 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jay Honeck
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: A tower-induced go-round |
 |
|
Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.
Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.
The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
On the other hand, here was a student pilot trying to land on a windy
day, and we don't know how many approaches he aborted.
It wasn't done correctly, but he assumed you had the skill to do what
was needed, and you did. Besides, flying a miss from time to time when
not expected is good for you (I read that once -- or maybe it was
something MX said).
On Mar 17, 12:09 am, TheSmokingGnu
<anonymityisavir...@1111011010011.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Jay Honeck wrote:
Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely.
You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
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.
If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
doing his job, but YMMV. :)
TheSmokingGnu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benford2@aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
On Mar 16, 7:58 pm, "Jay Honeck" <jjhon...@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.
Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.
The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
|
I am not sure I would have gotten " behind the power curve" in gusty
conditions. A sooner bailout on your determination would have been
prudent. A 360 for spacing while still on final seems better then
dragging it in. After all you are PIC and responsible for the safety
of the flight. Glad you got home safely..
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
| Quote: | 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.
|
Really?
Student pilot, clear air turbulence, 30kt gusty headwind . . .
--
Tony
Indiacharlieecho (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
On Mar 16, 9:09 pm, TheSmokingGnu
<anonymityisavir...@1111011010011.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Jay Honeck wrote:
Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely.
You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
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.
If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
doing his job, but YMMV. :)
TheSmokingGnu
|
I can't agree.
Don't try telling anyone anything over the air. Land, and have a
polite discussion with the person. Leave the airways clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheSmokingGnu
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
Jay Honeck wrote:
| Quote: | Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely.
|
You should have told the controller to, excuse my limited French, le
pousser où le soleil ne brille pas.
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.
If he was routing other traffic, he should have indicated that in your
clearance. If he expected to land the Cessna before you, again it should
be indicated in your clearance (or the clearance NOT given in the first
place). He should NOT expect to route higher, slower traffic ahead of
lower, faster traffic, and he certainly should have enough time on his
hands such that he need not issue go-arounds.
I'd get me a-hold of whomever signs his paychecks, because he's not
doing his job, but YMMV. :)
TheSmokingGnu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
Jay Honeck wrote:
| Quote: | I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.
That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
dangerous airspace in America.
I'll take an uncontrolled airport over non-radar Class D, any day of
the week.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
|
I have been to many fine class D airports. I would take most over the
uncontrolled fields I have been. Cowboys for sure at the uncontrolled
airport near me. I was put on a waiting list at KFRG - glad I decided
to skip that. It is too busy - busier than the class c near here and
the controllers are rude. Then went to KHWV - that is a dangerous place
to fly - non-towered - insane amounts of scary piloting there and I am
finally at KISP - class C. I like it. Very professional people. Itis
nice to have radar services as the default and good for IFR flights
instead of going non towered.
I was at KPHF - that was a great class D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
Jay Honeck wrote:
| Quote: | On Mar 18, 5:57 pm, "Jay Honeck" <jjhon...@mchsi.com> wrote:
I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport.
That's why I contend that Class D stands for "D'oh!", and is the most
dangerous airspace in America.
Sorry, Tim -- that came out sounding like I thought you were stupid
for making a 360 in the pattern. That's NOT what I meant -- I only
mean that Class D is a dangerous place, thanks to us relying on guys
in a tower with binoculars for spacing, and controllers relying on
guys in airplanes who don't know where the heck they really are.
I agree completely with your rationale for doing what you had to do.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
|
I did not take it that way. Thanks for the follow up. Students really
need to be told to watch out for themselves - it is all too easy to
assume the controllers are omnipotent and never erring gods. The sooner
you see in training some screw-ups by controllers and other pilots, the
better off you are. Always watch out for yourself and be safe.
I don;t think I will ever find myself near Iowa City, but if I do your
place has been on my list for a while. Congrats on the longevity of the
endeavor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benford2@aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:53 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
On Mar 18, 4:43 pm, Tim <spambloc...@nospam.ass> wrote:
| Quote: | Jay Honeck wrote:
Except when requested by the controller or in
emergency situations, a 360 degree turn should never be executed in the
traffic pattern or when receiving radar service without first advising the
controller.
