What is interesting to me about this incident is that alot of ATC complain or don't like all the extra VFR or non standard flights etc in already busy airspace. So why issue a go around to Number 1 which keeps him in the air for longer, dosen't reduce your workload any less and adds to your already busy circuit?

Who is easier to control? The student pilot who may or may not be quite sure of the procedures and aircraft capabilities...or the jet traffic with 150 fare paying passengers on board being flown by a pilot who has a few more hours in flying time and hopefully a bit more awareness of the situation (that ATC should have told him about).

Lessons to be learnt by ATC in this aswell....those flight priorities don't always apply if it is easier to get someone on the ground where they will be safer and out of the way.

I wasn't. Until post 40. Although post 26 nearly had me going!

The point is surely, if someone with thousands of hours has never been asked to perform a particularly maneouvre, then it is not unreasonable of that person to suggest that it is not common or usual.

Cheers

Whirls

If a controller lets this situation develop then as a pilot I would question their professional competence.

I would expect the controller not to send me around but to let me land, and send the following jet around (iaw the normal rules of the air). I would then expcect the controller to apologise to the following jet or to reprimand the folowing jet for not maintaining the appropriate separtaion if he was on a visual.

When all is said and done, air traffic controllers expect pilots to be able to operate to a standard so pilots should expect the same from controller.

Not common, or unusual, agreed. An instruction to turn away from finals. But shouldn't it be within the scope of a solo pilot?

It appears that there wasn't much intergration planning between App and Tower but there again, someone will say VFR circuit; see and avoid.

I can't understand the initial instruction of "fly the centreline and climb". Would not a go-around would move no1 to the deadside so that if no2 climbs away there is no immediate confliction.

Interesting to see how this incident is viewed slightly differently by those wearing pilot goggles and those wearing controller shades.....maybe highlighting minor anomolies in the interpretation of the services being provided....It's good to talk.

Whirlygig

Tis a fair point. But what do you do when you are presented with an unusual maneouvre, i know... how long is a piece of string. It therefore shows, just because you've been flying for years doesn't make you experienced in certain areas i.e. possible turn after a go around. Is the controller to know you might not ever have experienced this (and other situations, discounting student solo pilots on this arguement) and therefore are unable to comply with the instruction?? After all, even the most niave of controllers would think, whats the big deal, you go around straight ahead to a level at which a turn can be safely made....

Tis a good job that when the ATCO's at our place experience unusual situations..... which is every bloody time they plug in at the mo. They don't throw their dummy's out of the pram, unplug and try to justify that their inability to provide pilots with a good service, is down to the non-standard/uncommon/not experienced actions of pilots and their flying/requests....

Swings & Roundabouts me thinks.......

But this is precisely what we're discussing and what the originator asked - whether controllers should all be made aware of a pilot's experience and treat them accordingly.

If a turn to the north on final is an uncommon and unusual request, then I'm not sure that the student's instructor could have reasonably been able to foresee that as a circumstance which the student could face and therefore have been able to brief him. I'm sure a go-around would have been within his capabilities.

I can see right through that piece of Emmental :(

Cheers

Whirls

I may have missed it but nobody has noted that ATC were concerned about the number of unidentified aircraft in the area who were not in contact with them. This was given as a significant factor in their decision not to delay the faster traffic.

Yeah, I see your point.

I can probably learn from this, as again, I only have 9 months valid experience myself.

Try to see it from our side. What if on my second hour as a valid controller, i'm presented with a situation i'm not sure of, one that would require a quick action where I couldn't attain help. I then make the wrong decision and it causes a loss of life. Would I be criticised for incompetance or sympathised with, due lack of experience??

I do. Which is precisely why I am the exception that proves the rule and took advantage of Norwich Tower's hospitality and got shown around!

Cheers

Whirls

I know I have missed the original point but i need to respond to the reply from Single Spey given to Shy Torque.

"Quote:
Shy Torque
Your asked to Go Around on short finals because the following has caught you up, for example a light, medium or heavy jet. There is no chance of a successful touch & go or full stop to vacate, possibly using a Land After.

Please answer the following if you'd be so kind....

As a pilot what would you expect the controller to do?
As a controller what would you do

If a controller lets this situation develop then as a pilot I would question their professional competence."

Oh really?

I work at a major airport which still has a fair share of light aircraft knocking around.

In my view you have 3 choices to the scenario:-

1) Do not ask to fly through my zone; stay outside and fly around or land at a less busy place where you will not be pushed down the pecking order.

2) When we are busy we may have 2 radar controllers on approach, both busy, and the area guys busy feeding us IFR traffic. No room for large gaps to fit in a C172 to land. You therefore hold somewhere in my zone awaiting a 'gap' to fit you in.

3) Approach makes a slightly larger gap and I make a decision to 'try' to fit you in. However once you are on finals, not cleared to land, it becomes obvious it will not work, I send you around back to your hold.

In your scenario this is unprofessional. I should send the jet around creating a problem for my radar colleagues who may not have a lot of airspace to play with. This in turn has a knock on effect as we have to use our hold which delays more than one IFR aircraft and also ups the workload of the Area boys.
All so I can land a C172. Yeah right what a good plan!

This is the commercial world and it is common. I could not care less if someone has been flying since 1972 and has never experienced being sent around because of traffic behind catching him up, it happens.

