ATC: Right turn in final.. for faster plane behind?? [Archive]

BackPacker

14th Aug 2007, 07:15

I fly out of a controlled airfield and we mix with 737s on the ILS all the time. It happens regularly that either ATC instructs us to orbit, or that we are called "number 2 to the 737 on 4 miles final" and we ask ATC for an orbit. But all that happens on downwind. Having to break off an approach while on final either suggests very poor planning from ATC, or extreme dallying on the pilots part, causing a ruin of ATCs plans.

In this case I would probably call ATC afterwards, tell them I was a bit shaken by the whole situation, and kindly ask what exactly happened.

SkyHawk-N

14th Aug 2007, 07:47

I can understand give and take, and I can understand being told/requested to do orbits to make space for others. But sternone was on final, at 400ft, which in my book would be short final for a cleared landing. If the ATC and following traffic mess up seperation why should sternone be the one made to suffer, and worse, be thrown into an unfamiliar situation at low level? Knowing the 'faster' traffic was coming in why didn't ATC request him to extend his downwind? Was this faster traffic a complete suprise?

IO540

14th Aug 2007, 08:55

Absolutely right to not push traffic from the final approach just because a faster one is behind them. That is bad ATC.

Downwind is fine, and as bookworm says, some give and take is required.

No instructor should send a pilot solo until the pilot can fly all this stuff. This is one of the stupid things about PPL training: the strong emphasis on "going solo" as early as possible and you don't grow the proper CAA approved hairs on your chest until you have been solo. People sitting in the bar looking all despondent if their first solo has been delayed. So people are sent solo when they can only just about manage to fly a plain simple circuit without crashing down. If you were training somebody you care about to fly, you would never do things this way round, and the latest work in the USA (taking a student through a whole PPL/IR using a scenario based approach) supports this.

Kolibear

14th Aug 2007, 08:58

The best call would have been "OO-sternone - expedite your runway departure"

sternone

14th Aug 2007, 09:01

The best call would have been "OO-sternone - expedite your runway departure"

Yes, or maybe to that other fast plane: go around or do 360 in downwind ?

did you have clearance? I assume you did being at 400ft?

Yes i had!!

Personally I would have thought a go-around would have surficed.

Like skyhawk said, i tought the same, if that plane is that fast, and something happens, i would only notice he had to go around if he would have striked me during that maneuvre... maybe ATC tought the same thing and said, safest is to let him do a 360.. i think that ATC guy messed things up right there... and he new it

In the UK training flights apparently have the lowest priority at ATC fields

Yes, i understand that, but doing a 360 at 400ft isn't funny for a student pilot...

Also if the airfield gets £10 from a spamcan and £100 from a King Air.... not to mention the very substantial fuel sale. Almost every GA airfield can accomodate a KA and they have to make ends meet somehow.

Absolutely YES, but remember who is gonna fly in the future jets that buys the fuel to make their ends, maybe me ???

Any guesses on the landing order? (I'll give you a clue - it doesn't bear out your experiences). Like I explained in the past - it has more to do with efficient traffic handling than anything else.

Ok, but maybe your ATC planned more correctly, i don't mind doing 360's in downwind... no problem at all, makes me practice it, and check out the ground for visual markings...

I can understand give and take

Me to, but the question is how far does it goes ?

anyways i survived!

I'm very curious what my next training this afternoon will give :hmm::hmm::hmm:

wombat13

14th Aug 2007, 09:15

There are a few points that emerge from this thread.

1. You should only comply with ATC instructions if you are able to.

2. Instigating a go around from 400 ft agl in a small light is no big deal.

3. Being asked to turn to the right or what ever instruction it was in this instance must follow killing the decent and at the very least achieving S & L flight BEFORE you commence the turn.

4. For craps sake, don't start that turn before you kill the decent. Dig out the principles of Flight book and remind yourself of what happens to lift when you bank the wing. Mind your speed.

5. ATC issue instructions. Pilots behavior in accepting / carrying out those instructions determines the workload.

6. If you don't feel you can follow ATC instructions (AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT FOR ALL, PARTICULARLY STUDENTS), then don't. In this case, put it on the ground and allow the following aircraft to make the go around. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If you are an experienced, student or low houred pilot who cannot comply, avoid drawn out communication at all times, particularly 400 ft agl. Fly the bleeding aircraft. "Golf - Alpha bravo, unable to comply". Getting more chatter in your headset as a result (unlikely)?? Let us not write on your headstone that you exhibited good quality radio, but were a crap pilot. You are the captain. Behave like one and control the situation.

You will of course have to explain yourself afterwards, but without exception, I have yet to meet another pilot (plenty) or controller (a few) who would have anything other than helpful advice in the "de-brief" that would follow.

The Wombat

SkyHawk-N

14th Aug 2007, 10:02

2. Instigating a go around from 400 ft agl in a small light is no big deal.

It is more of a deal if you have a faster aircraft breathing up your @r$e, so close to you that it is the reason for you going around. As I asked previously what would happen if it had to go-around as well? Hardly an ideal situation.

bookworm

14th Aug 2007, 11:18

i think that ATC guy messed things up right there...

But that's where the give-and-take comes in. Occasionally, ATC does screw up, just as pilots screw up. No big deal: within the constraints of safety, do what you can to make sure that everyone continues to have a nice day.

I'd rather occasionally get told to go-around or manoeuvre on final in such circumstances than have ATC regularly hold me orbiting downwind with a slowish jet 6 miles out.