Yep, although I couldn't quote chapter and verse, this is what I
figured the rules were.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
A tower controller has NEVER been killed because of their screw up. It is always the pilot who bites the dust. When I stated a 360 for spacing was my first choice I never said I wasn't going to make a radio report to the tower, in fact That has happened to me before and as I started my 360 the tower was notified by me, it is then up to them to fix the mess they created. I am going home alive, piss on the incompetent tower controller who stuffed a plane right in front of me after I was cleared to land. Funny ol Steven P. Mc Nicoll threw in the side line of tower operators not making enough money, and there will be a shortage of them because of it. One day he might even admit a controller actually made a mistake and a pilot fixed it and lived to fly again. I have to admit he can quote all the rules and seems up to speed on traffic flows and probably was a great controller before he became mighter then the rest of us. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| Quote: | I did a 360 once in the pattern at a class D airport. the tower and the
conflicting traffic forgot about me. I was on final. he turned traffic
following me inthe pattern in front of me. The other traffic had no
awareness... I keyed the mike to let them know what was going on...
doh. got stepped on. did a 360 and then called AFTER. I was not
worried about doing something wrong - I was worried about getting killed
by the controller who dropped the ball and two pilots in the other plane
who were not paying attention to what the heck was going on in the pattern.
It happens too often. Do what you need to do to stay alive.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BT
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
never trust a controller..
you are PIC..
Tower controllers here are known to put two aircraft on crossing runways..
one landing.. one taking off..
and yes.. they did meet at the intersection.. luckily no one died that
day.. but two aircraft were totaled
BT
"Jay Honeck" <jjhoneck (AT) mchsi (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1174096733.803538.270650 (AT) l77g2000hsb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.
Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.
The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BT
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
never trust a controller..
you are PIC..
Tower controllers here are known to put two aircraft on crossing runways..
one landing.. one taking off..
and yes.. they did meet at the intersection.. luckily no one died that
day.. but two aircraft were totaled
BT
"Jay Honeck" <jjhoneck (AT) mchsi (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1174096733.803538.270650 (AT) l77g2000hsb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.
Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....
Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.
Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.
Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.
The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newps
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
Jay Honeck wrote:
| Quote: | I don't see it that way. Class D can be no worse than an uncontrolled
airport. It can be better.
Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:
a) You've got a guy in the tower with binoculars trying to see and
control too many things going on.
b) You've got too many pilots reporting "5 north of the field" when
they are *really* 5 EAST of the field (for example), making it
impossible for our hapless binocular-equipped controller to keep track
of traffic effectively.
|
Compare a class D to an uncontrolled field with similar traffic counts
and the class D is much safer and the traffic flows much more orderly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheSmokingGnu
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
Jay Honeck wrote:
| Quote: | Class Delta can be MUCH worse than "uncontrolled", in my experience,
because:
snip
This type of confusion is a recipe for conflicts -- and I've seen them
often.
|
In non-radar D, very much so. You have to be on the ball all the time
and be sure to make precise radio calls. However, with radar coverage, D
is a whole new ballgame. Out here in the boonies (heretofore known as
"the LA basin"  ), almost all the controlled airports either carry
radar themselves or can tap into them, and so controlled flight is a
breeze (and the controllers really do administer their airspace, with
xpndr checks and traffic reports, as well as non-talking violators).
Contrariwise, uncontrolled space can be a zoo, with a high traffic
density, and weekend warriors that don't (or won't) follow proper
procedure, in the cockpit or on the radio. You'll get lots of people
that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
because he thought he could depart via the upwind), or omitting initial
position calls, calls to final, calls clear of runway, omitting the
ident, etc. etc. etc. Add in some jet traffic along with the standard
piston assortment, and things can get ugly, really fast.
So, I think it's all a matter of degrees and personal experience at its
essence, just like having a bad time in Class C can sour your attitude
for that 'space.
TheSmokingGnu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Gerber
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
TheSmokingGnu <anonymityisavirtue (AT) 1111011010011 (DOT) com> wrote:
| Quote: | You'll get lots of people
that, for example, won't depart the pattern on the downwind (nearly had
a from-behind midair with someone in an experimental twice my speed
because he thought he could depart via the upwind),
|
What's wrong with departing via the upwind?
.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheSmokingGnu
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Re: A tower-induced go-round |
|
|
Alan Gerber wrote:
| Quote: | What's wrong with departing via the upwind?
|
I think you'd find it exceedingly difficult to do so when you must fly
_through_ the gentleman in front of you. :)
The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.
Even more distressing was the fact that he didn't divert properly around
the obviously slower traffic (that is, to the right; he kept on his
departure vector), and was either oblivious or didn't care about giving
or listening to position reports.
But whadda ya gonna do? Kick the ball, fly around George, kick the ball...
TheSmokingGnu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
