Class D Sucks

On 17 Dec 2004 08:29:29 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

My problem with Class D space is that it seems to impart an
inappropriate comfort level to many pilots who don't understand what
is (and is not) being provided.

This would be because pilots, like all other people, have this idea
that authority and responsibility go together. In other words, if the
controller has the authority to tell you how to fly your pattern, when
to turn, etc - then the responsibility for separation in the air should
also be his. Well, it doesn't work that way. THAT is the primary
weakness of Class D airspace, and it can't be fixed unless you either
make the controller responsible for separation (meaning that unless the
pilot disregarded the controller's instructions, it's controller error,
not pilot error, in the event of a mid-air or near miss) or you give
the pilot the authority to disregard the controller's instructions at
will, not just in the event of an emergency (thus making the airspace
uncontrolled). But while this is an issue in theory, in practice it's
usually not an issue.

In reality, at most Class D's most controllers treat separation as if
it were their responsibility. That means they issue clear and
comprehensible instructions and ask for a readback of the key points,
just as if they were issuing clearances. When that happens, pilots
treat the instructions as if they were clearances - meaning they
question those they don't understand, read back those they do, and
comply - and things work OK - a little better than they would if the
airspace was uncontrolled. Sometimes you get a bad or overloaded
controller, and then things are MUCH worse than they would be if the
airspace was uncontrolled. That's when you get the problems.

I will be the first to admit that I will let a situation that looks
ugly develop a lot further in Class D than I will in Class E or G. I
Class E/G, I know there's nobody looking out for me but me, and if I
don't have a plan nobody does. So when I see things not going to plan
(someone too close for comfort) I take action immediately. Not so in
Class D. Unless the controller has given me reason to doubt his
competence (by doing things like issuing nonsensical or illegal
instructions, chewing out pilots on the frequency rather than calmly
giving them a number to call, and generally acting like he lost SA) I'm
going to assume he has a plan, and I'm going to stick with his plan
until there's just no way. I think most pilots would too. I guess
this is what you call inappropriate comfort level. You are of course
entitled to your opinion, but I don't consider it inappropriate given
the way Class D normally operates. Given the legalities, you have a
point.

Michael

Perhaps a poor choice of works, Michael. By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is. Too many pilots lose just a little bit of the edge when
they think someone else is watching over their wellbeing. I'm
speaking specifically of VFR pilots, all of whom were taught that ATC
does not provide separation in the air for VFR aircraft in the Delta,
but many have "forgotten".
Rich Russell

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...

I had heard previous chatter between the other plane and the
controller. At that point, I thought of that possibility. As it
became increasingly clear that I was "forgotten", I called the tower
and in a firm (but not yet panicked) voice stated that I was in
position and holding on 24. I got an immediate response clearing me
for "immediate take-off, no delay. You may not agree, and that is
fine, but I am quite certain that I was forgotten.


Just wanted a bit more detail. Controllers do make mistakes, but just
because you hear someone else cleared to land while you're on the runway
doesn't mean that someone's about to land on top of you.

Richard Russell wrote:

By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is.

This is, unfortunately, true. There's someone with whom I no longer fly who
refused to take preventative measures regarding traffic w/in CDW's class D
because "it's the controller's job". Scary.

But this is not the fault of class D airspace. Rather, it is the fault of
training, and perhaps the understanding of the phrase "controlled
airspace". I don't understand this confusion, myself, as any that exists
should be cleared up the moment the student asks "but why is class E called
'controlled'?".

- Andrew

Jay,

Yes I do. Actually a bit higher.

It was more tempting when I thought you said "We'll keep the bacon on for
ya!"

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

By inappropriate comfort
level I meant that the pilot may have a false sense of security
because he thinks the controller is responsible for more than he
really is.

I understand what you're saying, I simply think this is one of those
situations where the national airspace system is poorly designed. It's
a bug. We have lots of people here making the point that this is a
well known, documented bug - and they are right. It's still a bug,
though, not a feature, and I think that Jay correctly identified it as
such, even if I don't agree with his solutions.

The national airspace system is full of those bugs. For example, you
might reasonably think that if you fly a published instrument approach,
with current plates and NOTAM's, equipment that meets the
specifications and passes the required operational checks, and you fly
the approach to well within PTS standards that means you shouldn't have
to worry about hitting any obstructions. You might think that - but
you would be wrong. It's a bug. This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

I'm
speaking specifically of VFR pilots, all of whom were taught that ATC
does not provide separation in the air for VFR aircraft in the Delta,
but many have "forgotten".

And I'm saying they have "forgotten" because it's just not a reasonable
situation to give the controller authority to tell the aircraft where
and when to fly without giving him the responsibility for separating
them. It's a situation that's guaranteed to cause problems for pilots,
so when pilots have problems with it, it's worth going beyond asking
whether they know the rules, and question whether those rules are
reasonable. The solution for a quirky system is not training in
dealing with the quirks - it's fixing the quirks.

