Aviation Forums Forum Index Aviation Forums
Aviation discussions newsgroups
 
Archives   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Teamsters send clear message
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Aviation safety Enhancement
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote



"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3_KdnZ4qp-3k6rHYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...
Quote:

Under what circumstances would choosing to depart from an unlighted
runway at night be considered consistent with professional flight crew
conduct in this type of operation?


As far as I've been able to determine so far, if it is not in the FOM,
nothing precludes a 121 crew from using an unlighted runway. As I said,
I'm still trying to get information on the Comair FOM.

Another poster cited a reference to FAR 121.97. That reg says *nothing*
about whether a crew can use an unlighted runway. It goes to the
operator's requirements with respect to using airports and distributing
necessary information on airports to flight crews.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-97-FAR.shtml

So while most pilots might say in the abstract that they wouldn't take off
from an unlighted runway, there is no FAR against it as far as I can tell.
So unless it's in the crew's FOM, not only is not an absolute rule, for
them, it's not a rule at all. Granted, that puts it in the realm of an
after-the-fact judgment call as to how "professional" a crew's
discretionary decisions might have been, but that means that it is
debatable, and not the automatic slam-dunk that some here seem to think.


The question was not to legality but to judgment.

Back to top
Sam Spade
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote



John Mazor wrote:

Quote:
"Sam Spade" <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:UOSWg.32348$tO5.22560@fed1read10...

Beavis wrote:

In article <0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10>,
Sam Spade <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote:


Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

That is an authorized substitution. It doesn't changed 121.97.


That's actually wrong. FAR 121.97 says *nothing* about forbidding runway
ops on an unlighted runway. Nor have I found any FAR that does that.
121.97 goes to operator requirements WRT airports and disseminating
information on them to their flight crews.

An airline's FOM might forbid using unlit runways, but there's no
requirement that such a rule be included in its FOM.


Oh there isn't? What about 121.590 (d) (2) (i) and (ii)? Bevis'

carrier elected to tie the reference of their ops specs authorization to
substitute CLs for RLs to 121.97, which is fine from a regulatory
standpoint, because 121.97 is subject to 121.590.

I cite the pertinent requirements from 121.50. Note in particular (d) (2).

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports in the United States.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or
unless authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air
carrier and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the
conduct of a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or
supplemental type operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State
of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or
possession of the United States unless that airport is certificated
under part 139 of this chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I
airports and after December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports,
when an air carrier and a pilot being used by the air carrier are
required to operate at an airport certificated under part 139 of this
chapter, the air carrier and the pilot may only operate at that airport
if the airport is classified under part 139 to serve the type airplane
to be operated and the type of operation to be conducted.

(d)....

(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not take
off from, or land at, an airport unless--
(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind
direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case of
takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are
clearly shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be
used for takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their
use must be authorized by the Administrator.
Back to top
TheNPC
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

Beavis wrote:
Quote:
In article <0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10>,
Sam Spade <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote:


Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.


Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

"FAA approved manual" also states two controllers should
have been on duty that morning at Lexington Blue Grass.

Understaffed IAW FAA Orders Air Traffic Control at LEX
combined with confusing air field and just woke up flight
crew plus tired overworked lone controller not watching the
field until all aircraft are clear equals 49 Mangled closed
casket Toast People.

FAA
Air Crew
City Air Field Management

ALL AT FAULT

All other hypothesis is Fodder until court verdict

TheNPC
Back to top
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:48 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Sam Spade" <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Yq5Xg.32373$tO5.1670@fed1read10...
Quote:

Oh there isn't? What about 121.590 (d) (2) (i) and (ii)? Bevis' carrier
elected to tie the reference of their ops specs authorization to
substitute CLs for RLs to 121.97, which is fine from a regulatory
standpoint, because 121.97 is subject to 121.590.

I cite the pertinent requirements from 121.50. Note in particular (d)
(2).

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports in the United States.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or unless
authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air carrier
and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the conduct of a
domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type
operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the
United States unless that airport is certificated under part 139 of this
chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I airports and after
December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports, when an air carrier
and a pilot being used by the air carrier are required to operate at an
airport certificated under part 139 of this chapter, the air carrier and
the pilot may only operate at that airport if the airport is classified
under part 139 to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of
operation to be conducted.

(d)....

(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not take
off from, or land at, an airport unless--
(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind
direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case of
takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are clearly
shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be used for
takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their use must be
authorized by the Administrator.


Why did you delete subparagraph (d)?

