If we could only do this in Canada

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Flying an airplane is not all that much more difficult than driving a car.


So why all the rules?

[David MacRay]

I am against helmet laws, that is messing with natural selection. It should be helmet suggestion.

[John Swallow]

Rules?  Don't need no steenking rules! 

Except...

We had an incident here on Wednesday whereby two opposite direction aircraft passed each other about fifty feet off the runway with about one hundred feet lateral separation.  The separation only occurred when one aircraft took violent evasive action.

One was taking off from one end of the runway and the other was executing a straight-in approach into a setting sun to the other end. 

Somebody was not talking or somebody was not listening out.  Not sure which.

The incident could have been avoided if the rules for an MF airport had been followed... 

[Colonel]

I hate it when that happens.

[img width=500 height=277][/img]

Sometimes my son and I get confused, and forget
which runway to use.  Best to pull vertical at the
end of the runway into a 1/2 cuban-8 so that you
can get a visual on the other guy.


[quote]Somebody was not talking or somebody was not listening out[/quote]

I have a name for people that bet their lives on the
correct functioning of a comm radio:  [b]DEAD[/b].

They could have used their eyeballs, and

[b]LOOKED OUTSIDE[/b]

but that's so passe.

I might mention, because I'm a stupid fuckhead
engineer, that a comm radio works worse, the
more you need it ie the more aircraft there are
on freq.  This is not what we call "good engineering"
in the private sector.

Inevitably someone will have a stuck mike which
will make it official.

Making rules against people killing themselves
is actually pretty funny.  At least if you're a
[b]BAD PERSON[/b].

[Colonel]

[quote]Rules?  Don't need no steenking rules![/quote]

Explain the logic to me, say, of restricted airspace.

Any pilot if he so desires, can load his 172 up with
600 lbs of fertilizer and scream "Allah Ackbar" as
he flies into, say, the Parliament buildings.  Canada's
most sacred location, next to David Suzuki's residence,
of course.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no loaded,
automated, automatic, rapid fire large caliber anti-aircraft
weapons around the perimeter of the Parliament restricted
airspace.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

So there is nothing physically stopping you from
flying into any restricted airspace, if you want.

The purpose of restricted airspace, as best I can
figure out, is to try to dissuade suicide bombers
from killing themselves, because they will get a
registered letter 4 months after they are dead
from Enforcement.

Did I get that bureaucratic logic correct?  In the
mind of a bureaucrat, how many virgins do you
lose after your death if your paper isn't right?

[John Swallow]

"Sometimes my son and I get confused, and forget which runway to use."

Ya, but you cheat and use smoke!  (;>0)

The situation here in Vernon was probably compounded by the incomer doing a straight-in and not looking at the far end of the runway which, in any event, was obscured by the setting sun.  The departure aircraft would be looking at an aircraft on an approximate 3 degree approach path that was blending into a hill rising to 4000 AGL ten miles away.  Daytime, so the use of lights in unknown, but maybe not used. 

Radio is an excellent tool, but it's still "See and be seen"; however, if you become fixated on your landing spot, or you're not listening out, or you've got the wrong frequency, or if you just don't give a damn...

Had the arriving aircraft gone overhead as per the--- um...  ah...  oh, hell, as per the rules, the incident would not have happened.


Now, as to Restricted areas; I think it's obvious why some airspace is restricted.  Think airshow. Years ago, a Golden Hawk was killed in a collision with a Piper that was not authorized to be in the zone.

I presume that the airspace around the Parliament Buildings and Rideau Hall (R 537 and R538) is restricted so as to not bother the inhabitants.  Whether or not that is a valid reason is above the pay scale of this throttle jockey to decide...  Can't stop you from going over there, but, if someone gets your ident... 

Possibly a better term for these typed of "restricted" airspace would be "Prohibited", as in the U.S. Capitol and White House (P-56).