Kolibear

14th Aug 2007, 11:30

The other interesting scenario is if the slow a/c on final does decide to pull up and go around and the faster a/c coming along behind him has already made that same decision too. :uhoh:

tangovictor

14th Aug 2007, 11:35

interesting thread, while I can see what IO540 is saying ie the faster jet uplifting a considerable amount of fuel, and airfields are after all a business, to make money,
Where I fly, I have heard ATC many times saying no turns below 1000ft
I guess the controller, just got it wrong, its certainly worth popping in for a friendly chat

Jumbo Driver

14th Aug 2007, 12:00

ATC today ordered me (while i was in final, 400ft above the ground) to immediatly make a right turn, because the plane behind me was faster than my good old Cessna 152 trainer...

IS THAT NORMAL ???

No, sternone, emphatically it is NOT normal.

ATC will normally have cleared you to land by 400 feet, unless they have previously warned you to expect a late landing clearance. In the circumstances you describe, it seems the fault must lie with ATC in allowing this situation to develop.

At 400 feet, only in exceptional (i.e. emergency) circumstances should you be given anything other than a clearance to "Land" or "Go-around". This was not an emergency, merely a convenience for ATC to remedy a situation probably of their own making. The response should be simply "Unable to comply" and, if necessary, the following traffic may have to Go-around, which would be inconvenient, but at least it is a standard manouevre

The sad incident at Southend last July (referred to above) is a case in point and the report (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Cessna%20F150L,%20G-BABB%2007-07.pdf) concludes by saying:

During his second solo flight the student was instructed to carry out an unfamiliar and non-standard manoeuvre.

Earlier in the report, it also says:

He had also been trained to comply with those ATC clearances that might be expected after turning onto the base leg and commencing his approach to the runway. These would be: to ‘continue’ and await clearance to land; to ‘land’ having been cleared to do so; and to ‘go-around’. Consequently, it is likely that he was properly prepared for the circuit environment that his instructor might reasonably have anticipated.

The report ends by making the following recommendation:

Safety Recommendation 2007-037
The Civil Aviation Authority should amend MATS Part 1 so that, with the exception of issuing instructions to go‑around, controllers shall not issue instructions that would require an aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional overriding safety considerations apply.

That says it all, really ...

JD
:)

Chilli Monster

14th Aug 2007, 12:19

The other interesting scenario is if the slow a/c on final does decide to pull up and go around and the faster a/c coming along behind him has already made that same decision too

Actually that's a bit of a non-event. 20 degree left/right split solves the problem straight away.

Dave Gittins

14th Aug 2007, 13:06

At the risk of sounding too big for my boots, which is not intended, such a manoever is not unknown to me and wasn't when I was training. I completed my training at a biggish airport and it was a fact of life that if GA was to continue there we had to be subservient to the big boys who paid everybody's wages.

I was often told things like "you are number 2 to a 737 with a 757 on 8 mile final, I may have to break you off if he gets too close."

If that happened it was open the tap, cancel the carb heat, level off, check the speed, lose drag flap, turn 90 cimb back to 1000 feet and generally loiter around a mile or so off the approach (often orbitting the hatters football ground), ready to nip back in when there was space.

I think 400 - 500 feet was about the floor of when it ever happened though.

I suppose in my book it was just classed as good experience.

DGG

RatherBeFlying

14th Aug 2007, 13:06

#1 Aviate Begin goaround and get a/c stabilised in climb.

#3 Communicate Advise ATC "XYZ going around -- unable to turn at this moment -- will advise when ready" or "XYZ going around -- will turn once climb stabilised"

As for a/c behind you, he'll be watching you.

rmac

14th Aug 2007, 13:21

Was once asked to orbit 360 when established on an ILS in IMC at four miles to TD, due to a 737 in a hurry behind me (I was flying C303). This was in SE Asia. Needless to say I politely declined.

It does however grip my sh#t like nothing else to read of a young 16 year old student pilot dying because someone was too disorganised/lazy/rude/impatient/idiotic....(take your pick, mix and match,) to do the right thing.

Maybe I am a bolshie bugg#r but dumb requests are always going to get an "unable to comply" response from me, just on principle, so they don't get used to too much compliance in these situations. :ugh:

sternone

14th Aug 2007, 13:47

Maybe I am a bolshie bugg#r but dumb requests are always going to get an "unable to comply" response from me, just on principle, so they don't get used to too much compliance in these situations.

Maybe they know they can easely pull it off with a student pilot in a C152...

DX Wombat

14th Aug 2007, 16:07

Maybe they know they can easely pull it off with a student pilot in a C152. Maybe all students need to be as fortunate as I have been. I have been taught to go around from a very low (less than 20' above the runway) height. This has served me in good stead, not least when D&D were trying to get me back to Duxford and the last North Weald saw of me was turning out to the right from 300' on final. If the faster aircraft behind has a late emergency then surely we should be prepared,and have the ability to get out of the way for it?
I am not suggesting that the young lad who died should have been able to do it at that stage of his training.

sternone

14th Aug 2007, 16:55

I have been taught to go around from a very low (less than 20' above the runway) height.

I have been taught that also, but eugh, sorry, going around is a big difference than doing a 360 turn at 400ft in final....

mm_flynn

14th Aug 2007, 17:02

You obviously fly from the wrong airfields.

I probably do :-(. My experience as an IFR flight has always been of fantastic ATC service with some clever and graceful sequencing.

Back to the thread -

I struggle a bit with why a low level orbit on final (vs a go around) makes sense. If the one behind is a largish jet, one orbit isn't going to give much wake separation and if it is a fast GA type then orbiting him once on long final seems safer with little impact on capacity than a low level orbit. If problem is the plan went t!ts up then a go around with the C152 orbiting on base for a gap seems safe and expeditious.

Chilli Monster

14th Aug 2007, 19:39

I struggle a bit with why a low level orbit on final (vs a go around) makes sense

It doesn't. I've always felt it to be appalling controlling technique even before the Southend incident and have had some "interesting" discussions with people who have used it in the past.

