A tower-induced go-round

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I submit that if these airports are busy enough to need a control
tower, than they should merit radar. (I know some already have it,
but most do not.)

Getting radar coverage for every control tower would be quite expensive.



This weird mish-mash of some Class D's with, and some without radar,
makes for a pretty bizarre set of circumstances for pilots.
Personally I find it just a bit odd, and a little uncomfortable, not
knowing if I'm being controlled by Mr. Magoo with binoculars, or
George Jetson with radar.

Prior to 9/11, I would occasionally visit the tower at KBED on quiet mornings
(usually Sunday). They have a feed from the ASR-9 at Boston and optionally
the ASR at MHT. These radars are blinds below around 600 feet at the airport
and traffic to the southwest of KBED has to be up around 2000 feet to be
reliably visible on radar. Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

wrote in message
...

Yep, those are the IFR procedures.

Which part of the local procedures being for VFR are you having trouble
understanding?


None. What made you think I did? Did you know the local procedures were
for VFR operations before you joined this discussion?



The 6 IFR departure would be illegal to do without a radio, and if
you did it with a radio, while legal, it would **** of the class C
tower which is expecting you to use the VFR procedure and call them
when you get close to midfield if you intend to cross their airspace.


Following an IFR procedure would not **** off the tower and I wouldn't be
calling them at all.

Cutting in front of someone on final, whether under orders or
voluntary, is never safe nor courteous.

I don't see how following a controller's instructions is discourteous

The controller's instructions put both the 172 and I on a course that
-- in the controller's opinion -- was going to cause a collision on
the runway. This is why he sent me around, after clearing me to
land.

You don't find this unusual?

Which, of course, is the point of this entire thread.

This thread seemed more like an aero version of "road rage" to me. In a
newsgroup with a lot of folks seeking to learn, that can't be a Good
Thing.

"Road rage"? What are you *talking* about? No one was angry, no one
raised their voice, and nothing unsafe happened. This is simply a
discussion of a very unusual event. If there's any "rage" being felt
here, it must be yours.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.

Wooo boy. I used to work with guys like that, back in the '80s. They
didn't trust us kids who were looking at a computer screen, instead of
writing the newspaper draws on clear plastic sheets with a grease
pencil. After all, it had worked for them for 50 years....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote in message
...

Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.


I think that unlikely.



So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.


How do you know there have been no safety issues?



Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.


That's fine, you're free to follow them if you choose. Just as anyone is
free to decline to participate. The problem is that many pilots may not
know that they're strictly voluntary.

wrote in message
...

How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?


Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
damn?


It matters to me. You can answer at least one of those questions, please
do.



FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.

The signs in the runup area say "Please".


I haven't been to the FBO or the runup area, but that's not what's on the
web site. The online procedures state at the top:

Cable Airport VFR Noise Abatement
Arrival and Departures


The runway 24 procedure has "suggested phraseology for flying in and out of
Cable Airport", and beneath a separator the runway 6 procedure has
"suggested VFR procedures for departures to the south or entries from the
south".

Jay Honeck schrieb:

The controller's instructions put both the 172 and I on a course that
-- in the controller's opinion -- was going to cause a collision on
the runway. This is why he sent me around, after clearing me to
land.

You don't find this unusual?

No. He thought his instructions would work. When he realised that he had
made a mistake, he resolved the situation by sending you around. Pretty
much what I expect from a controller.

Stefan

wrote in message
ups.com...

Then what in the hell do we need dumb ass controllers
for????????????????????????????????


We don't need dumb ass controllers at all. One of the reasons we need
competent controllers, such as the one that may very well have saved Jay's
life at JEF, is because we have dumb ass pilots.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...

At an uncontrolled field, if the student had cut in front of me (as he
did when he was ordered to do so by the tower controller) I would have
executed a 360 degree turn for spacing, or landed short behind him. I
also would have got on the radio and asked him to land long and keep
it rolling.


Cut in front of you?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

The bottom line is that we *don't* need ATC for most GA operations.
In fact, as I've stated before, imposing Class D "controlled" airspace
actually reduces safety in many cases.


Yes, you've stated it before, but in no case does Class D airspace actually
reduce safety.


Class D is there because (at some point) your Senator wanted a control
tower in his district.


His district? A Senator's district is a state. What state would not have
any control towers if not for the actions of a Senator?