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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers
"Mike Fergione" wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117
: Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything. The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for the tower controller to tell you to go around. But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'??? If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not to blindly follow the instructions of the tower. Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it? What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder? In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not. ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an issue in LEX. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers
What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything"
is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing it. If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss. If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause in the FAR's. "Judah" wrote in message . .. "Mike Fergione" wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117 : Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything. The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for the tower controller to tell you to go around. But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'??? If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not to blindly follow the instructions of the tower. Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it? What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder? In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not. ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an issue in LEX. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers
"Mike Fergione" wrote in
: What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything" is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing it. If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss. So if I witness a robbery, and call the police, does that make me the 'ultimate authority' for the safety of the bank? The pilot has the ultimate responsible for safety of flight. Period. Following ATC instructions, barring a specific reason not to, is part of ensuring safety of flight. Had there been a legitimate safety reason for violating the ATC instruction, no action would be taken against the pilot. At worst I imagine he might get chastised for failing to properly inform ATC of his inability to comply with their request, so that they could safely coordinate with other planes in their airspace. Making a random choice in contrast to an ATC request is not safe, and is not a legitimate safety reason for violating an ATC instruction. If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause in the FAR's. If what you said was true, Pilots would be required to follow ATC instructions without the ability to declare an emergency or respond "unable". However, if ATC issues an instruction, and the pilot cannot follow it, the pilot has the authority (and responsibility) to respond that he is unable to comply and ATC will react appropriately. This even applies in IMC. Another example of this is the policy to require reaction to TCAS Resolution Advisories, even if they conflict with ATC clearances. http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/miscinst.htm If ATC is the final authority, then each instance of this would be actionable. But that is not the case, and the FAA and ICAO have even put out orders and advisories to help ensure that ATC controllers are properly trained on how to deal with planes that take TCAS action. http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/...t_bulletin.pdf |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers
Judah wrote:
"Mike Fergione" wrote in : What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything" is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing it. If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss. So if I witness a robbery, and call the police, does that make me the 'ultimate authority' for the safety of the bank? The pilot has the ultimate responsible for safety of flight. Period. Following ATC instructions, barring a specific reason not to, is part of ensuring safety of flight. Had there been a legitimate safety reason for violating the ATC instruction, no action would be taken against the pilot. At worst I imagine he might get chastised for failing to properly inform ATC of his inability to comply with their request, so that they could safely coordinate with other planes in their airspace. Making a random choice in contrast to an ATC request is not safe, and is not a legitimate safety reason for violating an ATC instruction. If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause in the FAR's. If what you said was true, Pilots would be required to follow ATC instructions without the ability to declare an emergency or respond "unable". However, if ATC issues an instruction, and the pilot cannot follow it, the pilot has the authority (and responsibility) to respond that he is unable to comply and ATC will react appropriately. This even applies in IMC. Another example of this is the policy to require reaction to TCAS Resolution Advisories, even if they conflict with ATC clearances. http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/miscinst.htm If ATC is the final authority, then each instance of this would be actionable. But that is not the case, and the FAA and ICAO have even put out orders and advisories to help ensure that ATC controllers are properly trained on how to deal with planes that take TCAS action. http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/...t_bulletin.pdf The "new" goal of the FAA is to create more layers of worthless Management, less real workers, promote unqualified minorities and remove and discard experienced white male employees so lesbian women(ex-secretaries) can be in charge and feel good about themselves. Air Safety is not on the radar any longer within the "New" FAA. It has become a social engineering cluster ****/alphabet soup empire in Washington D.C. burning tax dollars like drunken sailors. Privatize Air Traffic Control and ban affirmative action and social engineering. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |