Orbiting on Final

[TractorBoy]

Has anyone ever had to do this ? And if so, what is the correct procedure ? I'm raising this question in the light of an AAIB report at Southend
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/july_2007/cessna_f150l__g_babb.cfm

[Dave Gittins]

When I was flying into Luton, I regularly orbitted on left or right base to allow faster jet traffic to land (sometimes a whole stram of them if it was about 6.00 pm) while I waited for a gap in traffic to emerge.

I have also orbitted on final when it as been apparent that there is insufficient time for somebody slow in vacating to clear the runway before I arrive, thus an orbit saves a go-around and a full circuit and having to slot into traffic again.

I have also been in the VCR at Luton on one accasion when a Streamline "shed" did an orbit on final for 24 while a (I think) Monarch 76 went the full length and backtracked to B1. Again to avoid a go around and a full circuit.

(Edit on 13/7) Having now read the report in full, I still consider an orbit to be a perfectly normal manoever, esp under my circumstances above where traffic of greatly differing speeds are mixed. Obviously the first thing is to arrest the descent and get good flying speed with as much power as it takes, rememebering carb haet off and perhaps even carefully cancelling a stage of flaps.

DGG

[Chilli Monster]

Not read the report yet. Never done it as a pilot, wouldn't tell anyone to do it as an ATCO. It should be a go-around as normal, with any turns made (probably to re-position late downwind) only when the aircraft is in a safe configuration to do so.

[dublinpilot]

I saw an Aer Lingus do it once, on final into Dublin. :eek: It was below 1000ft at the time.....prob about 2 miles from the threshold (at most!) :eek:

I nearly crashed my car while looking at it :O

At least he knew noone was coming up behind him, as it was in class C.

[TractorBoy]

I just wondered if asked to do this, what the correct procedure is ? i.e do you remain in approach config / speed and use pitch to maintain airspeed and power to cancel descent, or would you retract flaps and return to normal cruise speed ? I was never taught it as its not on the PPL and it sounds damn risky to me.

[shy_one]

This is not something that I would be happy to accept, I would rather do a proper missed approach and go around.

Shy_one

[Fright Level]

There is another way to look at this, although described as an "orbit" so most people imagine a 360 turn at low level, my view is that if asked to do so and only if 1,000 AGL or above, I break off in the direction requested to fly a short crosswind leg, then turn downwind to get a view of the faster traffic that's passing me (and to leave enough room before I turn "base" and join finals again behind him).

It's nothing complicated, just a "mini" circuit. If the manoeuvre was required for spacing for traffic ahead, then a 360 orbit at or above 1,000 feet AGL is no problem. I don't change the config of the a/c at all, just apply enough power to stop the a/c descending and go all the way round.

Below 1,000 feet, follow a standard missed approach and fly accordingly telling the tower that I'm unable to orbit.

[172driver]

Only about halfway through the report (makes for some sad reading...:() but the chap was NOT instructed to orbit, but to break off the approach and fly a heading (north).

[BackPacker]

Sounds dangerous to me. You're on final, which means that you're flying in a high-drag configuration (full flaps, possibly the gear down) and just a few knots above the stall speed when straight and level. All of a sudden you're going to increase power (torque effect, balance...) and you're going to make some turns. In a turn, the g-loading on the aircraft increases, and are you really remembering not to exceed 20 degrees bank here, and not to push the plane around with the rudder?

It sounds like a great opportunity for the classic stall/spin scenario, even more than the turn to final.

In such a case, first put the power on, get rid of the drag (retract gear, partially retract flaps), increase speed, then turn. And by then you'll find you're doing a go-around anyway. So turn crosswind and join downwind (might be late downwind) for a new attempt.

[PompeyPaul]

I also wonder if he applied throttle incorrectly during the manoeuvre ? I.e. he cut power to 900rpm rather than applied 2000rpm.

Very sad.

[Cusco]

I had to orbit on final at Southend of all places a few years ago when a Shed landing ahead of me shed a tyre: it managed to vacate the runway but they wanted to send a vehicle out to pick up debris.
I was at 300 ft and was told to orbit right for 24.
Even though at the time I had over 400 hours, this was way out of my comfort zone so I told ATC I was going to clear to the NE and re approach a bit later.
Highly inconvenient as I was on my way to France and was dropping in to Southend to clear Customs and it would have been tempting to continue to orbit: However it would have meant cleaning up from approach configuration, perhaps even retracting the gear and all the time the ground looked awful close.....
I really feel for the poor student on his second solo having been given unusual instructions in an unusual way...........
Cusco

[gcolyer]

EDDNR and 172driver are spot on.

I have been asked to do excatly this at SFB and St AUgustine in Florida as a solo student and twice at Ronaldsway in the Isle of Man.

Key things:

1) Watch that airspeed no matter what your configuration
2) Ensure you stay off the final approach path

However it is a terrible chain of events and the RTF from the ADC and APC was not exactly polished. Still they are only human and accidents do happen.

[stiknruda]

I have been asked to do it several times, in the States, in RSA and most recently at Norwich IIRC!

Not really a big deal, roll on bank in the direction requested (generally left) and pull!

Stik

[gasax]

Very sad the accident, but are people really saying that they cannot conduct a 360 turn in the approach configuration safely?

OK for a second solo it is a step too far (probably) but for an experienced PPL its too dangerous - surely not. Accepting all the ATC issues that orbiting brings why should a 360 turn in any configuration be beyond the skill of a PPL?How do these people manage to turn finals without falling out of the sky?

[Astral_Flyer]

The report made for some very sad reading. It did remind me of my early solo flights and how taxing it can be at that stage.

My very first solo flight that I made. I had a change of runway presented to me whilst on the downwind leg.. I coped with that fairly well.

My second solo almost ended in disaster. It went wrong from the word go. I realised after take off that I hadn't set the flaps for take off configuration.. A very small thing, but it did upset me.. The landing was one of those that just floated on and on... I lost my nerve and applied full throttle, forgeting to make sure that the nose didn't pitch up!!! :eek:... So from just that one experience. I can understand what may have been going on with the poor student in this case. It can just take one small thing to throw out a whole flight.

It took another four hours of instruction before I went solo again. We went through all sorts of situations that could happen on the landing approach and practiced like crazy. All I can say is that from that time onwards I could deal with anything that was thrown at me... It was worth spending the time and money on this, and I am grateful to this day of what my instructor did for me on this aspect. I wish that a lot more work was done on the landing phase and situations that are likely to develop.

My instructor drummed it into me that I was in charge of the aircraft and it was my responsibility to do whatever I felt happy with in whatever situation. If that meant letting ATC know that I'm unable to do something, or feel that it is outside my experience. Then I should say so. That includes changing runways (that applied to my early solo time) That still applies with my standard PPL in certain situations.

What would I have done if I was this chap with low hours... I would have probably done what they had asked. As soon as I had confirmed that. I would have increased the throttle to full power gained speed, cleaned the aircraft up, and returned to circuit height. Although I must say that I wouldn't be happy about it. My concern would be what they were going to do with me next... Hindsight would have told me to say to them that I was going to go round. By far the safest situation and it allows me time to settle down into a procedure I know well. I suspect that my instructor would have approved of that.

Astral

[Knight Paladin]

Backpacker - What's this 20 degrees AoB limit you mention? I suspect that's just a bad habit a nervous poor instructor taught you.

As one of my old colleagues said - light aeroplanes are predominantly very forgiving machines - given sufficient airspeed you can pretty much throw them around as much as you like. With the emphasis on the sufficient airspeed - manouevring at 45 deg AoB will only increase your stall speed by just less than 20%, a speed that you should be able to achieve very quickly with a burst of power from a normal approach speed.

[BackPacker]

Knight, I'm actually on an aerobatics course right now where we do 75+ degrees bank turns with full power. Just keep pulling and increasing bank, maintaining altitude, until the aircraft stalls... :-) (Do not try this at home though.)

During PPL training, the 20 degrees bank was the limit when doing the turn to (short) final, with (almost) full flaps, low airspeed and low power. At least, you had to plan your final turn so that it could be achieved with 20 degrees bank, whereas the downwind to base turn, with more speed, could be achieved with 30 degrees bank.

Obviously it's all got to do with g loading. And with nervous instructors, too...

Even my aeros instructor (who happens to be a display pilot too) gets rightfully nervous if you start manoeuvring aggressively, on final, with full flaps, low airspeed and low power settings.

Still, if you planned your turn to final wrongly and 20 degrees doesn't cut it, like you say, it's better to put a bit of power on and roll on 45 degrees of bank, than to try and force the aircraft around with the rudder while maintaining 20 degrees.

[Wibblemonster]

having just completed my first solo, reading that sent a chill down my spine. a very sad story.

i'd feel unhappy about orbiting on finals too.

safe flying everyone :ok:

[Knight Paladin]

Backpacker - Glad you're getting some experience poling an aeroplane around properly! In my own opinion, the idea of a "bank angle limit", especially one as low as 20 degrees, is a thoroughly stupid idea. Yes, by all means, teach students that the turn onto finals should be "gentle", but imposing an artificial limit just introduces an extra distraction - sapping mental capacity by forcing them to monitor an extra parameter, and potentially introducing the problem you mentioned, whereby a student would sit at 20 deg AoB and try to kick the aircraft round the corner with rudder, rather than increasing speed slightly and manoevering the aircraft properly. It also seems to introduce a horrible mindset where people seem to think that the aeroplane will drop out of the sky if manoevered at anything above 30 deg at any flight conditions.

I personally would be an advocate of introducing low speed agressive manoeuvering as a compulsory part of the PPL (if not some mild aerobatics), just to give people some idea of where the limits of an aeroplane actually lie. Just my opinion!

[OpenCirrus619]

If you stay under 20 degrees angle of bank for final and climbing turns it means the increase in stall speed is negligible (6.41%) so you don't have to worry about increasing speed. You can bank as steeply as you like - just make sure you have the speed to avoid the stall and power to keep the speed/altitude combination required.

If you don't believe me watch a glider pilot turning final: If they need to tighten up the final turn, they'll roll on as much bank (45+ degrees) as needed increasing speed by the requisite amount instinctively. But then glider pilots do spend a lot of time a couple of knots above the stall in, for power pilots, what is a steep turn.

Bottom line: Keeping to 20 degrees angle of bank in final/climbing turns in the circuit is a good safety guideline - but not a physical/aerodynamic limitation.

OC619

[benhurr]

Orbiting on final approach:


2 stages of flap.

70/75kts C152/PA28

15 degrees AOB (making allowance for wind)

2 minutes(ish) for a 360.

This is neither rocket science nor dangerous - basically the configuration for slow/safe cruise - the way you fly when position fixing when lost. Fair enough you might be a bit lower but it really is not a demanding manouevre - if you happen to think it is then I would respectfully suggest a session with an instructor.

[xraf]

Although it would take quite a big change I think this is something that should be altered. I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts.

IMHO There should be no place for orbiting in any circuit, if you cant get in from finals, simply go around.

I remember a solo student years ago on basic training in the military who had a PPL, stating "I'll just orbit here at late downwind" when he should have continued to final and either got permission to land or roll or GONE AROUND.

He had an uncomfortable meeting with the Sqn Ldr, no coffee and biscuits, shortly after landing!

Unfortunately the civillian world has no such clear and simple procedure. I have often been asked to orbit in questionable circumstances, the other day LBA required me to orbit on downwind in a twin with a C172 ahead orbitting and a PA28 at TOC behind me also orbitting, the wx was average to cr*p and could easily have been a problem for a solo student.

I dont really wish to open the commercial versus GA debate which is often the reason for the request to orbit, (but go ahead if you like) what I'm suggesting is: As per RAF etc. just go around the circuit until you cant go any further then go around and rejoin the circuit and do it again, its simple, accurate and works universally.

The accident report above appears to relate simply to a go around request but as we know, anything out of the ordinary can quickly fill up the bottle if you're new.

Regards
Xraf:ok:

[Knight Paladin]

OC619 - spot on! You're right about glider pilots being happier at higher angles of bank with higher airspeeds, my views may well have been influenced by a fair bit of unpowered flight during my early flying experience. As well as being trained in the use of higher bank angles, merely seeing them used from the ground routinely probably affects the mindset of most glider pilots. I'm NOT suggesting people should go off and practice things they've seen from the ground without an instructor, just that most powered club-type pilots are very unlikely to see higher angles of bank used - with the obvious exception of those airfields reknowned for aerobatics.

xraf - Also spot on! Agree with you completely. The hard part would have to be persuading people to fly smaller circuits - with the size of many GA circuits, a go-around necessitates a lot more flying than with your typical tight military oval. However, I don't want this thread to drift onto the joys of oval RAF circuits and GA circuits outside the ATZ - been done to death before!

[TractorBoy]

Benhurr - thanks for that. Thats more or less what I thought, but it still seems a particularily risky thing to do when you're only 500 foot above a housing estate !!!

Personally I would go around and tell ATC that I was doing so. But having trained at an A/G field and doing most of my flying out of one, I'm not too sure about how well ignoring an ATC instruction would go down....!

[snapper41]

I had a similar experience whilst under training - I was on a solo flight. I was on finals, having made the correct radio calls, when I heard a motor glider call joining late finals. I looked out to base, and saw him heading straight for me in my 9 o'clock. What did I do? Frankly, I panicked, called that I was orbiting, and turned into him so that I could keep him in sight. He called back that what I was doing wasn't very clever. He was right. Thankfully, we both landed safely. My instructor hadn't seen/heard the incident, but told me that I should have gone around. I went off to the gliding club to aoplogise, to be met halfway by the motor glider pilot who was coming to see me to apologise! I guess we were both in the wrong; he shouldn't have tried to cut in front, and I should have gone round. I learned about flying from that..

[BackPacker]

xraf, I agree that orbits should not be necessary, provided that all aircraft fly a visual circuit and are flying at speeds that are more or less compatible.

But consider my home field, Rotterdam, which handles commercial traffic up to 737s as well. If I'm on downwind with a 737 on some-mile final (ILS), ATC is going to tell me to orbit. Because the alternatives are worse.

If he goes first (and he probably will, since he's on final and I'm not), I don't want to meet him, or his wake turbulence. So I'm going to have to wait it out, somewhere, for about two minutes. Continuing for two minutes on downwind takes me way outside the circuit, if not outside the CTR. If I just continue my circuit, base, final, over the runway, upwind and cross, all at circuit height, I'm making the 737 nervous because I might interfere with his go-around path. (And he might have to tangle with my wake turbulence!)

And if the tower lets me go first, well, the touchdown zones and exits on our runway are positioned so that even if you land long, even well beyond the light aircraft displaced touchdown zone, it still is quite a distance to roll before we get to the nearest exit. The aircraft I fly are used regularly for training (ATC knows the callsigns by heart) but ATC can't smell whether its a student or experienced pilot on board. They're not going to risk sending a 737 around because of a light aircraft taking a little longer to vacate than average.

So orbits in the circuit are a regular occurance where I fly. Nothing wrong with them if they happen on downwind or on any of the visual approach paths into the CTR.

Oh, and because of the interesting mix of comair and GA, first solos almost never happen at our field but go elsewhere.

[Contacttower]

I was watching an EMB-195 coming into land at Southampton today, about 3 miles from touch down on runway 20 the plane broke off the approach, started a right hand orbit, disappeared back into cloud before reappearing on the ILS a few minutes later.

An orbit is ok in controlled airspace in agreement with ATC but at a busy uncontrolled airfield orbitting on final is not recommended!

[modelman]

I well remember this incident as it happened during my flying training-I assumed at the time that it was base/final turn too tight/too slow but I now know the truth-all extremely sad.It actually impacted on my flying at the time as my instructor noticed that my approach speeds were greater than normal.
I noted in the report recommendations regarding callsigns to enable students to be identified to controllers and feel this is vital to safety.

During my training,the instructors had their own personal callsign.When they sent someone off solo, 'Sierra' was added to this callsign and used by the student.
The controller(s) knew then they had a student and it also permitted the instuctor to fly with another student-I think something like this should be mandatory.
Would like to think that this young man's passing would at least contribute a little to flight safety.
MM

[IO540]

Orbits are common where I am based (an ATC airfield).

However, I don't think ATC would ask a new solo student to do one (they know who is a new student pilot because the instructor phones them up).

There are far more stupid procedures than orbits. The overhead join is the #1 candidate for the stupidity award. You can have an unlimited number of planes (easily 5) in the OH at the same time, all at 2000ft agl, but you will be lucky to be visual with more than 1 of them. The OHJ was designed to enable the WW1 pilot (non-radio, of course) to read the signals square :ugh:

On a wider subject, I think circuits early on in the training are daft. The student would learn more, and learn more enjoyably, if he did some real trips from start to end. There is some work being done on this in the USA, where they are using scenario-based learning (basically, doing normal flying, during which things happen) very successfully.

[Cusco]

Of course most PPLs can do an orbit on final in the approach configuration without falling from the sky:

But this poor student wasn't asked to do an orbit: after several uncertain and non-standard R/T exchanges he was asked in a non standard way to steer a course away from the final track to the North: a completely unexpected request and at variance from the usual 'go-around ' instruction to move to the right of the final track to keep Rwy in view which he would have been taught.
And all this after only 15 hours and on his second solo.

IMHO the ATC have a lot to answer for................
Cusco;)

Edited for grammar, syntaxe and to clarify whose side I'm on.

[Chilli Monster]

xraf, I agree that orbits should not be necessary, provided that all aircraft fly a visual circuit and are flying at speeds that are more or less compatible.

But consider my home field, Rotterdam, which handles commercial traffic up to 737s as well. If I'm on downwind with a 737 on some-mile final (ILS), ATC is going to tell me to orbit. Because the alternatives are worse.

Why are they? If I've got 1 or 2 commercial inbounds there's nothing wrong with extending the light aircraft downwind, tell him who he's following and remind him of the number of miles recommended spacing. The relative speeds are such that the C152 (forf example) won't go that far downwind.

If I just continue my circuit, base, final, over the runway, upwind and cross, all at circuit height, I'm making the 737 nervous because I might interfere with his go-around path. (And he might have to tangle with my wake turbulence!)

No ATCO in their right mind should tell you to do that, for the reasons you state.

Oh, and because of the interesting mix of comair and GA, first solos almost never happen at our field but go elsewhere.

First solo's often happen where I work - and that's with traffic up to B763 / MD11 (and often AN124 or 225) so where's the problem?

Horses for courses I suppose.

G-EMMA - I hope you're learning at an ATC airfield? If not then your instructor wants his ar$e kicked as orbiting off your own bat at an A/G or FISO airfield is asking for trouble. If they're demonstracting that to students then that's really appalling. You are right to think the go-around is a better option.

Cusco - I've read the read the report. Let's just say it's not how I would have done things, to the extent that the C150 might even have stayed no.1, at least until a point where they could have carried out a safe, standard, go-around if need be.

[whiskylima]

This is something I only came across recently. I am a low houred(140) ppl who was flying, as a passenger, into a regional airport when on final, we were instructed to orbit to maintain spacing from slow traffic ahead. My friend did this with no problem but afterwards I thought that if I had been flying I would have been unaware of which way to orbit. We had been flying a right hand circuit and my friend made a left hand orbit to rejoin without incident. From this I assumed the orbit should be made to the outside of the circuit or should ATC specify the direction of the orbit?

[Chilli Monster]

ATC should specify the direction.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

I remember coming into Norwich a couple of years ago - was on short finals in an Arrow with gear down, full flap, and probably at no more than 200ft height.

Another aircraft was at the hold waiting to line up, when ATC mixed up some instructions. Rather than clearing me to land and telling the other aircraft to hold position, he told me to hold position and then said something else to the other aircraft.

Told ATC that I wasn't really sure how he expected me to comply with the "hold position" instruction when at 200ft on short final, and told him I would do an orbit. Took down one stage of flap, left gear gown, applied more power to increase airspeed up to 90mph and did the orbit. I then landed without problem after the orbit when given clearance to land.

I then copped an earful from ATC along the lines of "WTF was that all about?" Prompt argument ensues - he listens to tape playback, and suddenly becomes apologetic.

Moral of story is not lay blame at the door of ATC - we are all human. And if given instructions which are impossible to comply with, or just unsafe, then climb away and / or leave the circuit. If you think you can do something safely, then do it. Problem with this poor student, is that climbing away and leaving the circuit was not an option for him in his limited experience. A very sad story.

[JamesT73J]

I'm not surprised the lad got overloaded. You're so excited during the early solos that your comfort zone is very small - anything different can have strange consequences. I remember on my first cross-country getting into a muddle with an RAF controller (I couldn't understand him at all, first time it had ever happened) who was clearly working hard and talking very quickly. After passing 500ft I contacted him and it took me two attempts to hear the digits he wanted for the squawk.

It hardly rattled me, but the result was I left full power on in the cruise after trimming the aircraft, and hadn't noticed until I heard the same controller advising a crossing a/c of my presence with his tone suggesting some surprise at my airspeed....I was very surprised I hadn't even noticed.

[justinmg]

"I have been asked to do it several times, in the States, in RSA and most recently at Norwich IIRC!

Not really a big deal, roll on bank in the direction requested (generally left) and pull!

Stik"


Surely not good advice when students are reading.
If in a cessna 150, in the approach config. (flapped, low engine power travelling at Vs1 * 1.3), you then roll to the left, and pull, another tragic fatality is likely.

[Lucy Lastic]

>>>I remember coming into Norwich a couple of years ago - was on short finals in an Arrow with gear down, full flap, and probably at no more than 200ft height.

Another aircraft was at the hold waiting to line up, when ATC mixed up some instructions. Rather than clearing me to land and telling the other aircraft to hold position, he told me to hold position and then said something else to the other aircraft.

Told ATC that I wasn't really sure how he expected me to comply with the "hold position" instruction when at 200ft on short final, and told him I would do an orbit. Took down one stage of flap, left gear gown, applied more power to increase airspeed up to 90mph and did the orbit. I then landed without problem after the orbit when given clearance to land.

I then copped an earful from ATC along the lines of "WTF was that all about?" Prompt argument ensues - he listens to tape playback, and suddenly becomes apologetic.<<<<

Try that at our local equivalent of Norwich and they'd do more than give you an ear-bashing!!!!!

