This happened - is it a big deal as far as ATC are concerned?

[niceday2700classic]

I won't identify airports, ATSUs, people or aircraft. Suffice to say I was in the aircraft and the control was full ATC (i.e. not information).

We have just turned final.


My Aircraft: "[My Callsign] final runway [XY] to land"

ATSU: "[My Callsign] Roger, continue approach"

My Aircraft: "Continue approach, [My Callsign]"

ATSU: "[Other A/C on ground] line up and wait runway [XY]"

Other A/C on ground: "Line up and wait runway [XY], [Callsign]"


Other A/C on ground lines up, looks like we're to land over his head. Previous landing aircraft at far end of runway has not quite vacated yet but looks likely to turn any moment.


ATSU: "[My Callsign] cleared to land, wind is blah blah blah"

My Aircraft: "Cleared to land, [My Callsign]"


Aircraft at far end of runway vacates. Approach continues until approx 100 feet showing on the QFE, at which point:


ATSU: "[Other A/C on ground] cleared take-off, wind is blah blah blah"

Other A/C on ground: "Cleared take off, [Callsign]"

My Aircraft: "[My Callsign] going around"



?????

Big deal or not?

[TWR]

Unless your groundspeed was 2 kts or so, it looks like bad ATC...

[mad_jock]

Depends which country you are in. In the UK its a huge deal.

And a piggy back go around with departing traffic under you is not a very pleasant situation to be in.

As a pilot don't let the situation develop if its starts getting hairy like that again go around early.

[niceday2700classic]

It was in the UK. It was a very busy circuit with a few in the overhead wanting to join and half a dozen or so ready for departure at the hold.

[WillDAQ]

Generally ATC try to keep aircraft separate, so a controller making a concerted effort to bring you together does count as a big deal.

[mad_jock]

You have to MOR it then.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP382.PDF

And here is your form

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1601active.pdf

Print it off and fax it or print to a pdf and email it in.

By rights you should have refused the landing clearance if you could see that the runway was unsafe.

[niceday2700classic]

I wasn't P1 but I was PF. Is it my place to report?

[mad_jock]

You can do but the PIC ain't going to be happy. Even if your a student you a memeber of flight crew and as such can file one.

You can use this instead.

CHIRP (http://www.chirp.co.uk)

It will have the same effect.

I presume you were on a training flight.

They do a report for GA matters here which is worth reading.

http://www.chirp.co.uk/Downloads/GAFB/GAFB48.pdf

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

What did P1 say? I'm horrified by this story and i once worked at an exceptionally busy training airfield.

[chevvron]

I tend to agree with HD; even if the start of TOR was a long way displaced from the threshold it was outright dangerous; you should have gone around when you had no landing clearance by 2 miles.

[niceday2700classic]

Clearance by 2 miles??!!! If I went around when a clearance wasn't given before 2 miles then I'd never land.....

Let's just clarify that this was a little bird rather than a big bird.

The displacement (i.e. position of lined up aircraft) was about 100-150m short of the threshold.

P1 was asked to call controller on landing and did so. I wasn't privy to the coversation, but understand controller apologised profusely.

[mad_jock]

Doesn't matter that he aplogised it needs MOR'd

The P1 should get a his :mad: squeezed as well for allowing the situation to develope to such a dangerous stage and also for not reporting it.

We have had enough people die inside the ATZ this year you could have very nearly been an addition.

Its all very well sweeping stuff under the carpet with a phone call and for some situations which haven't put lives at risk its acceptable.

And as for the 2 miles thats not going to work, but it is accpetable to continue and wait for a clearance if you can see things are working out. But to be cleared to land while the active has something on it would have instantly had me going around as the controller had obviously lost his situation awareness.

There may be issues with the unit which are nothing to do with the controller eg under staffing etc which the authorities could make them deal with.

[A I]

I agree with HD and others who say that this is a big deal. Asa you were not P1, who should have flied an MOR, I believe that you should CHIRP it.

A I

[niceday2700classic]

He didn't apologise, she did.

Also, I'd be very surprised if P1 had :mad: to squeeze.

"enough people die inside the ATZ this year".... you sound like you know where this happened?


Can you clear something else up for me, related to the same trip. At a controlled airfield if the controller instructs you to "report downwind", do you need to respond "will report downwind" or does "wilco" suffice?