Crappy way to be proved right though :(

rmac

14th Aug 2007, 21:08

DX Wombat,

If you haven't had any aerobatic training, I suggest that you get an intro, and see what happens when you are a little slow and let your turn get uncoordinated, as you might be when slow to add in power and not concentrating on the P-factor , its a real wake up call for those interested in unplanned low level manoeuvering without a fistful of afterburner under their left hand.......no..no...NO...NO...absolutely not :ugh: and whoever taught you that it was OK should be jailed :*

DX Wombat

14th Aug 2007, 22:51

What makes you think I would be slow to apply full power for the go-around? Or indeed that I haven't been taught to watch my speed and power settings very carefully? It isn't just the Aerobatics Instructors who know how to fly aircraft, there are good FIs out there in the more normal world too. Perhaps you would prefer me to allow the aircraft to slam into the ground when caught by a sudden, strong, crosswind gust? I would prefer to go around and not run the risk of serious injury and damage to the aircraft. Please don't criticise the FI who taught me and whose qualifications and experience make him eminently more qualified to teach me than you are.

kiwi chick

14th Aug 2007, 23:40

As i read this I am quivering with awful reminiscence...

when i was 16, too (a coupla years ago...) a similar thing happened to me.

I was on my SECOND SOLO!! I was at 350-400 ft, and told by the tower to "carry out immediate orbit to the right". Apparantly - and they proceeded to tell me all of this at the time - an aircraft had joined nordo, straight in, on 34... and the current runway was 16.

As i look back now, I don't know how on earth I am still alive. I was freaking out to start with, as I had all this chatter in my ear that i didn't really understand. I didn't increase the power. And when I looked down at my turn indicator near the end of the turn the ball was certainly nowhere near the middle. :eek:

so, whilst it wasn't ATC's fault that the joining aircraft did what he did, it certainly begs the question whether the whole situation could have been handled differently.

Me thinks so.

RatherBeFlying

15th Aug 2007, 00:09

In my early solos, I was once # 2 on final when I happened to spot another a/c on short final on the opposite runway:eek:

In KC's situation the appropriate ATC instruction would have been: "Go around and remain right of the runway -- opposite landing traffic".

A go-around instruction will have the pilot establishing a climb configuration -- i.e. looking after power, carb heat, flaps, pitch and trim. It's a very busy time in a Cessna, especially with >= 30 flap.

Once established in a climb is the time for ATC to give a turn.

Final 3 Greens

15th Aug 2007, 05:05

Easy one this.

ATC have the authority to decide whether you land or not.

400' is about 1.25 nm on a 3 degree glide - not exactly over the numbers.

ATC instruction "OO-XXX make immediate right turn"

PIC response "Tower, OO-XXX going around"

A PIC is responsible for the safety of HIS/HER aircraft, if ATC have got their planning wrong, don't make a drama out of it, but fall back onto a known and safe procedure to take control of your aircraft safety - its a command decision that you are perfectly entitled to make, just as ATC can change a clearance.

ATC can then safely fit you back into the sequence, perhaps by an early turn to downwind.

If you were higher, say 1,000 feet, then an orbit would be perfectly safe - I personally wouldn't wish to play around at 400' - if you got some kind of upset (wake turb or whatever) there isn't much recovery buffer.

At the end of the day, as IO540, Bookworm and others say, commercial airports give priority to the higher paying customers - I for one don't see the problem with that so long as safety is not compromised.

Single Spey

15th Aug 2007, 06:04

commercial airports give priority to the higher paying customers

But they are doing it at the expense of safety. :=

Besides which - don't know of many commercial operators who pay tax on their fuel! ;)

Shunter

15th Aug 2007, 06:42

Interestingly, I heard a tower controller tell an aircraft on short final to go around just yesterday.

"G-xx. Go around, I say again, go around. Early right turn as height and speed permit".

As far as late requests go, I think that's about the best choice of words.

bookworm

15th Aug 2007, 07:32

But they are doing it at the expense of safety.

Every aviation operation is "at the expense of safety". If you want perfect aviation safety, don't fly. Safety management is about balancing safety with operational need and commercial viability.

wombat13

15th Aug 2007, 07:44

Quote:
2. Instigating a go around from 400 ft agl in a small light is no big deal.

It is more of a deal if you have a faster aircraft breathing up your @r$e, so close to you that it is the reason for you going around. As I asked previously what would happen if it had to go-around as well? Hardly an ideal situation.

I am afraid it is not a big deal, irrespective of whether there is an aircraft behind you or not. This kind of alarmist nonsense does not help. In the scenario you describe, the following aircraft and ATC will take care of separation.

You will find as you graduate through your flight training, this is an everyday event.

The Wombat

rmac

15th Aug 2007, 08:14

DX, I wasn't referring to your go-around, which is a perfectly normal situation, it was your contention that it was OK to orbit at low level off of an approach which IMHO is not normal, dangerous and only appropriate to an emergency situation.

On a good day, I like to think I can make my aircraft dance in the skies, but there are plenty of bad ones too, particularly if I have been busy at work and haven't flown for a while.

In SE Asia (again), I once had to break off an ILS approach just after the Final Approach Fix and navigate to the hold due to a heavy thunderstorm passing over the airfield that approach chose not to tell me about, but tower did when I called up. I cleaned up (I thought) added power, engaged autopilot, dialled in pitch for appropriate climb at power setting, turned away from the airfield and storm and started to programme my 430's in bumpy cloud. I felt the aircraft wallow a bit and checked the yaw damper was engaged, which it was, looked back at the primary instruments, and speed had decayed to 20kts below VYSE and 10kts above stall. Quick check, somehow I had forgotten to raise the gear and flap, but had set power and programmed the A/P for pitch rate appropriate for cruise climb.

