A tower-induced go-round

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

We have state as well as federal Senators in our state government.


So do we, but our state Senators have no control over federal expenditures.
Not the case in Iowa?

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.

Dang, Steven, I didn't know you were there? Where *were* you hiding?
Or was that you in the tower?

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.

I posted the story because I found it interesting and unusual. The
only one venting here (for no apparent reason) is you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article ,
TheSmokingGnu wrote:

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

PFM

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

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

Never? At any distance?


You have trouble with the word "cutting"? I believe that says it
all.



No, that's a very subjective distance. Some idiots out there announce a
five mile final and expect me to follow them. I'll stick a Beech 99
being flown by a freight dog in front of the typical weekend flyer on a
mile and a half final all day long.

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:

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

I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous


The controller's instructions put both the 172 and I on a course that
-- in the controller's opinion -- was going to cause a collision on
the runway. This is why he sent me around, after clearing me to
land.

You don't find this unusual?

When I worked at GFK we'd have at least 50 go arounds a day, for any
number of reasons. Our typical traffic counts were on the order of 150
operations an hour. Students would land and then inexplicably stop,
they would go to take off and then do a Vx climb without telling us,
effectively stopping in mid air, they'd miss the turn off, etc. Had the
plane in front of you not stopped everything would have worked fine.
That's not the controllers fault, it wasn't his instruction that put you
on a collision course it was the first guys stopping on the runway.
Using your logic it was the controllers who cleared you for takeoff that
put you on a collision course.

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


Wooo boy. I used to work with guys like that, back in the '80s. They
didn't trust us kids who were looking at a computer screen, instead of
writing the newspaper draws on clear plastic sheets with a grease
pencil. After all, it had worked for them for 50 years....

You don't understand the limitations of radar.

Stefan wrote:

Jay Honeck schrieb:

The controller's instructions put both the 172 and I on a course that
-- in the controller's opinion -- was going to cause a collision on
the runway. This is why he sent me around, after clearing me to
land.

You don't find this unusual?


No. He thought his instructions would work. When he realised that he had
made a mistake,

He didn't make a mistake, he simply reacted to conditions as they
change. That's what controllers do.

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

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

I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous

The controller's instructions put both the 172 and I on a course that
-- in the controller's opinion -- was going to cause a collision on
the runway. This is why he sent me around, after clearing me to
land.

You don't find this unusual?

Perhaps, but not nearly as unusual as some things I've experienced at
uncontrolled fields. I suspect that your experience is a multiple of mine,
so it made me wonder why it was so noteworthy as to warrant such a rant
about Class D fields.

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

This thread seemed more like an aero version of "road rage" to me.
In a newsgroup with a lot of folks seeking to learn, that can't be a
Good Thing.

"Road rage"? What are you *talking* about?

I'm talking about your notions of landing short over the plane on the
runway. Why would such notions even cross your mind? Sorry, I thought
you'd understand that analogy. ;-)

No one was angry, no one
raised their voice, and nothing unsafe happened. This is simply a
discussion of a very unusual event. If there's any "rage" being felt
here, it must be yours.

Why on Earth would I have any "rage" over YOUR experience? Please. As I
wrote in an earlier reply, if I were in that situation, the controller
would not have had to tell me to go around. I asked some questions of you
because it's pretty obvious that YOU had a problem with that experience,
and I wondered why, and still do.

Neil

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

Both of those statements are 100% true.


No they're not. You also said you were 1/2 mile out when the 172 touched
down 1500' from the threshold. If that's correct the controller judged the
spacing just fine.



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


No, I wasn't there. That's why I have to rely on your account. The problem
here is that your story does not support your conclusion. You have to
change one of them.



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.


According to your story there was adequate spacing to put the 172 ahead of
you, doing that does not revoke your previously issued landing clearance.



*or*

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


Perhaps the controller isn't as comfortable telling pilots how to do their
jobs as you are telling controllers how to do theirs.

If your distances are accurate the 172 didn't need to land any longer than
he did. "Keep it rolling" is part of a normal landing, the pilot shouldn't
have to be told to do that.



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.


Did the controller tell you that? Your story makes it sound like he ordered
the go around when he noticed the 172's unexpected stop on the runway.



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.


If you're going to stick with your conclusion, that the controller misjudged
the spacing, you're going to have to put your plane closer to the threshold
when the 172 touches down.