Remember to say 'unable'

[tmmorris]

Got myself in a pickle yesterday... I thought the tale might be instructive.

Sat waiting for the front to clear yesterday afternoon. Around 3.00pm it looked OK - a bit of a crosswind, some patchy cloud around 1200ft, but the main cloudbase 2500ft. I only wanted to go out to the west for a bit of a VFR bimble then return for some circuits, as I hadn't flown for a couple of weeks.

As we taxied out I noticed the Calibrator (a Beech Duchess used for ILS calibration) starting up.

Took off, went West, bimbled about a bit, joined. Was told 'join overhead not below 2000ft, Calibrator in instrument pattern'. Cloud layer at 2000ft - climbed to 2400ft to be above it. Clouds below now becoming a bit of a pain - legal VFR but not easy to navigate.

ATC called 'G-ABCD Are you visual with the aerodrome?'. I look down and through a gap I spy an airfield - right runways, as far as I can see. (Mistake one: it was the wrong airfield - only about 6 miles from the right one. The lack of lights should have been a clue.) I reply 'Yes, range about 2 miles.' 'Contact Tower'.

'XXXX Tower, G-ABCD, join overhead, runway 19, 2400ft, QFE 989 millibars. Aaah... apologies, over YYYY airfield.'
'G-ABCD recover immediately straight in from present position, Calibrator in instrument pattern.'
'Wilco, G-CD.' (Mistake 2. I knew where the runway was but I COULDN'T ACTUALLY SEE IT - the clouds were in the way. I should have said 'Unable comply, request hold off to the north-east.'). Attempted to position unsuccessfully, then b*gg*r*d off to the north-east and took up a visual hold at 1500ft (this is a standard holding area for this airfield i.e. it's in the FOB) and told ATC that's what I'd done.

'G-ABCD roger, contact Zone.' Humble apologies to zone, who asked me to orbit at 2000ft. This time I got a grip on myself. 'Unable, cloudbase 1600ft, G-CD. Able to accept radar vectors to ILS if you prefer.' Which would have been a better idea in the first place... But ATC were happy for me to hold overhead the airfield at 1500ft and slotted me in behind the Calibrator. Nothing broken in the end except my ego.

The moral? Don't forget you can say no to ATC! Don't do something just because they asked for it and you think they are in charge - I realise now that I attempted to position for a runway I couldn't see because I had mentally handed command to ATC.

Tim

[Foxy Loxy]

The moral? Don't forget you can say no to ATC! Don't do something just because they asked for it and you think they are in charge - I realise now that I attempted to position for a runway I couldn't see because I had mentally handed command to ATC.

Wise words, Tim! :D

From an ATCO's point of view, it can be enormously frustrating when a pilot accepts an instruction they are unable to accept. At best, there will be a bit of mild swearing (off RT, I hasten to add!) when we're forced to hurriedly come up with Plan B. At worst, it can compromise safety - not only of the a/c concerned, but for other a/c too.

Don't be afraid to say you are unable to accept an instruction - we are here to help you! :)

Foxy

[gcolyer]

Or maybe if it was going to be hard to maintain legal VFR in the destination circuit then not flying at all or to that airfield (even if it was departure airfiled) would have been the best option. (said with 20/20 hindsight)

[llanfairpg]

The moral? Don't forget you can say no to ATC!

That not the only moral, is it Tim? Prevention is always better than cure and less expensive!

[FlyingForFun]

Yes, very wise words.

Perfectly safe to fly in the conditions you describe (despite what others might be hinting at), so long as you stick to a certain flight profile, i.e. remaining below the cloudbase. If ATC ask you to do something outside of that flight profile, you must tell them!

I can think of lots of other examples, too. ATC once asked me to head east to keep out of the way of an airliner.... but to the east of me was a big wall of cloud. Or perhaps they are directing you to use a runway other than the one you want (or need) to use. Probably lots more examples if I thought about it too.

Thanks!

FFF
-----------------

[llanfairpg]

In my experience a lot of pilots at all level are slight scared of ATC seeing them as being the Police, perhaps. I always try and teach students to realise that ATC are paid to provide a service to pilots. not the other way round.

I believe in lot of cases, which become incidents or even accidents, low hour pilots delay asking for help because of this misunderstanding.