So despite being reasonably experienced and very current at the time, I wasn't prepared for the non-standard break off from the ILS, (didn't fancy the missed approach route through the middle of the thunderstorm), and distracted about the location of a military C130 that had broken off ahead of me on the ILS, and a tower with no radar asking for position reports from both of us. As a result I came very close to inadvertently stalling out in IMC with A/P engaged, which is a far from healthy situation.

So DX, its not only 16 year old students that make obvious mistakes when things change against expectations, I would imagine a good proportion of the GA community would have their own stories to tell. Even you might not be immune from moments of poor judgement as may be apparent when you refer to D&D trying to get you back to Duxford. So reading between the lines, lost (or do you find using D&D cheaper than buying a GPS), distracted, possibly bad weather and you give away a perfectly good runway in front of you to make a low level manouevre from which their would be no recovery if you screwed it up, instead of landing, having a coffee, re-planning and then continuing if conditions are good.

But to concur with Wombat13, a straightforward go-around is not an unexpected situation. At any time on the approach, even at 50ft over the keys, a good pilot should have it in mind that they should have to do so, and the manouevre is well practiced and safe. Low level turns in that situation in landing configuration are definately not safe.

SkyHawk-N

15th Aug 2007, 08:32

You will find as you graduate through your flight training, this is an everyday event.

Graduated quite a while ago thanks and I have not been involved in such a situation yet (being told to abort a landing after being given clearance and only 50 seconds or so from touching down due to a faster aircraft behind me), and I have flown from large commercial airports. :ok:

This kind of alarmist nonsense does not help.

Alarmist nonsense? :hmm:

In the scenario you describe, the following aircraft and ATC will take care of separation.

Yeah right, ATC and the following aircraft had not displayed a great skill in taking care of seperation up to that point. ;)

Final 3 Greens

15th Aug 2007, 10:55

rmac

At any time on the approach, even at 50ft over the keys, a good pilot should have it in mind that they should have to do so, and the manouevre is well practiced and safe.

Very good advice.

The lowest I've gone around was approx 15', when an aircraft commenced its take off roll on a taxiway across the runway I was about to arrive on - the pilot was also talking to another airfield at the time .... a strange story, but true.

As I had no idea of the PICs intentions, I chose to climb away and avoid a nasty incident.

As my former neighbour (A320 capt) used to say, you have completed the landing when the engines are off and the parking brake is on.

DX Wombat

15th Aug 2007, 11:24

rmac it was your contention that it was OK to orbit at low level off of an approach which IMHO is not normal, dangerous and only appropriate to an emergency situation.
:confused::confused::confused: I said no such thing! Nor did I imply it. Read my post again VERY carefully this time please. :*:*:* As for your unwarranted comments about what happened to me at Duxford - or to be more precise on the way there, I have said repeatedly that I am NOT going to publish the details. All I will say is that it was problems with the aircraft which started the whole sequence of events which included a nasty radio failure. I think the fact that my actions were described as "Exemplary" should tell you something.
Kindly apologise for your nasty remarks alleging that I am too much of a skinflint to purchase a GPS for my aircraft. It wasn't my aircraft and it wasn't equipped with GPS, although in light of what actually happened even if it had been fitted it is quite possible that it too would have been seriously affected.

rmac

15th Aug 2007, 13:25

DX I have gone back and re-read your post, and what threw me was the context. I would suppose that every student should have an instructor that teaches them a stable go around, and indeed the unfortunate young student who died would probably been reasonably happy with a GA. But as the subject matter is unexpected low level orbits off an approach in dirty configuration, your comment would appear out of context.

So I assume that we both agree that the request by ATC for an orbit in such circumstances is a no no ?

For the record I publicly apologise wholeheartedly for accusing you of being too cheap to install a GPS ;)

DX Wombat

15th Aug 2007, 14:44

We certainly do agree about that.:ok:
I do think that everyone is laying the blame solely at the feet of ATC and from what I can see it was the result of a lot of different factors not the least of which seems to have been the poor lad's inability to remember (if indeed he really knew how) to go-around. We can't ask him so have to rely on what we are told. Stress does strange things to people and it would have been very easy for him to forget all he had been taught. No matter how mature they may appear to be, young people of his age don't always have sufficient maturity to be able to cope with situations outside their normal experience. Whatever the reason, the fact that he is no longer here is a tragedy.
Thank you very much for the apology which is much appreciated. :)
Whilst I am here, I must say that D&D did a brilliant job for me under difficult circumstances and I will always be grateful to them and the Emirates Airbus pilot who was eventually able to re-establish contact with me.

bookworm

15th Aug 2007, 17:08

...I felt the aircraft wallow a bit and checked the yaw damper was engaged, which it was, looked back at the primary instruments, and speed had decayed to 20kts below VYSE and 10kts above stall. Quick check, somehow I had forgotten to raise the gear and flap, but had set power and programmed the A/P for pitch rate appropriate for cruise climb.

Reminds me of something that happened to me in an instrument practice session. ILS only on one end of the runway, so flying an ILS 23 with 05 in use for the visual circuit. The usual procedure was to descend to ILS decision altitude, then go around making a climbing left turn to establish on a right hand downwind for a visual circuit on 05. I'd done it dozens of times before, so it was no big deal and I didn't even think about it.

What I forgot was that before I'd always done this on two engines and this approach was simulated asymmetric. My safety pilot yelled at me as he saw the ASI winding down towards the red line in a 30 degree bank with a very uncomfortable nose attitude and a virtually zero rate of climb. :O We sorted it out, but it gave me a healthy respect for non-standard manoeuvres at low level.

Single Spey

15th Aug 2007, 17:53

DX Wombat:

not the least of which seems to have been the poor lad's inability to remember (if indeed he really knew how) to go-around.