They may well have mixed up their calls, but you

a) don't try to land with another aircraft on the runway, unless you can be sure you have room to do so.

b) Orbiting at such a late stage may be a good way of getting the spacing required, but you would be backing up a lot of others behind you - certainly here.

c) ATC would have been within their rights to have told you to go-around, and I'm surprised they didn't.

In my innocent view, you were clearly in the wrong. You should just have gone around.

[BackPacker]

Well, assuming he was in a fixed wing, and not a helicopter, and being legitimately told by ATC to "hold position", I guess he's got no other legitimate choice than to orbit. Or fall out of the sky.

But there was a suspicion that ATC was mixing up callsigns. What I would do is "XXX is short final, say again" with that tone of voice that suggests already that what ATC said was totally unexpected and a possible mistake on the ATC side.

Admittedly, short final, 200 feet to go, not much time to start sorting things out

[Cusco]

Chilli:

Just to clarify: I've read the report too, in full.

Cusco;)

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

Lucy Lastic
Why don't you read more closely what I said.
a) don't try to land with another aircraft on the runway, unless you can be sure you have room to do so.
I only landed having received clearance - doesn't my post say this? The other aircraft which was waiting didn't actually line up - I didn't say this in the post, but why would you wait at 200ft? You have to take immediate action.
b) Orbiting at such a late stage may be a good way of getting the spacing required, but you would be backing up a lot of others behind you - certainly here.
Who said anything about spacing? It was to comply with a strange ATC instruction "hold position." How else do I hold without falling out the sky unless I orbit?
c) ATC would have been within their rights to have told you to go-around, and I'm surprised they didn't.
ATC could well have told me to go around if the other aircraft had started to line up. They didn't. It didn't. I could have elected to go around, and would have done if there had been other traffic behind me - but as there was no other traffic behind me and nothing in the circuit, I chose to comply with the unusual instruction because I felt it safe to do so.
All clear now?

[Mariner9]

Now now you two, play nicely or you'll annoy the quality of post police :ok:

PS:
don't try to land with another aircraft on the runway, unless you can be sure you have room to do so. and only if you have got "Land after" clearance from an ATCO

[Dave Gittins]

An intersting thread and how it has developed sonce I had me lunch yesterday.

I still say (see post #2) that an orbit should be a plain simple thing to achieve safely and I have been asked to do loads for traffic separation at ATC fields. At A/G and FISO fields I have done them as well - usually because some other guy has done something unexpected like an early downwind to base turn when I am already on a longer final. I have used my Mk 1 eyeball to check it's safe and announced that I am orbitting in present position to maintain traffic separation.

AFAI can see this most unfortunate accident was because the poor lad got way out of his comfort zone. It all started when ATC told him to backtrack and that threw him. I don't think he ever recovered his nerve after that.

I was surprised that he had soloed before he did air law. As that is usually first, no doubt at all (in my mind) that he hadn't done R/T.

This is a horrble examople of a perfectly good pilot doing consitent circuits, getting the encouragment of going solo, but without (said with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) the deeper knowledge to understand and deal with the slightly less straight forward than a text book circuit.

[mm_flynn]

An interesting range of experiences on orbits. I have been asked to orbit on downwind, at the downwind to base turn and before entering the ATZ - but never on final.

I have had my share of tight approaches where the guy in front isn't going to clear - other than making sure I am at 1.3Vso making gentle S turns and being mentally geared for a go around the whole way down - I watch until it is clear the gap isn't going to happen and then am on the go. I have never thought about doing a 360 in something like landing configuration at say 400 ft and would reject the request in favour of a go around any day. A few minutes wasted but able to stay right in the mental mindset for landing (i.e. assuming you are not).

Possibly influenced by my first solo land away - I was cleared to land after the departing twin - who promptly spit clouds of black smoke and engine bits! My instructors words prior to me going off were "if there is anything you don't like about the landing then - full power, pitch up, clean up and do the pattern again" and that is exactly what I did.

[Lucy Lastic]

D_Squadron

Now I'm really confused. Comes from having a blonde moment, I suppose.

At the airfields I fly at, there are many non-radio aircraft. Orbiting on finals is tantamount to suicide.

Going into a big airfield with ATCOs and if someone had said to me 'Hold Position' whilst on finals it would have been clear that they had misunderstood the situation. That is not an acceptable piece of RT for that stage of flight.

In my view I still think you should have gone around.

[IO540]

I wonder if anybody is going to have a word with the instructor? If I was teaching somebody to fly I would make sure they know that when they are off solo they don't do anything they are unhappy about; to hell with ATC.

As I've said before, I don't like the whole way the PPL is taught. You spend hours banging circuits (which most normal people really dislike, due to the intense pressure), and there is a lot of pressure to go solo but that solo circuit actually does absolutely nothing for your level of competence. If I was teaching somebody I care about to fly I would not let them go solo until they were really at home with everything. Then, going solo is a non-event and there is no need to stay in the circuit - you may as well go somewhere for real.

One reason for circuits is to teach the touch and go. In reality one almost never does that. I've had to do a few go-arounds (all of them due to previous traffic not clearing in time, or somebody entering the runway) but once the wheels are on the ground the safest objective is to STOP. A departure from the landing config is highly unsafe.

[microlight AV8R]

I have awaited this report with interest as the accident happened shortly after I first went solo. My first inclination was to suspect that the aircraft had stalled as it turned base leg onto final. In the end it was a similar problem I suppose. My instructor haunts me every time I fly " watch your speed!" was his most common advice in the landing configuration (Eurostar).
I am particularly disturbed by two aspects:

1. After being cleared to land (#1) the Cessna was asked to turn away when on final. I would never expect an aircraft ahead of me on approach to a runway to have to alter course to accomodate me. (Except if an emergency had been declared). I had it hammered into me that every landing is a go around unless everything is spot on. the observations regarding ATC practice seem reasonable and , hopefully, address this concern particularly with regard to overloading an inexperienced pilot.

2. hours logged in previous 28 days - 4 hours !!! I know that the weather can cause havoc to a training programme, but this seems to exemplify just how most PPL training is subject to cash flow and/or time available for the task. I strongly believe that a more concentrated series of lessons helps you keep on top of the task, that was certainly the case for me.

I went solo after about 20 hrs at the grand age of 46. I wasn't in any particular hurry to get through that loop, every moment in the air with or without my instructor from beginning to end was brilliant.

One last thought... This terrible accident seems to justify the phrase "Aviate, navigate, communicate".

Fly safe everybody.

[BackPacker]

A departure from the landing config is highly unsafe.

With all the instructor I had, touch and gos were always performed like this:
- Bring aircraft in the landing configuration (L/D flaps, carb heat on)
- Land the aircraft
- With idle power, bring aircraft back to centerline, and bring aircraft in the take-off configuration (T/O flaps, carb heat off)
- Once stable on the centerline and in the take-off config
- Full power
- Rotate at Vr

Obviously, if you forget to retract flaps or select carb heat off, you're in for a lot of surprise.

The most difficult manoeuvre is actually the go-around, where you've got to do this in the air without losing altitude.

[Chilli Monster]

After being cleared to land (#1) the Cessna was asked to turn away when on final.

At no point was the Cessna cleared to land.

[LN-ATC]

Why are they? If I've got 1 or 2 commercial inbounds there's nothing wrong with extending the light aircraft downwind, tell him who he's following and remind him of the number of miles recommended spacing. The relative speeds are such that the C152 (forf example) won't go that far downwind.

I agree with BackPacker.

If I have 3 airliners on the ILS, and 3 airliners taxing out, I would definitely not extend downwind leg for a light aircraft to come in behind the last one on the ILS. It is so much easier to keep circuit traffic close to the airport. Right hand orbits (when left hand circuit) abeam threshold is perfect in my opinion. The circuit aircraft would probably be overtaken by the next batch of arrivals if extending it's downwind to 10 NM. Extending downwind works better if all aircraft are doing equal speeds.