[gcolyer]

The point I was trying to get accross is if the airfield was marginal in relation to legal VMC and circuit ability then it was maybe not a good idea to choose to fly. The fact that it was good enough for en-route VFR is besides the point.

[FlyingForFun]

I wouldn't consider a 2000' cloudbase "marginal VMC". I would consider it very good VMC for this time of year, so long as the intended flight profile doesn't require you to be above 2000'.

And that's before even considering that Tim said he was able to accept radar vectors to the ILS.

FFF
-----------------

[tmmorris]

I'd discounted the ILS approach because the Calibrator was working, and as a Duchess it was unlikely to be approaching at the 90kts IAS of my lowly PA28 and I didn't want to be a nuisance. That was mistake 3, in hindsight - if it hadn't been for the Calibrator I would have requested the ILS anyway, or a PAR. I allowed the presence of the Calibrator to change my weather decision - that sort of cloud would usually prompt some sort of instrument approach.

Tim

(PS circuit height is 800ft so there was plenty of height in theory for visual circuits)

[Hyperborean]

As a controller I would add just one rider to Llanfairpg's comment. Yes we are paid to provide a service to pilots but it is a service to all pilots. To achieve this we have to prioritise. That said most controllers, in my experience, would rather be told that weather or other conditions make a course of action unviable and would offer an alternative. I like to think we, pilots and controllers, are all playing the same game.

[llanfairpg]

I would add just one rider to Llanfairpg's comment. Yes we are paid to provide a service to pilots but it is a service to all pilots. To achieve this we have to prioritise.I was going into Biggin Hill one day in an Aztec on a charter, the radio calls went something like this as I got down towards 600 feet

Twr --G-CD can you orbit on final so I can get one away?

G-CD Confirm you are aware this is a public transport flight, close to max landing weight.?

Twr-- G-CD cleared to land

See, no need to say unable!

[Flying Farmer]

Just a heads up, I don't know of a Duchess certified to carry out ILS calibration in the UK.

It was more likely to be a King Air operated by Flight Precision and it won't be doing 90 kts on the approach. I used to right seat on an ILS calibration contract, our speed was usually 160 down to 50 ft then breaking off!!

Pedantic mode off :E

[Life's a Beech]

What were ATC doing trying to give separation for VFR traffic in class G airspace*? If you were told not below 2000' for the calibrator, then ATC are giving you separation. However separation is not required for VFR from IFR except in class C, B or A airspace (SVFR in class A of course). So why were you restricted to not below 2000 feet?

There are reasons for the flight rules in various classes of airspace. This shows one of those reasons.


*OK, could be class D zone, but still applies. In class D only IFR from IFR separation is required.

[niknak]

All the Flight Calibrators in the UK are BE200s, they fly considerbaly faster than TM's "lowley PA28", they also have absolute priority over any G.A a/c aparrt from emergency traffic.
T.M has made many valid and positive contributions on this forum previously, giving the impression he is an experienced IFR and VFR pilot.
Perhaps if he was able to tell the difference between a Beech Duchess and BE200, he wouldn't have got himself in the situation he did.

Sorry Tim, you've made yourself look a complete tit.

[fernytickles]

Well, niknak, that sort of post should really encourage people to feel comfortable about coming forward and sharing their aviating mistakes for the benefit of others...... :ugh:

[mm_flynn]

I was going into Biggin Hill one day in an Aztec on a charter, the radio calls went something like this as I got down towards 600 feet

Twr --G-CD can you orbit on final so I can get one away?

G-CD Confirm you are aware this is a public transport flight, close to max landing weight.?

Why does this happen (orbiting aircraft after they are on final)? llanfairpg clearly didn't think it was a good idea for a professional flight to do this, and in a previous thread we have seen it is not a good idea for a student to do this, so who should say anything other than 'unable' or 'going around'?

I wasn't aware there was a priority distinction between Public and Private transport in the provision of ATC services.

[dublinpilot]

Perhaps if he was able to tell the difference between a Beech Duchess and BE200, he wouldn't have got himself in the situation he did.

Sorry Tim, you've made yourself look a complete tit.

Nitnak?

Are you saying TM looks like a "complete tit" because he couldn't identify the difference between a Duchess and a BE200. :confused: If that is what you are saying, then I think it reflects more on you than TM.

Personally, I'm not an aircraft spotter, and I don't know what either looks like.

