Going around what to do?

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

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

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 was merely pointing out that the course of action you proposed is unsafe
and explained why that is so. If you choose to feel insulted by that then
that is your privilege.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:14:55 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


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

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 was merely pointing out that the course of action you proposed is unsafe
and explained why that is so. If you choose to feel insulted by that then
that is your privilege.

It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so". You
quoted some regs. Regs are open to interpretation.

Nobody is talking about a 4+ G pitchout to the side to avoid
an aircraft that is 1000+ feet up-wind.

I'm guessing you're just one of those folks who like to "argue"
and/or get the last word in.....?

If so, be my guest and post your last word(s)
here - - 8^)

Be safe, and have a nice flight.

Bela P. Havasreti

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:

/snip/

I'm guessing you're just one of those folks who like to "argue"
and/or get the last word in.....?
/snip/

Good Grief, Bela,

I thought you'd been around here long enough to know that! There's an
old saying involving mud wrestling and pigs, and it applies here.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:51:40 -0900, Scott Skylane
wrote:

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:

/snip/

I'm guessing you're just one of those folks who like to "argue"
and/or get the last word in.....?
/snip/

Good Grief, Bela,

I thought you'd been around here long enough to know that! There's an
old saying involving mud wrestling and pigs, and it applies here.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

You're right, I should know better....

For a nanosecond or two, I thought maybe a reasoned response would
elicit a meaningful exchange of information / ideas.

What was I thinking!. 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

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

It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so".


I did explain why turning towards an aircraft on downwind is more hazardous
than overflying the runway. You may not have seen that message, but you're
wrong when you say I didn't provide the explanation.



You quoted some regs. Regs are open to interpretation.


Not this one.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


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

It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so".


I did explain why turning towards an aircraft on downwind is more hazardous
than overflying the runway. You may not have seen that message, but you're
wrong when you say I didn't provide the explanation.

Left hand traffic. You sided step a bit to the RIGHT of final. That
is on the opposite side of the runway to downwind.

No safety issue.

Steve, perhaps you feel that ATC is faultless but that would be an
inorrect assumption. Anyone who blindly follows ATC without
exercising proper pilot responsibilities may become a statistic.

Ron Lee

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:55:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


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

It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so".


I did explain why turning towards an aircraft on downwind is more hazardous
than overflying the runway. You may not have seen that message, but you're
wrong when you say I didn't provide the explanation.



You quoted some regs. Regs are open to interpretation.


Not this one.


I offer my congratulations on your coming to your own conclusion that
you were right. If it makes you feel better, you are welcome to that
thought!

I am cognizant of the fact that it might be a bit disturbing for you
to realize it, but there may be one or two of us (possibly more) on
this planet who think otherwise....

Be safe, have a nice flight.

Bela P. Havasreti