[chevvron]

Ever since the Trident vs Comet incident at Bedford (about 1970?) landovers in the UK have not been allowed for 'normal' ATC operations. I know it used to happen at Elstree years ago before taxiway B was built; you'd need to backtrack from the present taxiway A and an aircraft could hold on the turning circle with others 'landing over' but as the turning circle was well below the threshold, it wasn't too dangerous!!

[2 sheds]

Can you clear something else up for me, related to the same trip. At a controlled airfield if the controller instructs you to "report downwind", do you need to respond "will report downwind" or does "wilco" suffice?
Wilco+c/s. The justification is that such an instruction from ATC (i.e. to make the report) is not a compulsory readback item.

2 s

[anotherthing]

niceday2700classic.

From your first post...

You were told to continue...
A/C was lined up and told to wait.

So far all is safe and legal.

You were told to land, with the aircraft lined up.

Now unsafe. No ifs or buts, there is no argument. You cannot land over an aircraft. It is not legal.

The only safe way to get out of the situation now (from ATCO action) is to tell you to go around. No clearance for take off should be given to the other aircraft.

The PF or P1 should have questioned the landing clearance when it was given.

Although the ATCO was responsible, as aircraft comander the P1 is ultimately responsible for safety of that aircraft.

The only phone call that should have been made was by the P1 to the tower to inform them that you would be filing an MOR.

The situation was despicable enough... it is almost as despicable to not report it. Next time someone could be killed by that ATCO.

Speak to the P1 and get them to MOR it. If not, report it on CHIRP yourself.

If you or they don't then flying is the wrong vocation for you both. Sorry to sound harsh but it is not a game.

[2 sheds]

Anotherthing

While I agree with the general thrust of your post, it's a little OTT to start using terms such as "despicable" and casting doubts on the ATCO's future actions when we know nothing of the incident from the ATC point of view and only have one account from one person out of at least four involved. Even if the bottom line were to be that the ATCO made a mistake, the question still remains, "why?". We all make mistakes, and sometimes, unfortunately, they might be serious.

2 s

[Danscowpie]

The purpose of both MORs and CHIRP is so that we can all learn from the unfortunate experiences of others.
It appears that some very poor if not dangerous, controlling techniques were applied in this instance, equally P1 should have queried the clearance. It may also be that there is a more systemic trend within the ATC unit, i.e the people in charge of standards are not doing their job properly.

You have a legal authority to file an MOR and moral responsibility to file that and a CHIRP report.
The end result will almost certainly be that the ATCO concerned undergoes re training, not her dismissal and possibly a review of training procedures and management techniques within the ATC Unit may be enforced, everyone will benefit from that.

Don't worry yourself with the opinions of P1, the CFI, the clubhouse cat or anyone else, just do the right thing.

[BrATCO]

Did the controller say anything when you went around with the other traffic taking off below ?

This kind of situation can build up (as anytime in ATC, .hit happens), but the controller should have, at least, anticipated it and warned you.

The fact that your P1 was an instructor (was he really ?) might have made the controller think he could push the limits, but the controller's plan B should have been emmitted on the frequency.

I mean (once more, at least) a message during your final, when he lined up the departing traffic.
Something sounding like :
"[your CS], continue short final, a traffic lining up. In case of a go around in short final, [his intentions to provide safe(ish) separation between the departing and you]"
Eg : right/left turn to join downwind, or anything for you to clear the runway centerline.

Once warned, if you didn't approve this plan B, you would have had a chance to go around earlier, take off canceled, day saved for sure...

[bingofuel]

This is a good example of why, on a go around VFR, you should position yourself onto the right hand side of the runway so you can see the runway and therefore the aircraft that may be taking off underneath you.

[BrATCO]

By reading your first post again, I guess the controller's aim was to keep you at low speed for landing, whereas the departing would go faster for take-off. (you going around and building speed again must have been bad news for the controller)

I did this a lot when working tower (only with instructors as PIC), but everyone must know what one's got to do before everything goes down the tubes.

And the take-off clearance must be given before the landing clearance, otherwise it is illegal and it can not technically work (due to inertia and other factors).

[Cameronian]

This surprised me at the time but I'm not to know if our ATC experts will rate it as more or less reprehensible than the original post. It was a few years ago, now.