We have had a few TCAS problems with light aircraft on extended downwind. Airliner pilots don't seem to like "opposite" traffic at same level on 3 miles final...

[Chilli Monster]

Funnily enough if I had 3 on the approach and 3 taxying out I'd do exactly the same - but that wasn't what I said the traffic situation was in my example ;)

Every scenario is different, you work the traffic accordingly. Do it properly you don't even get TCAS alerts :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Personally I would go around and tell ATC that I was doing so.
I would now. But on second solo?? The student had quite likely had exactly no training or experience of refusing an ATC instruction and wouldn't have had a clue as to how to go about it or even whether it was "allowed".

[Final 3 Greens]

G-EMMA

As a low hours student PPL having just read the report, if someone told me to turn left and fly north during finals I would most likely reply WTF you on about, can not comply, going around.

I'm sure that you would, then again you are 40 and the lad was 16 - a big difference in how you react to authority figures.

Having read the whole report, it is so sad - just a lot of holes in the cheese lining up.

I still think that all ATCOs should do PPL training, so that they can be more aware of the issues that arise.

I have not idea if the ATCs involved here did or didn't, I am just thinking as a general principle.

[172driver]

FINAL 3 if you read the report you will find that both ATCOs held PPLs...

What has not been discussed here so far, is the situation London Center (LTCC) put the Southend ATCOs in by handing them the Meridian with 8 miles (or about 2 minutes) to run. Frankly, this isn't great and put both Southend controllers in a tight spot.:ugh:

It's a sad story and - alas - one where really all the holes in the cheese lined up :(

[Contacttower]

I would have thought that it in the heat of the moment, if you're trying to deconflict traffic one's ability to empathise with the pilot in question and give due consideration to experience goes out the window, no matter how much PPL training as an ATCO you've had.

[IO540]

But on second solo?? The student had quite likely had exactly no training or experience of refusing an ATC instruction and wouldn't have had a clue as to how to go about it or even whether it was "allowed".

That's the point I was hoping to make in the rest of my post, about the stupidity in which PPL training is done.

However, I don't see that it is smart to send somebody on a solo flight with "exactly no training or experience of refusing an ATC instruction". These (flying the plane and to hell with doing stuff you can't do) are pretty basic things.

[172driver]

G-EMMA, herein exactly lies the problem many, many pilots have in real world flying. If dealing with ATC doesn't become second nature - and it only will if you start with it early - then you will probably always have problems with it. Might be one of the reasons also, why so many people give up shortly after having attained their PPL - unless you really enjoy local bimbles (or aeros), you will have to deal with ATC if you want to do any meaningful flying, i.e. touring. Now, being afraid of doing so doesn't really help matters along....

[fireflybob]

Whenever I send early solos I am standing in the tower next to the controller!

I know rules may be different elsewhere but if I cannot be in the tower watching I would not send him/her!

All my sympathies go out to all concerned in the Southend tragedy especially the instructor who authorised.

I have not read the full report yet but students should be fit and trained in every respect for the task on the day. This is a huge responsibility for the instructor but this is, in my opinion, exactly what the job is all about. You can go on as long as you like about external circumstances such as ATC instructions, the weather, traffic conditions etc but before you send early solos the one thing you are looking for is that the student has enough spare capacity to make a decision and extricate himself from a situation which may require a go around or recovery from incipient stall/spin, for example. Rather than being able to fly a good approach and landing every time I am looking to the student being able to recognise an approach which is going wrong and make a decision to go around.

Just scanned the report - whichever way you look at it this was accident was primarily a stall/spin near the ground. I find the report quite disappointing with lots of referral to the ATC rules and little comment on the flying training aspects. S##t sometimes happens but I also was quite shocked to see this student's lack of recency in the last 28 days. For one reason or another the student failed to recognise the signs of an approaching stall, the symptoms of the full stall and failed to recover! I know I may have to take the brickbats for this but sometimes the truth hurts - this points to a lack of training in stall/spin awareness etc and I feel the ATC aspect is just al oad of hot air!

My hallucination is that a lot of flying training now suffers from the "tick in the box mentality". It's become a list of things to do etc. When I reflect on my father who was a veteran instructor/examiner the one thing he taught more than anything else was an "attitude" rather than conforming to a set of "rules".

[Final 3 Greens]

G-EMMA

Thanks for your response - as someone who has a psychology background, I still believe that your view of ATC would be influenced by rather more life experience, even though you may not realise this ;-)

Good luck with the rest of your PPL and I hope that Stebbing is not too saturated after all the rain I see the BBC reporting.

Fireflybob

Interesting point about spare capacity - didn't an Avianca 707 run out of gas at NYC?

How did 3 commercial flight deck get into that position?

I do understand why you feel the need to stand next to the controller, so that you can intervene if necessary. I would have appreciated that when flying solo for the first few times :ok:

I guess that the bottom line is that we all take a risk when we fly and if the holes line up, we pay the piper.

Sad when it happens at 16 though.

[172driver]

G-EMMA your comment underscores what I've said earlier re ATC. The exchanges in the report are perfectly normal in real world flying and the earlier in your training you get exposed to that, the better it is. To me it appears that the backtrack instruction totally threw the poor soul and he never really recovered his composure after that.

You are, of course, absolutely correct in saying 'whatever happens, fly the bl**dy airplane'.

[Final 3 Greens]

For the benefit of any prospective students reading, I disagree with G-EMMA's downside view of learning to fly under ATC and with the very greatest of respect, do not think that a student pilot has enough experience to have a really considered opinion on the relative merits of learning in an ATC environment versus an A/G..

From a PPL with a few hundred hours (relatively inexperienced as these things go), I believe that there are pros and cons in an ATC, AFIS and A/G environment.

Out of the these, I find A/G to be potentially the most challenging at times, with non radio traffic, pilots discretion and a number of other factors that make it (at least for me) potentially volatile and thus requiring higher levels of situational awareness, e.g. aircraft joining by run and breaks.

Under ATC, there is generally more order and the r/t traffic is generally more predictable.

I learned at an ATC field, but my instructor made sure that I got lots of A/G experience and I found this a good balance.

Whichever environment you learn to fly in, you will need to be up to speed with the others and they all have their foibles.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I'm with F3G here.

I trained at an ATC airfield. A nice controlled environment where nothing unexpected was supposed to happen (people turning up in the wrong part of the circuit unexpected, people cutting in front of you on final etc), and when something unexpected did happen ATC sorted it out and told you what to do.

And, at one point (I think it was my "first" solo on retraining after not flying for 13 years) when ATC wanted me to orbit on downwind, they first asked my instructor whether I could cope with this, and if he'd said "no" they would have dealt with their problem in some other way (eg by sending the heavy or whatever it was around).

The downside of training at an ATC airfield is of course that I still get a bit concerned when entering the wild wild west of a busy circuit at an uncontrolled field.

[Lucy Lastic]

G-EMMA

Just continue with your training wherever it is. The most important thing is to keep consistency, and moving between airfield types only adds to confusion.

When you start your cross-country flights you will see major differences in RT between airfields. Just concentrate on being clear and never be afraid to ask for clarification.

I'm not happy about some of the posts where they say that they like to have ATC sort things out for them. In the terms expressed, and for low-hour pilots it does have a lot to commend it.

But it can also lead to difficulties further down the line, as, as pilots, we have to learn to think for ourselves and reject clearances that we consider unsafe.

