A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A tower-induced go-round



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 24th 07, 02:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default A tower-induced go-round


"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard"
crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and influential)
housing developments some wonderful person decided needed to be direct off
the end of a GA airport.


The A/FD says:

"All departures.noise sensitive areas to N and S, best rate of climb to TPA
before departing the pattern. Calm wind.use Rwy 18."

Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure.



Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining a
civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to flying
off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't going to
tell anyone first.


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


  #2  
Old March 24th 07, 05:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
TheSmokingGnu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default 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
  #3  
Old March 24th 07, 10:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default A tower-induced go-round

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"

  #4  
Old March 25th 07, 03:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default A tower-induced go-round

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.



  #5  
Old March 25th 07, 04:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default A tower-induced go-round

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.


I have dealt with folks like Steven my whole life; the world is full
of them. You are very much like Steven, but -- on occasion -- seem to
have breakthroughs into understanding. I guess that makes you a
savant?

:-)

As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he
did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I
knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing
between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh-
experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle
remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures
might have picked up on it as well.

Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a
diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply
not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither
experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but
linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to
guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not
in black and white, it's wrong.

That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of
the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending
structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes
sense.

This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way.

In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts
heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

  #6  
Old March 26th 07, 02:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jon Woellhaf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default A tower-induced go-round

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?


  #7  
Old March 28th 07, 02:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default A tower-induced go-round

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?


Worse. At Class D they report that they're on a 3-mile final, when
they're still 10 miles out...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #8  
Old March 28th 07, 11:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default A tower-induced go-round


"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.


  #9  
Old March 28th 07, 11:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default A tower-induced go-round


"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.


  #10  
Old March 28th 07, 06:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
TheSmokingGnu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default A tower-induced go-round

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Round Engines john smith Piloting 20 February 15th 07 03:31 AM
induced airflow buttman Piloting 3 February 19th 06 04:36 AM
Round Engines Voxpopuli Naval Aviation 16 May 31st 05 06:48 PM
Source of Induced Drag Ken Kochanski Soaring 2 January 10th 04 12:18 AM
Predicting ground effects on induced power Marc Shorten Soaring 0 October 28th 03 11:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.