A tower-induced go-round

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
By itself, there's nothing wrong with departing upwind.

And so the merry-go-round turns. Yes, we've already turned the dead
horse to puree on this one.

There is a problem when departing upwind puts you on a collision course
with departing traffic. There, that's all. There's no more point here
for you to argue.

CTAF is not a faculty of the airport. It is a frequency, nothing more.

Pedantic, and useless to try to explain to you the subtleties of the
English language.

You got the rule wrong.

Did not.

Sure.

So how was the statement incorrect?

You didn't.

I did, you just didn't read it.

The one where Jay says he was 1/2 mile from the threshold when the 172
landed 25% down the 6000' runway.

So, the subjective judgement is now usable as objective premise?

Maybe you should apply for the Nobel, inventing new methods of logic as
you do.

I have no physical proof

And so you cannot make physical claims.

Jay's statements
indicate there was sufficient spacing and do not suggest any controller
error.

Jay's statements specifically point out controller error to properly
manage the spacing between aircraft. The failure of the controller to
properly amend the 172's clearance to include either a long landing or a
continued roll-out caused the incident in the first place.

Jay's statements also profer that spacing was sufficient only until the
172, acting on the controller's statement (or lack thereof) stopped on
the runway (also not wrong or illegal in and of itself). It was the
controller's inherent responsibility to recognize the developing
situation and amend the clearance, even if it's not a required function
of his station. Jay did all he could to both get the 172 in front of
him, and maintain the spacing previously established by him. Without the
controller's intervention, the 172 was free to cause an incident with
sequenced traffic.

To say nothing of how the controller improperly sequenced the traffic in
the first place. If Jay had simply been allowed, as he was cleared, to
be #1, it wouldn't have mattered if the 172 stopped on the runway,
dropped a tent, and had a picnic.

And, since the argument now has nothing to it other than to turn unto
itself ad nauseum, I'm done. Save your sycophantic meanderings for
someone else who doesn't care.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

No, no, no. With and without controllers available.


So some happened without controllers available and some happened with
controllers available but not involved. What the hell is your point?



If your
prognostication that the Godly controllers save all we pitiful pilots from
slamming into each other, then there should be a comiserate increase in
the number of such events. That it is so low is a testament of how little
controller involvement A): exists, and B): is necessary to safe separation
of traffic.


I said nothing remotely like that.



That communication and/or ATC causes at least as many accidents as there
are mid-airs and NMACs. If it's included as a header title, there is at
least one directly-attributable accident to ATC, which soundly disproves
that said Godly controllers are A): infallible, as you seem to think them,
and B): that they always give proper instruction in a situation,
disproving your absolutes.


You said the statistics don't state the cause. It sounds like you're
misinterpreting data. If you can tell me what you're referring to I'm sure
I can make sense of it for you.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

And so the merry-go-round turns. Yes, we've already turned the dead horse
to puree on this one.

There is a problem when departing upwind puts you on a collision course
with departing traffic. There, that's all. There's no more point here for
you to argue.


It seems you're determined not to understand. So be it.



Pedantic, and useless to try to explain to you the subtleties of the
English language.


You're not in a position to explain language to anyone.



Did not.


Yes you did. You said the rules give planes below the right-of-way over
planes above. FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the right of way.



So how was the statement incorrect?


It implied that not departing the pattern on the downwind was an error.



I did, you just didn't read it.


I can't read what you don't write.



So, the subjective judgement is now usable as objective premise?

Maybe you should apply for the Nobel, inventing new methods of logic as
you do.


Logic is not new, it's just new to you.



And so you cannot make physical claims.


I'm not. I'm saying if the distances provided by Jay are accurate the
spacing was sufficient. What part of that are you having trouble with?



Jay's statements specifically point out controller error to properly
manage the spacing between aircraft. The failure of the controller to
properly amend the 172's clearance to include either a long landing or a
continued roll-out caused the incident in the first place.


No, the incident was caused by the 172's unexpected stop on the runway.



Jay's statements also profer that spacing was sufficient only until the
172, acting on the controller's statement (or lack thereof) stopped on the
runway (also not wrong or illegal in and of itself).


Not illegal, definitely wrong.



It was the
controller's inherent responsibility to recognize the developing situation
and amend the clearance, even if it's not a required function of his
station.


He did, when he saw the 172 stop he sent Jay around.