If you are refering to the situation TM got himself into, then I wouldn't agree either. We ALL have made mistakes....to err is human. Fair play to TM for having the courage to admit to it in public for nobody's benefit but OURS. Most pilots would have just said nothing in public, and noone would have had a chance to learn from it.

TM :ok: Well done.

dp

[dublinpilot]

[QUOTE]G-CD Confirm you are aware this is a public transport flight, close to max landing weight.[QUOTE]

I'm also wondering what the max landing weight part is to do with it?

If you were at near max landing weight, wouldn't you benefit from being asked to hold for a bit and burn a bit more fuel off? Ok, orbiting might mean you have to make your turns a little bigger, but surely not an issue for a professional pilot?


[The priority part comes from an aircraft on final has priority from one on the ground]

dp

[Chilli Monster]

It doesn't matter whether the aircraft's at max landing weight, near to it, or over it.

It doesn't matter whether the aircraft is a Public Transport flight or not.

You don't ask ANYONE to orbit on final. It's appalling controlling technique and the ATCO concerned should be taken out and given a good kicking! So he's got one to get away - If the gap's that small that he asks someone to orbit, then it's small enough that another 30 seconds on the ground isn't going to hurt.

Have we not learnt anything from Southend and the configuration of aircraft?

[kalleh]

Here a fellow pilot confesses a mistake, so that we all can learn from it. All people pointing fingers and writing degrading comments, think again. Do we want a climate where everyone just keep silent of their mistakes? Is that going to improve safety?

I don't think there's any pilot that has never made a bad decision. And in my opinion, it's the pilots who think they haven't that are the most dangerous ones.

Let's keep an open climate, suitable for sharing and learning!

[llanfairpg]

I wasn't aware there was a priority distinction between Public and Private transport in the provision of ATC services.They will probably tell you that there is not but if ATC have got a medium/heavy public transport aircraft at the hold potentially about to be held up by letting a C152 make an approach who do you think is going to get priority? (and rightly so to a degree).

NIKNAK
I take exception to your post calling Tim a tit, it actually takes a lot of balls to admit you were wrong and then go to the trouble of writing it out on a forum knowing that individuals like yourself are going to have a field day with a holier than thou attitude. You have also made a pretty crass post on the Blackpool Incident thread, is there something wrong with you, have you tried NHS direct?

[Life's a Beech]

I wasn't aware there was a priority distinction between Public and Private transport in the provision of ATC services.That is not the point. A pilot of a public-transport flight has greater responsibility, and tighter restrictions than the pilot of an equivalent private flight. The same applies to high weights, they restrict the options if the pilot is considering what might go wrong, as he should be.

[mm_flynn]

That is not the point. A pilot of a public-transport flight has greater responsibility, and tighter restrictions than the pilot of an equivalent private flight. The same applies to high weights, they restrict the options if the pilot is considering what might go wrong, as he should be.

So you are OK with ATC asking a private Aztec do do somejng that would be regarded as unsafe or illegal for a public transport Aztec?

The public private information and weight is just a sarcastic way of saying "unable".

My Q was not should a747 not be pushed out ahead of a 152 doing circuits- it was a subtle jibe that between two Aztecs both being "normal" the PubT doesn't have any higher priority

[llanfairpg]

The public private information and weight is just a sarcastic way of saying "unable".

Just to confirm it was a poilte way of me telling ATC I was not going to do an orbit, as commander of a public transport aircraft then and now, I alone make the final decision on what i am going to do to safely conduct a flight from a-b

[BackPacker]

Just to confirm it was a poilte way of me telling ATC I was not going to do an orbit, as commander of a public transport aircraft then and now

Before we start arguing about the semantics of llanfairpg refusal to orbit on final, let's all agree that this was a highly unusual request at a highly inconvenient time. I'm sure all of us have had one of those one way or another, and did not have time to think of something to say that would be really appropriate, to the point and according to CAP413, but you've got to say something, not?

If llanfairpg had his brains wired in "public transport" mode (on time, on budget) and was already concerned about his landing weight, I can understand why he, at the spur of the moment, decided to add that information to his refusal, without thinking completely through whether those were indeed valid and legal arguments to use against a controller who, arguably, had his priorities wrong.

