Going around what to do?

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

"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

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.

I would consider sidesteping by 50 or 100 feet to increase ability to see
traffic, as still complying with the "overfly the runway" bit. I'm sure you
feel differently.
--
Jim in NC

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

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

True, but ATC isn't likely to suffer the ultimate price should there be a
mid-air collision. I'm announcing intentions and keeping the rogue
aircraft in sight. If ATC has a problem with that, we can sort it out
later.


A midair with the rogue departure? That seems unlikely. You're behind
and above the aircraft taking off. For a collision to occur it would have
to climb significantly faster than your aircraft. If it can it do that it
is probably significantly faster as well and will stay in front of you.
The safest thing to do is comply with the instruction and overfly the
runway.

In *my* scenario, there isn't an instruction. Either I'm a step ahead of
the controller, or (more likely) I'm at an uncontrolled field with no tower.
I make the decision to abort the landing and announce my intentions,
regardless of my previous announcemets, clearances, whatever. My comfort
level dictates what I do, which will be what I percieve to be the safest
course of action.

KB

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least
everyone is alive to vent.


Not if you turn and collide with somebody on downwind.

If you choose to worry about that situation you may. It is not a
realistic scenario to me.

Ron Lee

"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

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

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

helloooooo.....


Howdy.



I wouldn't sidestep THAT far...


Apparently there are those that would. At least one person here has stated
the reason to move to the right is to avoid other pattern traffic. If
you're not moving THAT far it doesn't matter which way you turn.



NOR would I sidestep into traffic (that I know about).


Who would? You may not know about all of the traffic.



Steve, Give it a rest.


Give what a rest?



As PIC, I'm responsible for the safety of my aircraft and of my actions.


Yes, I've already pointed that out.



You quoted the regs saying just that. If I feel that I *need* to deviate
from
ATC instructions to avoid an imminent collision, then I believe that would
constitute and EMERGENCY. In an emergency, it is well known that I may
deviate from the FARs to meet the needs of that emergency. Also,
remember,
Aviate, Nagivate, and Communicate. I'll tell ATC what is going on, but
not
before I ensure the safety of my flight. That being said, I don't doubt
that ATC will not intentionally issue an instruction that would put me
in harm's way. That still does not relieve me of being situationally
aware and ready to respond appropriately to a given situation/instruction.


Nothing in the OP suggests a need to deviate from any ATC instructions to
avoid an imminent collision. The threat of an imminent collision was
averted by the go around maneuver which was initiated by the controller.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

In *my* scenario, there isn't an instruction. Either I'm a step ahead of
the controller, or (more likely) I'm at an uncontrolled field with no
tower. I make the decision to abort the landing and announce my
intentions, regardless of my previous announcemets, clearances, whatever.
My comfort level dictates what I do, which will be what I percieve to be
the safest course of action.


I don't see where you introduced *your* scenario. We've been discussing the
scenario in the OP in which the go around was imitated by ATC.