A tower-induced go-round

"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..

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.


The controller's instructions did work. Jay has stated he was 4500' behind
the 172 when it landed. The controller issued the go around because the 172
unexpectedly stopped on the runway.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

5,000 public-use airports.
500 controlled aerodromes.

4,500 uncontrolled public-use airports.

10 mid-airs a year.
2 NMAC's a year.
6 ground collisions a year.

Just how are all those dumb-ass pilots managing to miss each other so
often without the controller's help?


I'm pretty sure all of those incidents involved pilots. How many of them
involved controllers?



Never mind that 61 accidents a year are caused by miscommunication or ATC.


How many of them are caused by ATC?

What is your source for these statistics?

I hope that everyone realizes that if the runway was a conveyor belt none of
this would have happened in the first place.

BDS

BDS wrote:
I hope that everyone realizes that if the runway was a conveyor belt
none of this would have happened in the first place.

BDS

Oh God don't start that again.

Hee, hee. Good one!

"BDS" wrote in message
t...
I hope that everyone realizes that if the runway was a conveyor belt none
of
this would have happened in the first place.

BDS

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

Bwahahahahahahah!

Er, ahem. Sorry. Happy April Fools Day.

Right, Steven. ATC saved us...

Have you always had delusions of grandeur?


I said he MAY very well have saved your lives by issuing the go around.
Recall that you were contemplating landing over the Skyhawk.

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

Dang, Steven, I didn't know you were there? Where *were* you hiding?
Or was that you in the tower?


I wasn't there, I'm relying on your report of the incident. You said you
were about 4500' behind the 172 when it touched down. If your estimate is
correct there was sufficient space available. Do you want to change your
story to fit your conclusion, or do you want to change your conclusion to
fit your story?

wrote in message
...

Because you keep bringing up the IFR procedures as though they were
relevant to VFR.

Of course I knew local prodedures are VFR; I've always known that.


If you always knew that why did you initially say they applied to all
operations? Why didn't you identify them as VFR procedures from the start?



One more time, we are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.


You wrote; "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." That sounds like
you're talking about an IFR procedure. If I followed that procedure it
would be during an IFR flight with an IFR clearance and it would not affect
the Class C tower in any way.



You can't legally fly the IFR departure unless you file IFR and then,
no, you are not talking to the Class C tower, you are talking to the
Class C departure.


Now you're catching on.



Since you don't seem to get it:

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.

We are talking about following VFR procedures while VFR.


Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures from the start?

wrote in message
...

That is what happens.


Doubtful.



Because no one has ever claimed there was.

Because there are no incident or accident reports.


That wouldn't mean there haven't been any, that would just mean nobody's
reported any. And you can't even be sure nobody's reported any.



Not knowing they are voluntary is totally irrelevant and hardly a
problem.


I've already explained the relevance and how it can be a problem. Review
the thread.



Any pilot that doesn't know they are voluntary is ignorant, which is
a totally separate issue.


There are many ignorant pilots.



BTW, here's a web site you might want to visit:

http://www.faa.gov

This organization encourages and supports the concept of local noise
abatement procedures and pilots following them as long as:

They are not discriminitory.

They don't produce a special right.

They are safe.

They don't conflict with law.


You should encourage the CCB airport manager to develop procedures like
that.

wrote in message
...

I have no idea what percentage of all pilots know that local VFR
procedures are not mandatory nor what percentage of all pilots know
that part 150 procedures are, and it makes no difference to the
arguement of whether or not following local VFR procedures are safe.

Yes.

Yes.

It is not.


Yes it is. It says, "LEFT TURNS ONLY, NO STRAIGHT-OUT DEPARTURES, NO RIGHT
DEPARTURES, NO DOWN-WIND DEPARTURES, NO STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES". A bit
further down it says, "NOTE: There are no downwind, straight-out, or right
departures." The only part that is actually mandatory is "left turns only",
and then only on approach. Nothing at all that says compliance is strictly
voluntary.