Class D Sucks

Jay,

It is still "see and avoid". The controller is just another set of eyes. I
fly from a Class D airport (with radar though). Right after getting my
license I was finishing my C172SP checkout doing some touch and goes. After
about 3 we were on downwind, getting ready to turn base with a Tomahawk
behind us doing touch and goes also. Just then I saw it. A Mooney. My
first thought was "He can't be...." Then he announces "Mooney *****
entering on the 45 for left base runway 27" As he starts to get bigger in
my windshield,my CFI screams "Oh s**t..you need..." and stops because since
the Mooney's turning right I'm already giving it the gas and turning right.
The tower started to tell me about a traffic alert and gave up, apparently
seeing the maneuver. As I come around in the turn I'm looking for the
Tomahawk hoping he's doing the same or passing between us and the runway.
He's in a 360 also. The Mooney announced final and after touchdown got a
very terse "You need to call me at....." Needless to say we and the
Tomahawk requested full stops instead of touch and goes. Often it's our own
faults.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:uCnwd.511240$wV.477723@attbi_s54...
Over the years, I have posted several diatribes against Class D
(so-called)
"controlled" airspace. In my opinion, having guys standing in a control
tower with binoculars, trying to "control" air traffic is, at best, a
ludicrous throw-back to a simpler time. At worst, it's dangerous.

Yesterday we once again had the misfortune of flying into Class D, when we
flew to Dubuque (DBQ) for breakfast -- and again witnessed a potentially
dangerous situation.

The University of Dubuque has their flight school there, which means
high-density student traffic in the pattern. There are also four regular
airline flights into/out of DBQ every day. Add to this the occasional $10
0
hamburger flight and corporate charters, and you've got an airport which
can, on occasion, rival Chicago for business.

Yesterday was one of those days. After several days of crap, the skies
cleared and the wind, while gusting to 23 knots, was right down Rwy 18.
As
a result the pattern was full of students and people like us, enjoying the
day.

As we arrived in the pattern on a right downwind, with Mary acting as PIC,
we were number three to land behind a 182 coming into the pattern on a
left
downwind. This always presents a problem, IMHO, since traffic is hard to
spot when you're flying opposing patterns. There were numerous targets in
the area, all trying to land at once, the tower controller had his hands
full, and he was putting guys into 360 degree turns for spacing.

After extending our downwind quite a ways, we finally spotted the 182 we
were to follow. As Mary was turning right base, we heard the controller
tell an older guy in a different 182 "Okay, that's not going to work. Fly
directly toward the tower now and re-enter the right downwind for 18..."

By now we were turning base to final, with Mary fighting the burbles and
updrafts caused by the 20+ knot wind. Out of the corner of my eye I
spotted
a Cessna angling toward us from high and to the right, in what seemed like
a
very awkward position, given the traffic density in the pattern. He was
in
a shallow bank to the right, but, as long as he didn't descend, we would
pass under him as we turned final, so I didn't mention him to Mary.

As we were sliding down final approach, this guy was still out my right
window, above us and approaching the runway at a 45 degree angle, clearly
out of position. My thoughts were that this *must* be the guy that the
tower had told to "head toward the tower" and that the controllers surely
knew where he was, and that he/they knew what they were doing.

Wrong.

As we were on short final the guy passed above us, and out of sight. I
was
now getting pretty uncomfortable, being unable to see him, but I was
confident that we weren't in any danger of collision -- he'd have had to
be
a Harrier to land on top of us from that position. Mary was busy
fighting
the wind, and I didn't want to interrupt her battle with bitching about
this
doofus, but I sure was wondering what the heck the guy was doing
above/behind and now to our left. Besides, the controller surely knew
where he was, right?

Wrong.

Suddenly the controller spotted the transgressor, and started a rapid-fire
interrogation of the guy, asking him what he was doing and where he was
going. The guy responded that he was told to "fly to the tower" -- so he
did! He had missed the second half of the controller's instruction, and
was apparently going to be content doing 360 degree turns over the tower,
or
something, awaiting further instructions? More likely he had no idea what
to do when he got over the tower, but couldn't get a word in edgewise for
further instructions...

Needless to say, the controller laid into the guy, at one point stating "I
assume you are a student pilot?" (to which the guy actually answered
"No.").
He continued talking to him until we shut down to go into the FBO, so I
don't know if he had to go "visit the tower" or not.

This type of thing has happened to us so many times in Class D airspace,
it's just not funny anymore. There is just no way a guy in a glass tower
can visually track so many targets, or provide spacing guidance with the
parallax caused by trying to judge distance from the ground. In my
opinion,
we would have been far safer if Dubuque were UNcontrolled airspace,
because
at least everyone would be flying the same pattern -- no one would be
flying
opposing RIGHT and LEFT hand converging traffic patterns simultaneously.
Also, everyone would be more on their toes, without the false security
blanket of being in "controlled" airspace.

IMHO, the FAA should either:

1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really a
Semi-Controlled.

We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than
we
are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just
an
absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It is still "see and avoid". The controller is just another set of eyes.

