right orbit on short final

[phdresearcher]

I was in a C152 and on short final, the controller said"

"G-XXXX, right orbit, report back on final break G-YYYY surface wind 230 at 10knots clear land runway 21"

I did the right orbit and ended up back on final, at that point I only had only had my licence for a few weeks.

Good or bad controlling?

[Rocket Pants]

Terrible from what you've said. Where was it?

[phdresearcher]

I didn't want to say but it was at Shoreham a few years back

The controller came down to the bar to thank me and bought me a drink lol

[GAPSTER]

There’s a lot more detail required to make any kind of statement on this.Definitely an ATC service? (yes I know the phraseology implies so but that is not necessarily the case), any traffic info given previous to the orbit instructions?

[Rocket Pants]

Re-read post 2. Post 3 says it all.

[richardthethird]

Did anybody crash? Did the controller keep everyone safe? Then what is the problem?

No offence, but one man’s short final is another man’s 10 miles out. If you can’t safely fly an orbit you shouldn’t have a licence.

[Rocket Pants]

R3,
The OP presented us with a clear scenario and asked a straightforward question. He did not present us with a range of scenario's, so take the question at face value. There may well have been other contributing factors, but we are not aware of them.

For decades, (well trained) ATCO's have been taught not to orbit circuit traffic on final. There are good reasons for this, and any pilot or ATCO should be aware of these. There are always other options. At the unit where I work, we are all aware of these, and resort to them on the rare occasion it is necessary to do so. Any ATCO caught orbiting traffic on final knows very well that he/she can expect a tough interview, followed by an "unsatisfactory" in his/her UCE file.

The ATCO in this scenario most definitely did not keep everybody safe - the OP was put at risk. Buying the OP a drink was most certainly acknowledgement of this, and was a deserved apology. I'm bored now, there must be something more interesting on telly.

[Local Variation]

The instruction doesn't sound correct to me......right orbit, report back on final. Surely it should have been........return to base leg, orbit until further advised.

One orbit in present position back round to final could put the pilot in direct conflict with the following traffic. Dangerous stuff and I would have requested a return to base leg.

I speaketh from experience of having received such (very rare, but had one this year) requests.

[betterfromabove]

Why not request the OP to go-around into the circuit? I know it's a balls-ache, but pulling someone off finals into the first segment of the circuit makes no sense unless you know for sure you're pulling them off into empty airspace. Or unless they have an emergency (not the case here).

Any break-off on finals, especially at an often busy locale such as Shoreham, surely puts you into potential conflict with late downwinds, base-leggers and even other finalists if you over-turn?

And what if the AC behind now decides to G/A themselves?

Strange story, but perhaps nicely illustrates why the system usually works the way it does and makes sense.

[richardthethird]

I would prefer to be given an orbit than a go around if I’m paying for the aircraft. Come to think of it. I’d rather be given an orbit than a go around if I’m being paid to fly an aircraft! Would rather have the fuel for a more significant situation, should one develop. The OP could still had gone around if he’d deemed it unsafe.

If anything, it sounds like the controller had a lapse in SA but resolved it before it became significant. We are all grown ups, after all... Right you are though, back to the TV...

[Local Variation]

Assuming they broke the OP off as they had a faster one behind chasing them up the chuffer.

You can’t go around in case the one behind has to go around as well.

It’s not nice for a low time ppl. Low and slow, lots of drag flap, completing a turn through 90 degrees. Ingredients for a stall are there.

[Dan Dare]

Aviate, navigate, communicate. Never let anyone lead you in to a situation where you can no longer aviate.

An experienced pilot would either gratefully do the orbit or decline with an safer proposal. Unfortunately the ATCO rarely knows whether the pilot is experienced or likely to feel compelled to do something dangerous. I see nothing unsafe in the controlling, but immediate clearance to land seems odd.

Rocket ATCO's have been taught not to orbit circuit traffic on final

It's a few years since I've been taught, but I do recall being trained to do exactly this both flying and controlling and have no recollection of anything contrary to this other than for noise abatement. Can you enlighten me?

[Del Prado]

I seem to remember a crash in the SE of England under these exact circumstances.
Student pilot either didn’t maintain height during orbit or stalled trying to level off when configured for landing.

edit: found the link. It wasn’t an orbit but student was broken off on short final.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/cessna-f150l-g-babb-19-july-2006

[Mooncrest]

About twenty years ago at EGNM I watched an Aer Lingus F50 perform a right hand orbit when on about a two mile final for RW32. The Tower controller's instruction was, "Shamrock 368, my apologies. Would you carry out a right hand orbit please.' I imagine it was requested for spacing reasons. Anyway the pilots immediately complied and their aircraft was back on final shortly. Problem solved. I don't know if anything was said between pilots and ATC on the ground afterwards. It was, by the way, a fine summer evening with good visibility.

[phdresearcher]

Further info: this was 1998, G-LSMI r/way 03 (as it was then)

[zed3]

I remember having experienced this as pax in a B737 around 25 years or so ago. Inbound EGCC at about 2 miles (abeam my old school) a 360 with the explanation afterwards that we need to reduce speed. To me aviation at it's best. We all got down safely, with minimum delay. It never hit the press.
Those were the days.