[a4fly]

G-EMMA.

Don't even think about it !

This report shows that even experienced, professional people (A.T.C. in this case) can find it demanding trying to juggle a multitude of different aircraft types at once. They react in the same way as pilots when their workload starts to rise. Hence the criticisms that you read here regarding their instructions to the Cessna.

I learnt to fly at Thruxton and believe it to be ideal for P.P.L. training. It has only A/G but they are very good at their job. One very rarely sees situations developing that could be dangerous unlike the circus of a busy A.T.C. airfield that has P.P.L. training taking place along side commercial operations. My view is that you have made the right decision about your training base. I'm sure that you are perfectly capable of making an orbit at low level, but let's not tempt the devil for a while, at least.

If you find yourself on final in a situation that you don't like, forget whether you are at an A.T.C. airfield or not. Take control of the situation and TELL THEM you are going around. Concentrate on flying the aeroplane until you have created some spare capacity for yourself and then worry about fitting into the traffic pattern.

[FullyFlapped]

G-Emma,

Just my personal opinion, but FWIW I disagree with F3G's disagreement, precisely because he considers A/G fields to be the most challenging ...

I learned at a busy, regional airport, with full ATC and huge hard runways.

If I had to do it all over again, I would without a second's hesitation learn from the shortest grass field legally available, with an A/G.

You're learning to fly : you've already had a considerable amount of experience in talking ...

I know there are those who have learned to fly at small fields who are terrified of having to enter ATC domains, and I've never understood why. Your training will provide enough of the basic "patter" to allow you to enter and transit ATC zones, and in my experience, most ATC is extremely helpful to those who sound a little "new" to the game (OK, there are exceptions, but not that many).

You, on the other hand, will never have to worry about joining a busy circuit at an uncontrolled field, which scared me positively witless (that's a spelling mistake :eek:) the first time I had to do it.

I reckon you've got it the right way around - good luck with your PPL ! :)

FF :ok:

[Chilli Monster]

One very rarely sees situations developing that could be dangerous unlike the circus of a busy A.T.C. airfield that has P.P.L. training taking place along side commercial operations.

A sweeping statement that has very little basis in truth - would you like to back that up with some facts apart from the accident in question?

G-EMMA

Consistency in school and instructors is a far better reason for school selection than what type of airfield it's situated on. Stick with it, there's plenty of time to go to the bigger places later. Keep enjoying it - that's the main thing :)

[Contacttower]

One very rarely sees situations developing that could be dangerous unlike the circus of a busy A.T.C. airfield that has P.P.L. training taking place along side commercial operations.



I have to say that in my experience A/G airfields are much more challenging; on a busy Sunday afternoon dozens of planes from ultralights to twins wizz round and round all at different speeds, some trying to do glide approaches, some at 600ft, some at 800ft, all trying to land on the same 800m strip of grass, half don't even have radios. Occasionally military aircraft invade the ATZ, there are a mix of crosswind, base and overhead joins, sometimes it does seem like death on every corner. Having been cut up on finals on several occasions by non-radio cubs and the like I rather suspect that A/G airfields are much more dangerous from a traffic spacing point of view.

[IO540]

Much depends on how busy the place is.

I think most people would prefer a quiet field without any "controllers" for both learning and normal operations.

In reality there are few always-quiet fields (in the UK) where ab initio training can be done legally.

Flight training (circuit banging specifically) is a core money making activity for any GA field and this is why they tend to go overboard. The eight (yes 8) fixed wing schools that once existed at Shoreham is a great example. Of course they went bust regularly, often amid rather amusing (not amusing for the students who lost money) circumstances.

I still dread having to fly into say Stapleford on a nice Sunday, because it is such a total free for all, with a lot of crazy flying done by planes with instructors in them. At such times, ATC would be IMHO great. The rest of the time, you probably don't want ATC. OTOH if the field has gone overboard with flying schools then it will be hellishly busy the whole time.

However, if you learn at a quiet field without ATC (say, by having lessons only on weekdays) then you are likely to dread going to fields that have ATC. I see this in so many pilots. In turn, this wipes out a huge chunk of your mission capability because just about any flight abroad will involve going to a field with ATC, and quite often a big one.

[a4fly]

Chilli Monster.



You ask for proof but accept (by using the word "apart") that my point may have had a bearing on this incident. Surely only one accident is enough proof?


To clarify, I should have said "some" busy A.T.C. airfields. I certainly didn't want to imply that all airfields with full A.T.C. are circus-like, they are not. I would prefer not to name specific airfields/airports but some of the worst horrors seem to happen at places where there is a large disparity of aircraft types. These places have good controllers trying to do a difficult job.

It is straying from the point, but is it really necessary to put controllers under the sort of pressure that this chap was under? 737s, turboprops, goodness knows what else don't mix with student pilots with 1 solo under their belt ( my view, of course).

Contacttower.

Valid point but most aircraft at an A/G airfield can fly at similar speeds, spacing becomes much more difficult when jets and props. mix. That's without the consideration of wake seperation.

[Final 3 Greens]

G-EMMA

Maybe as a student I had a better capacity for making the right choice for me than F3G credited me for

I never commented on your particular personal choice, if you read your post #67 , you talk in the 3rd person in a way that reads, at least to me, as if you are generalizing, thus my response.

No doubt intuitively you made a good choice and there are upsides for learning on a short grass field, e.g. you will be good on speed control on final and not intimidated by a shortish grass strip, because you can put the aeroplane down accurately.

However, I really don't think you have the necessary knowledge to say which is the best choice - I know I certainly don't, as I see pros and cons both ways.

I switched half way through my course (due to relocation) and did my first 20 hours on a busy short rough strip, finishing off a a mile of tarmac/ATC airport, where I shared the circuit with everything from a C150 to a BAe 146 or 1-11.

I know that this unusual mixture suited me and improved my airmanship, but I wouldn't put it forward as a general approach to training.

[Contacttower]

It is straying from the point, but is it really necessary to put controllers under the sort of pressure that this chap was under? 737s, turboprops, goodness knows what else don't mix with student pilots with 1 solo under their belt .......


The controller in question wasn't under that much pressure, the plane behind the C150 was a Piper Malibu, not 747. To get PPL training and airliners together just requires some thought on the part of the clubs and airport operations department, its not impossible and it is safe if done properly. Some airports (like EGHI :E) seem to feel the need to kick out flying training, but others like Exter, Bournemouth which both handle a lot more traffic than Southend seem to manage.

[robin]

>>>>Some airports (like EGHI ) seem to feel the need to kick out flying training, but others like Exter, Bournemouth which both handle a lot more traffic than Southend seem to manage.<<<<<

I'm not sure that Exeter really manage. They send a lot of stuff elsewhere these days, and it's only going to get worse as the commercial movements grow

[Contacttower]

and it's only going to get worse as the commercial movements grow


It's a shame, I remember thinking last year how reasonable the landing fees were...

[old-timer]

Happened to m once many years ago on a fly in to Lakenheath one sat' morning, it was ok as not at short final & actually quite fun but I wouldn't recommend it & wouldn't be happy to do the same nowadays being older & hopefully a tad wiser,

[robin]

>>>>It's a shame, I remember thinking last year how reasonable the landing fees were...<<<<<

You are joking! Try landing after 19.00hrs local on a nice summers day!!!
They are also one of the few airports who haven't signed up to the Strasser campaign (ie waiving landing fees in the event of a genuine weather diversion)

[vulcanpilot]

Coming in late on this thread but, yes, I have had an orbit request on final at Jersey. Due to a hang-up with a departing commercial. Other aircraft in circuit who were also orbiting and go-around not really feasible as I would then have been in conflict with either said commercial or one of the other GA's in the circuit.

