Re: New Aviation Terminology

"Julian Scarfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It was a Seneca II.  A collision would have required:
>
> a) that a landing aircraft failed to obtain a clearance to land, and

No.  That's the whole point.  A controller may well clear an airplane to
land right on top of you.  You just don't know.

> b) that we failed to see a landing aircraft while backtracking, and

Not hard if the airplane is behind you.  Bi-directional operations at Paine
are not uncommon.

> c) that the controller failed to see a landing aircraft, and

Not hard if the controller is distracted dealing with an issue elsewhere at
the airport.  That said, the controller needs only to fail to see ONE of the
aircraft, either the landing one or the sitting-duck one.

> d) that the landing aircraft failed to see us, and

Oddly enough, runway collisions happen.  Obviously pilots of other aircraft
DO in fact find themselves not being able to see other airplanes on the
runway in time to avoid them.

> e) that we tried to occupy the same part of a 9000 x 150 ft runway at the
> same time.

Funny thing about coincidences.  They do exist.

A common generalization made about accidents is that they usually involve a
relatively long chain of events or decisions.  Alter just one, and the
entire accident never happened.  Even if your chain of events is as unlikely
to occur as you think it is (and I don't agree that it is), the point is
that the chain of events CAN certainly occur.

The one element you have control over is whether you actually get onto the
runway and wait for an extended period of time.  Why miss that great
opportunity to break the chain of events?  It's the only one you have.

> It seemed like a good bet.

I'm sure the sequence of events leading up to a great many accidents
(aircraft and otherwise) seemed like a good bet at the time.

> Given the uncertainties in estimating risks, I usually hesitate to argue
> relative safety.  But I have to say that if you think it's safer to give
up
> 3000 ft of a 9000 ft runway in a light twin than to backtrack on a runway
> with the controller's authorization, you either have negligible faith in
the
> abilities of ATC or remarkable faith in the workmanship of TCM.

With respect to my opinion of ATC: I simply don't see the point in trusting
them when there's no real need to.  I have faith in their abilities, but I
prefer to deal in things that I *know* for sure rather than trusting someone
else to do them.  Too often, a person I trust lets me down.  Rarely, my life
is at stake, but that is the case here.

As far as giving up 3000' of a 9000' runway: a) that's not the only
alternative to backtaxiing -- at Paine, all you have to do is get off the
runway and taxi back on the parallel taxiway; and b) frankly, AFAIK 6000' is
*plenty* of runway from which to launch a Seneca II.

I would pick option a) -- using the taxiway -- but if you are really trying
to save time and are willing to reduce your safety factor to do it, the
stop-and-go is the right solution.  Backtaxiing on the runway saves you
negligible time compared to taxiing back on the taxiway, while the
stop-and-go saves you serious time.

> Isn't the next logical step to outlaw position-and-hold?  Why would you
ever
> occupy the runway without a clearance to take off?

As I mentioned, there are times in which it's an appropriate solution.  At
Paine, the most common reason that clearance is used is when the controller
is trying to get as many departures out before the next landing.  Allowing
an airplane to proceed onto the runway as the preceding airplane is taking
off helps this goal.  Because the takeoff is expected immediately and the
"position and holding" aircraft can see where the landing traffic is, they
can evaluate the reasonableness of the clearance.  Things are happening fast
enough that ANY delay is cause for concern and the pilot can get back off
the runway.

The problem that started this discussion is one of the length of time an
aircraft is expected to sit on a runway.  Five, ten, maybe even fifteen
seconds to wait for an IFR clearance seems perfectly reasonable.  But
several minutes?  No, not to me it doesn't.

Like I said, I'm not going to take so extreme a position as to claim that
position-and-hold is NEVER appropriate.  But I certainly feel that its use
should be restricted to very narrow situations where the hazard has been
reduced to the greatest extent possible, and especially to where the pilot
doing the position and hold has first-hand knowledge regarding the safety of
the operation (as opposed to trusting ATC to take care of everything).

Finally, let me remind you that the comment to which I took issue was the
"not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this."  The bottom line here
is that the reason for the aversion is clear.  There are definitely safety
issues, regardless of how significant you think they are.  You might as well
say "not sure why there's such a strong aversion to spiders".  After all,
all but a handful of spiders are safe.  Yet, no one should be surprised when
they come across another person who has a strong aversion to spiders.  It's
only natural.  Your apparent argument to the contrary is a bit puzzling to
me, to say the least.

Pete