Not quite correct (if you are referring to the Southend accident) as the final instruction to him was not to go around.

The student pilot reported on final and the Aerodrome controller replied "GOLF BRAVO BRAVO ROGER AND ER MAINTAIN RUNWAY CENTRELINE BUT GO AROUND ER CIRCUIT HEIGHT ONE THOUSAND FEET THERE ’S FAST TRAFFIC BEHIND TO LAND". The student replied "BRAVO BRAVO MAINTAIN CENTRELINE".

The Aerodrome Controller then replied "ER GOLF BRAVO BRAVO DISREGARD THAT JUST TAKE A LEFT TURN AND FLY NORTH I ’LL CALL YOU BACK IN VERY SHORTLY".

Shortly afterwards the ADC transmitted "GOLF BRAVO BRAVO JUST TO CONFIRM TURN NORTHBOUND NOW ". Shortly afterwards,
having still received no reply, the controller called "GOLF BRAVO BRAVO TURN NORTH CONFIRM ". The student replied "BRAVO BRAVO TURN NORTH".

In no way can this be considered a go-around. Agree fully that the consequences were tragic.

DX Wombat

15th Aug 2007, 19:54

Sorry Spey, my misinterpretation. :(

Knight Paladin

15th Aug 2007, 21:17

Skyhawk - Yes, it is alarmist nonsense. If the aeroplane behind you has to go around, he is hardly likely to choose to fly into the aeroplane in front of him!

DX - You didn't half get your knickers in a twist for a moment back there, did you mate? Demanding apologies, without actually explaining what happened... Calm down!

DX Wombat

15th Aug 2007, 22:28

DX - You didn't half get your knickers in a twist for a moment back there, did you mate? No, I was really offended by the remarks and their implications. Demanding apologies, without actually explaining what happened... I asked for the apology for the offensive remark about using D&D instead of purchasing a GPS. That is self explanatory.
Calm down!:confused::confused:

Leezyjet

16th Aug 2007, 00:47

After reading that accident report, one of the things that surprised me was that in ultra safe JAA land, it is not mandatory for a student on a solo flight to use the callsign "student g-xx" to alert the controller that there is an inexperienced student pilot flying solo.

Even in deepest darkest Africa where I did my PPL, this was standard phraseology on first contact with an ATC unit !!!. :eek:

I was also taught to treat every landing as a potential go-around in which you decide to land rather than go-around, that way you are always prepared to shove that throttle open if needs be.

:hmm:

Knight Paladin

16th Aug 2007, 06:17

" I asked for the apology for the offensive remark about using D&D instead of purchasing a GPS. That is self explanatory."

It's called a joke mate, AKA banter..... I'm fairly sure that wasn't a serious accusation!

SkyHawk-N

16th Aug 2007, 06:37

Skyhawk - Yes, it is alarmist nonsense. If the aeroplane behind you has to go around, he is hardly likely to choose to fly into the aeroplane in front of him!

Knight Paladin, thanks for putting me right about that, I thought he would DELIBERATELY fly into him, oh well you live and learn!

So let me get this right. You are saying that a Cessna 152 climbing out on a go-around at 60 knots along a long commercial runway (5,000ft) with a Boeing 737 (for the sake of argument) behind it with less than standard seperation travelling at 200 knots is an ideal situation? Is this why the ATC asked stenone to carry out an unconventional manoeuvre instead of a standard go-around?

wombat13

16th Aug 2007, 08:37

SkyHawk-N, you really are not going to look at this from the point of view shared by the rest of the industry. Maybe all we need to know about you is in the title you give yourself.

Perhaps you should switch to the safer sport of golf and run the risk of getting bashed on the head with a golf ball and dying. But then again, I don't know anyone that has happened to. But it could, really, yes. It could. I mean, all you need to do is visualise it.

I can't imagine how you can enjoy your flying if you are worrying about ATPL flight crews, with many thousands of hours experience and ATC teams with WORLD CLASS training, track record & experience both conspiring to "come after" poor little SkyHawk-N.

Get help. Or at the very least, if you are struggling for confidence in your post skills test phase, when the FI is no longer in the rhs, find a more experienced pilot to fly with you, who can help you to enjoy your flying.

GA does not need people with the brown wallet (which you tell me you have) writing on a public forum about such silly issues.

The Wombat

SkyHawk-N

16th Aug 2007, 08:52

You didn't answer my question Wombat, is it an ideal situation? yes or no?

As for the rest of your rant, whatever! :ok:

rmac

16th Aug 2007, 09:13

Back to Asia again, great place to pick up experience quickly, just out of Jakarta on the SID when radar tells me " N-#####, traffic, your six o'clock' climbing through your level, its an Airbus" :confused::confused:

Only option, sit tight and hope he's got his TCAS on, as it was I saw him steam past me on the right about a mile offset.

Skyhawk a faster, more powerful aircraft behind you on final, will also be above you on the GS, and will probably be motivated to enter a climb in order to avoid spearing you (pilot is always the first at the scene of the accident) and will convert speed in to a climb rate that you can only dream of. So don't worry :ok:

More worrying is some xponder-less tw3t who cuts right across your GS when you are on a longish final, mistakenly thinking that he is transiting outside the zone. Now that has happened to me a few times, once close enough to encourage a change of underwear after landing :*

mm_flynn

16th Aug 2007, 09:27

So let me get this right. You are saying that a Cessna 152 climbing out on a go-around at 60 knots along a long commercial runway (5,000ft) with a Boeing 737 (for the sake of argument) behind it with less than standard seperation travelling at 200 knots is an ideal situation?
Clearly not - Aircraft going around isn't ideal and aircraft with less than standard separation isn't ideal. But there is a world of difference from a safety (and I would imagine controller/pilot pucker factor) between :

A -A 152 is going to be plodding in front of the approaching guy for the next 2 1/2 minutes (including runway occupancy) - The approaching traffic is maybe 5 miles away but will land with the 152 still on the runway if something isn't done - so send the 152 around - no big deal.

and

B - "Oh S!*t, where did that 152 come from" - 1/2 mile separation (say), non standard manoeuvres all-round and new underwear :eek:.