No real issue - bit bumpy off 27 at 500' odd - rate 1 turn & no big deal, just pretty unusual. But orbits at Jersey (Corbiere, Noirmont or even mid-downwind) are not at all unusual - even when doing your NR training - you just concentrate & sweat more :}

Doing it on 2nd solo - hmmm, probably not a good move if you aren't used to performing tidy orbits, especially below circuit height.

[Fuji Abound]

I have read the report and most of the comments on this thread.

I am unable to express the sadness I feel that the young man should have lost his life in this accident.

I was interested to read that the investigators tested a similiar aircraft.

"As is stalled the example aircraft rolled quickly to the left adopting a bank angle of 60 degress within one second, simultaneously the nose dropped approx. 45 degrees below the horizon and a high rate of descent developed .. .. .." They go on to discuss the recovery.

Some training aircraft are benign in the stall. They mush down and must be really forced into dropping a wing.

This aircraft did not fall into that category.

The events before may have contributed to the reasons why the pilot stalled the aircraft, but the accident did not become unavoidable until the pilot found he did not have the skills to recover.

Given the characteristics of this aircraft, I wonder whether in the training enviroment more time needs to be spent on stalls and recovery in this type than in other types. Recovering from a pronounced wing drop at this point in your training has to be completely automatic. It is surprising when you do aeros with pilots who havent flown them before how poor their recovery skills from a wing drop and incipient spin are, and yet they will do just fine in anything benign that nods a nose down and dips a wing gently - and they may have several hundred hours or more.

I appreciate the aircraft would seem to have been at only around 300 feet when it stalled so recovery would always have been a challenge. However another pilot on another day might find himself with more height on his side and yet still not have the skills to recover.

[Contacttower]

You are joking! Try landing after 19.00hrs local on a nice summers day!!!


I can't actually remember how much it was for the Warrior last time but all I do recall thinking how much cheaper it was than Bournemouth. Southampton's just silly although obviously like most light GA I tend to stick to what I would deem proper airfields (like Kemble for example)and the like.


Some training aircraft are benign in the stall. They mush down and must be really forced into dropping a wing. This aircraft did not fall into that category.



I was a bit suprised to hear the C150 behaved like this, certainly the C152 has always had pretty good stall behaviour, and its a safe aircraft to teach spinning in.

[Single Spey]

I was a bit suprised to hear the C150 behaved like this, certainly the C152 has always had pretty good stall behaviour, and its a safe aircraft to teach spinning in


Is this still true under full power with full flap? Does it still exhibit a benign stall?

[Chilli Monster]

but is it really necessary to put controllers under the sort of pressure that this chap was under? 737s, turboprops, goodness knows what else don't mix with student pilots with 1 solo under their belt ( my view, of course).

That's the job, that's what you get paid for, that's why you get checked every year. In all fairness you're talking rot as cjboy and contacttower have already implied. There was nothing in that scenario which involved "pressure" as far as traffic loading. Apart from the late transfer to APR from London there was nothing there out of the ordinary.

The student wouldn't have been sent solo unless he'd proved he could integrate with other traffic. It's no different to where I work, where we have an even greater mix of traffic - the instructors know that and we trust their judgement. It's up to us, as ATCO's to keep things standard for pilots no matter what their experience levels - it didn't happen here. THAT was the problem - nothing else.

[greeners]

Roll to 85 degrees, pull to the buffet at 8g - sorry, are you not flying an Extra? ;)

[greeners]

G-EMMA

Wow! Good for you! I'm the same, I fly because I love it and, in my case, getting a huge kick from (hopefully!) helping people get to be better pilots! :ok:

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

I was instructed to orbit on final for runway 14.....

1 ahead, a bit lower (and slower) than me, but rather than go around and do a full circuit, ATC asked me to do a orbit

so I left the gear down in the Aztec, I only had about 20 degrees of flap selected, so I increased power, accelerated to 120 mph, and did the orbit. If I had not felt it was safe to do, then I would have gone around.

there is a difference between orbiting in such situations at a controlled field and doing orbits on final where there is only an A/G.

If people do not feel it is safe to do as instructed, they should say say so. Sadness here is that the young student might not have had the confidence to tell the ATCO that he was going to disregard the instructions.

[bookworm]

Saturday at LFAC...

I was instructed to orbit on final for runway 14.

Now that really would have confused a student! ;) Or me, for that matter.

Agree with what you say, of course.

[turniphead]

Lowest 'go-around' !!
We have seen some interesting comments on orbits and go around instructions on Final.
Usually between 300 and 500ft and most have read the Southend tragedy.
Saturday at an anon military airfield I got a go-around instruction from ATC.
Very late with runway clear ahead and no reason given by the controller(such as fast a/c behind' There was nothing behind.
Only unusual thing about this is that I was past the threshold wilth full 40 flap and about to flare. Power, Pitch, Flap retract ,and Roll and all below 100ft. to avoid an imaginary fast jet on very short final
Don't these controllers ever read the accidents reports?

[fireflybob]

I have been reflecting on this accident as one does sometimes.

The report does not, I think, comment on the adequacy of the stall warning system in the aircraft. Psychologists have established that the first sense which tends to go when humans (pilots) become overloaded is the sense of hearing. Part of CRM training with the airlines these days highlights this fact since a pilot may become so engrossed in the task that he fails to hear the other pilot making a comment on the operation. (In which case, digressing slightly, said monitoring pilot may have to touch flying pilot to break his pattern and draw attention to what is going on).

Aircraft which have insufficient aerodynamic warning of stall must be fitted with (serviceable) artificial stall warning systems. All the C150/152 type aircraft I have flown are fitted with a "reed" system which will sound as the stalling angle of attack is approached. The efficacy of this system sometimes varies between individual aircraft. Maybe it's time to review the stall warning systems fitted to light aircraft and/or install some other warning system such as a warning light or a louder klaxon of some description.

So in summary my simple questions are:- a) Did the stall warning system operate but (more significantly) b) was the pilot aware that the system was giving a warning?

PS - Mods maybe some consideration to merging this thread about the same accident which is on ATC Issues?

[172driver]

turniphead, were you cleared to land ?

[turniphead]

yes indeed I was categorically cleared to land and furthermore I repated corectly back my 'cleared to land'.
Sorry forgot to include that important bit in my post.

[172driver]

.... in which case I would have simply landed the a/c possibly confirming 'cleared to land, rwy XX, G-XYZ'. Once cleared, the rwy is yours, period.

[Final 3 Greens]

Once cleared, the rwy is yours, period.

Are you sure about that?

[turniphead]

I would agree 3G
I think any clearance is able to be cancelled, rescinded or whatever if there is a good valid safety reasons for so doing. (and hopefully a reason given to the pilot for the enforced change of plan)

[172driver]

Some of the ATCOs here care to comment ? AFAIK, other than in an emergency or if given as conditional ('cleared to land after the XYZ has vacated' - I get these quite often), once cleared to land, that's it.

From a practical POV there's also a big difference between canceling / amending a, say, transit through CAS clearance and doing same on short final where the a/c is configured for landing (and, of course, a go-around).

Btw, I have had these 'orbits' a number of times, but never, ever, at such a late stage.

[mm_flynn]

In a general sense ATC can change your clearance anytime they need to. Think of a couple of situations (all of these have happened to me or people I know)

1 - You are "Clear to land number 4 behind the crossing G4" - and the timing doesn't work so the G4 is going to be whistling through your runway as you land.

