A tower-induced go-round

"Gregg Germain" wrote in message
...

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?


Many untowered airports have instrument approaches. There are also
scheduled passenger operations at untowered airports. But airports with
scheduled passenger service will get a control tower at a much lower total
traffic level than airports without scheduled passenger service.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.


That's true only if there isn't sufficient space available, which was not
the case here.



Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.


It appears your point in starting this lengthy thread was solely to vent
about a controller issuing a go around made necessary by the actions of a
pilot.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
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.

5,000 public-use airports.
500 controlled aerodromes.

4,500 uncontrolled public-use airports.

10 mid-airs a year.
2 NMAC's a year.
6 ground collisions a year.

Just how are all those dumb-ass pilots managing to miss each other so
often without the controller's help?

Never mind that 61 accidents a year are caused by miscommunication or ATC.

:P

TheSmokingGnu

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Yep, those are the IFR procedures.

Which part of the local procedures being for VFR are you having trouble
understanding?


None. What made you think I did? Did you know the local procedures were
for VFR operations before you joined this discussion?

Because you keep bringing up the IFR procedures as though they were
relevant to VFR.

Of course I knew local prodedures are VFR; I've always known that.


The 6 IFR departure would be illegal to do without a radio, and if
you did it with a radio, while legal, it would **** of the class C
tower which is expecting you to use the VFR procedure and call them
when you get close to midfield if you intend to cross their airspace.


Following an IFR procedure would not **** off the tower and I wouldn't be
calling them at all.

One more time, we are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

You can't legally fly the IFR departure unless you file IFR and then,
no, you are not talking to the Class C tower, you are talking to the
Class C departure.

Following the IFR procedure while VFR will do a lot more than just
**** off the Class C tower.

Since you don't seem to get it:

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

You don't find this unusual?

No. He thought his instructions would work. When he realised that he had
made a mistake, he resolved the situation by sending you around. Pretty
much what I expect from a controller.

Interesting. Apparently I have heretofore been blessed by only flying
into airports with excellent controllers. This atypical experience has
obviously given me unrealistic expectations.

From now on, I will regard landing clearances with greater suspicion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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

His district? A Senator's district is a state. What state would not have
any control towers if not for the actions of a Senator?

We have state as well as federal Senators in our state government.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.

I think that unlikely.

You can think anything you like.

That is what happens.

If you are so sure of yourself, try going through the Class C and
tell them you want to turn for a straight in to CCB 24 and see what
happens.

So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.

How do you know there have been no safety issues?

Don't be a childish, petulant, ass.

Because no one has ever claimed there was.

Because there are no incident or accident reports.

Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.

That's fine, you're free to follow them if you choose. Just as anyone is
free to decline to participate. The problem is that many pilots may not
know that they're strictly voluntary.

Not knowing they are voluntary is totally irrelevant and hardly a
problem.

Any pilot that doesn't know they are voluntary is ignorant, which is
a totally separate issue.

BTW, here's a web site you might want to visit:

http://www.faa.gov

This organization encourages and supports the concept of local noise
abatement procedures and pilots following them as long as:

They are not discriminitory.

They don't produce a special right.

They are safe.

They don't conflict with law.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

Bwahahahahahahah!

Er, ahem. Sorry. Happy April Fools Day.

Right, Steven. ATC saved us...

Have you always had delusions of grandeur?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

From now on, I will regard landing clearances with greater suspicion.

That is always a good idea. Things change.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?


Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
damn?


It matters to me. You can answer at least one of those questions, please
do.

Actually, if you are no-radio, they are the only ways you can get in and
out legally, but I digress.

I have no idea what percentage of all pilots know that local VFR procedures
are not mandatory nor what percentage of all pilots know that part 150
procedures are, and it makes no difference to the arguement of whether or
not following local VFR procedures are safe.

Yes.

Yes.

It is not.

FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.

The signs in the runup area say "Please".

I haven't been to the FBO or the runup area, but that's not what's on the
web site. The online procedures state at the top:

Cable Airport VFR Noise Abatement
Arrival and Departures


The runway 24 procedure has "suggested phraseology for flying in and out of
Cable Airport", and beneath a separator the runway 6 procedure has
"suggested VFR procedures for departures to the south or entries from the
south".

Oh, my God, you caught CCB managment in an oversight!!

Let's have them hung from the highest tree.

The 6 procedure has "SUGGESTED VFR PROCEDURES...", but they left it off
on the 24 procedure.

Call the FAA immediately!

The world is coming to an end!

Chaos reigns!

Oh, the humanity!

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.