A tower-induced go-round

wrote in message
...

An idiotic comment.


A question, actually, seeking clarification of your previous statement.



Where's the conflict?


The ODP calls for a climbing right turn off of runway 6, the CCB noise
abatement procedure says "left turns only" and "no right departures".



Babbling nonsense.

The procedures are for VFR operations.


Is that because only VFR operations generate noise?



How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?

The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.


Apparently I assumed you were a more experienced pilot than is the case. My
bad. Visiting a few of these sites should answer your question:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...Sear ch&gbv=2



Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.

The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.


What is the proof?

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:14:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

That technique does nothing useful in Outlook Express.


I'll bet OE renders all the html messages just fine for you though,
even following all the hyperlinks they contain for you (whether you
want it to or not).

"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????????????????????????????????

Doesn't your reader show the thread in a "tree" format? That usually
makes it easy to follow who is answering whom.

No it doesn't. Don't assume people want to see all the previously read messages
when opening a group.

Sorry, Bob -- I had no idea.

I would find reading Usenet without the "tree" view to be VERY
confusing. I participate in many threads, and sometimes my
participation is spread over many different parts of my day (or week),
and I often must re-read a few posts to get back up to speed on what's
going on in the thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The controller told ME to go around, remember? I would have landed
behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if
the controller hadn't given the order to go around.

So... let's see. If under option #1 you landed behind the student, you had
enough room to guarantee a full stop before running him down? Since your
option #2 would have been to scare the bejeezus out of the student by
landing "over him", I presume the student wasn't near the far end of the
runway, so some numbers just don't seem right, here. If you needed to be
told to "go around" in that scenario, perhaps the controller knows you
personally? ;-)

What I thought I could or could not do is irrelevant. The controller
told me to go around, so I did -- end of story.

At an uncontrolled field, if the student had cut in front of me (as he
did when he was ordered to do so by the tower controller) I would have
executed a 360 degree turn for spacing, or landed short behind him. I
also would have got on the radio and asked him to land long and keep
it rolling.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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 in message
ups.com...

You know, for a linear thinker, you can't seem to keep on the track
with your train of thought.


What do you base that on?



The controller told ME to go around, remember?


I recall your original post said the controller issued the go around, and I
recall in a later post you said you went around because the controller
misjudged the spacing.



I would have landed
behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if
the controller hadn't given the order to go around.


Well, then it was a damned good thing you were at a towered field with an
alert controller! The 172 may have decided to continue down the runway
after a brief stop. He's out of your view beneath your nose, you land on
top of him. Had it happened at an uncontrolled field, or if the controller
hadn't been paying attention, you and your family and the occupants of the
172 could all be dead now. That controller may very well have saved your
life, and all you can do is complain about him having the audacity to insert
another airplane in to the available space in front of you. You should be
ashamed!



Obviously by sending me around the controller was admitting his
failure to maintain what he judged to be proper spacing between us.

This situation had nothing to do with my comfort, and everything to do
with a Class D'oh! controller who was looking through the wrong end of
his binoculars.


If your story is accurate, the controller had proper spacing and was paying
close attention to the situation. The go around was issued after the 172
unexpectedly stopped on the runway, something the controller had no control
over. It was an action of the pilot that forced the go around, not
misjudged spacing by the controller. The controller did his job without
error and possibly saved your life. Instead of bitching about it you should
be thanking him.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:14:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
:

That technique does nothing useful in Outlook Express.


I'll bet OE renders all the html messages just fine for you though,
even following all the hyperlinks they contain for you (whether you
want it to or not).

It may, if you set it to do so, I wouldn't know. I have always set OE to
"Plain Text", so all that stuff gets stripped.

Neil

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