Controller screwed up?

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

donzaemon wrote:
How does the controller know you won't have a problem and not get off
the runway ?

Experience. But if you miss an exit he'll just cancel the takeoff
clearance and have the MD80 hold in position.


I'm not sure what the regulations technically say about it but it
doesn't sound right logically.

Nothing wrong with what the controller did.


A better policy would be to give position & hold until the other plane
is actually in the process of turning off, then when some clear action
toward the turnoff is commenced, anticipate it as cleared and give a
takeoff clearance.


That's using more separation than needed and is inefficient.

Dave Doe wrote:


Well I've read a few replies, and most seem to say it was ok. However,
they could be wrong, as surely it depends on the seperation.



The separation is clear. The runway must be clear prior to an aircraft
starting its takeoff roll. You cannot start your takeoff roll until you
are on the runway.



So I want
to know (and only you can tell us), where on the RWY *they* were,


He already said holding short at the approach end.




Some of the replies could be incorrect IMO, cos surely the controller
has to take into account that you may be forced to go round (for
whatever reason),



If he goes around then there is no separation problem in the first place.


and their seperation rule should take that into
account (at least I bloody hope it would


What?

On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
answers I am looking for?
No shame in that.

Ricky

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fc67l2$b2s$2
@xen1.xcski.com:

In a previous article, Judah said:
2) As others have pointed out, you certainly had enough of a head start on
him that unless you had some sort of engine failure you would be clear of
the runway long before he caught up to you.

In an interesting coincidence, I was just bringing the plane back from
maintenance to deal with a problem where the engine would fail when
taxiing off the runway. It had happened twice at the end of a series of
touch and goes, never in the air or on a regular point to point flight.
They'd replaced the mags, and the problem seems like it might be fixed -
at least I did 4 touch and goes back at Genesee County where the work had
been done with no evidence of problems.

Interesting. Perhaps because of this you were slightly more anxious than
would be otherwise.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the MD-80 behind you wouldn't have started
barrelling down the runway until he actually saw you at least turn off, even
if you didn't cross the hold short line.

"Ricky" wrote in message
ps.com...

On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.


What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
answers I am looking for?
No shame in that.


Yeah, Larry. Lighten up a bit. Besides, I think he had a good point.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?


Right or wrong, I think you have a valid gripe. Giving the MD80 clearance to
take off at that point served no valid purpose, and posed at least a
potential risk. What if you stalled, the controller got busy, the MD80
didn't see you stall, etc, etc.

If he was in a hurry to roll the MD80, a taxi to position and hold would got
him rolling, and he could have up dated it with clearance to take off, the
minute you cleared the active. If there was indeed plenty of time, the MD80
would have never had time to stop rolling, before receiving the final
clearance.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:41:34 -0700, Ricky
wrote in om:

On Sep 11, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:02:50 +0900, "donzaemon" wrote
in :

I'm not sure what the regulations technically say

Then perhaps you might consider looking up the appropriate
regulation/order instead of admitting your ignorance publicly in an a
worldwide forum.

What's wrong with admitting ignorance publicly in a worldwide forum?
Isn't that one purpose of Usenet? I admit my ignorance and get the
answers I am looking for?
No shame in that.

Ricky

When you admit you don't know what you are talking about, and freely
offer you opinion based on that lack of knowledge (as donzaemon did)
it benefits no one.

Those who drafted the charter for this newsgroup mandated that
articles posted here contain INFORMATION, not uninformed opinion.

Failure to invest the requisite effort to research a topic before
posting an article just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio in the
newsgroup.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:30:43 -0500, "Maxwell"
wrote in :

I think he had a good point.

That's because you haven't read the FAA order pertinent to the
controller's issuing the takeoff clearance. Do a little research
before you publish your opinion.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Those who drafted the charter for this newsgroup mandated that
articles posted here contain INFORMATION, not uninformed opinion.


Oh God forbid Larry. Do you mean to tell me someone actually posted an
uninformed opinion around here????


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! !!