Controller screwed up?

Are there at least some restrictions on when this can be used? I'm hoping
that it can only be done in good VFR conditions when the tower can see
both aircraft?

No restrictions but common sense come in to play there.

How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get off the
runway ?
I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it doesn't
sound right logically.
A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other plane is
actually in the process of turning off, then when some clear action toward
the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as cleared and give a takeoff
clearance.




"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
It's called anticipated separation. By the time the MD80 gets on the
runway you're long gone.




Paul Tomblin wrote:
I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
answers I am looking for?
No shame in that.

Ricky

"Ricky" wrote in message
ps.com...

On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.


What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
answers I am looking for?
No shame in that.


Yeah, Larry. Lighten up a bit. Besides, I think he had a good point.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:41:34 -0700, Ricky
wrote in om:

On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
answers I am looking for?
No shame in that.

Ricky

When you admit you don't know what you are talking about, and freely
offer you opinion based on that lack of knowledge (as donzaemon did)
it benefits no one.

Those who drafted the charter for this newsgroup mandated that
articles posted here contain INFORMATION, not uninformed opinion.

Failure to invest the requisite effort to research a topic before
posting an article just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio in the
newsgroup.

Thanks for the warm welcome and vote of confidence Larry.

The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.
I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.
Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
several things that come together which would still cause an accident. for
example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
doing at all times.




"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

[top posting repositioned so the flow of thought is chronological]


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in a
worldwide forum.


On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:39:10 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

Thanks for the warm welcome and vote of confidence Larry.


While you may feel that you are entitled to respect solely by virtue
of your ability access this forum, until a participant has
demonstrated his worth, I'll reserve my warm welcome.

My admonishment was meant to cause you think, and perform some
_research_, BEFORE committing your follow up comments to Deja's
eternal Usenet database archive: http://www.deja.com.

It's a simple matter to lookup the pertinent regulation* on the FAA
web site before you post your (admittedly uninformed) opinions. After
all, aviation has trundled along for over a century now, and it is
reasonable to think that most of the gotchas have been addressed by
FAA regulations, that have been continually honed and amended over the
decades, so as to have created the safest, most efficient ATC system
existent.

To think that your opinion would be superior to those regulations,
without you even bothering to expend the effort to consult them, seems
the height of blind hubris to me.

The point is, that maybe some people , and maybe you're included in this
group, should not just blindly assume that because something is written in
a book that is is almighty and the absolute very best way to do things.

Without even bothering to consult the regulations, how can you
possibly be qualified to pass judgment on what others assume or not?

I offered a logical approach that made sense to me to be a much more
effective catchall for runway incursion type accidents.

To be so presumptuous as to think your idea would be superior to the
existing regulation, without even knowing what it is (and so
admitting), reveals a certain self-assured certainty reminiscent of
the only US president to hold office by virtue of Judicial Department
decision, who consulted a "higher source" to reach the decision to
plunge our nation into an unjustified, $3-billion per week war for at
least the next decade. Thankfully, the scientific mind consults
reality (not his imaginary friend) before reaching a conclusion. And
so should airmen.

Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has shed
light on how it works in the real world. So it seems clear to me that
there's always a compromise , if you do things the absolute safest way ,
you lose a lot in terms of delays and inefficient use of time. but if you
are too loose with the regs , then you start having more accidents
statistically. So the FAA has come up with what is probably the best
balance between the two to keep us moving and keep the potential for
accidents at a low level. So the way things are , I can see sequences of
several things that come together which would still cause an accident. for
example, the pilot in the light aircraft leans for taxi and accidently
stalls the engine on the runway at the same time the heavy with a newbie
first officer has a checklist problem that gets the captain funbling around
the panel as he starts the roll and the tower controller spills his coffee.
etc. etc. My proposal would probably keep us away from accidents caused by
this scenario , but , it would also slow us down greatly in day to day
normal operations.... so we have to decide after crunching some numbers
that the probability chance that all these bad things will come together for
an accident does not balance the benefit we get on a regular basis. So I
guess the moral of the story is that the law of large numbers says that
given enough time there WILL be accidents caused by various different
scenarios like the one I described above so PAY ATTENTION to what you're
doing at all times.


As a certificated airman, you should be aware, that it is your
responsibility to operate your aircraft safely at all times. That's
why FAA regulations make room for the PIC to deviate from regulations
when his judgment dictates it. If you are only coming to the
realization of that responsibility now, I must conclude that you
haven't too much experience yet, or ...

Too many airmen act as though piloting is an inconsequential "hobby"
worthy of no more concern than a game of Chess. In my opinion, if the
act of becoming a pilot didn't change an airman's life, s/he has not
fully appreciated the responsibility expected of him by the FAA, his
passengers, his fellow airmen, and the public over whom he navigates.
A blasé attitude toward regulations reveals a lack of appreciation
for that responsibility.

Over the past couple of decades, the level of cognitive, informed
discourse in this newsgroup has declined to where now there are many
who feel that inane, prattling chit-chat (I'm accusing you of this.)
is appropriate here. Due to that influx of noise, it appears that
many newly among the readership of this newsgroup have very low
expectations for participation in this forum. These lowered standards
lead to further lowering standards, and most importantly, drive away
those with valuable experience and insights to share. After all, who
want's to who want's to "cast his pearls" among those unworthy of
them?



*
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...a/7110.65R.pdf

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until
prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable
assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff
roll.

3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding
departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway
by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the
runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See
FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by
reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft
needs only be airborne if the following minimum
distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)
1. When only Category I aircraft are involved-
3,000 feet.
2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a
Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.
3. When either the succeeding or both are
Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.
4. When either is a Category III aircraft-
6,000 feet.
5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
distance minima.

donzaemon wrote:

Newps, demonstrating his clear understanding of both sound logic and in
depth knowledge of the regulations as well as real life operations has
shed light on how it works in the real world.


I think you'll fit in real well around here.

donzaemon wrote:
How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get off
the runway ?

Experience. But if you miss an exit he'll just cancel the takeoff
clearance and have the MD80 hold in position.


I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it
doesn't sound right logically.

Nothing wrong with what the controller did.


A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other plane
is actually in the process of turning off, then when some clear action
toward the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as cleared and give a
takeoff clearance.


That's using more separation than needed and is inefficient.