To say nothing of how the controller improperly sequenced the traffic in
the first place. If Jay had simply been allowed, as he was cleared, to be
#1, it wouldn't have mattered if the 172 stopped on the runway, dropped a
tent, and had a picnic.


If the 172 hadn't stopped on the runway Jay would have been allowed, as he
was cleared, to land. There is no clearance to be #1, #2, etc.

Sounds like you're about as inexperienced with ATC as Jay is.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
It seems you're determined not to understand. So be it.

Neither are you.

Yes you did. You said the rules give planes below the right-of-way over
planes above. FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the right of way.

I think you need to see your eye doctor more regularly, it's obvious
your prescription is out of date.

Once you do, please feel free to re-read what I wrote.

It implied that not departing the pattern on the downwind was an error.

Ah, I see how this game works. You can assume and find the implication
in any sentence so long as it is such that you can find issue with it.

Of course, set out something common sense and you fail to see even the
basic principle.

I can't read what you don't write.

I did write it, you just don't read.

Logic is not new, it's just new to you.

Brilliant ad hominem. It's unfortunate that callous wit doesn't win
arguments.

I'm not. I'm saying if the distances provided by Jay are accurate the
spacing was sufficient. What part of that are you having trouble with?

You ARE.

I'm having trouble with the part where you're trusting the word of an
eyewitness as physical, immutable truth in one sense, and then
discounting that very account in another.

You can't use the same statement as both a true premise and a false
conclusion.

No, the incident was caused by the 172's unexpected stop on the runway.

Which was caused by the controller's lack of action or amendment. How
circular would you like the argument?

Not illegal, definitely wrong.

And had the controller amended the clearance (or even mentioned in
passing, for all that it matters), would the 172 have taken the same
incorrect action?

No.

He did, when he saw the 172 stop he sent Jay around.

The developing situation was the possible spacing issue between the
aircraft. The result was the go-around. The result is clean-up for a
situation which should never have occurred in the first place.

If the 172 hadn't stopped on the runway Jay would have been allowed, as he
was cleared, to land. There is no clearance to be #1, #2, etc.

Check your P/C under ATC Instructions. Jay's clearance was issued first,
inherently making him #1. If so chosen, the controller can explicitly
instruct and make clear the order of clearances given, as he should have
in this case. Jay was a much better candidate for #1 than a higher,
slower student aircraft.

Sounds like you're about as inexperienced with ATC as Jay is.

You work in a ruddy tower and you don't know some of this stuff. Please
stay well clear of the microphone until you properly understand the
responsibilities therein necessitated.

TheSmokingGnu

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
So some happened without controllers available and some happened with
controllers available but not involved. What the hell is your point?

Available and involved. Available and uninvolved. Unavailable. Three
options, covered under the same header.

I said nothing remotely like that.

Your post dated 4/1:

"We don't need dumb ass controllers at all. One of the reasons we need
competent controllers, such as the one that may very well have saved
Jay's life at JEF, is because we have dumb ass pilots."

But here we get to play the "implication game", where you can't assume
anything until it suits your argument.

You said the statistics don't state the cause.

I said they aren't more granular than that.

It means that there are 61 incidents listed as "miscommunication/ATC",
not how many are caused by either. The cause IS either miscommunication
or ATC. If all the incidents were caused solely by miscommunication,
then the ATC header would be omitted.

It sounds like you're
misinterpreting data. If you can tell me what you're referring to I'm sure
I can make sense of it for you.

This is what leads me to suspect your prescription. I have explicitly
stated the source of the data. It's your ball now.

TheSmokingGnu

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:55:11 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:

[...]

I don't disagree. I just don't see that as being terribly different from
an uncontrolled field. At the latter, there isn't that guy with the
binocs. But I don't see that as making anything worse. He's not
controlling the airspace anyway, except for possibly limiting entrance.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:55:11 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:

[...]

I don't disagree with what you've written, but I don't see this as making
class D worse than uncontrolled; all those same conditions apply but for
the person in the tower. And that person doesn't really control the
airspace (in the sense of providing vectors or separation or such). At
most, he or she limits entrance into the airspace.

She or he can be an aid if good. But I cannot see how he or she can make
things worse.

- Andrew

P.S. Well...unless he or she rants on the radio which I admit I've
heard. But so can a pilot at an uncontrolled field (or even a
UNICOM operator, which I've also heard {8^).