(d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used by the air
carrier or the commercial operator-when conducting a passenger-carrying
airplane operation under this part that is not a domestic type operation, a
flag type operation, or a supplemental type operation-may operate at a land
airport not certificated under part 139 of this chapter only when the
following conditions are met:
Back to top
Sam Spade
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Quote:
"Sam Spade" <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Yq5Xg.32373$tO5.1670@fed1read10...

Oh there isn't? What about 121.590 (d) (2) (i) and (ii)? Bevis' carrier
elected to tie the reference of their ops specs authorization to
substitute CLs for RLs to 121.97, which is fine from a regulatory
standpoint, because 121.97 is subject to 121.590.

I cite the pertinent requirements from 121.50. Note in particular (d)
(2).

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports in the United States.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or unless
authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air carrier
and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the conduct of a
domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type
operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the
United States unless that airport is certificated under part 139 of this
chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I airports and after
December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports, when an air carrier
and a pilot being used by the air carrier are required to operate at an
airport certificated under part 139 of this chapter, the air carrier and
the pilot may only operate at that airport if the airport is classified
under part 139 to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of
operation to be conducted.

(d)....

(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not take
off from, or land at, an airport unless--
(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind
direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case of
takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are clearly
shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be used for
takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their use must be
authorized by the Administrator.



Why did you delete subparagraph (d)?

(d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used by the air
carrier or the commercial operator-when conducting a passenger-carrying
airplane operation under this part that is not a domestic type operation, a
flag type operation, or a supplemental type operation-may operate at a land
airport not certificated under part 139 of this chapter only when the
following conditions are met:


Too quick I guess. The missing part imposes the foregoing requirement

on non-Part 139 land airports, which would be an unusual authorization.

But, probably every airport Comair operates into is certified under Part
139; certainly LEX is. Whether this is a distinction with any
difference is doubtful, since Part 139 requirements that have
operational implications become a part of a 121 certificate holder's
operations specifications (which are considered regulatory):

The pertinent part of 139 reads:

§ 139.311 Marking, signs, and lighting.
(a) Marking. Each certificate holder must provide and maintain marking
systems for air carrier operations on the airport that are authorized by
the Administrator and consist of at least the following:
(1) Runway markings meeting the specifications for takeoff and landing
minimums for each runway.
(2) A taxiway centerline.
(3) Taxiway edge markings, as appropriate.
(4) Holding position markings.
(5) Instrument landing system (ILS) critical area markings.
(b) Signs.
(1) Each certificate holder shall provide and maintain sign systems for
air carrier operations on the airport that are authorized by the
Administrator and consist of at least the following:
(i) Signs identifying taxiing routes on the movement area.
(ii) Holding position signs.
(iii) Instrument landing system (ILS) critical area signs.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the signs required
by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be internally illuminated at
each Class I, II, and IV airport.
(3) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the signs required
by paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(iii) of this section must be
internally illuminated at each Class III airport.
(c) Lighting. Each certificate holder must provide and maintain lighting
systems for air carrier operations when the airport is open at night,
during conditions below visual flight rules (VFR) minimums, or in
Alaska, during periods in which a prominent unlighted object cannot be
seen from a distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than six
degrees below the horizon. These lighting systems must be authorized by
the Administrator and consist of at least the following:
(1) Runway lighting that meets the specifications for takeoff and
landing minimums, as authorized by the Administrator, for each runway.
(2) One of the following taxiway lighting systems:
(i) Centerline lights.
(ii) Centerline reflectors.
(iii) Edge lights.
Back to top
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:55 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Sam Spade" <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:IttXg.32427$tO5.4398@fed1read10...
Quote:

Why did you delete subparagraph (d)?

(d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used by the
air carrier or the commercial operator-when conducting a
passenger-carrying airplane operation under this part that is not a
domestic type operation, a flag type operation, or a supplemental type
operation-may operate at a land airport not certificated under part 139
of this chapter only when the following conditions are met:

Too quick I guess. The missing part imposes the foregoing requirement on
non-Part 139 land airports, which would be an unusual authorization.

But, probably every airport Comair operates into is certified under Part
139; certainly LEX is.

Exactly. In discussing Comair's attempted night departure from a dark
runway you asserted that runway edge lights are mandatory for a night
takeoff under Part 121,
but the only such requirement in that part applies to airports at which
Comair does not operate.
Back to top
Bertie the Bunyip
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

JohnSmith <JSEsquire (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in
news:FjeRg.21557$eW5.12091 (AT) bignews5 (DOT) bellsouth.net:

Quote:
John Mazor wrote:
"JohnSmith" <JSEsquire (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:rc1Rg.6627$tT6.338 (AT) bignews7 (DOT) bellsouth.net...

cor wrote:
Call and ask this simple question....


