fun with controllers at OSU

"Hotel 179" wrote in message
...

Non-towered field...just announce that you are making right traffic...no
tower, no active runway.


Why would you announce that you're violating the FARs?

"Garner Miller" wrote in message
...

How do you figure?

From the P/CG:

"OPTION APPROACH- An approach requested and conducted by a pilot which
will result in either a touch-and-go, missed approach, low approach,
stop- and-go, or full stop landing."

Says the same thing the AIM says. A back-taxi is not on the above list.


The controller didn't bitch about the request for the back-taxi, he bitched
about the full-stop landing. A full-stop IS covered under the option.

--

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...



Why would you announce that you're violating the FARs?


Steven,

Which FAR are you referring to?

"Mike W." wrote in message
...
This afternoon I went out for a few laps at Ohio State. Weather was pretty
marginal, so I did 2 landings there, departed to an uncontrolled field
about
12mi away for a few, then came back. I wanted to do a few more, so I was
doing t-n-g's on the north runway. Each time, the controller said 'clear
for
the option'. So on one lap, I decided I wanted to practice a short field
landing. Stuck it, stopped and requested a back taxi. Nope, roll down to
end
and taxi back on taxiway, then reprimanded me for stopping on the runway.
He
wasn't nasty about it. 'I know you're the only one up there, but it's
baaaaaad practice...' etc.
I went through this several times when I was learning to fly there, as did
other students. Even my flight instructors would get frustrated with this
exact situation.
The airport was not at all busy. I am not arguing this guys authority or
anything, but we have to be able to practice these landings somewhere, I'm
not going to an 1500' strip out in the boonies to practice for real. I
was
this close to asking the guy for the number up in the cab, but figured
I
would just go home even more puzzled.
So, you controllers out there, what exactly am I cleared to do with
'cleared
for the option' that differs from 'clear for touch and go' or 'clear to
land'? Do I need to request, specifically, that I am wanting to practice a
short field, with full braking and a complete stop on the runway?

Was he upset that you stopped on the runway, or that you requested a
backtaxi? Stopping is not a problem as long as you're going to take off
from the stopping point or clear the runway. As others have mentioned, a
backtaxi is not included in an "option" clearance.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:iK6Xe.13525

Why would you announce that you're violating the FARs?

I was referring to the fact that postage stamp runways in the boonies have a
more relaxed atmosphere than a non-towered field that may really need a
tower....my earlier post was an over-simplification.

Stephen

("Garner Miller" wrote)
[snip]
The AIM lists what you're specifically allowed to do on a

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-22

4-3-22. Option Approach

The "Cleared for the Option" procedure will permit an instructor,
flight examiner or pilot the option to make a touch-and-go, low
approach, missed approach, stop-and-go, or full stop landing.


....low approach.

How low? Curious.

At OSH I saw a low 'departure' on 27 the final Saturday evening. It was low
enough to wonder if the prop(s) would hit. Don't recall the make/model. IIRC
they retracted the wheels then stayed low for (what looked like) some hot
doggin' - scary. And I'm all for a little fun.


Montblack

"Hotel 179" wrote in message
...

Steven,

Which FAR are you referring to?


91.126

--

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:HPcXe.13271
91.126

You are absolutely right...There's no wiggle room in that one...although,
there have been times when I've heard of practice instrument approaches in
VMC that result in a non-standard approach to a non-towered field....does
that violate 91.126?

Wait, wait...don't tell me.....I'm sure that an AC covers those situations
when advice is needed in a non-cookie-cutter world.....I'll look there.

Stephen

I fly out of OSU as well and have found that since it is a Non Federal
Control Tower the controllers there can have an unfriendly attitude
depending on which controller is working at the time. I do not know them
except having met the control tower manager a few times, he is concerned
about the less than friendly treatment that students and others get at
OSU so I encourage you to call.

The management is aware that they have a reputation as being nonstudent
friendly and have encouraged local pilots to respond to surveys
regarding the service.

It sounds like to me that the controller made a mistake.

Bruce.

"Hotel 179" wrote in message
...

You are absolutely right...There's no wiggle room in that one...although,
there have been times when I've heard of practice instrument approaches in
VMC that result in a non-standard approach to a non-towered field....does
that violate 91.126?


Note that FAR 91.126 begins with "Unless otherwise authorized or required".