaving the "fine separation" to the pilots.

It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come up.

Intuition is a very personal thing. What may be intuitive to you may not
be so to me and vice versa. Even more interesting, intuition can be
trained. When I started studying physics, quantum theory and realtivity
were the most counterintuitive things I could imagine. Today, they are
very intuitive. The same applies to certain aspects of flying.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
You don't understand what I mean. Airspace classification is an
international thing, an ICAO thing. The worst a country could do is
to
leave that international system. If you don't like airspace D, then
your
approach should be not to apply it in the USA.

First off, we've already done it with Class F airspace - we don't have
any in the US. We don't have to have class D either.

Second, we are already non-compliant with some aspects of ICAO. For
example, in the US, Class C does not require a celarance for VFR.

Third, I don't see what the big deal is about local regulation. Yes,
it makes things more complicated for the huge international operator,
giving the smaller local operator an advantage. IMO this is a feature,
not a bug.

So I understand what you mean perfectly - I just don't agree.

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting
loss of
separation. That's a bug.

No. It allows a controller to provide some "big scale separation",
leaving the "fine separation" to the pilots.

I think this is nonsense, considering there IS no big scale in US Class
D - the typical radius is less than 5 nm.

It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come
up.

Intuition is a very personal thing. What may be intuitive to you may
not
be so to me and vice versa.

Actually, that's not true. There is a whole science of ergonomics, and
one aspect of it, the design of user interfaces, is all about what is
intuitive. In the modern software world, the more progressive
companies actually have people unfamiliar with the software work with
it. If people keep right-clicking somewhere where such an action has
no effect, the fix is not to train the users - it is to change the
software so that right clicking there does what they expect.

The trained people (software engineers) often complain about this, but
they are wrong. It's really that simple. It's about time some modern
thinking like that was introduced into the national airspace system.
Michael

Michael wrote:

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
separation. That's a bug.

This is a misunderstanding. The PIC has more authority than ATC, but is
only supposed to exercise it when necessary. Loss of separation is one
example of that necessity.

Given this, the PIC's ability is not limited.

- Andrew