A tower-induced go-round

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:55:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:

For your own safety and the safety of others you should just
avoid Class D airspace until you upgrade your skills and knowledge.

Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.


If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:44:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Oh, his skills are probably up to the task, but his expectations are
inconsistent with regulations. He really needs to get his IFR rating.


If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.


Not without additional training.

On Mar 22, 11:56 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.


Not without additional training.


I don't think that would help.

Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.

On Mar 23, 7:02 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:56 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:



If he can't handle Class D airspace he certainly can't handle the IFR
system.

Not without additional training.

I don't think that would help.

Jay holds a private, the Part 61 knowledge requirements for a private
include, "use of the applicable portions of the 'Aeronautical
Information Manual' and FAA advisory circulars". The AIM states in
the description of Class D airspace, "No separation services are
provided to VFR aircraft." That's also stated in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary, part of the AIM, in the description of Class D airspace.
Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace. Obviously the training he has received to date has been
deficient, or just didn't get through. I see no reason to believe
he'd take IFR operations any more seriously.

Kool,,, New ammunition....

Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
land. G

Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
me of this thread.... ).

Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....

On Mar 23, 10:04 am, " wrote:

Kool,,, New ammunition....


And again you shoot yourself in the foot.



Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
land. G

Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
me of this thread.... ).

Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....- Hide quoted text -


"No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft" in Class D
AIRSPACE. All control towers, whether the overlying airspace is Class
B, C, D, E, or G, provide RUNWAY separation. Minimum same runway
separation between two piston singles is 3000 feet. Recall that Jay
said he was about 1/2 mile out from the threshold when the 172 touched
down 1500' from the threshold. Let's see if you're any better at
simple arithmetic than you are at answering simple questions.

On Mar 23, 10:51 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
On Mar 23, 10:04 am, " wrote:



Kool,,, New ammunition....

And again you shoot yourself in the foot.







Once again that Steven. P. Mc Nicoll is right on the money. His
observation of "No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft"
can cut several different ways. The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg. Since Class D controllers can't provide
separation why should a VFR pilot even wake them up to land, we will
just announce our intentions just like it was a uncontroller field and
land. G

Now for the best part, If, this user fee crap does get passed, I will
travel VFR from one Class D airport to another, land at every one I
can find and when presented a bill I will have already printed up a
Steven. P McNicoll kit. This kit consists of a laminated card stating
the AIM reg of "No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft".
No service provided... No need to bill me for a service.. And if they
still insist on presenting me with a bill I will invoke the Steven. P
McNicoll clause, that is to take said bill, head to the closest
toilet, take a dump and then wipe myself with it. Since it was issued
by the government, and Stevens employer, who happens to be 9+ trillion
in debt, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Second when I am
through it will be smeared with **** and the smell will always remind
me of this thread.... ).

Ok Jay, you can quit giggling now....- Hide quoted text -

"No separation services are provided for VFR aircraft" in Class D
AIRSPACE. All control towers, whether the overlying airspace is Class
B, C, D, E, or G, provide RUNWAY separation. Minimum same runway
separation between two piston singles is 3000 feet. Recall that Jay
said he was about 1/2 mile out from the threshold when the 172 touched
down 1500' from the threshold. Let's see if you're any better at
simple arithmetic than you are at answering simple questions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ha ha. This gettin fun. You have posted 28 times to this silly thread.
Real controllers are taught to be short and to the point with their
answers. What we have here folks is a MX Mc Nicoll..... I bet he
doesn't even have a Pilots cert.

wrote:

The tower controller didn't care how
close he routed Jay to the higher and slower preceding aircraft so if
they happen to run together he gets a ' get out of jail card' for free
by spouting off this reg.

It would cost the FAA millions, already has. It is irrelavant that the
rules say controllers don't separate airplanes in the air within the
class D. If two aircraft run together while talking to the tower you
the taxpayers will buy both airplanes and compensate the families.








Maintain situational awareness - class D controllers are only
responsible for separation on the ground



Would you like to bet $25 Million on that statement?


A Broward jury has awarded $25.2 million to the family of a pilot killed
in a collision of two planes near Deerfield Beach almost three years ago.

The family of Steve Ross, a Boca Raton chaplain, filed the
wrongful-death suit against Robinson Aviation, a private contractor
operating the Boca Raton and Pompano Beach control towers.

Ross, who is survived by his wife and four children, was one of five
people who died when two small planes crashed in the water off Deerfield
Beach on June 16, 2003.

The jury in Circuit Judge Victor Tobin's courtroom Wednesday awarded
$1.2 million for economic damages and, for pain and suffering, $10
million to Ross' wife, Julie, and $3.5 million to each of the four children.

Steve Ross and a longtime friend, Douglas Bauer, 48, were flying a
Cessna 182 north to Boca Raton Airport. They were returning from a
missionary trip in the Bahamas and had just cleared U.S. Customs at Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

A Cessna 172, with a family of three aboard, was headed south to Fort
Lauderdale Executive Airport. At the controls was private pilot Johnny
Mark Willey, 39, of Margate, who was learning to be an airline pilot at
Gulfstream Training Academy. Willey was taking his wife and daughter for
a ride along the coast.

The two planes plowed into each other about 1,000 feet above the
Deerfield Beach International Fishing Pier and plunged into the water as
stunned beachgoers looked on.

According to the suit, the planes collided moments after both pilots
made contact with air-traffic controllers in Pompano Beach and Boca Raton.

"Robinson Aviation . . . otherwise directed or failed to direct air
traffic so as to avoid the midair collision of the two aircraft," the
suit reads.

Attorneys for Robinson Aviation could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The Ross family settled with Gulfstream Training Academy for an
undisclosed amount more than a year ago, contending that Willey was "not
fit, qualified or properly trained."

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Yet he expects ATC to provide separation to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace.

Where did he make that explicit claim? Jay Honeck has stated a least this
much in this thread:

"In Class D'oh airspace, on the other hand, too many pilots believe that
the controller is actually controlling the airspace, when, in fact, he is
not."

On Mar 23, 11:49 am, Jim Logajan wrote:

Where did he make that explicit claim?


Who said it was explicit?

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_u...oglegroups.com