2 - You are "Clear to Land, number one" 30 miles out and in the 10 minutes it takes to get there deer set up camp on the runway

3 - You are on short final and clear to land, the airport has an earthquake

4 - You are "Clear to land behind the departing..." who then aborts the takeoff.

last one - only read about this one - several different times:ugh:

5 - You are clear to land and someone gets lost and drives onto the runway.

I would expect ATC in everyone of these conditions to tell me to go around (and hopefully to give me a clue as to why)

[172driver]

agreed - only that IMHO your nos 2 through 5 are 'conditional' or - in a loose sense - emergency situations, which I excluded.

[172driver]

Final 3, we are talking about two different things here: orbit and go-around. Until corrected by an ATCO I stand by what I said (however including the conditional/emergency situation which I didn't include in my first post but should have done). In turnipheads description of events neither was present.....

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<'cleared to land after the XYZ has vacated'>>
I know of no such phrase and would be amazed if any ATCO uttered it..

[Final 3 Greens]

5 - You are clear to land and someone gets lost and drives onto the runway.

Had this one! A German turboprop landed at Southend on 24, when I was approaching for 06 - night, zero wind unlimited viz.

However, he turned off the runway to the right and got lost in the hangar area, instead of left onto the apron.

It was quite funny, as the controller couldn't see what had happened and I reported his position to the controller who was a bit surprised.

To cut a long story short, the pilot eventually found his way out of the hangar area and went trundling back to wards the apron, getting veeeery close to the runway.

Verbal comms were not the best by this stage and the controller (quite sensibly) sent me on my way from about 100 feet whilst he sorted out the other aircraft

So did a nice tight circuit and landed a few minutes later. Good call by the controller.

[UncleNobby]

As a student pilot this is a relevant and useful thread with a lot of issues raised. Unfortunately these points are raised as a result of a tragedy and my sympathies go out to the student pilots family and friends.

- I fly out of a busy Class D airport in the States (not a flying farm in Florida). First solo was on Saturday. Prior to my solo departure I informed the tower that I am on a student solo. I noticed the controller communications with me for the length of my solo was slower and clearer than usual.
They also cannot ask a student solo to perform certain maneuvres in the pattern (hence the reason you tell them). S-turns for spacing is one and I'm sure an orbit (or 360) would be out of the question. If I felt uncomfortable with any instructions I would have no hesitiation in informing them of my inability to perform and remind them I was on a student solo if necessary. Once in the air you are the PIC, not ATC. If you are unable then do not comply, fly the AC and communicate with them.
- Regarding learning to fly in a busy controlled airport. It's not a problem, you pick it up pretty quickley and also have someone else looking out for you when you are in their airspace (obviously you are not relying on them for collision avoidance but another set of eyes is always welcome!). Towered airports also have better services such as weather alerts, runway advisories etc. We depart the class D for practice maneuvres about 15 miles away so that's not an issue.
Plenty of non towered strips in the vacinity to practice that kind of flying too. Actually found it a little more difficult having to announce your position and intentions on a common frequency and not have ATC instuct you what to do! But you get used to it!! Both are good expericences...only drawback with a class D is holding short for departure for 10 minutes (doesn't happen very often!), but rubing shoulders with Learjets, 737's and A10's make up for that!!
- as far as clearance to land with an AC still on the runway, wouldn't expect to hear that ever. ATC will inform us be prepared for a go around in advance if there is a any kind of potential conflict on the RWY, instruct us to go around if necessary, or clear to land if the conflict is resolved. Of course, a pilot can always go around whenever he/she deems it necessary.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Lowest 'go-around' !!
It's a potential go-around until you've landed. I've certainly chosen to go around after a couple of bounces (getting a bit close to the edge of the runway in a crosswind, hem hem). A go-around instruction in the flare shouldn't be a problem.

[Fuji Abound]

I remember some one telling me many years ago when I was worried about cross wind landings,

approach the landing on the basis that you are not going to land, right down to actually landing, so if you change your mind, you are only doing what you expected.

Its an approach that seems to work well .. .. ..

and if ATC instructs you to go around it is not too much of a surprise.

[Riverboat]

ATC have cleared you to land. Then they see something to change that, and cancel the clearance and ask you to go around. No problem so far, and everyone is reasonably content. Then the pilot asks if he can do an orbit instead of a full go-around. ATC agree to this.

The pilot then cocks up a simple activity by not putting enough power on, leaving the flaps down, going slower and slower and, maybe, stalling and crashing into the ground.

We all know this has happened and that is why many instructors have a mantra - never orbit on finals.

But really, it is just basic flying, and a well trained pilot will do what is necessary to ensure that he maintains appropriate airspeed - putting on PLENTY of power - and I don't think we should train pilots to the lowest common denominator. Instructors should (IMHO) train students to deal with this matter, and not just say "you must not do it". That is not training.

[Fuji Abound]

Then the pilot asks if he can do an orbit instead of a full go-around. ATC agree to this.

Whilst there is justification in your comment about the ability of a current pilot to do so, I cant imagine why you would.

In reality most light aircraft circuit traffic will turn final at around 800 feet or less and hopefully will have been flying close circuits. Half way down final they will be fully configured for the landing, and in the case of a retractable the gear will probably be down some what sooner.

Even if ATC gave the instruction at the top of turning final, by the time you had requested an orbit and received their consent I cant imagine any good reason for taking up an orbit form the landing configuration at 500 feet.

[Lon More]

I wonder if he had possibly done some of his training on a 152 and was caught out by the 150; the flap travel was reduced to 30° from the 150's 40° as there had been a number of accidents during go-arounds. At the same time the flap controls were changed.

[mm_flynn]

<<'cleared to land after the XYZ has vacated'>>
I know of no such phrase and would be amazed if any ATCO uttered it..
I assume that is a rephrase of point 4 in my post. Very def happened to me at Philly. I don't see the difference between a clearance to "land after a departing aircraft" vs. being "cleared to land number 4 behind the Lear 35" - both assume that the game happens to plan, I don't think either are used in the UK and both are common in the US.

[Final 3 Greens]

Thoses thinking about applying the principle declared in post #101 may find it informative to look at the following thread...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=284210

Post #8 is particularly informative.

[172driver]

Final 3, replied on the other forum.....

HD, as mm_flynn has pointed out, both are used, not only in the US but also other parts of Europe.

[slim_slag]

Anticipated separation is used in some places. So you will be 'cleared to land, traffic will depart prior to your arrival'. Works well.

[RatherBeFlying]

Those of us not doing low-level air show routines or crop spraying would do well to have a maneuver floor, below which we confine ourselves to a narrow list: i.e. turns to crosswind and final + 300' as minimum altitude to return to the field after a rope break for gliders.

700' AGL is my maneuver floor. If ATC wants me to orbit, I'm first climbing to that level before beginning an orbit.

Every flight school would do well to put this accident report on their bulletin board and discuss before soloing students.

[Basil]

This is just the sort of talk that leads to big airports being unavailable to SEP types. I wouldn't like that, and I suspect most other ppls wouldn't either.
Just happened upon the above.
The levels of experience and ability amongst PPL pilots will vary greatly and, unfortunately for them, commercial operations come first.
Recollect whilst on an RAF ground tour in ATC a UAS student downwind was unable to understand instructions to clear the circuit to the north and hold.
Result - large jet, short of fuel returning from important long range task had to go around. Sqn Ldr captain was not best pleased!
I think it is unpleasant for ALL involved to mix aircraft of widely varying performance. At the above station we dealt with everything from Ansons to Victors to F4s - a bit of a headache at times.
So why did we have a UAS Chipmunk in the circuit? Questions to MoD :*