What started this thread sounded like case A - fairly standard situation, part of the give and take of aviation life - but low level orbit is still not a good way to resolve this (IMHO).

SkyHawk-N

16th Aug 2007, 09:28

Skyhawk a faster, more powerful aircraft behind you on final, will also be above you on the GS, and will probably be motivated to enter a climb in order to avoid spearing you (pilot is always the first at the scene of the accident) and will convert speed in to a climb rate that you can only dream of. So don't worry

Thanks for the ADULT response rmac ;).

I'm not worrying about it, I know what I would have done in the circumstances. I'm trying to understand the request to turn right on short final. If a go-around is the obvious/standard/safest option why would ATC request a non-standard/more risky(?) alternative?

SkyHawk-N

16th Aug 2007, 09:44

mm_flynn said:

What started this thread sounded like case A - fairly standard situation, part of the give and take of aviation life - but low level orbit is still not a good way to resolve this (IMHO).

That's probably where I read the situation differently. The instruction to do the non-standard low level orbit seemed to me a bit of an act of urgency, especially as it was issued to a student so far around the circuit.

mm_flynn

16th Aug 2007, 10:11

mm_flynn said:
That's probably where I read the situation differently. The instruction to do the non-standard low level orbit seemed to me a bit of an act of urgency, especially as it was issued to a student so far around the circuit.
While I have no idea the circumstances in the case in question, the low level orbit does appear to be part of the 'normal kit bag' for some controllers. We don't know what the following aircraft, but I would bet it was small (in the sense of not needing vortex separation) and the controller in this case (and probably Southend) thought he was doing the 152 a favour with a quick 2 minute circle and then a landing rather than probably 5-6 minutes of going around and slogging around the circuit again.

Sternone doesn't comment on what was behind him, but in Southend it was a Turbo Prop single with an approach speed similar to a Bonanza and the controller request was around sequencing, not digging out from a near miss.

snapper41

16th Aug 2007, 10:31

Been reading this thread with interest; surely the best thing is for ATC to allow the ac already on finals to go ahead and land, and tell the faster one to go around? Or am I being simplistic?

Jumbo Driver

16th Aug 2007, 10:36

Been reading this thread with interest; surely the best thing is for ATC to allow the ac already on finals to go ahead and land, and tell the faster one to go around? Or am I being simplistic?

I agree snapper41, that would be the normal thing to do - and the safest - and most in compliance with MATS Pt 1 ...

JD
:)

rmac

16th Aug 2007, 10:43

Snapper, you are not being simplistic at all. However there are only two viable scenarios IMHO

1. 152 lands, jet go's around.

or

2. 152 go's around, jet lands.

Now if 152 is on a series of circuits the only thing he/she misses out on here is touching the wheels on tarmac, but saves half a landing fee and gets a free GA practice in to the bargain, which is good for training and experience. I have been in such situations in training where I offered to go around, no big deal.

Of course the jet could help if up to snuff with situational awareness by slowing down to slowest approach speed and maybe throwing in an S-turn VMC (which I suppose it was) to fit in with slower traffic. Also good for training and experience. The comfortable approach speed in my aircraft is 120KT, but I often find myself bringing her back to blue line 100KT at a busy GA airfield to fit with the slower traffic. Its called good airmanship, which may be becoming a thing of the past :ugh:

Many countries, particularly US, have uncontrolled airfields which serve a variety of different aircraft up to large business jets. The pilots have to learn to co-operate, with no ATC to adjudicate.

But getting back to the thread, requests for a low level orbit in all but emergency situations have no place in a controllers toolbox IMHO.

eastern wiseguy

16th Aug 2007, 16:28

NO NO NO You should never ask an aircraft(with perhaps a less than experienced pilot in command) to orbit at those levels and in his landing configuration. Go around,re-position,or send the second guy around. Use common sense BUT bear in mind that what seems like a "sensible" option for you (ATCO) may lead the light aircraft into a place where he feels he HAS to comply and ends up in a dangerous and unrecoverable situation.

sternone

16th Aug 2007, 16:49

Sternone doesn't comment on what was behind him

Sorry, but i have no idea, i was to buzy wondering why he gave me landing clearance, and that he didn't see i was at bloody 400ft, with 30degree flaps on, at 60kts with carb heat on!!! Ofcorse i applied full power, carb heat out then raised to 20degree flaps, after that i got positive climb raised the flaps more and just joined the downwind circuit and reported end of downwin, he let me land and i asked myself if this was bloody normal!! i guess i'm to unexpierenced to say to atc: CANNOT COMPLY or ask him what the hell was going on!!

S76Heavy

16th Aug 2007, 17:13

As a commercial IFR driver I wonder whether Sternone's circuit was wider and therefore took longer than TWR anticipated?

Also, did you go up to TWR to ask for their point of view? I often call up the controllers at my home base just to clarify things (very busy with lots of a/c with very differing capabilities and performance) as I realise neither of us may have the full picture (nor the time to discuss on RT) to appreciate what really happened and learn from the experience. They certainly like to hear the pilot's view as much as I like to know how they arrived at their chosen options.

I seem to remember that EBAW is quite limited in the sense of built up areas all around the rwy and lots of noise sensitive areas, which may limit the room for manoeuvre as well.

