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.

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

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

You're just trolling, now.


Never.



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


So it's strictly a matter of choice then, it's not "standard".



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


Why not in this particular instance?



BECAUSE I HAVE NO BLOODY ****ING IDEA WHERE HE IS OR
WHERE HE'S GOING.


SO WHAT? IT'S ASSUMED THAT SINCE HE DEPARTED AFTER YOU HE KNOWS WHERE YOU
ARE AND IS PROPERLY AVOIDING YOU. IF YOU TURN CROSSWIND AND HE STAYS UPWIND
YOU'RE DIVERGING. DIVERGING TRAFFIC IS NOT A FACTOR.



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


No, acknowledging a report involves just making receipt known. By itself
it's just unnecessary chatter.



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.


But by then above the pattern and thus not a factor. You seem rather new to
the flying game. Student?




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


I have to ask because it's not standard terminology.



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


You're wrong. Believe me, I am the worlds foremost authority on why I do
anything.



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


You might want to look up those terms.

I attacked nobody's intelligence or piloting skill. I said Jay holds an
incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and he hold controllers
responsible for pilot's actions. His statements in this thread prove that
to be true.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
So it's strictly a matter of choice then, it's not "standard".

I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which
are understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.

For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread
Sovereign Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and
expected of pilots within the vicinity.

Why not in this particular instance?

Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
section of sky.

SO WHAT? IT'S ASSUMED THAT SINCE HE DEPARTED AFTER YOU HE KNOWS WHERE YOU
ARE AND IS PROPERLY AVOIDING YOU.

Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me?
The only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that
gravity will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see
it happening.

Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
sees and avoids me?

Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
facility?

IF YOU TURN CROSSWIND AND HE STAYS UPWIND
YOU'RE DIVERGING. DIVERGING TRAFFIC IS NOT A FACTOR.

See the twice above.

No, acknowledging a report involves just making receipt known. By itself
it's just unnecessary chatter.

The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
cite a source for that?

It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.

But by then above the pattern and thus not a factor.

Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
arriving area traffic, though.

I have to ask because it's not standard terminology.

I hear it used all the time. The "areas of likely traffic ingress or
egress".

You're wrong. Believe me, I am the worlds foremost authority on why I do
anything.

Heh. Freud would be proud.

(I, of course, know better)

You might want to look up those terms.

I know what they mean. Do you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost

Especially:

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Especially:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


I attacked nobody's intelligence or piloting skill.

Bull****. Just in this post:

You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?

And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.


I said Jay holds an
incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and he hold controllers
responsible for pilot's actions.

You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
statement (of which there was none stated in the first).

After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to
use controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting
skill was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his
own creation.

You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the
situation itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a
pilot's license, nor ever will be.

You, sir, are the very definition of a pedantic ass, and may go fold
your attitude until it's all pointy corners and shove it where ever a
troll procreates from. I'll have no more to do with you or this
absolutely silly line of inquiry.

TheSmokingGnu

("TheSmokingGnu" wrote)
For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction.


(Pg. 52+53)
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf
Beware ..."The Circle of Death," ...driving your boat around that pond.

Drive ...boats? g


Montblack (landof10klakes)
On "the river" it's Red-Right-Returning

Montblack wrote:
Beware ..."The Circle of Death," ...driving your boat around that pond.

I like the illustration with the guy being thrown to the inside of the
turn; Newtonian physics still up for debate in Minnesota? G


Drive ...boats? g


Got a steerin' wheel, ain't it?

I could say "pilot", but that would just terribly confuse the heck out
of the example.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which are
understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.


I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
proper use of quotation marks. Please cite your source.



For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread Sovereign
Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and expected of
pilots within the vicinity.


I don't think so. If all the boats in the pond were going in one direction,
it would be the current practice to also go in that direction. But that
wouldn't make it the standard practice. Tomorrow they could all be going in
the other direction.



Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
section of sky.


Why don't you correct for winds? What distracted you? What section of sky
was very busy and how did it affect your interaction with the pilot you're
complaining about?



Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me? The
only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that gravity
will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see it
happening.


I'm not asking you to assume anything, I'm telling you it's assumed that
since he departed after you he knows where you are and is properly avoiding
you. Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?

Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the operation of your own
aircraft and a little less to the operator behind you'd be less distracted
and better able to manage wind drift.



Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
sees and avoids me?


Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?



Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
facility?


CTAF is a frequency, not a facility. Where does it say he must use CTAF?
Are you saying he made no calls on CTAF?



