A tower-induced go-round

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.

Hey, smacktard. You might want to use the grey squishy stuff between
your ears once in a while.

Jim's message, posted Mar 27:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9fc06a96c2e42f

Not only are the procedure images named VFR, the cards themselves SAY
they're VFR procedures.

VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.

And a Cessna at best rate has 40 seconds closing time at that
visibility, what's your point? (Best angle's got a whole 53!)

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?

Jim has not yet come quite to the realization of how far your fantasy
land extends.

Are you really that dense?

I'm not at all dense.

Oh, then how come you haven't floated away yet?

:P

I'm sorry, this really needed to be posted. I'm not usually this
venomous. Take your head out of your ass, man!

TheSmokingGnu

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:35:02 GMT, wrote in
:


I say it is most prudent not to doing something the other people in
the pattern are not expecting someone to do.

Oh, you mean like Mr. Honeck's suggestion of a 360 instead of a
go-around? :-)

Or don't you think any of the other pilots in the pattern would
possibly expect to find others, perhaps not familiar with the local
noise abatement procedures (that are unpublished in official
publications), who are merely complying with the FAA documented
traffic pattern procedures? (I believe Mr. McNicoll has referenced
them earlier in this message thread.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for flying as quietly as possible without
compromising safety. But one of the strengths of our nation's
internationally exemplary NAS is its uniformity throughout, from shore
to shore.

It's unreasonable to require, indeed expect, airmen planning to
operate at a given airport, with informal noise abatement procedures,
to have to search unofficial documents for that information. However
courteous and thoughtful pilots may make an effort to comply. At
least, that's the way I see it.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:35:02 GMT, wrote in
:


I say it is most prudent not to doing something the other people in
the pattern are not expecting someone to do.

Oh, you mean like Mr. Honeck's suggestion of a 360 instead of a
go-around? :-)

Apples, oranges.

I believe he was talking about a towered airport, in which case the
question is whether or not you should do something the controller
isn't expecting you to do.

Or don't you think any of the other pilots in the pattern would
possibly expect to find others, perhaps not familiar with the local
noise abatement procedures (that are unpublished in official
publications), who are merely complying with the FAA documented
traffic pattern procedures? (I believe Mr. McNicoll has referenced
them earlier in this message thread.)

At any non-towered airport, the vast majority of users are locals, and
all the locals are most likely following the local procedures.

This is probably true for towered airports, but irrelevant as ATC is
telling you what to do.

One of the things you are supposed to do at a non-towered airport
is monitor the other traffic.

If all the local traffic is announcing, 3 to the north entering on
the crosswind for left 24, or 3 to the south, entering on the 45 for
left 24, what do you think the appropriate action is?

I think the appropriate action is to join the crowd and do what they
are doing even if it takes me a mile or two to do it.

And there is that little thing about obtaining all pertinent information
before flight.

I have never had any problem finding noise abatement procedures, but
then again, I popped the extra bucks for a Flight Guide subscription
which has a hell of a lot more usefull information than the AF/D.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for flying as quietly as possible without
compromising safety. But one of the strengths of our nation's
internationally exemplary NAS is its uniformity throughout, from shore
to shore.

There is little to nothing uniform about the VFR approach and
departure procedures at either non-towered, or towered airports.

Some towered airports do straight ins and straight outs, others
may do one but not the other, some do neither in normal operation.

Ditto for non-towered airports.

It's unreasonable to require, indeed expect, airmen planning to
operate at a given airport, with informal noise abatement procedures,
to have to search unofficial documents for that information. However
courteous and thoughtful pilots may make an effort to comply. At
least, that's the way I see it.

Well, while Flight Guide isn't an "official document", it sure is
handy, lists the noise abatement procedures, and is damn handy to
have if for nothing else than the noise abatement procedures and
whether or not there is a restaurant on the airport.

I think we basically agree.

I have a problem with people that put forth no effort and plow
through an otherwise peaceful pattern with the excuse that they
are legal and everyone else can just get the hell out of the way..