In any case, does a controller know, or is he/she supposed to know, which Aztec on final is a public transport flight, and which Aztec is close to max landing weight? Other than maybe a public transport flight callsign instead of the fuselage callsign, is there anything in the flight plan or otherwise that informs a controller of such? So the whole idea of saying "Confirm you know that..." followed by information that the controller has no way of knowing is already a bit odd.

In the spur of the moment we all say strange things. But the main message is: you can refuse such requests, and you should if it threatens your flight safety.

[FlyingForFun]

Life's a Beech,What were ATC doing trying to give separation for VFR traffic in class G airspace? Warning - thread creep!

However, if traffic in Class G is under RAS, it must be seperated from other traffic as far as possible. This seperation may be achieved by requesting the other traffic to do something specific so it stays out the way.

Not sure if Calibrator flights would routinely request RAS???

FFF
-----------

[mm_flynn]

In any case, does a controller know, or is he/she supposed to know, which Aztec on final is a public transport flight, and which Aztec is close to max landing weight? No, which is why it is irrelevant information. Your Ops Manual might prohibit lots of things so you have to say unable more often than a private flight might have to. But it isn't a controllers job to guess what is in your Ops Manual or your SOPs or your personal minima.

But the main message is: you can refuse such requests, and you should if it threatens your flight safety.Totally agree.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Before we start arguing about the semantics of llanfairpg refusal to orbit on final, let's all agree that this was a highly unusual request at a highly inconvenient time. I'm sure all of us have had one of those one way or another
I've never been asked to orbit on final! - I've no idea what I would say, but I wouldn't do it.

I have been asked, on final for the tarmac, "can you reposition for the grass (parallel runway)", to which polite request one can say "yes, sure" or "no thanks", no "unable" is necessary; but following Southend the controller isn't even allowed to ask that any more.

[Henry Hallam]

"Near max landing weight" is perhaps referring to higher stall speed than if carrying less load?

[llanfairpg]

Before we start arguing about the semantics of llanfairpg refusal to orbit on final, let's all agree that this was a highly unusual request at a highly inconvenient time. I'm sure all of us have had one of those one way or another

Just to clarify or re-clarify I am refusing to do anything in any aircraft (public transport or private) which I, the commander, considers to endanger the aircraft, that is written in law and is my right. If the controller is this case had said, ' Go around', I would have considered that to be safe and correct although I may have added in this case, " confirm you are a licensed ATC controller?"

I had a similar event at Birmingham about 5 years ago where a controller asked me to go around in a medium jet transport while a similar aircraft on a test flight was told to line up. I filed an ASR as I thought the go-around was unessecarry and the controllers situational awareness to be extremely poor. I was later informed by the CAA in writing that the controller had been 'spoken to'!

[tmmorris]

I thought it was a Duchess because... I'm 90% certain that's what ATC referred to it as. And I know a Duchess is a twin. And I'm not a plane-spotter, just a pilot.

I'm slightly unsure why that makes me look a tit, Niknak...

And where does it say a calibration flight has priority, by the way?

Tim

[Life's a Beech]

mm flynn

You are asking an impossible question. I don't know the circumstances. I do know that I have made an approach on a private flight, perfectly safely, that would have been illegal on a public-transport flight. If you know about the regulations applying to an AOC flight, and the status of an ops manual then you would know what I mean.

My point is that priority is irrelevant. The key is responsibility and flexibility, or lack of it. I would accept clearances on a private flight I would not on a public-transport flight. Not unsafe, just not as safe as I want of my crews on public-transport flights. Some of those clearances would be acepted by some of our competitors; it comes down to professionalism. A pilot on a private flight is not expected to be as professional. Maybe not how you think it should be, but it is reality.

[Life's a Beech]

FFF

In class G or D IFR traffic is not separated from VFR, however I suspect you are correct. Over controlling is an issue I have come across occasionally, when I cancel IFR to expedite but a controller still tries to give separation where I can see perfectly well!

Bringing us back from the thread creep, the response should therefore have been "unable, maintaining 1x00 feet to remain VMC". Was the ATC instruction given correctly then? Should terminology be changed, as it sounds like an instruction to an aircraft that should not have been subject to a mandatory instruction?

[tmmorris]

Therein lies a whole thread on the tendency of military controllers to treat a MATZ as CAS and issue instructions accordingly...

Tim