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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Denton" wrote in message ... As separation is a function of traffic control, when would traffic control not include separation? Separation is not always a function of traffic control. In fact the AIM says for Class D airports "No separation is provided for VFR aircraft." The AIM is very clear as to what traffic services are provided for each class of airport. Who would be responsible for separation and sequencing under these circumstances? Ahhhh that would be you Bill, by the use of your eyes. The guy in the tower with binoculars just doesn't cut it for separation or sequencing and the FAA realizes that. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Denton" wrote in message ... Let's first jump back to my original subject on the specifics of the accident: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------ You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and avoiding." However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not mentioned as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident." Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which is in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the accident." Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's Collins'] poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide effective sequencing," And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his estimate of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline."" You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to many pilots." However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan. A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or understand the government and quite honestly hope I never do. Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will provide traffic control in the Class D airspace. Give paragraph 3-2-5 a read. Very last sentence of that section. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for turning me on to AIM 4-3-2; it doesn't get much clearer than
that. Is it possible that Waukegan has some special stuff going on because the center of the airport is only 2 nm from the Chicago Class B? BTW: I'm not one of those "argument for argument's sake" dudes, I'm just trying to make sure I learn and thoroughly understand this stuff. Thanks for your help! "Dave Stadt" wrote in message ... "Bill Denton" wrote in message ... Let's first jump back to my original subject on the specifics of the accident: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------ You stated: "The accident was caused by both pilots not seeing and avoiding." However, the article states: "Student pilot Sharon Hock...was not mentioned as a factor in the Feb. 8, 2000, accident." Further: "The probable cause of the accident was Collins' "failure to maintain clearance from the other airplane," said the NTSB report, which is in line with a previous federal report outlining the facts of the accident." Additionally: ""Factors relating to the accident were the pilot's Collins'] poor visual lookout, and the . . . local controller's failure to provide effective sequencing," And: "Fowler (controller) said he told Hock to turn "based on his estimate of the elapsed time before losing sight of [her plane], and the pilot's Collins) verbal report that he had crossed the shoreline."" You stated: "It is a class D airport. Controllers are not responsible for separation or sequencing at class D airports. A fact seemingly lost to many pilots." However, both the NTSB and the controller indicated that "separation and sequencing" were part of the controller's responsibilities at Waukegan. A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or understand the government and quite honestly hope I never do. Further: AIM 4-3-2 indicates that the tower at Class D airports will provide traffic control in the Class D airspace. Give paragraph 3-2-5 a read. Very last sentence of that section. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Denton" wrote in message ... Thanks for turning me on to AIM 4-3-2; it doesn't get much clearer than that. Is it possible that Waukegan has some special stuff going on because the center of the airport is only 2 nm from the Chicago Class B? No. Flying into UGN is as normal as normal can be. The class B is at 3600 feet which isn't really a factor. At the time of the accident UGN had no radar which makes the NTSB report even more absured. The accident was used as justification to get tower radar. BTW: I'm not one of those "argument for argument's sake" dudes, I'm just trying to make sure I learn and thoroughly understand this stuff. Thanks for your help! Several years ago a flight of 52 near identical planes flew into Oshkosh as a pretty tight gaggle. (Not during Airventure BTW) As we called in the controller simply cleared each of us for landing. Didn't matter if someone called in 10 miles out or 20 miles out, the response was "Cessna 12345 cleared to land." The controller made no attempt to sequence or separate but simply stated "if you have to go around the procedure is such and such." Really drove home the point we were each on our own as far as S & S was concerned. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Letters of Agreement with overlapping, adjacent ATC facilities, for instance.
Dave Stadt wrote: A lot of the findings go against FARs and what is written in the AIM. The report doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. I can't explain or understand the government and quite honestly hope I never do. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS Handheld | Kai Glaesner | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 16th 04 04:01 PM |
Terrain-Aware Handheld vs. IFR GPS? | C Kingsbury | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | November 14th 04 05:33 AM |
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | March 8th 04 03:33 PM |
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio | Ray Andraka | Owning | 7 | March 5th 04 01:10 PM |
Download GPS Track from Bendix/King handheld | Andreas Medlhammer | General Aviation | 0 | August 11th 03 02:50 PM |