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jose wrote:
I thought it was obvious I meant when the other traffic was following
whatever the procedure is, but maybe not.

It was not obvious. You stated it as a universal. It doesn't matter
however.

I also thought it was obvious I meant when not following whatever
procedure you do something that surprises the other traffic, but, again,
maybe not.

Flying inherently includes surprises. Some are dangerous, some are not.
You stated as a categorical imperative that all traffic MUST do the
same thing or insane danger will result. I disagree. There are many
things that are not part of "what everyone is doing" that are not going
to cause insand danger, or even any significant danger.

I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't
you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such
as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of
the other participants?

You never know if the other guy has 20,000 hours with nerves of steel
or a student 5 minutes into his first solo and on the verge of wetting
his pants.

Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5
minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin.

BTW, you do realize, that all else, such as terrain, obstructions,
other runways, etc., being equal, the choice of left or right traffic
at an airport is usually based on minimizing noise to "sensitive" areas
and those are mandatory?

Actually, that just boils down to "noise is a consideration". Things
are rarely equal. And the mandatory left/right pattern rules are in the
AF/D and FAA approved. You were talking about homegrown procedures that
are not necessarily FAA approved, not mandatory, and not necessarily
well publicized.

I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people, though most
specific details of an airports operation are in fact "home grown",
including the mandatory, FAA approved, ones.

You made a big deal out of something small. I don't think it's a big
deal, but it's a big deal to try to make it a big deal.

I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes
charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone
to be coming from like the genius this morning who decided to do a
go around and turn cross wind mid field in front of downwind traffic
which included me. I guess he didn't want to spend the gas money to go
where everyone else was turning crosswind.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't
you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such
as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of
the other participants?

Well, you did imply something that dramatic, and that's what set me off.
If you merely mean it's nice to follow noise abatement procedures, and
it's generally a good idea to follow the local procedures, then I
heartily (but not stridently) agree.

Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5
minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin.

Several well known "five minute students" flew with a turbin. They had
a turbine too. (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I know "turban" is
misspelled too)

I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people,

Not the "home grown" part, but the "imposed as a mandatory procedure by
some local yokel who has no authority to do so" part which was implied
by the stridency of your original advocacy.

I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes
charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone
to be coming from...

No, that's not a big deal. That's just life. You're not in the cockpit
with him, and it's your job to watch for that kind of thing.

I will agree though that what he did did not appear to be too bright or
considerate, but this has little to do with a noise abatement procedure.

Or maybe it does. Maybe he was "avoiding" the "noise sensitive area"
where his great aunt lives, right under the approach end. How's that
for a local procedure?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't
you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such
as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of
the other participants?

Well, you did imply something that dramatic, and that's what set me off.
If you merely mean it's nice to follow noise abatement procedures, and
it's generally a good idea to follow the local procedures, then I
heartily (but not stridently) agree.

Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5
minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin.

Several well known "five minute students" flew with a turbin. They had
a turbine too. (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I know "turban" is
misspelled too)

I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people,

Not the "home grown" part, but the "imposed as a mandatory procedure by
some local yokel who has no authority to do so" part which was implied
by the stridency of your original advocacy.

If you think I was strident, you should be around when I do get worked
up over something...

Locals can't impose a mandatory procedure in any form unless the
FAA approves it, but all those mandatory procedures were formulated
by the locals.

If you run across procedure a local trys to make mandatory without
going through the approval process, complain to the FAA.

I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes
charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone
to be coming from...

No, that's not a big deal. That's just life. You're not in the cockpit
with him, and it's your job to watch for that kind of thing.

As well as morons that cruise through stop lights and stop signs and
turn right from the left lane.

I have (perhaps unrealistic) higher expectations of pilots.

I will agree though that what he did did not appear to be too bright or
considerate, but this has little to do with a noise abatement procedure.

It is just an example of doing the unexpected.

Or maybe it does. Maybe he was "avoiding" the "noise sensitive area"
where his great aunt lives, right under the approach end. How's that
for a local procedure?

