A tower-induced go-round

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure.

Note the use of quotation marks to denote the fact that it is not an
established, official procedure, but an agreed-upon and accepted modus
of operation while at the airport.

So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
that a problem?

It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a
problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem
when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem
when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern. It's a problem
when he flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors
(following the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when
he does it at 140 knots.

Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way
you treated Jay.

TheSmokingGnu

So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
that a problem?

It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a
problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem
when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem
when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern. It's a problem
when he flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors
(following the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when
he does it at 140 knots.

These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
because they're "charter captains".

I know most of the charter pilots in our area, and they are invariably
good about announcing their intentions (some even apologize for
barging in) -- but there are always those select few SOBs who have
just been handed off from approach and simply can't be bothered with
such mundane duties as making position reports on Unicom. They are
truly menaces of the air, in my humble opinion.

Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way
you treated Jay.

You *do* realize that you're wasting your time arguing with Steven,
right? Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
prose is simply not in his nature.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 24 Mar 2007 15:00:43 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
prose is simply not in his nature.

The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective
inference is that intended by the author.

While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they
have little place in aviation, IMO.

Jay Honeck wrote [about operations at uncontrolled fields]
These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
because they're "charter captains".

Does this happen often at Class-D airports?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
because they're "charter captains".


How foolish of them to expect pattern traffic to abide by the FARs.



You *do* realize that you're wasting your time arguing with Steven,
right? Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
prose is simply not in his nature.


Interesting how a misstatement becomes "subtle or nuanced prose" after
you're called on it.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

Note the use of quotation marks to denote the fact that it is not an
established, official procedure, but an agreed-upon and accepted modus of
operation while at the airport.


Agreed upon by whom?



It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me.


Wouldn't that be true regardless which way he left the area? Wouldn't
leaving the area in a different direction make it less likely that he'd go
through you?



It's a problem
when he doesn't announce his departure vector.


Why?



It's a problem when he
doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports.


What's the benefit in acknowledging position reports?



It's a problem when he
disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern.


How does departing via the upwind disrupt the pattern?


It's a problem when he
flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors (following
the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when he does it
at 140 knots.


What's a descent vector?



Did you not actually read my responses?


I read all of them. I ask questions in order to make sense of them?



It seems likely, after the way you
treated Jay.


I asked him questions too.

You're just trolling, now.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Agreed upon by whom?

The pilots in the pattern and on the tarmac. Duh.

Wouldn't that be true regardless which way he left the area? Wouldn't
leaving the area in a different direction make it less likely that he'd go
through you?

Yes, and to the second, no. Not in this particular instance.

Why?

BECAUSE I HAVE NO BLOODY ****ING IDEA WHERE HE IS OR WHERE HE'S GOING.
My god, are you dense.

What's the benefit in acknowledging position reports?

Acknowledging a report involves making your own report, ergo someone
could have figured out where he is.

How does departing via the upwind disrupt the pattern?

Because after departing crosswind and climbing south, most traffic
leaves by turning back north and following a radial along the mountain
ridge. Now, they have non-announcing traffic from an unexpected
direction, flying much faster than they do.

Alternately, aircraft are approaching the area in the same manner (but
at different altitudes). Now _THEY_ have traffic in unexpected
directions without knowledge of location or intention.

What's a descent vector?

If you have to ask, you haven't used one.

I read all of them. I ask questions in order to make sense of them?

No, you ask questions like a two-year-old asks "Why"; to annoy and
frustrate.

I asked him questions too.

You accosted him and then used ad hominem attacks on his intelligence
and piloting skill.

**** off, dear.

TheSmokingGnu