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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message news On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:16:54 -0500, "Robert Henry" wrote: As I've said, and which you seem resistant to, that facility needs some education. Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that are inherently bad. I am not interested in flaming the facility; my interest is in improving the overall safety of the system we fly in. My position is that ATC should not be issuing instructions - anywhere- that are inherently ambiguous and can put airplanes dangerously close to cumologranite. If I read more seconds for your approach, I'll reconsider. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:26:30 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote: Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that are inherently bad. I see nothing inherently bad in allowing a pilot to use a published procedure so as to avoid terrain. The verbiage to allow that is in both the AIM and the 7110.65 I am not interested in flaming the facility; my interest is in improving the overall safety of the system we fly in. We share that goal. I have no interest in flaming anyone, but I would like to improve safety by having someone educate that facility so that they do things the way it's done in the rest of the country. To have a few facilities implementing IFR departure procedures differently from the rest of the country is inherently bad. Whether the procedure needs to be changed or not. I do not equate education with flaming; and as I mentioned before, I'll be happy to give you some ATC contacts who can take the ball further in a proper method. My position is that ATC should not be issuing instructions - anywhere- that are inherently ambiguous and can put airplanes dangerously close to cumologranite. I would agree. But educating ATC in your area that pilots (even if they are non-military) may, at their prerogative, fly a published ODP is a different issue. And if a conflict results from that, it will be with traffic, and not with terrain. If I read more seconds for your approach, I'll reconsider. I was hoping to convince you by logic rather than a Usenet opinion poll. It seems I have failed at that. But please think about it and, as I said, I'd be happy to give you some ATC contacts whose goals are professional, and not "flaming". Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:26:30 -0500, "Robert Henry" wrote: Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that are inherently bad. I see nothing inherently bad in allowing a pilot to use a published procedure so as to avoid terrain. The verbiage to allow that is in both the AIM and the 7110.65 Agreed, of course. That is not at issue. The problem was that I was given an instruction to fly into the ground. I consider that inherently bad. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:B2dqb.114069$Tr4.318941@attbi_s03... wrote: Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of pilots getting heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands. Doesn't matter if the airport is in the mountains or not you should not ever get a heading at a nontowered airport. What about at a non-towered airport within a Class E surface area? Chip, ZTL |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom S." wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote: Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government works best when we run it like a business, Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs. flexibility of decision making). just like Enron, MCI, or any major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). And those companies tired to run the business like a government. Now that's an interesting point, Tom. :-) Well taken. Chip, ZTL |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:24:08 -0800, wrote: Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote: If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter what field you are departing from. On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote: Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces. Nor would there be an ODP to fly! True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved. Well, then, they wouldn't be able to fly an ODP if there wasn't one there. I think you're missing my point. There are many IFR airports that have Part 97 IFR takeoff minimums but no ODP because they are 40:1-clear in all directions once reaching 400 feet. That is the result of a survey by the feds. There aren't any such surveys or takeoff minimums at VFR airports but some Part 91 pilots don't understand the distinction since takeoff minimums are mandatory for them. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:22:18 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote: Agreed, of course. That is not at issue. The problem was that I was given an instruction to fly into the ground. I consider that inherently bad. And if the tower folk were properly trained, which is what I've been trying to get you to contribute to, you would not have received that instruction. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Tom S. wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote: Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government works best when we run it like a business, Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs. flexibility of decision making). just like Enron, MCI, or any major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). And those companies tired to run the business like a government. Not nearly. There is quite a difference between inefficiency and outright deception and fraud. Failure to deliver by public agencies is often as much the fault of the shareholders' (taxpayers) lack of investment as it is the fault of management's incompetence. Government agencies can be as flexible as large private companies, if they have some assurance of continuity of budget and programs. But if all the management hours have to be spent figuring out how to cut as opposed to what and how to deliver, then what do you expect? The bottom line is that you have little way of knowing if the company you choose to run your ATC will operate like a "good" company or a bad one... so would you rather have a Government agency screw it up, which is at least somewhat under the scrutiny of press and public, or a private company screw it up, which can hide its shady dealings until it's too late. It is easy to continue cutting an agency's budget, because we all "don't want to pay taxes" and then complain that it is not producing. Then we invested our "savings" in ENRON. Good deal. It would be an interesting excercise to see how good an ATC system we might have now if all the outright stock market fraud losses of the last 10 years had been re-directed to government agencies instead of invested in the "private sector". If the general culture is that people are good, then a government agency can produce good results just as well as a private one, given the resources, especially in a monopoly industry such as ATC. If the general culture is that people are bad, then I would rather have the accountable, scrutinized agency doing the work, as opposed to a self-serving, private one. People are people whether in "private industry" or "government service" and I can't quite see this idea that the people of one are somehow "different" or "worse" than the other. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approaches with Center | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 104 | October 22nd 03 09:42 PM |
IFR Routing Toronto to Windsor (CYTZ - CYQG) | Rob Pesan | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 7th 03 01:50 PM |
required readback on clearance | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 04:33 PM |
Picking up a Clearance Airborne | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 03 01:31 AM |
Big John Bites Dicks (Security Clearance) | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 27 | August 21st 03 12:40 AM |