I don't really see why I should hide the identity of the airport, it was Abbotsinch. I was on finals to 23 having come down from Perth in a bugsmasher and had been told to continue down to about 200 feet. Then I was cleared to land. Ten seconds later a different controller cleared a Loganair aircraft to land on 05. He accepted his clearance - I imagine that he hadn't heard my earlier one. I think it was a Twotter and was probably carrying passengers. It was gloomy but still just legally daytime and pretty bumpy with a significant westerly crosswind. I looked up and saw the other aircraft. He appeared perhaps just a little higher than myself but still pretty short on finals for the opposing runway.

I protested, as you would imagine, and my controller came back to me. I was very nearly down by now. My clearance stood but I was told not to land short and then to turn off 23 into 09 once down and wait once clear and to "expedite". I'm pretty confident that my controller then corrected the Twotter's clearance to "continue" but nobody went around (just as well as the dark was forbidden to me!).

[mad_jock]

When people keep saying her and lots of training aircraft and issues with clearances and phone calls. An Airport with a colour in its name keeps floating to the top of my head.

Been in the situation of two aircraft (mine being one) being on the same side going for opersite ends of the runway on downwind. We were requested not to file and it would be dealt with internally because otherwise the tower would have to close during the day due controller shortages while she was suspended.

If any of this does sound about right please do file its been going on for years.

[Cameronian]

Ha! That has brought back another case at the same place. I was coming back via Erskine North from local flying in the Loch Lomond area in a 150/152 (can't remember which so I'd have to check) and had my landing clearance on 23 once again. I really was very low over the start of the runway before the displaced threshold when a BA aircraft was given his landing clearance behind me.

I can't remember now if he accepted the clearance or if I got in first because I was pretty busy at the time. Again my protest resulted in being told to land and turn into 09 to stop there once clear and to get on with it. I hadn't had time to turn round once I'd got about 30 yards into 09 before this big lump screamed past surprisingly close, throwing up a lot of spray. I can't remember what it was - a Trident perhaps. As I was getting down and out of his way I could almost feel him climbing up my spine!

[Cameronian]

That was a "good" one Mad Jock!

[niceday2700classic]

mad_jock - it wasn't an airport with a colour in the name. If you really want to know where it was then PM me (I'd expect discretion) - I just don't think it is right to make it public when, as 2 sheds has pointed out, this is only one person's account and the next steps are yet to be decided.

I'm only really posting it on here to get some ATC opinions - basically because I don't know enough to fully evaluate the events myself. I am not posting on here to name and shame, nor for horror or entertainment value.

anotherthing - thanks for the clarity about the legality (or lack thereof) of landing over another aircraft. I wasn't aware that it wasn't permitted - I'm a student pilot. At the time when it lined up I said (on the intercom, not the radio) something to the effect of "crikey she's lining him up beneath us, ok..... well..... hope she doesn't clear him to go!" P1 didn't say anything. I thought it was fishy, but wasn't bold enough to speak up. Does it matter that the threshold was displaced, with the lined-up aircraft about 100-150m back from the numbers?

BrATCO - you asked questions about the go-around. We went around climbing at best-angle on the dead side. That meant we could keep the aircraft taking off in view all the way, and we were both above it and behind it when we turned crosswind back into the circuit. ATC didn't say anything at this point, and appeared to have totally forgotten about us. P1 advised controller that they'd just cleared another aircraft for takeoff after they'd cleared us to land. We were given further circuit instructions and asked to call tower upon landing. The controller would not have known P1 was an instructor - I'd done all the radio up until that point and it is not our home airfield.

I haven't yet had a chance to properly discuss the events with P1, and I won't get that chance until sometime next week at the earliest. It is my intention to ensure that the correct reporting procedures are followed (so we can all learn, not so someone gets a shoeing), but I would rather discuss with P1 first and do it with their cooperation rather than unilaterally.

[mad_jock]

THanks for the offer but i really don`t need to know and it won` solve the issue.

it needs to be chirped or otherwise reported

[172_driver]

Some people here seem nearly outraged by the traffic situation described in the original post. I am just here to stir to the pot a bit and say, sounds like normal ops where I fly. Let me explain…

I am European, did all my flight training in Europe, have seen the system here how it works. It's very safe! But it's quite stringent. I remember where I did my training it was practice not to allow more than three aircraft in the circuit at one time. So I understand the scenario described would upset a lot of people that are used to the European way of doing things.