Then, there are restricted areas that I wouldn't poke MY nose into...  R-4808

[Colonel]

At my old (uncontrolled) airport, the runway ran mostly
east-west and in the late afternoon, I really hated landing
east-to-west, looking into that setting sun, hanging on the
horizon, especially through a dirty windshield.  Bugs, hazing.

When the wind is calm, fly final with the sun at your back,
and land from west-to-east.  This seems safer to me.

An astonishing number of pilots objected to this, and
wanted to use the "east-to-west" default runway with
little or no wind, and take the sun in their eyes on final
for no good reason.

Best piece of safety equipment is between the ears.

Paper is no substitute for that.  I have no idea (or care)
if any regulations were harmed by landing with the sun
at my back with less than 3 knots. 

Another day, another TC Inspector hiding behind the hangar
taking pictures, another registered letter.  Who really gives
a fuck, after a while.

At my little airport, we had a disease called "Rotten Ronnie"
(I did not name him, others did) a retired TC Inspector, I'm
sure you know him. 

Well, Enforcement refers to Rotten Ronnie as their "eyes
and ears" at the airport.  He takes pictures of everyone
taking off and landing, monitors the ATF, and at the end
of the day creates transcripts with photos and descriptions
and sends them off to TC.  He takes the smallest thing
and whips it up into an enormous problem.  Writes letters
to everyone:  TC, Customs, FAA, ICAS, you name it.

What a giant pain in the ass.  Tried to spoil aviation for
everyone.  Flies like shit.  Smoked an AME licence through,
can't fix anything either.  I can't remember how many of
his projects I had to finish.

One habit of his that I really don't like is that when you
taxi out and run up on the ramp, he jumps on his golf
cart and drives around your aircraft on the ramp, engine
bellowing at 1700 RPM during the mag check, taking
pictures of all of the occupants for his daily summary
to Enforcement.

That might be all legal, and approved by Enforcement,
but it sure as hell isn't safe.

You buddy Rotten Ronnie is despised at the airport,
and down east, where he comes from.  They told us
down there, that they were really happy he didn't
move back home after he retired.  As a TC Inspector,
he is nationally recognized as scum.  What a waste
of the taxpayer's money.  He has no interest in safety,
only using his TC connections to inflict damage.

[John Swallow]

Andy:

Never met "Rotten Ronnie".  But, you must remember, I left TC to go back to corporate aviation in 1990.  Lot of water under the bridge since then.

I would find no fault with selecting a landing runway out of sun.  Your inspector had best not come to Vernon; some of us have been known to accept a slight tailwind for departing on Rwy 23 for no other reason than it's more convenient.  (All precautions executed, of course)

I used to know an inspector from the maintenance side we'll call "Dick Smith".  Standard saying around the region was "Dick Smith before Smith dicks you"... (;>0)

[Colonel]

Any organization I have ever been in,
in a group of 10-20 people, there is
always "that guy" who is always doing
things that make the rest of the group
wince, especially in his interactions with
people outside the group.  You had to
pity people whom were unfortunate enough
to have to deal with him.

There was once a funny movie called
"Super Troopers", and "that guy" was Farva:

[youtube][/youtube]

It is uncanny.  It's as if the authors of that
movie had met Ronnie and Arlo at Tower C,
and based Farva's character on them.

The problem with TC (or any government
bureaucracy) is that 1 in 10 or 20 ratio can
be much higher.  1 in 5 is quite possible.

And unlike the private sector, you can never
ever get rid of "that guy".  You can't fire his
ass.  He's got a job for life, so all you can
do is promote him.

And that's my other problem with TC.  The
policy there seems to be to only promote
"that guy", and well, you worked there, you
can see what that kind of leadership does.

In the private sector, I have been fortunate
enough to work with some really brilliant and
great people.  Then I deal with Transport, and
the shock is almost visible.  I am back in grade 5,
and a fat bully wants to fight at recess.

Really?  My taxes pay for this childish nonsense?