The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
cite a source for that?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary



It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.


It's not only nonstandard it's also a poor practice.



Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
arriving area traffic, though.


Please explain why.



Heh. Freud would be proud.

(I, of course, know better)


Really? How do you know? Have we met?



I know what they mean. Do you?


Yes, I know what they mean. Since you used them improperly I have to
conclude that you do not.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost

Especially:

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Especially:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


Now cite an applicable message of mine to make your case.



Bull****. Just in this post:

You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?


How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill? It was written
after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
aviation knowledge.



And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.


Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?



You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
statement (of which there was none stated in the first).


What messages are you referring to?


After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to use
controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting skill
was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his own
creation.

You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the situation
itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a pilot's
license, nor ever will be.


I said Jay holds an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and
he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions. Since Jay's
statements about Class D airspace and ATC are demonstrably incorrect, if we
assume he is sincere when he states them, we have to conclude that he holds
an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC. Since we have
established that there was sufficient spacing and that minimum same runway
separation would have been achieved if the 172 had not unexpectedly stopped
on the runway but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.

On Mar 31, 7:10 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message

...



I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which are
understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.

I looked at several sources but couldn't find any that indicated that was a
proper use of quotation marks. Please cite your source.



For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread Sovereign
Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and expected of
pilots within the vicinity.

I don't think so. If all the boats in the pond were going in one direction,
it would be the current practice to also go in that direction. But that
wouldn't make it the standard practice. Tomorrow they could all be going in
the other direction.



Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
section of sky.

Why don't you correct for winds? What distracted you? What section of sky
was very busy and how did it affect your interaction with the pilot you're
complaining about?



Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me? The
only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that gravity
will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see it
happening.

I'm not asking you to assume anything, I'm telling you it's assumed that
since he departed after you he knows where you are and is properly avoiding
you. Do you have any reason to believe that was not the case?

Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the operation of your own
aircraft and a little less to the operator behind you'd be less distracted
and better able to manage wind drift.



Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
sees and avoids me?

Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?



Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
facility?

CTAF is a frequency, not a facility. Where does it say he must use CTAF?
Are you saying he made no calls on CTAF?



The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
cite a source for that?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary



It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.

It's not only nonstandard it's also a poor practice.



Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
arriving area traffic, though.

Please explain why.



Heh. Freud would be proud.

(I, of course, know better)

Really? How do you know? Have we met?



I know what they mean. Do you?

Yes, I know what they mean. Since you used them improperly I have to
conclude that you do not.







http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost

Especially:

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Especially:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Now cite an applicable message of mine to make your case.



Bull****. Just in this post:

You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?

How is that insulting your intelligence or piloting skill? It was written
after you posted several messages suggesting a rather limited level of
aviation knowledge.



And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.

Unlike what certain individuals? Is there a partial PPL?



You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
statement (of which there was none stated in the first).

What messages are you referring to?



After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to use
controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting skill
was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his own
creation.

You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the situation
itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a pilot's
license, nor ever will be.

I said Jay holds an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and
he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions. Since Jay's
statements about Class D airspace and ATC are demonstrably incorrect, if we
assume he is sincere when he states them, we have to conclude that he holds
an incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC. Since we have
established that there was sufficient spacing and that minimum same runway
separation would have been achieved if the 172 had not unexpectedly stopped
on the runway but Jay nevertheless holds the controller responsible, we have
to conclude he holds controllers responsible for pilot's actions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Steven. P Mc Nicolls wrote............

Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?

Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
for????????????????????????????????

Nowhere, but FAR 91.113(b) does say "vigilance shall be maintained by each
person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." Why do
you assume that a pilot might not be doing what is required by the FARs,
while assuming that he will adhere to a non-required "standard" practice?

Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
for????????????????????????????????

Uh oh. I think you've reached the salient point.

The bottom line is that we *don't* need ATC for most GA operations.
In fact, as I've stated before, imposing Class D "controlled" airspace
actually reduces safety in many cases.

ATC is needed at Class B airports. ATC is handy to have at most Class
C airports, but only during peak operational hours. (Which is why, for
instance, Cedar Rapids Class C is only part-time.)

Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
tower in his district.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote in message
ups.com...

Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
for????????????????????????????????


We don't need dumb ass controllers at all. One of the reasons we need
competent controllers, such as the one that may very well have saved Jay's
life at JEF, is because we have dumb ass pilots.