[Tarq57]

I wouldn't require someone to do an orbit on short final, "short" being inside 3nm from the threshold.

Especially the case when it's known the pilot is a beginner. The local aero club provides information to the tower to indicate if the pilot is a student.

One of the axioms of controlling is to always have an "out" - a good workable plan B. I find it highly desirable to also have a plan C, and maybe for real unusual situations, a D that can be cobbled together. If the spacing near the aerodrome is going to be tight, I would also communicate the plan B to the pilot/s affected in advance, so there are no nasty surprises.

3 mile final is probably not too close/low for most pilots to safely and happily handle an orbit (except low time students, maybe.) 2 miles probably is a bit close. 1 mile would be a no-no, unless the pilot was known to be experienced, and had indicated in advance acceptance of it.
Not enough info in post 1 to make any assumptions.

[chevvron]

About twenty years ago at EGNM I watched an Aer Lingus F50 perform a right hand orbit when on about a two mile final for RW32. The Tower controller's instruction was, "Shamrock 368, my apologies. Would you carry out a right hand orbit please.' I imagine it was requested for spacing reasons. Anyway the pilots immediately complied and their aircraft was back on final shortly. Problem solved. I don't know if anything was said between pilots and ATC on the ground afterwards. It was, by the way, a fine summer evening with good visibility.
But that's Aer Lingus, who were happy to join visually at Glasgow in a 737 and weave in and out of the C150s and Cherokees to get onto final.

[double_barrel]

If you would like the perspective of a low time student pilot.... I must say I would find that instruction difficult. I am not aware of a formal definition of 'short final', but if it is much less than say 2.5 miles when I would be particularly low and slow, I don't think it could be safely executed in many places without powering-up gaining significant height. I presume the implication of such an instruction is not to climb?? There are several of examples of people dying as a result of pressured manoevers like that in the pattern. A mile further out, and it would be no issue at all, but in those last few minutes when I am shedding speed and height, fiddling with flaps and radio, I would not be happy with such a request, in fact I hope I would reply 'unable', and request plan C.

Why would ATC not ask for a go-around?

[Jim59]

I am not aware of a formal definition of 'short final',

CAP 413
"A ‘final’ report is made when an aircraft has turned onto final approach.
If the turn on is made at a distance greater than 4 NM from touchdown
a ‘long final’ report is made. The landing/touch and go/low approach
clearance will include the runway designation."

"Aircraft reports ‘Long final’ (between 8 and 4 miles) when aircraft is
on a straight in approach."


I don't think short final exists.

[phdresearcher]

If you would like the perspective of a low time student pilot.... I must say I would find that instruction difficult. I am not aware of a formal definition of 'short final', but if it is much less than say 2.5 miles when I would be particularly low and slow, I don't think it could be safely executed in many places without powering-up gaining significant height. I presume the implication of such an instruction is not to climb?? There are several of examples of people dying as a result of pressured manoevers like that in the pattern. A mile further out, and it would be no issue at all, but in those last few minutes when I am shedding speed and height, fiddling with flaps and radio, I would not be happy with such a request, in fact I hope I would reply 'unable', and request plan C.

Why would ATC not ask for a go-around?

Very good point, I was actually less than a mile out and about 500 feet (can't be bothered to use 1 in 60 rule ;-) - I just hit the power and slowly levelled off the nose as I watched my airspeed increase, then executed the manoeuvre. I hate to think how close up my arse the twin was but the next instruction issued to him was "Surface wind XXX/XX, clear land runway 03".
I didn't know any different then, I just thought it was normal so i did it! It did occur to me that I hadn't encountered this during my training and certainly didn't do it on my GFT!

[The Fat Controller]

Having been in a similar situation, both as an ATCO in the tower and a low hours PPL, , the correct instruction should have been "go around", pilot replies and complies, landing clearance to the following traffic PLUS traffic information as to what is happening ahead as it was obviously tight.

Seems pretty obvious the ATCO had misjudged the situation and had a bit of a moment, as acknowledged later.

The pilot, whilst having to comply with the go around instruction can always make a request as to how best get back to finals, otherwise they are quite entitled to fly the standard circuit.

As for the student scenario, any instructor that let's a student into the circuit without having practiced late go arounds should be shot.

I had the pleasure of practicing that in a very old Cessna 150 from a 40 degrees flap approach, heart rate of the first one went sky high, everyone should try it for a laugh.

[double_barrel]

As for the student scenario, any instructor that let's a student into the circuit without having practiced late go arounds should be shot..

So far in my training I have done more late go-arounds than landings!

[broken headset]

Taught not to do this, and you send the one behind around around (already higher and has the traffic ahead in sight) right?

[ShyTorque]

Seems to me that an aircraft cleared to finals shouldn't be orbited there for reasons already stated. There's a number of ways that an inexperienced pilot could easily stuff that one up.

I had the pleasure of practicing that in a very old Cessna 150 from a 40 degrees flap approach, heart rate of the first one went sky high, everyone should try it for a laugh.

Yes, I learned to fly on the C150 - with 40 flap selected, full power increases the noise level but not the flight level!

[YeahYeah]

phdresearcher: I’m confused. On your first post you quote the landing clx was for runway 21; then in your most recent post (#21) you write the landing clx was for runway 03. Was the traffic behind you or landing on the other end?