No, just another self centered moron that doesn't think the "rules",
whether they be mandatory or simple courtesy, apply to him.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

As well as morons that cruise through stop lights and stop signs and
turn right from the left lane.

Cruising through stop lights is illegal. Crusing through the pattern is
not.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

No you didn't, otherwise you would have found the answer in the Great
Repository of Human Knowledge. But then, I don't expect trolls to be able
to read in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...28incorrect.29



Do you have to take classes to be so pedantic? I've already explained the
vernacular, the onus is now on you to understand the topic at hand.


You've got it backward. I'm explaining these things to help you understand
them.



I find it funny that you only considered /me/ to be the one under these
influences. Time to think outside the troll box.


I can only work with what you write.



I departed. I corrected for winds and flew a proper upwind in-line with
the runway. He departed, and did not. The winds were such that his track
was inside of mine. I made the turn crosswind. He did not inform anyone of
his intentions beyond taking the runway. Our tracks nearly intersected. He
was distracted by something (else he would have been making
intent/position reports, or responding to ours). There were a lot of other
aircraft in that patch of sky that day, and I was working a scan not
entirely in his direction at the time of the incident. My copilot did spot
him, and we managed to avoid each other.


As I recall, your complaint was that his failure to depart from the downwind
was the cause of the incident. That clearly was not the case.



Ad hominem. You wanted an example?


Yes, and that is not an example.



I assume nothing, remember? I expect him to be doing both, and will look
for that first. Failing that, we go into contingency mode.


If you weren't assuming that he'd be adhering to a non-required "standard"
practice why are you complaining?



Faculty, not facility. I goofed there (and bad. I dunno how that got in
there).


CTAF is a frequency, not a faculty.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnecessary

That's not an FAA source. How can I know what officially constitutes
"unnecessary" chatter when the FAA doesn't define it?


Good question. Let's get back to "standard". Please provide an official
FAA definition of "standard" before we move on.



I already have, multiple times. Want it again?

They don't expect traffic there, in that direction, at that altitude, at
that speed.


Why do they assume traffic won't be there, in that direction, at that
altitude, at that speed? Didn't you say assuming was bad?



My god, do you take everything literally?

I meant "better than Freud". I will refrain in the future from trying to
make snide inferences, so that your limited ability to understand
articulated speech is not questioned.


How does one make a snide inference?



Why, since not only is it painfully obvious, but you refuse to make one of
mine?


Because citing one is the only way to make your case. If there was one to
cite, you'd have cited it.



Such as?


"Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
the RUNWAY."

"You'll get lots of people that, for example, won't depart the pattern on
the
downwind..."

And there was that cryptic reference to "descent vectors".



Where did you establish that? As I recall, you're relying on Jay's
assumptions about spacing and separation, and whether they were
appropriate or not. How can you both disprove a point and rely on its
premise for your conclusion?


Yes, we're relying on Jay's statements about the spacing. If the spacing
was as he reported then there was sufficient spacing.



Besides, without definitive objective proof, the premise could never be
established in the first place, since it's an anecdote, and made under no
pretense of authority.


The problem is his anecdote does not support his conclusion.



The controller was expected in this circumstance to amend the 172's
clearance such that they were told to either land long or continue
rolling. Expected, not required. You cannot make the argument that the
controller did not share the bulk of the responsibility in this case to
properly inform and administer the aircraft in his care. A simple
amendment, comment, or otherwise remark to EITHER aircraft would have
avoided the entire situation, but instead the controller allowed it to
unfold and then attempted to clean up afterwards. It's a sign of poor
controller-dom.


That was an unreasonable expectation on Jay's part. I can easily make the
argument that the controller does not share the bulk of the responsibility
in this case to by demonstrating that the controller did not make an error.

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

You have trouble with the word "cutting"? I believe that says it
all.


I'm having trouble with your usage of the word. Please explain what you
mean.

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

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.


Previously you said the controller's instructions put you about 4500' behind
the 172 at the moment it landed. What is your revised distance?



"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.


"Road rage" is a bit extreme, but it's pretty clear you started this thread
because you were irked at being issued the go around.