When I got a job in US, at a busy G/A airport, my ideas and principles of aviation safety were challenged. All of a sudden we had five aircraft in the north pattern, four in the south pattern to a parallel runway, lots of outbound/inbound aircraft, IFR traffic (incl. bizjet). Somehow they just "manage". Regularly, "events" like the above mentioned happens when all these aircraft are going to merge into a steady flow with appropriate separation. I am not saying the US system is the way to go. In my opinion, it's very efficient but it's not designed for the pilot that underperforms. And there are quite a few of them, leaving a few holes in the Swiss Cheese. The bottom line - always look out and don't trust ATC, they are doing what they can but it always comes down to the pilots own situational awareness. If all aircraft were in sight at all times, I would not consider the above situation as hazardous. The right action (Go-around) was executed, new circuit flown, safe landing. Big deal? Good idea to offset upwind to avoid departing aircraft.

An honest question (which I am not exactly sure of the answer to). Does ATC have any separation responsibility for VFR traffic in the circuit at all? Strictly from ICAO (and I presume local regs) in Class C & D airspace, VFR to VFR is not separated. I've always considered ATC's controlling in the circuit as "advisory" and I am myself responsible to keep appropriate separation to any other aircraft, the one ahead, but also aircraft landing/taking-off as in the case above.

Nontheless, poor ATC I would say. Perhaps they anticipated the landing aircraft would vacate quicker?

[stopbar]

In the UK the events described are a mandatory reportable occurrence

[Daermon ATC]

A chilling story...

First of all let me congratulate you for your discretion and your attitude towards this incident.

As others have allready told you, it is your (or P1s) moral obligation to report this issue. Those reports are not used to place somebody in front of a firing squad but rather so that many can benefit from the (very negative) experience someone has made without actually having to risk any lives for it.

As you described the situation, probably the atco decided when on final that there was enough space to allow for a take off before your landing and therefore lined the other plane. However as the first plane took too much time to vacate, with the other plane lined up, there was never the possibility to clear you to land. On the moment you were cleared you could be 100% sure that the atc was fixing her attention on the vacating plane and concentrating on giving clearance to the departure without payng attention to you.

If there seems to be enough time for t/o before your landing, a possibility would be to tell you to expect a (very) late landing clearance, clear the lined up to go and as soon as they are off the rwy THEN clear you to land.

This however has some risks, because if the atco judges again the distance wrongly you will be going around with the other plane taking off just below you. The best solution in such a case is to admitt as an atco you made a mistake and instruct the landing plane to go around as there is traffic on rwy.

[BrATCO]

Niceday,
It's a pity the controller hadn't warned you about her intentions in case you had to go around, but you had the good reaction.
I doubt she forgot you. I reckon she suffered a symptom I call "post-trauma-stuck-synapses". There must be another terminology somewhere in Human Factors books.

172_driver,
The procedures you describe in US correspond to my former usual control sessions in tower, except I worked crossing runways and had to integrate idle-engine-landing-trainings (don't remember how they're called in English) and low altitude patterns.

I tend to call this go-around situation "risky". Not because planes were close one to each other (as you say, they were in sight), but because the controller let the pilots on their own, not making sure everyone had the "full image".
Controllers should control.


Perhaps they anticipated the landing aircraft would vacate quicker?

Yes, indeed. But it didn't.
So... what do we do now ?

PS : As to "separation" in the pattern, yes the controller must separate until visual. As soon as visual, pilots must know what to do. Otherwise, the service is called "information", not "control".

[Spitoon]

The event that has prompted this thread took place in the UK. with one or two exceptions, which are very unlikely to apply in this case, the rules in the UK are quite straightforward. A landing clearance is not issued until no other aircraft is going to use the runway - often paraphrased as 'when you've been cleared to use the runway, it's yours until you've landed, taken off or announced a go around'. In other countries different interpretations of the rules are used and, to quote the book as I recall it, if there is a reasonable assurance that the runway will be clear when an aircraft reaches it, landing clearance can be issued. If you have only experienced the UK way, having three aeroplanes on final approach all of which have been cleared to land does seem strange, but it happens in many places very regularly.