Which, in Class D airspace, is much like using a set of rubber crutches.

Worse than useless.

IMHO, of course.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I know that you know that separation is the pilots responsibility in
class D, but it seems that you still expect the tower controller to be
responsible for it.

Not exactly.

What I find potentially dangerous is the fact that Class D ATC is putting on
a show of actually controlling traffic, when, in fact, they are doing
nothing of the sort.

And then, when things fall apart, they can legally blame the pilots. This,
IMHO, is a recipe for disaster.

Take, for example, the poor schmuck in the pattern with us who was
dangerously out of position. He apparently only heard the first part of the
controller's instructions ("Fly toward the tower....") and missed the last
part ("...and re-enter the right downwind.") Who knows what happened --
maybe the controller was walked on by another aircraft, or maybe the pilot
himself walked on the second half of the instructions when he acknowledged
them? (I heard the controller's whole transmission, so this is admittedly
unlikely.)

Either way, had the tower controller not been there, and thus no
instructions issued, chances are this guy would have been just fine. He'd
have proceeded into the pattern (or not) of his own volition -- and so would
we all. When he misheard and then stupidly followed clearly erroneous
instructions, we all ended up in a more precarious position.

In the end, the attempt to control the landing pattern without adequate
vision simply made the situation worse.

Which, of course, begs the question: Could this situation have happened in
Class C airspace? I think the answer is clearly "yes" -- but due to their
radar it would never have gone so far without being caught and corrected.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote in message
oups.com...

Here is a good one: If you are cleared for an approach, are you also
cleared for landing?


No.

When he misheard and then stupidly followed clearly erroneous
instructions, we all ended up in a more precarious position.

So the error on the part of the pilot made things worse. No surprise
here, that's what errors do.

Which, of course, begs the question: Could this situation have happened in
Class C airspace? I think the answer is clearly "yes" -- but due to their
radar it would never have gone so far without being caught and corrected.

Suppose the radar controller made a mistake? That would make things
worse too, wouldn't it? And then the pilot would compound it by
"stupidly following clearly erronieous instructions"...

Toys in the cab and toys in the cockpit are no substitute for eyeballs
(except in IMC) and reliance on toys puts us all in a more precarious
position.

The airspace is what it is.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:xpNwd.589735$D%.554238@attbi_s51...
It is still "see and avoid". The controller is just another set of
eyes.

Which, in Class D airspace, is much like using a set of rubber crutches.

Worse than useless.

IMHO, of course.

My experience tells me that in many cases the controllers in Class D towers
have only radio contact with the traffic they are trying to "control."
They have no visual contact yet attempt to sequence landing traffic. Pretty
scary. I avoid Class D at all costs.

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

My experience tells me that in many cases the controllers in Class D towers
have only radio contact with the traffic they are trying to "control."
They have no visual contact yet attempt to sequence landing traffic. Pretty
scary. I avoid Class D at all costs

I never had a problem with controllers in Class D towers. Some towers now have
radar, maybe not the newest, but they can track traffic. Of course things maybe
different here in SE Florida.
I make sure I have the Atis or Awos, then tell them who I am, where I am and
what I want to do.
Hank

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:03:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


We are much more comfortable flying into busy uncontrolled airports than we
are flying into Class D "partially" controlled airspace -- which is just an
absurd situation, when you think about it. It needn't be this way.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but here are two incidents I've had in
the last WEEK....

1. I was in the pattern for Santa Rosa (KSTS), class D. The tower told
me I was number two for landing, and to follow a Cherokee. I told him
I had a Cherokee off my left wing at 9:00 on final. The tower didn't
say anything. I turned base behind him, and the controller snapped at
me that "I was following the wrong Cherokee". If it was the wrong one,
why didn't he correct me when I identified which Cherokee I reported
seeing?

My passenger was a commercial pilot and former flight instructor. He
told me that I did the right thing, and the controller was wrong.

2. I was returning to Hayward (KHWD, home airport) class D. I was
approaching from the south, and was told to fly inbound on a "modified
straight in" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). So I angled
to the east slightly to join a long downwing for 28L. A twin was
approaching from the east, and was told to report at "Cal State" (a
big building in the hills to the east, sticks out like a sore thumb).
Then he was told to do a 360 there, since I was on about a 1.5 mile
final.

I looked to my right, and there was a twin, about a 1/4 mile from me,
angling toward the runway. It was uncomfortably close. The controller
barked at him about not doing the 360 at the right spot, etc.

I'm sure Hayward has radar, because they asked me to squak ident. In
this case, radar didn't help much, the guy flying the twin messed up.


John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

2. I was returning to Hayward (KHWD, home airport) class D. I was
approaching from the south, and was told to fly inbound on a "modified
straight in" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean).

In my experience this refers to a specific track along the ground
(such as at EMT, following the channel, which is sort of aligned with
the runway, but not really all that closely). If in doubt, ask. OF
course there's the danger that the other airplane doesn't know what it
is, and didn't ask either.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.