A tower-induced go-round

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

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.

My point was that had I been on that approach, and saw the plane ahead of
me stop dead on the runway, I would have _told the controller_ that I was
going around, not figure out how to land with the other plane still on the
runway.

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.

Which the student may or may not have done while you've committed to
landing. I also would not want to be in the pattern with someone suddenly
pulling a 360 on final, either. IMO, the scenrios you're presenting do not
reflect the most courteous or safe options.

Neil

"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

wrote in message
...

Local procedures aren't a "dummy up" process by "a few locals", they
are based on the known conditions of the airport in question and done
by the airport management.


What qualifies airport management to create these procedures?



Also, they are not in conflict with anything, as, as several have
noted, they are not mandatory by any stretch of the imagination.


No, they're not, but how many people know they're not mandatory? The
procedure at CCB does not indicate it's not mandatory. Did you know it was
not mandatory before participating in this discussion?



Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.


But the AIM states up front that it is not mandatory, the CCB procedures do
not do that.



Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.


How so?



If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
of aviation.


What do you consider to be the beginning of aviation and what are you
referring to that has been around since that time?



Your repeated disparagement of the airport management, which in most
cases has many decades of experience, is noted.


Decades of experience in airport management does not alone qualify anyone to
create noise abatement procedures.



While you are required to obtain all relevant information to a flight
before takeoff, a lot of local procedures are not in the AF/D which
makes it difficult for everyone to find them.


So it would be a mistake to expect anyone to follow a procedure that is not
in the A/FD.



But, since common sense, and I do believe a regulation somewhere,
requires you to observe the existing traffic and blend in with it
at none-towered airports, there is not much of an excuse not to
follow what everyone else is doing.


There is no such regulation.

wrote in message
...

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.


The rest of the world? The local CCB procedures have had very limited
distribution. You should expect most of the worlds pilots would not be
following them.

wrote in message
...

They aren't "my" procedures, nor are they the procedures of some mob of
home owners, they are the procedures established by the airport
management.

Airport management is the person or group responsible for the operation
of an airport.


Airport management has no authority over airspace.

Which the student may or may not have done while you've committed to
landing. I also would not want to be in the pattern with someone suddenly
pulling a 360 on final, either. IMO, the scenrios you're presenting do not
reflect the most courteous or safe options.

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

Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

Both of those statements are 100% true.

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.

What an incredible statement, from a guy who wasn't there. I'm
thankful you don't work for the NTSB.

The controller should have done one of the two following things:

1. He should not have revoked my previously issued landing clearance
and cut the 172 in ahead of me.

*or*

2. He should have ordered the 172 to land long, and keep it rolling.

Either choice would have worked out fine. He blew it, and did
neither. When he finally noticed the spacing issue, he ordered a go-
round.

In the end, it all worked out fine, and there was nothing unsafe about
it. But it was an unusual ATC lapse in judgement, which is why I
posted it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.


The rest of the world? The local CCB procedures have had very limited
distribution. You should expect most of the worlds pilots would not be
following them.

So now you are down to nit picking the symantics?

The above text is about life in general, not about any particular
procedure or airport, or even aviation in particular.

As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB
for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures.

And of course, pilots don't follow the CCB VFR procedures at other
airports.

This is you most childish rebuttal to date.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 31 Mar 2007 06:48:38 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in om:

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,

Such a maneuver would place you in the blind to arriving traffic
during certain quadrants of the 360* turn. What do you have against
S-turns to increase spacing?

or landed short behind him.

I also would have got on the radio and asked him to land long and keep
it rolling.

Technically, that is not in accordance with the Self-announce FAA
policy for CTAF.

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"