Go around, NOW!!

Jim Burns wrote:
Although he sounded rude it was obvious he wasn't having a good day
and at
the very least had his hands full, I'm just curious about what
standard
procedures are for tower controllers maintaining visual contact with
planes
once they are actually in the traffic pattern.

Standard procedure is to know where everyone is to the extent necessary
to ensure that separation on the runway is provided. It is actually
acceptable to clear an aircraft to land when not in sight, provided the
traffic situation is such that loss of separation on the runway will
not occur.

In a situation where there are lots of planes in the pattern, the
normal procedure is to use visual sequencing and that does mean
maintaining visual contact - but this is not always possible. Bright
sun and obstacles around the tower can interfere with this. This does
not relieve the controller of his responsibility for correct sequencing
and ensuring separation on the runway.

I believe it was the creator of Dilbert who pointed out that aviation
was an industry that had made no progress in decades, and that he
believed flight control RADAR still involved having interns on towers
with binoculars screaming "Turn right, turn right." Spookily accurate
for someone without aviation knowledge. My point is basically that
both pilot and controller made mistakes, but the system is such that
mistakes like this are guaranteed to happen.

I have also noticed that when pilots screw up in a situation where the
controller is ahead of the game and not screwing up, there is very
little chewing out on the radio. The pilot is, at worst, told to call
the tower - calmly and professionally. Every time a controller is
chewing out someone on the frequency, he is screwing up - and usually
it's not his first screwup either. He's mad because he knows he didn't
do a good job with the situation, and he's taking it out on the pilot.
Basically, it's unprofessional.

Michael

Michael wrote:
the tower - calmly and professionally. Every time a controller is
chewing out someone on the frequency, he is screwing up - and usually
it's not his first screwup either. He's mad because he knows he didn't
do a good job with the situation, and he's taking it out on the pilot.

But isn't this true of any situation? I've noticed road rage, nasty
people in parking lots, softball fields, etc. And the one being
hostile is always the one who is wrong -- and they probably realize
it and refuse to deal with it in a rational manner.

"Blanche" wrote in message

I've noticed road rage... And the one being
hostile is always the one who is wrong .....

I disagree. It is wrong to react with hostility, but the genesis of that
frustration and the ultimate cause of the rage is usually found elsewhere.
There are incredible numbers of oblivious people driving cars, some of them
truly stupid. The only real requirement is to *pay attention*, and they
fail at even that.