Crash one

16th Aug 2007, 23:14

I may be a bit late to poke my nose into this discussion, but in my opinion ATC operators are as well trained at their job as pilots are in theirs. Therefore, also in my opinion, this sort of un-professional behaviour on the part of ATC amounts to the equivalent of pilot error & I believe should be treated as such. ATC are there to assist the pilot to maintain safety, not the other way round. There seems to be an attititude here that ATC are God & cannot be held to account unless someone dies as a result. If the pilot of the "faster" a/c had declared an emergency, fine, if not then he should do the maneuvering as he sees fit. In my opinion. And I think it is bad news that ATC controllers are doing things like this which they would not have done a few years ago, ie: being less than professional.
I would point out by the way that this is only my opinion.
I shall now take cover.

BackPacker

17th Aug 2007, 10:42

i guess i'm to unexpierenced to say to atc: CANNOT COMPLY or ask him what the hell was going on!!

Well, sound to me like you were experienced enough to comply. Although apparently it took you way out of your comfort zone. Nevertheless well done.

As for asking him what was going on, not a good idea in those circumstances. As I said, call up the tower later, tell him you were a bit shaken up and whether you could come 'round to discuss it. (FWIW, it's a good excuse as any to visit the tower anyway.)

RatherBeFlying

17th Aug 2007, 14:39

Sternone, you did it exactly right.

Priority ONE is Aviate and that you did by complying with ATC as best you could while remaining within safe flight parameters and your training.

Communicate is priority THREE; if you're too busy with the airplane, then don't bother talking. It's called shedding non-essential workload in favor of staying alive.

I don't turn below 700' in a powered a/c except 500' for turning final and crosswind in a circuit.

Lets leave the low level maneuvers for the military and air show folks.

MSP Aviation

19th Aug 2007, 02:10

It may not always be the field's ATCO who is at fault. At my airport yesterday (which is Class C airspace), a 737 who was pretty fast was asked to slow down on about 6-8nm finals. The approach controller had the 737 vectored in behind a Hawker and informed the Boeing's crew of the other aircraft's horizontal separation. Naturally, the 737 capt. assumed a faster speed would be adequate. However, approach control had failed to consider the Bonanza in the pattern which the tower was sequencing in behind the Hawker. While the Boeing was able to slow down in time, it could have been a similar situation to those described here. Just pointing out that sometimes the tower's "errors" may have started way up the line.

As an aside, on my first solo (16th birthday) I was asked to turn onto an extended downwind from final to accommodate a 737 on final behind me. I was high and on a long final as the tower had already had me extend the downwind for other traffic, so it was not a problem.

This raises the question of how student pilot's competency should be assessed. I think a pilot's ability to fly a standard pattern counts for nearly nothing. Most accidents don't develop from standard situations. They are caused by something unfavorable but usually surmountable (fog not burning off as early as forecast) being made worse by a pilot's lack of judgment. If I were an instructor, I would NEVER send a student up for a solo until I had seen him cope with a completely new and unheard of situation in a competent manner. If pilots only had to do the exact same thing they did on the last flight, over and over, we would have gotten rid of human pilots years ago.

Anyway, just my opinions on the subject. And, to clarify, I am NOT referring to the tragic incident of the 16 year old on his 2nd solo in my above paragraph. Just stating my opinions on the matter in GENERAL...

kiwi chick

21st Aug 2007, 21:18

If I were an instructor, I would NEVER send a student up for a solo until I had seen him cope with a completely new and unheard of situation in a competent manner.

Thats a good theory, MSP, and I understand the reasoning behind your thoughts, but there are two things I see as hiccups in this idea:

a) the student may never find himself in one of these situations, and at what point do you say "oh, well, lets send him solo now anyway" ?

a) you will eventually run out of completely new and unheard of situations, unless someone invents one... and then it's not new and unheard of. :cool:

do you know what i mean? There has to come a point where the student is "let loose", otherwise we'd never have any new pilots going solo.

Having said all that, I am an advocate for having a few more hours under the belt before blasting off alone. Experience counts for a hell of a lot more than luck... :ok:

Fuji Abound

21st Aug 2007, 21:33

kc

I think you may have misread the comment.

I think the suggestion is that the student should be given one new situation before going solo (presumably even if this is contrived) to ensure that he copes (with it).

kiwi chick

21st Aug 2007, 23:16

I don't think i misunderstood it...

but if it is what you say, why not incorporate this as a lesson?

A whole, dedicated lesson focusing on "possible, unforseen and maybe catastropic things that could happen to you while post-solo"?

:confused: :confused:

sternone

26th Aug 2007, 14:55

Having said all that, I am an advocate for having a few more hours under the belt before blasting off alone.

How much more ?

kiwi chick

26th Aug 2007, 23:45

Well, i don't know to be completely honest - I'm not experienced enough in instructing to crack that number...

but i do have my thoughts about people who brag about going solo at 7 hours to those that might take 12 or 13 - they may have taken longer but they have more experience! And I strongly believe that in that status, as a brand new, low-hour, ab-initio pilot EVERY SINGLE MINUTE helps!

(And I'm strictly talking GA here - I have no qualms about military hours)

I guess there are pro & cons for both, but maybe 15-20 hours as a ballpark? Any thoughts from experienced instructors? (As opposed to experienced students, please! ;))

Crash one

26th Aug 2007, 23:59

Kiwi Chick
Not an instructor sorry but out of about ten or so students at my club going through the course at the same time average was 15- 25 & one or two 30+ seems to depend on the level of Altzheimers & Dementia. Most instructors seem reluctant to put a figure on it in case they upset the slow ones & make the fast ones over confident.

rateone

27th Aug 2007, 13:15

I have had this experience at a large controlled field with a lot of scheduled traffic. A couple of years ago I had a landing clearence cancelled and an instruction to make an immediate right turn when I was about at about 50 ft due to an Airbus on short final behind. I didn't think about an "unable to comply call" I just carried out the action. This resulted in me giving any interested parties in the terminal a close up view of the oil stains on underside of my 172 as I climbed back into the downwind. Not a problem if one has the experience and understands the performance envelope of the a/c but quite a different matter as a low houred pilot or early solo. In any case a low hour pilot or early solo would probably not have the confidence/presence of mind to make an "unable to comply" call. In my case I did get an apology and an expression of thanks from ATC so no harm done. IMHO ATC should not give an instruction to orbit once an a/c is established on final. The instruction should always be a go around with a an immediate turn once positive climb is established. A simple go around doesn't work - what happens if the heavy traffic behind also has to go-around?

