TC...you get the impression we are doing research for free
I just remember the last time it was a 182 held because an aircraft would land over the top of them.....and...clearly!...inside the separation standard...sooooo....Dick waits to be held for an IFR flight landing in the other direction so he can make the same noise but it is harder for a pleb to see the separation standard required for a possible missed approach (On a VFR day)
Make a rule that the tower can tell a pilot to cancel IFR and go visual..to facilitate traffic...even if the pilot cannot see traffic....does that still make them a conflict if the pilot cannot see them? Smith seems to think they will be no threat....Smith says so, so must be OK...???...NUP! that red hasn't kicked in enough...you're still talking BS, Mr Smith!
Then we have to make allowances for nuclear subs and cracked up helicopters that are supposed to find nuclear subs and end up with a broadside against the CDF and his staff...???...Maybe, Mr Smith drinks a good red.
...then...
We get a change in resposibility for the tower...a couple of years ago he wants a small class D tower for WLM so it doesn't hold him up on the coastal lane and NOW he wants a huge area for the tower out to the first class C step so those pesky approach controllers cannot hold him up on the coastal lane....cummon, Dick! What do you want?
Dick...do like everyone else does up there...if you are an occasional flyer, ring up the tower on the phone number in ERSA and ask them if there is any conflict for regular traffic around your ETA and then fit in with them...it IS their sandpit...not yours......AHHHHAAA! that is the problem...it's not YOUR sandpit and you have to play by someone else's rules....have I missed anything?