A tower-induced go-round

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"

Jay Honeck wrote:


Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
tower in his district.


Hi Jay,

Is that always the case? Or even usually? For example, I fly out of Hanscom
and Beverly fields in Massachusetts. Beverly is pretty small - couple of
5000+ foot runways. Still, we get pax carrying planes in and out of there -
small jets, 10-20 pax prop planes etc. So it's commercial. And therefore
need to operate in IMC, and therefore you need a tower, no?

Hanscom - MUCH busier, is also class D and has bigger pax jets. So it, too,
need to have IMC.

So could the existence of passenger service be a reason there are Class D's
around?

Just a thought,

Gregg

"Gregg Germain" wrote

Is that always the case? Or even usually? For example, I fly out of
Hanscom
and Beverly fields in Massachusetts. Beverly is pretty small - couple of
5000+ foot runways. Still, we get pax carrying planes in and out of
there -
small jets, 10-20 pax prop planes etc. So it's commercial. And therefore
need to operate in IMC, and therefore you need a tower, no?

No, you don't need a tower in order to have instrument approaches at an
airport.

So could the existence of passenger service be a reason there are Class
D's
around?

I think it has to do with traffic density more than anything else, and yet
there are some pretty busy airports that are uncontrolled. A airport near
where I fly has an ILS and an NDB approach as well as a high density of both
piston and jet traffic, and it was uncontrolled up until about a year or so
ago. It used to be that you needed a shoe horn to get into the pattern on
any decent VFR day.

BDS

So could the existence of passenger service be a reason there are Class D's
around?

That's part of it, but there are many exceptions. Quincy, IL has
passenger service, as does Ottumwa, IA and Burlington, IA. All are
uncontrolled fields.

I used to assume that Class D existed because air traffic was once
heavier than it is today, and (as with all things government) newly-
useless facilities are slow to be closed. But now I'm not sure --
maybe they were *never* needed?

And there *are* examples of closed towers around. Galesburg, IL has
an abandoned control tower, for example.

My "event horizon" of GA is only 13 years -- perhaps someone who has
been flying longer (and doesn't have a vested interest in supporting
ATC) can comment on the history and usage of Class D towers?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:


My "event horizon" of GA is only 13 years -- perhaps someone who has
been flying longer (and doesn't have a vested interest in supporting
ATC) can comment on the history and usage of Class D towers?




Some places don't rate a tower but the people who run the airport want
one. Happened at Bozeman, MT. They didn't meet the minimum number of
ops for an FAA tower, so the city built one anyways and now there are
non FAA controllers there. But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient. I've been to busy
uncontrolled fields and I know how **** poor the weekend pilot is at
being able to aviate, navigate and communicate at the same time. Once
you get about four airplanes in the area I'll take the tower.

But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient.

People fly to North Dakota?

ducking!

I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
but most do not.)

This weird mish-mash of some Class D's with, and some without radar,
makes for a pretty bizarre set of circumstances for pilots.
Personally I find it just a bit odd, and a little uncomfortable, not
knowing if I'm being controlled by Mr. Magoo with binoculars, or
George Jetson with radar.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
but most do not.)

Getting radar coverage for every control tower would be quite expensive.



This weird mish-mash of some Class D's with, and some without radar,
makes for a pretty bizarre set of circumstances for pilots.
Personally I find it just a bit odd, and a little uncomfortable, not
knowing if I'm being controlled by Mr. Magoo with binoculars, or
George Jetson with radar.

Prior to 9/11, I would occasionally visit the tower at KBED on quiet mornings
(usually Sunday). They have a feed from the ASR-9 at Boston and optionally
the ASR at MHT. These radars are blinds below around 600 feet at the airport
and traffic to the southwest of KBED has to be up around 2000 feet to be
reliably visible on radar. Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

Jay Honeck wrote:

But to say that all class D's shouldn't have
a tower is ridiculous. To make places like Van Nuys, Pontiac, even
where I used to work, Grand Forks, ND; uncontrolled fields would make it
far more dangerous and tremendously inefficient.


People fly to North Dakota?

ducking!

I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
but most do not.)


Radar can help but but is too coarse for a busy class D. Nothing will
beat a good pair of eyes and good judgement.

In article om,
Jay Honeck wrote:

I used to assume that Class D existed because air traffic was once
heavier than it is today, and (as with all things government) newly-
useless facilities are slow to be closed. But now I'm not sure --
maybe they were *never* needed?

Castle Airport (formerly Castle AFB) was an uncontrolled field for
years after going civilian, and has just re-opened the control
tower. According to the traffic numbers[1] on Airnav, it has 579
operations per day.

Checking the traffic numbers of local airports on Airnav, it looks
like all the airports with over ~300 operations a day have control
towers. My experience with the ones in the 300-400 range (Sac Exec
(KSAC), Napa (KAPC), Santa Rosa (KSTS)) is that they really don't
need a control tower except when everyone decides to show up at
once. All the ones above that range (Palo Alto (KPAO), Livermore
(KLVK), San Carlos (KSQL)) have enough traffic that the control
tower is useful. Palo Alto and San Carlos have radar, and will
give vectors as needed. Livermore doesn't have radar, but does a
good job sequencing traffic as long as the position reports are
good. Bad position reports are a problem at uncontrolled airports
too, so I don't hold it against ATC when the position reports are
wrong.

None of the above airports have airline traffic. KSAC, KAPC, KSTS
and KLVK have jet traffic and multiple runways. KPAO (single 2400ft
runway) and KSQL (single 2600ft runway) are just piston and turboprop.

BTW, Iowa City lists 53 operations per day, and Oshkosh lists 283
through the wonder of averaging.

John
[1] These numbers are probably similar in accuracy to the flight
hours numbers, but I expect the numbers between airports to be in
the same margin for error.
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/