![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kyle Boatright" wrote in message ... True, but ATC isn't likely to suffer the ultimate price should there be a mid-air collision. I'm announcing intentions and keeping the rogue aircraft in sight. If ATC has a problem with that, we can sort it out later. A midair with the rogue departure? That seems unlikely. You're behind and above the aircraft taking off. For a collision to occur it would have to climb significantly faster than your aircraft. If it can it do that it is probably significantly faster as well and will stay in front of you. The safest thing to do is comply with the instruction and overfly the runway. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message ... How much room will there be as the Cessna rolls down the runway? If he leaves me about 1000 feet I'm landing. And what happens if he aborts his takeoff and stops? How much room is there? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ron Lee" wrote in message ... I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least everyone is alive to vent. Not if you turn and collide with somebody on downwind. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Allen" wrote in message t... And if you follow ATC instructions and the departing aircraft collides with you you are still at fault for not seeing and avoiding and you are still dead. So the best course of action is to comply with ATC's instruction and overfly the runway. There's less risk of collision and no risk of enforcement action. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:39:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message ... Maybe so, There's no "maybe" about it. The Pilot/Controller Glossary was compiled to promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control system. The instruction "Go Around" is defined as: "Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as instructed by ATC; e.g., "Go around" (additional instructions if required)." but the pilot in command is the ultimate authority for the safety of the flight.... "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Authority and responsibility go hand-in-hand. So if you're instructed to overfly the runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude, but instead use your PIC authority and begin a climbing turn to the right and collide with an aircraft on downwind, you're responsible for all damages, injuries, and lives lost. For what it's worth, I'd only side-step if I didn't like what I saw below and in front of me. Letting ATC know what I was doing would of course be a polite thing to do! It would also make any potential enforcement action of your violation of FAR 91.123(b) easier. ATC can issue whatever instructions they want. If a collision is imminent, or likely, based upon their instruction and based upon what I'm seeing out of the windshield as PIC, I'm going to do whatever it takes to keep from colliding with another aircraft. As someone else pointed out, the idea is to be around for the hearing, or the inevitable "talk" one might have with the feds. Pilots are human beings and sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes sheet metal gets bent, and other times, folks get hurt or killed. Controllers are not exempt from "being human" and making mistakes.... (it's happened many times before, and it'll no doubt happen again). Bela P. Havasreti |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message ... ATC can issue whatever instructions they want. Well, no, there are limits to the instructions ATC can issue. If a collision is imminent, or likely, based upon their instruction and based upon what I'm seeing out of the windshield as PIC, I'm going to do whatever it takes to keep from colliding with another aircraft. As someone else pointed out, the idea is to be around for the hearing, or the inevitable "talk" one might have with the feds. It is unlikely that proper compliance with an instruction to "go around" will make a collision imminent or even likely. Following the improper action that you espouse is more likely to do that. If you do not understand the procedures or terminologies commonly used at towered airports it would be best from the standpoint of safety for you to avoid towered airports. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:32:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: It is unlikely that proper compliance with an instruction to "go around" will make a collision imminent or even likely. Following the improper action that you espouse is more likely to do that. If you do not understand the procedures or terminologies commonly used at towered airports it would be best from the standpoint of safety for you to avoid towered airports. I am perfectly comfortable flying into towered airports (been flying since 1976, and have lived in a large, metropolitan area most of my life). I'm not a "rebel" and I do comply with ATC instructions the vast majority of the time (in case you're wondering, yes... I have used the "unable" card with ATC on occasion when the situation warranted it). I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm the PIC of the aircraft I'm flying and I decide what the safest way is to operate said aircraft, not ATC. If you still feel the need to quote FARs and post insulting comments about my ability to fly safely, knock yourself out.... I apologize for having to point this out, but you can't make others think exactly the way you do by pressing arguments on usenet.... During your tenure on this good green earth, there just may be times when others don't agree with what you have to say. The sooner you learn to live with that fact, the sooner you can begin to enjoy life (don't sweat the small stuff...). Be safe, and have a nice flight. Bela P. Havasreti |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message ... I am perfectly comfortable flying into towered airports (been flying since 1976, and have lived in a large, metropolitan area most of my life). I'm not a "rebel" and I do comply with ATC instructions the vast majority of the time (in case you're wondering, yes... I have used the "unable" card with ATC on occasion when the situation warranted it). I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm the PIC of the aircraft I'm flying and I decide what the safest way is to operate said aircraft, not ATC. If you still feel the need to quote FARs and post insulting comments about my ability to fly safely, knock yourself out.... I was merely pointing out that the course of action you proposed is unsafe and explained why that is so. If you choose to feel insulted by that then that is your privilege. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
helloooooo.....
I wouldn't sidestep THAT far... NOR would I sidestep into traffic (that I know about). Steve, Give it a rest. As PIC, I'm responsible for the safety of my aircraft and of my actions. You quoted the regs saying just that. If I feel that I *need* to deviate from ATC instructions to avoid an imminent collision, then I believe that would constitute and EMERGENCY. In an emergency, it is well known that I may deviate from the FARs to meet the needs of that emergency. Also, remember, Aviate, Nagivate, and Communicate. I'll tell ATC what is going on, but not before I ensure the safety of my flight. That being said, I don't doubt that ATC will not intentionally issue an instruction that would put me in harm's way. That still does not relieve me of being situationally aware and ready to respond appropriately to a given situation/instruction. Chris G. PP-ASEL and still alive to talk about it cuz I fly safely! Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Ron Lee" wrote in message ... I agree. Be safe and if they want to scream and yell at least everyone is alive to vent. Not if you turn and collide with somebody on downwind. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:14:55 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message ... I am perfectly comfortable flying into towered airports (been flying since 1976, and have lived in a large, metropolitan area most of my life). I'm not a "rebel" and I do comply with ATC instructions the vast majority of the time (in case you're wondering, yes... I have used the "unable" card with ATC on occasion when the situation warranted it). I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm the PIC of the aircraft I'm flying and I decide what the safest way is to operate said aircraft, not ATC. If you still feel the need to quote FARs and post insulting comments about my ability to fly safely, knock yourself out.... I was merely pointing out that the course of action you proposed is unsafe and explained why that is so. If you choose to feel insulted by that then that is your privilege. It is not unsafe, and you did not "explain why that is so". You quoted some regs. Regs are open to interpretation. Nobody is talking about a 4+ G pitchout to the side to avoid an aircraft that is 1000+ feet up-wind. I'm guessing you're just one of those folks who like to "argue" and/or get the last word in.....? If so, be my guest and post your last word(s) here - - 8^) Be safe, and have a nice flight. Bela P. Havasreti |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|