No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

Roy Smith wrote:


I imagine we could have pulled the tapes and listend to them, but it
just didn't seem worthwhile going to that trouble.

Actually it's pretty easy. Most facilities now have several days to
nearly a week of "tapes" on a hard drive, depending on how busy a
facility is. The voice data goes down on the hard drive with no gaps
for dead air. So if you were to call up and provide a time it would be
a simple matter of a few mouse clicks. Plus effective November 1st
all tapes are now being kept for 45 days instead of 15.

"Icebound" wrote in message

Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost. Hence
they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
controls.

That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, I think it comes down to philosophy. I think it's just as much a
pilot training issue. The instruction was terrible, but
technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish.

I now know what I can do to additionally ensure the safety of any flight I
undertake, which is to always depart IFR using an ODP when available. That
removes the controller training level from the risk equation.

Tangentially, here are a couple of other 'best practices' (or personal
minimums) to avoid other safety traps I've noticed.

1) Never cancel IFR until a landing is assured (i.e., after landing), or
airport/nearby activity is enough that an unsuccessful approach will be
immediately noticed. (Credit to United Airlines: learned while listening to
channel 9 landing in a severely remote area late at night).

2) Decline visual approaches at night.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:2rEqb.131847$HS4.1048024@attbi_s01...


Roy Smith wrote:


I imagine we could have pulled the tapes and listend to them, but it
just didn't seem worthwhile going to that trouble.

Actually it's pretty easy. Most facilities now have several days to
nearly a week of "tapes" on a hard drive, depending on how busy a
facility is. The voice data goes down on the hard drive with no gaps
for dead air. So if you were to call up and provide a time it would be
a simple matter of a few mouse clicks. Plus effective November 1st
all tapes are now being kept for 45 days instead of 15.


A speaker from PCT mentioned the hard drive use for storing the comm. It's
nice to know that it's more prevalent than just being in the newest of
facilities.

Newps wrote:



"Icebound" wrote in message


Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost. Hence
they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
controls.


That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.


Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the
initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from
activists and scientists.

When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from
certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the
"emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and
environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG.







--
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
--- Serenity Prayer

"Newps" wrote in message
news:CsEqb.131854$HS4.1048032@attbi_s01...

That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.

People stopped buying detergents with Phosphates long before the government
banned them.

Are these the same consumers that leave fast food wrappers and other trash
blowing around?

"Icebound" wrote in message
ogers.com...
Newps wrote:



"Icebound" wrote in message


Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost.
Hence
they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
controls.


That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.


Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the
initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from
activists and scientists.

Cite?


When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from
certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the
"emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and
environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG.

Cite?

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:45:15 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

The instruction was terrible, but
technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish

That removes the controller training level from the risk equation.


I thought you said that ATC was not protecting the ODP for an IFR
departure. If so, there is an ATC training issue that will affect other
pilots who do things by the book.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:45:15 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

The instruction was terrible, but
technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish

That removes the controller training level from the risk equation.


I thought you said that ATC was not protecting the ODP for an IFR
departure. If so, there is an ATC training issue that will affect other
pilots who do things by the book.

No, sorry for the confusion. In the discussions that followed, the tower
suggested that I inform them of my intentions to fly the ODP (which is
similar to the circumstances originating this thread, right?), so that they
could coordinate better. The implication was that in vmc RAPCON could
vector arriving aircraft on the visual approach further away from the ODP so
that there would not be a head to head situation. There was nothing to
imply that the ODP was not being protected.

Now, it is my position that the safer procedure would be for the tower to
automatically issue departure heading instructions that are consistent with
the ODP. I think we agree on that. (Frankly, I know now that my error was
in expecting this to happen - AGAIN, a misconception (that I believe
non-scientifically could be fairly common about the level of service one can
expect at a towered airport in a radar environment on an IFR flight plan.)
Now, when the pilot contacts departure, he can say, "...can we get on
course?" Departure can say, "radar contact, but I cannot turn you on course
until you reach MVA." If conditions warrant, the pilot can come back and
say, "We will maintain our own terrain clearance, request on course." All
things being equal, that could be approved as requested with an instruction
to maintain visual terrain clearance.

Icebound wrote:

Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the
initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from
activists and scientists.

Nope, sorry. A few tree huggers don't have the political power
necessary to force down all these changes.