However, this event occurred in the UK and so the circumstances described, as others have suggested, do appear to be a big deal - or at least an incorrect application of the rules.

What should you do about it? Again as others have suggested, it should be reported using the proper mechanism, the MOR scheme, so that actions can be taken to try and prevent it happening again.

172_driver asks whether ATC has any separation responsibility for VFR traffic in the circuit at all? it's not a simple question to answer without getting all technical but it might help to distinguish between separation (by which to aircraft are kept apart by a specified minimum distance all time through the issue of ATC instructions) and collision avoidance (which is achieved by pilots and controllers looking out of their respective windows and doing things to stop aeroplanes banging into each other). Collision avoidance is achieved through following some of the rules of the air and from the controllers' responsibility to ensure a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic.

By the time aircraft get into the circuit controllers are not normally talking about separation (I am thinking about small aircraft flying VFR now) but rather in issuing instructions to keep the circuit flowing smoothly.

Depending upon the class of airspace you might consider what ATC says to be advisory, but an ATC instruction is an ATC instruction. In the visual circuit there is usually far more flexibility for the pilot to ask for an alternative clearance (that is to say, offer an alternative solution to the traffic flow) than in many other situations. But, essentially, if there is a controller there the instructions are always going to be instructions.

[BrATCO]

Thank you, Spitoon !
Glad to learn the correct phraseology : "collision avoidance" vs "separation" for VFRs. :ok:

[GS-Alpha]

You say:

At the time when it lined up I said (on the intercom, not the radio) something to the effect of "crikey she's lining him up beneath us

Were you actually flying over the top of the runway entry point when the aircraft was cleared to line up? In which case, there is nothing wrong yet.

Clearing another aircraft to take off behind you, whilst you are still not even on the runway is potentially a little dubious though. My guess is she made a genuine error; saw the aircraft vacate at the end of the runway and thought it was you.

[172_driver]

Depending upon the class of airspace you might consider what ATC says to be advisory, but an ATC instruction is an ATC instruction. In the visual circuit there is usually far more flexibility for the pilot to ask for an alternative clearance (that is to say, offer an alternative solution to the traffic flow) than in many other situations. But, essentially, if there is a controller there the instructions are always going to be instructions.

"Advisory" was maybe wrong word to use. However from my experience, a busy GA airfield, blindly following ATC instructions would've had me killed both two and three times by now. This normally occurs during high workload situations for the controller. As long as you "read" the situation, and understand what the controller is trying to achieve, slightly modifying the circuit of own accord has been needed to avoid other aircraft or terrain. The system is far from optimal in terms of safety. But it's how it works at many aerodromes in the US, every day, and it works. Reading from UK contributors though, reporting it seems to be the right conclusion in this case to avoid it happen again in the future. Funny how things defer from one culture to another.

[blissbak]

I rather like spacing than collision avoidance, unless you are solving the insolvable.

[BrATCO]

I rather like spacing than collision avoidance, unless you are solving the insolvable.

We seem to need an explaination here.

"Separation" in a RWY pattern is not possible : we would need 1000' or 3 NM between traffics.
The controller's job is then to let traffic close nearer than that to eachother, while remaining sure that there will be no collision.
First by keeping the integrating traffic away or above the circuit : only 500' are more than enough. Separation is not provided, but there will be no collision.
Then provide instructions for the integration.
Two cases :
- Conflicting traffic is close enough to get visual. Traffic information is provided, integration instruction is given. Collision avoidance is then transfered from controller to pilot. Controller will then provide instructions to maintain sequencing to threshold (continue downwind is the simplest).
- Or visual can't be gotten. Then controller creates a gap in the sequence and provides integration instructions to place the traffic in said gap, so collision can't happen.

That's the difference between "separation" and "collision avoidance" in my (ex)tower-controller's mind.

Of course, this is another story in S/VFR conditions between IFRs and VFR : here "separation" is provided strategically.

I hope it makes sense.

To conclude this answer, I'd say that controlling VFRs IS solving the unsolvable. Everyday.
That's the fun in it !

[blissbak]

I used to grant spacing, collision avoidance just when making mistakes :E that's what I meant, but I'm not an english mother tongue ...