|
|
On Nov 15, 2005, at 6:41 PM, Ron Galbraith wrote:
Bottom line is that "experimental" means nothing to me as an air traffic controller, but LNC4 does. Hey, you might even get priority if you are a Lancair, you never know :-) Now Scott on the other hand.........maybe.
Ron Galbraith
Ron,
Thanks for your responses on these matters. I, frankly, find your posts more enlightening than most simply because you seldom hear from the "other side of the mic" what's going on, real world, with ATC.
To the point above, I've flown several experimental types and listening to ATC tell somebody that they have an "experimental, 10 o'clock and 3 miles, west bound" is a lot less helpful, especially if there is more than one target than "Yak/Lancair/L-39....blah, blah"
We don't think of it this way, but there was a telling transmission between a bizz jet coming out of Van Nuys and ATC when the bizz jet jock said "what is that that just passed us?", speaking of the L-39 I was flying. ATC responded "an experimental"....to which the jock replied "Geez!" as if I had built the thing myself. In other words, most of GA is clueless as to what experimental encompasses, and I'm quite sure that pilot who thought of "experimental" as "from scratch whacko designs that are sure to kill you" is more prevalent than we'd like to admit.
Bottom line is, as far as I'm concerned, even in the terminal environment it's much more useful to say what type you are....YMMV. Glad there's a movement to take at least one useless, dare I say <gasp> counterproductive, reg out of the books.
Cheers,
Barry
122LL
|
|