The only question here is why you think that nobody notices that in
addition to being a racist kook, you keep posting in the aviation
groups using various sock nyms. This is at least the fourth time
you've posted the same crap here under four different nyms in the
past month.

Bwha-wha-wha-wha! What a maroon!



Maroon?

If you are going to give me crap(I am guessing you are a
probably either a Bull Dike, Black or Homosexual)then spell
it correctly asswipe



Spell what correctly?


Bertie
Back to top
Bertie the Bunyip
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp (AT) nospamearthlink (DOT) net> wrote in
news:E8fRg.1616$o71.290 (AT) newsread3 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net:

Quote:

"JohnSmith" <JSEsquire (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:FjeRg.21557$eW5.12091 (AT) bignews5 (DOT) bellsouth.net...

Bwha-wha-wha-wha! What a maroon!


Maroon?

If you are going to give me crap(I am guessing you are a probably
either a Bull Dike, Black or Homosexual)then spell it correctly
asswipe

ma?roon1 /m?'run/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[muh-roon] -adjective
1. dark brownish-red.
2. Chiefly British.
a. a loudly exploding firework consisting of a cardboard container
filled with gunpowder.
b. a similar firework used as a danger or warning signal, as by
railway brakemen.


You didn't watch enough cartoons.


I think i've seen him in Scooby doo once, though.



Bertie
Back to top
Bertie the Bunyip
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

BillClinton <monicablows (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in
news:rvJRg.15716$GY5.11951 (AT) bignews6 (DOT) bellsouth.net:

Quote:
John Mazor wrote:
"JohnSmith" <JSEsquire (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:FjeRg.21557$eW5.12091 (AT) bignews5 (DOT) bellsouth.net...

John Mazor wrote:

"JohnSmith" <JSEsquire (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:rc1Rg.6627$tT6.338 (AT) bignews7 (DOT) bellsouth.net...


cor wrote:
Call and ask this simple question....

The only question here is why you think that nobody notices that in
addition to being a racist kook, you keep posting in the aviation
groups using various sock nyms. This is at least the fourth time
you've posted the same crap here under four different nyms in the
past month.

Bwha-wha-wha-wha! What a maroon!

Maroon?


Whoosh! Google the phrase and see how you're still a maroon.


If you are going to give me crap(I am guessing you are a probably
either a Bull Dike, Black or Homosexual)then spell it correctly
asswipe


Your guessing abilities are no better than your ability to put on a
sock


ma?roon1 /m?'run/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[muh-roon] -adjective
1. dark brownish-red.
2. Chiefly British.
a. a loudly exploding firework consisting of a cardboard container
filled with gunpowder.
b. a similar firework used as a danger or warning signal, as by
railway brakemen.


Bwha-wha-wha!


Racist Kook? So I guess you are saying it's OK for the FAA to cut
controller staffing but fund with the same money racist boondoggles
by Black FAA employees at resort spas?


You still can't guess.


I hope YOU are not caught in IFR low on fuel with your alternate down
for minimums.


I hope you don't think anyone is fooled by this into thinking that
you know squat about aviation.


All those worthless Black Civil Servants in the FAA at that resort
spa sucking the Guvment Tit will not help you much.


You're still a racist kook, too.


"Political Correctness is Tyranny with Manners and the downfall of
America as we know it"


It's maroons like you who gave rise to PC.


Yep, You gotta be Gay

As long as you don't hold it against anyone...



Bertie
Back to top
Bertie the Bunyip
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:23 am    Post subject: Re: Cirrus 'chute system tested Reply with quote

"Snidely" <Snidely.too (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:1160769499.180707.167520
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

Quote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Snidely" <Snidely.too (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in
[...]
I'm also interested in knowing more about the jets that
were/weren't
scrambled, and air traffic control's reactions, because I volunteer
in
a disaster response group.

The whole event probalb ytook about 15 seconds, how fast do you think
fighters are?

Well, it's not whether they tried to shoot him down that I'm wondering
about. There are conflicting reports about whether fighters were
scrambled, and then there's the issue of what the fighters are doing
after that 15 seconds is up...especially as there doesn't seem to have
been any move to shut down aviation.


there's no reason there should have been.

Accidents happen all the time. It wouldn't have taken any length of time
at all to determine this was one. Les time than it would have taken to
"shut down aviation" Even if you did that, there would be thousands of
aircraft already airborne in the NYC area. Want them all to drop to the
ground from PP?



Bertie
>
Back to top
Mike Fergione
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:31 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What planet are you from?