Compare this with an experience I had in the States flying into Kahalui on Maui with a 25-30kt headwind. We were cleared number one to land with a 757 number 2 and (not suprisingly) catching us up very quickly. The 757 Captain suggested that he should go around but the controller merely replied that he should expect late landing clearance and asked us to keep the speed up and expedite our runway clearance at the first exit. We did, stopped very quickly (again not suprising) and cleared the active runway. The 757 thumped down what seemed like seconds after. No panic, no grief, no issue but it was quite clear to me that the controller was perpared to give; and the airline crew were prepared to carry out a go around. There was no question of us having our landing clearance cancelled.

Tim Dawson

27th Aug 2007, 13:21

I find the comments about someone not being confident enough to say "unable to comply" quite worrying. I understand them, but students should absolutely be being taught that they are the pilot, they're in control, and whily they're flying nobody can make them do anything which they feel is potentially dangerous. If some ATC asks them to do something which in their mind could be dangerous because they're too inexperienced to perform it safely, "unable to comply" should be the first thing they think of. Better that than to attempt it and risk death. It then becomes the ATC's problem, as it should be!

bookworm

27th Aug 2007, 17:12

I find the comments about someone not being confident enough to say "unable to comply" quite worrying.

I wish decision making in aviation were as easy as that: stuff you can perform flawlessly and stuff you just say "unable to comply" to. Unfortunately (wherever you set your decision points) there's that grey area in the middle.

Gertrude the Wombat

27th Aug 2007, 21:45

"unable to comply" should be the first thing they think of

Yeah, right. OK then ... who has ever got to say "unable to comply" for real during their training, let alone before first solo?

(The nearest I've ever come to it, several years after getting the PPL, is to refuse an overhead join instruction because there weren't 2000' between the runway and the cloud base. By which time of course negotiating what sort of of join both I and ATC were going to be happy with was routine.)

I simply don't believe that it's going to be one of the first three, or even hundred, things that a low hours student is going to think of.

Look, pilots are famous for being obsessive about reading the accident reports, so that they can have some chance of avoiding killing themselves the way others have done. But what do we have here? Just a couple of weeks after the publication of an accident report, taking the original post at face value we have some other ATC unit doing exactly the same thing. Don't ATC read accident reports like wot pilots do then??

Saab Dastard

27th Aug 2007, 22:13

Just a couple of weeks after the publication of an accident report, taking the original post at face value we have some other ATC unit doing exactly the same thing. Don't ATC read accident reports like wot pilots do then??

Not an unreasonable point GTW, - but this thread is about an incident in Belgium, I believe. I doubt that many pilots / ATCOs read accident reports outside of their own country.

SD

Jumbo Driver

27th Aug 2007, 22:43

Just a couple of weeks after the publication of an accident report, taking the original post at face value we have some other ATC unit doing exactly the same thing. Don't ATC read accident reports like wot pilots do then??

I doubt that many pilots / ATCOs read accident reports outside of their own country.

I am led to believe that the relevant recommendation in the AAIB report on the incident at Southend in July 2006, namely:

Safety Recommendation 2007-037
The Civil Aviation Authority should amend MATS Part 1 so that, with the exception of issuing instructions to go‑around, controllers shall not issue instructions that would require an aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional overriding safety considerations apply.
may well be reflected in the next amendment of CAP 493 MATS Part 1, which I understand is due for publication in November 2007. As this is still several months away, it has been suggested that it should also be reflected in an ATSIN in the meanwhile.

So, encouraging news ...

JD
:)

sternone

28th Aug 2007, 18:55

I doubt that many pilots / ATCOs read accident reports outside of their own country.

I would think that it would be normal for them to read about aircraft approach accidents involving ATC no ??

Jumbo Driver

13th Sep 2007, 19:45

As this is still several months away, it has been suggested that it should also be reflected in an ATSIN in the meanwhile.

Good news - the CAA have today implemented the relevant AAIB Safety Recommendations from the AAIB report on the Southend incident.

Here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20090913ATS112.pdf) is the ATSIN (112) which introduces the prefix "Student" and also offers guidance to ATS Units with regard to the handling of student pilots by ATC. There is also AIC 83/2007 (Pink 123) on the use of the "Student" callsign prefix, which can be viewed here (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P123.PDF) (you will need a UKAIS User Name and Password - but registration is free).

CAP 413 (Radiotelephony Manual) and CAP 493 (MATS Part 1) will both be amended appropriately, in due course.

JD
:)

Jumbo Driver

14th Sep 2007, 11:15

Further to my previous post ... and with particular relevance to this thread ... the most significant (and welcome) change is tucked away in para 6 of ATSIN 112, which reads:

6 Instructions to pilots on final approach

6.1 For all pilots, the final approach represents an increased period of flight deck workload. Unusual situations and emergencies during this period can be particularly demanding for the pilot.

6.2 Therefore, with the exception of instructions to go-around, instructions shall not be issued to aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land that would require it to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional and overriding safety considerations apply.

So, such a tragic incident as happened at Southend last year - or one similar to that from sternone which prompted this thread - should now be very much less likely to occur.

JD
:)