Going around what to do?

Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
with you sidestepping. That is, of course, if you didn't already
receive instructions telling you to get out of the way.

At a non-towered field, see the above, but announce intentions. If I
lose sight of the other traffic, it's no longer "See and Avoid". It
becomes, "I made a bad decision and hope the other plane avoids me."

Chris G.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
In both cases, announce your intentions, offset your approach and fly an
upwind leg (typically to the right of the runway centerline). You should
adjust your upwind leg to keep the rogue aircraft/pilot in view until it
is no longer a collision threat.


At a controlled field, unless told otherwise, you should overfly the runway
while climbing to traffic pattern altitude.

"Chris G." wrote in message
reenews.net...

Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
with you sidestepping. That is, of course, if you didn't already
receive instructions telling you to get out of the way.


The instruction, "go around", by itself, means overfly the runway while
climbing to traffic pattern altitude. You're not complying with the
instruction if you sidestep to the right without being told to do so.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:11:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Chris G." wrote in message
freenews.net...

Sorry, I don't fly over the same runway when another aircraft could be
right below me, or that I could run into it. ATC would be quite okay
with you sidestepping. That is, of course, if you didn't already
receive instructions telling you to get out of the way.


The instruction, "go around", by itself, means overfly the runway while
climbing to traffic pattern altitude. You're not complying with the
instruction if you sidestep to the right without being told to do so.


Maybe so, but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
the safety of the flight....

For what it's worth, I'd only side-step if I didn't like what I saw
below and in front of me. Letting ATC know what I was doing
would of course be a polite thing to do!

Bela P. Havasreti

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:11:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

The instruction, "go around", by itself, means overfly the runway while
climbing to traffic pattern altitude. You're not complying with the
instruction if you sidestep to the right without being told to do so.


Maybe so, but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
the safety of the flight....

Right on...

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...

Maybe so,


There's no "maybe" about it. The Pilot/Controller Glossary was compiled to
promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control
system. The instruction "Go Around" is defined as:

"Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional
instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or
an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while
climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the
crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach
should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as
instructed by ATC; e.g., "Go around" (additional instructions if required)."



but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
the safety of the flight....


"The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the
final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Authority and
responsibility go hand-in-hand. So if you're instructed to overfly the
runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude, but instead use your PIC
authority and begin a climbing turn to the right and collide with an
aircraft on downwind, you're responsible for all damages, injuries, and
lives lost.



For what it's worth, I'd only side-step if I didn't like what I saw
below and in front of me. Letting ATC know what I was doing
would of course be a polite thing to do!


It would also make any potential enforcement action of your violation of FAR
91.123(b) easier.

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


"The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the
final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Authority and
responsibility go hand-in-hand. So if you're instructed to overfly the
runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude, but instead use your
PIC
authority and begin a climbing turn to the right and collide with an
aircraft on downwind, you're responsible for all damages, injuries, and
lives lost.


It would also make any potential enforcement action of your violation of
FAR
91.123(b) easier.


And if you follow ATC instructions and the departing aircraft collides with
you you are still at fault for not seeing and avoiding and you are still
dead.

"Allen" wrote in message
t...

And if you follow ATC instructions and the departing aircraft collides
with you you are still at fault for not seeing and avoiding and you are
still
dead.


So the best course of action is to comply with ATC's instruction and overfly
the runway. There's less risk of collision and no risk of enforcement
action.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:39:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...

Maybe so,


There's no "maybe" about it. The Pilot/Controller Glossary was compiled to
promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control
system. The instruction "Go Around" is defined as:

"Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional
instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or
an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while
climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the
crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach
should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as
instructed by ATC; e.g., "Go around" (additional instructions if required)."



but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for
the safety of the flight....


"The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the
final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Authority and
responsibility go hand-in-hand. So if you're instructed to overfly the
runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude, but instead use your PIC
authority and begin a climbing turn to the right and collide with an
aircraft on downwind, you're responsible for all damages, injuries, and
lives lost.



For what it's worth, I'd only side-step if I didn't like what I saw
below and in front of me. Letting ATC know what I was doing
would of course be a polite thing to do!


It would also make any potential enforcement action of your violation of FAR
91.123(b) easier.

ATC can issue whatever instructions they want. If a collision is
imminent, or likely, based upon their instruction and based upon
what I'm seeing out of the windshield as PIC, I'm going to do whatever
it takes to keep from colliding with another aircraft. As someone
else pointed out, the idea is to be around for the hearing, or the
inevitable "talk" one might have with the feds.

Pilots are human beings and sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes
sheet metal gets bent, and other times, folks get hurt or killed.
Controllers are not exempt from "being human" and making mistakes....
(it's happened many times before, and it'll no doubt happen again).

Bela P. Havasreti

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...

ATC can issue whatever instructions they want.


Well, no, there are limits to the instructions ATC can issue.



If a collision is
imminent, or likely, based upon their instruction and based upon
what I'm seeing out of the windshield as PIC, I'm going to do whatever
it takes to keep from colliding with another aircraft. As someone
else pointed out, the idea is to be around for the hearing, or the
inevitable "talk" one might have with the feds.


It is unlikely that proper compliance with an instruction to "go around"
will make a collision imminent or even likely. Following the improper
action that you espouse is more likely to do that. If you do not understand
the procedures or terminologies commonly used at towered airports it would
be best from the standpoint of safety for you to avoid towered airports.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:32:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


It is unlikely that proper compliance with an instruction to "go around"
will make a collision imminent or even likely. Following the improper
action that you espouse is more likely to do that. If you do not understand
the procedures or terminologies commonly used at towered airports it would
be best from the standpoint of safety for you to avoid towered airports.

I am perfectly comfortable flying into towered airports (been flying
since 1976, and have lived in a large, metropolitan area most of
my life). I'm not a "rebel" and I do comply with ATC instructions the
vast majority of the time (in case you're wondering, yes... I have
used the "unable" card with ATC on occasion when the situation
warranted it). I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm the PIC of the
aircraft I'm flying and I decide what the safest way is to operate
said aircraft, not ATC. If you still feel the need to quote FARs and
post insulting comments about my ability to fly safely, knock
yourself out....

I apologize for having to point this out, but you can't make others
think exactly the way you do by pressing arguments on usenet....
During your tenure on this good green earth, there just may
be times when others don't agree with what you have to say.
The sooner you learn to live with that fact, the sooner you can
begin to enjoy life (don't sweat the small stuff...).

Be safe, and have a nice flight.

Bela P. Havasreti