"Judah" <judah (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Xns98485F4CBC45CJudahnospamnet (AT) 69 (DOT) 28.186.158...
Quote:
JohnSmith <JSEsquire (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in news:eaeRg.21555$eW5.17847
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Incorrect. It is an issue. Fatigued controller working a
double shift without proper rest combined with the FAA
violating their own staffing orders at KLEX.

Irrelevant. Taking off and landing safely is the pilot's responsibility.
The
presence or absence of a tower, a controller, or even a runway is
irrelevant.

It is a HUGE issue. The word is Liability. Look it up.

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything with pretty much no risk.
For
example, if it bothers you so much that there are black homosexuals in the
FAA, you are certainly able to sue.

Just please stop ranting about it here.
Back to top
Mike Fergione
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:49 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

Ohhh, screw it. Let's get back to the original reason for this thread.

I think the White employees in the FAA should form a "Whites Only Coalition
Of Federal Aviation Employees". I'll bet even an attempt at such a thing
would be swiftly met with heads rolling and racial discrimination lawsuits.

Quote:
Furthermore, there do not appear to be any racial restrictions on joining
the group."


Then why is it called the "National BLACK Coalition of Federal Aviation
Employees"????

There aren't any restrictions on you joining a Black Little Leage Team
either, is there??



"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp (AT) nospamearthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:V8wRg.597$Y24.426 (AT) newsread4 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

"JohnSmith" <JSEsquire (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:eaeRg.21555$eW5.17847 (AT) bignews5 (DOT) bellsouth.net...

Incorrect. It is an issue. Fatigued controller working a double shift
without proper rest combined with the FAA violating their own staffing
orders at KLEX.

It is a HUGE issue. The word is Liability. Look it up.


How is the FAA liable? The tower controller did everything required and
without any error. What might have been different had the staffing policy
been followed and a second controller had been on duty in the TRACON?
Back to top
Judah
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:50 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Mike Fergione" <mike.fergione (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117
$QZ1.164800@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Quote:
Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly
separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered
airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around
regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for the
tower controller to tell you to go around.

Quote:
But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his
responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an
instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another
plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not
to blindly follow the instructions of the tower.

Quote:
Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a
Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the
Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close
to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder?

In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other
traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not.

ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an issue
in LEX.
Back to top
Mike Fergione
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:36 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything"
is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon landing. That
will start the ball rolling to you losing your certificate, and the
controller you are suggesting was not at fault is going to be the catalyst,
and the most important witness for you losing it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.

If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the final
authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no violations
by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but when it's their
fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause in the FAR's.


"Judah" <judah (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:Xns987BAB48B3191Judahnospamnet (AT) 69 (DOT) 28.186.158...
Quote:
"Mike Fergione" <mike.fergione (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117
$QZ1.164800@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly
separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered
airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around
regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for
the
tower controller to tell you to go around.

But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his
responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an
instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another
plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not
to blindly follow the instructions of the tower.

Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a
Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the
Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close
to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder?

In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other
traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not.

ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an
issue
in LEX.
Back to top
Judah
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Mike Fergione" <mike.fergione (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote in
news:eyr6h.59033$Fi1.27558@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Quote:
What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of
everything" is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon
landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your
certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is
going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing
it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.

So if I witness a robbery, and call the police, does that make me the
'ultimate authority' for the safety of the bank?

The pilot has the ultimate responsible for safety of flight. Period.
Following ATC instructions, barring a specific reason not to, is part of
ensuring safety of flight.

Had there been a legitimate safety reason for violating the ATC instruction,
no action would be taken against the pilot. At worst I imagine he might get
chastised for failing to properly inform ATC of his inability to comply with
their request, so that they could safely coordinate with other planes in
their airspace.

Making a random choice in contrast to an ATC request is not safe, and is not
a legitimate safety reason for violating an ATC instruction.

Quote:
If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the
final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no
violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but
when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause
in the FAR's.

If what you said was true, Pilots would be required to follow ATC
instructions without the ability to declare an emergency or respond "unable".
However, if ATC issues an instruction, and the pilot cannot follow it, the
pilot has the authority (and responsibility) to respond that he is unable to
comply and ATC will react appropriately. This even applies in IMC.

Another example of this is the policy to require reaction to TCAS Resolution
Advisories, even if they conflict with ATC clearances.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/miscinst.htm

If ATC is the final authority, then each instance of this would be
actionable. But that is not the case, and the FAA and ICAO have even put out
orders and advisories to help ensure that ATC controllers are properly
trained on how to deal with planes that take TCAS action.

http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/ttp_industry_alert_bulletin.pdf
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Aviation safety Enhancement All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 14 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB