airfields with a tower that doesn't control pilots?

Happy Dog wrote:

There are some private airports which have towers that can give or deny
permission to land at the pilot's discretion.

How does one deny permission at the pilot's discretion? "... cleared to not
land at pilot's discretion"?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
Happy Dog wrote:

There are some private airports which have towers that can give or deny
permission to land at the pilot's discretion.

How does one deny permission at the pilot's discretion? "... cleared to
not
land at pilot's discretion"?

hehe

"Not cleared to land at your discretion." Or, maybe, simply "go away".

moo

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:41:20 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

Is this very unusual?

Unicom. Just a guy giving friendly advice.

No, it's not Unicom. The airfield tower is a very serious matter. If
you want to fly outside of tower hours, you pay $800 to bring the
"controller" (whatever he is called) out, and to man the fire station.

It's merely that the pilot and not the controller makes the decisions.
I appreciate that the pilot is always the ultimate authority, but in
the U.S. he can't go against the wishes of the controller unless he
declares an emergency, right?

Narsarsuaq is a challenging airport in a very severe environment (the
icecap starts just five miles to the east). The pilot needs somebody
in the tower and in the firehouse. It seems to me that the challenge
is so great that the final control authority has been punted from the
tower to the cockpit, and I wondered how common this is.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

It's merely that the pilot and not the controller makes the decisions.
I appreciate that the pilot is always the ultimate authority, but in
the U.S. he can't go against the wishes of the controller unless he
declares an emergency, right?


No, he can't deviate from any rule of Part 91 except in an in-flight
emergency requiring immediate action. He doesn't have to declare the
emergency, he just has to have it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

No, he can't deviate from any rule of Part 91 except in an in-flight

I wasn't aware that the US FARs are applicable in Greenland.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

I wasn't aware that the US FARs are applicable in Greenland.


They're not. We're not talking about Greenland. We're talking about the
US.

The airfield tower is a very serious matter. If
you want to fly outside of tower hours, you pay $800 to bring the
"controller" (whatever he is called) out, and to man the fire station.

Do you think that this is warranted, given the circumstances and the lay
of the airport, or is this an example of idle road crews? (neutral
question - no preformed opinion)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...

There are some private airports which have towers that can give or deny
permission to land at the pilot's discretion. Downsview airport in
Toronto (Bombardier facility and military base) has a tower (in the
physical sense) with an operator that replies "cleared to land at your
discretion" if you're welcome. But it isn't a clearance in the ATC sense
of the word.


There is at least one privately owned airport that has a tower that can
issue genuine landing and takeoff clearances. Airborne Airpark near
Wilmington Ohio is owned by DHL.

Only way to really "control" pilots is with electrodes and high
voltage.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

I thought that pilots that appear to be controlled by someone else was
one of the warning signs that homeland security wants us to watch for.

-Robert