Michael

Michael wrote:

The national airspace system is full of those bugs.

The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

It's no bug at all. It allows a controller to basically say: "stay in
that region" or "fly that altitude band" or even more important "stay
away from that region", but I won't be able to provide separation.

If you're talking about bugs, then I'd say that the biggest bug is a
system which allows people to become pilots without knowing the basics
of airspace classification.

Stefan

Jay Honeck wrote :
1. Provide radar separation in all controlled airports
2. Ban converging patterns at non-radar, controlled airports
3. Make non-radar controlled airport uncontrolled -- period
4. Call non-radar controlled airports what they really a
Semi-Controlled

I know that you know that separation is the pilots responsibility in
class D, but it seems that you still expect the tower controller to be
responsible for it. I fly out of a pretty busy Class D and frankly, I
don't expect the tower (equipped with D-BRITE radar) to keep me away
from other planes at all. I also expect either the tower or some
flying doofus to occasionally screw up and cause a conflict (which
happens a few times a year). The way I look at it, the guy in the cab
is going to do his/her best to sequence everybody without conflicts
and that's the extent of their responsibility. I treat a class D
airport just like I would a busy uncontrolled airport, with the added
benefit of someone giving their best guess about other traffic I may
encounter. I guess I'm saying that we as pilots should already know
what you suggest in #4. Class D airports are semi-controlled as far as
separation is concerned.

Radar is not always the answer. Many towers are equipped with
D-BRITE radar displays which are just remote displays of a radar
located at another airport. While the D-BRITE has the capability of
issuing a conflict alert to the controller, you shouldn't feel safer
knowing that the tower is so equipped. Since actual radar site is not
on the airport, towers with D-BRITE often cannot see traffic in their
own traffic pattern. A local example of this is Scottsdale, AZ (SDL).
Their traffic pattern is 2,500 ft., but the radar only sees down to
3,000 ft. Several years ago, there was a midair at SDL between a plane
entering the downwind and one that was already in the pattern. All of
it happened out of sight of the radar.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Stefan wrote:
The national airspace system is full of those bugs.
The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

No, other nations ALSO have bugs in their systems, but since I haven't
flown in those other nations I'm not too interested on commenting on
them.

This disconnect between authority and
responsibility in Class D is also a bug.

It's no bug at all. It allows a controller to basically say: "stay in

that region" or "fly that altitude band" or even more important "stay

away from that region", but I won't be able to provide separation.

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
separation. That's a bug.

If you're talking about bugs, then I'd say that the biggest bug is a
system which allows people to become pilots without knowing the
basics
of airspace classification.

I don't agree. First, no system is ever perfect, and someone will
always slip through the net who doesn't understand something. Any
systems that relies on everyone knowing all aspects, including those
that are counterintuitive, is very poorly designed. Second, I haven't
actually met any pilots who made it through without knowing the basics
of airspace classification, although I don't doubt that it's possible.
It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come up.
And third, I think lack of understanding of systematic errors (as
opposed to procedural ones) is a much greater handicap to safety.
However, we don't teach pilots anything about system design - probably
because if we did, they would start to realize what a poorly designed
and quirky mess the national airspace system is.

Michael

Michael wrote:

The airspace classes are by no means an US national system.

No, other nations ALSO have bugs in their systems, but since I haven't
flown in those other nations I'm not too interested on commenting on
them.

You don't understand what I mean. Airspace classification is an
international thing, an ICAO thing. The worst a country could do is to
leave that international system. If you don't like airspace D, then your
approach should be not to apply it in the USA. I wouldn't comment on
that. But airspace D may have its place in other countries. In mine, it
certainly does.

Yes - it allows the controller to limit your ability to separate
yourself without accepting any responsibility for the resulting loss of
separation. That's a bug.

No. It allows a controller to provide some "big scale separation",
leaving the "fine separation" to the pilots.

It's only when things are made counterintuitive that problems come up.

Intuition is a very personal thing. What may be intuitive to you may not
be so to me and vice versa. Even more interesting, intuition can be
trained. When I started studying physics, quantum theory and realtivity
were the most counterintuitive things I could imagine. Today, they are
very intuitive. The same applies to certain aspects of flying.

Stefan

Here is a good one: If you are cleared for an approach, are you also
cleared for landing? You see, the biz jet was apparently flying the HGR
VOR 9 approach, that starts well outside the "D" airspace. When he
called up HGR tower, he appologised for a late hand-off (must mean he
was talking with ATC). HGR tower told him they didn't have a strip on
him. Meanwhile, I didn't see him until he lit up over the VOR, just as
he called in (which means he was either vectored or did the PT
inbound). At that point I would guess he was over 180Knots because the
closing rate was rather rapid.

To be fair, I have been IFR in the clouds and told to expect visual 27
(at HGR). I have dropped out of the clouds, 5 miles out looking down
RWY 9 before being handed off to HGR tower.

Today I fly a PA28-180, back then I was flying either a C150/2.
Later,
Steve.T