I have personally been in exactly the same situation as the student in this case. I was on short finals solo i.e. 300ft albeit flapless and at a good rate of knots in a C150. I was aware of jet traffic behind hence my speed. I was then given the instruction 'break off approach, return to left base'. I'm sure you'll agree that this instruction is far simpler than the one issued in this case. However I do not hold ATC responsible, because, as it has been drummed into me:

1. Aviate
2. Navigate
3. Communicate

and also:

As it says in the report the Cessna can have a nasty wing drop, but in my experience you need a lot of back pressure to induce it. I feel this was a case of inexperience.

Bobby

Well, having read through the AAIB report, and both this and the other thread on the subject appearing on PPRUNE, for me it comes back to the one thing.

The lad flying it got it wrong. Have a pop at ATC/his instructor.Whoever you like, but thats it in a nutshell. Aviate/Navigate/Communicate. He didn't.

When I did my first spamcan solo, I had to do orbits to let way for the hoofin' big Antonov transporter that was coming in at a rate of knots behind me, then wait for his vortex etc to clear. It was a no fuss, no drama moment. I can't see why some should think it would be? he wasn't even asked to do that, just fly straight and level, and ATC were gong to sort him out in due course. Thats whats sad here - it was a basic instruction he couldn't comply with.

Whether or not this kid was current enough for the task in hand(his 28 days currency was V.poor IMHO) and whether or not he had a 'confident face' the instructor was duped into trusting, who knows, but sadly, he got it wrong. Why snipe at ATC because of it?

My heart breaks for the kid, and his family. Tragic is not the word. But facts are facts.:(

Its such a sad case and one that has stuck in the back of my mind since, just read the AAIB report, i can see how the young pilot could have got overwhelmed with the atc orders being given especially when already on finals and your constantly monitoring your rate of descent and airspeed aswell as keeping a strong visual ahead - and then be told to go around/and or head North in the opposite track of the base leg, id be wondering what was going on aswell and could see how checks like reconfiguring the aircraft to climb or cruise speed in these few moments could be overlooked especially with being so close to the ground also rather daunting, in a situation like this for a student (minus the instructor) i could see how the instructions given by atc would be carried out parrot fashion ie the turn North and then theres the confusion of the situation at that time + im sure i wouldnt take into account loosing a few Kts of airspeed due to turning crosswind. Will

I raised this point on another forum but no one cared to answer.

You learn to drive you do not go solo until you pass the test. You train as an ATCO you do not go solo until you pass a test. So why the heck do you send up guys with bugger all experience alone in an aircraft ?
It isn't necessary to have gone solo to continue on with your training, to me
going solo should be shortly before your test not just a few hours in to your training.
That is why this went wrong, not because an ATCO had to correctly break off training traffic ahead of scheduled traffic or because they gave him a turn to the north or south which BTW is common at airports who also integrate in GA training traffic but because this guy simply didn't have the knowledge to cope with unusual circumstances. He was sent solo too early and I'm not blaming the FI but the system which seems to have an almost unnatural obsession with how few hours you do before going solo.

Exactly, i think around 15 - 16 hours is the average for being sent up solo which is far too early, ive around 16 hours on PA28'S and have been told im ready for solo a while back but to be honest i really dont feel ready and im not going to jump in at the deep just because my FI thinks im capable, i mean this is no walk in the park, its a flying machine that can well potentially do some damage if not handled correctly, i think as youve said training should be allowed to continue past the circuit stage and solo on in the later stages - more hours/experience = more confidence/ability. Its really like sending a cat in to a heard of dogs and seeing if its done it enough times to come out unscathed.

When I first went solo after 12 hours at the tender age of 16 I was so scared of letting the plane stall that I probably wouldn't have heard ATC mashing their words over a go around! I don't think the idea of sending people on their own at that stage is necessarily wrong, I think instructors just need to make very careful judgements about students. Personally I think the lack of currency was probably the main cause of this accident, if one is going to pin down the reason why the boy actually let the plane stall.

1) It is not your zone - it is airspace in which you provide a service to all aircraft that have the ability to comply with the appropriate rules. In the case under discussion the flying school was based at that airport so no doubt they paid for the privilege and therefore for the controllers to provide a service to them.

2) Ok so I wait for a gap - no problem there as long as you have the skill and competence to provide that gap.

3) If it will not work then your planning or controlling has gone wrong. The solo student who got it wrong suffered the unfortunate consequences. You are not in quite the same vulnerable position, however if your decision does not work then you have got it wrong too. In other words maybe you are lacking the professional comptence required to do the job.

As an ATCO perhaps you could answer one of the point I posted earlier: how often are ATCOs at airports in the UK independently assessed for competence by the CA or SRG?

Yes but so it appears did ATC with their inability to effectively coordinate joining traffic with circuit traffic which is what lead to the necessity to change the clearances issued to the student pilot - however I have not yet heard of what follow up action, if any, has been taken.

Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere in the AIB report does it state that the Piper was scheduled traffic.

Single Spey

ATCO's are examined once every year by either SRG/Local Competency Examiner or both, in both the practical environment and an oral board, which must be passed to retain licence validity. We also have to complete TRUCE (Training In Unusual Circumstances & Emergencies) each year. This can & often and does include any emergency training and experiences, go arounds, SRA's, LVP's etc....etc...

You are so quick to jump to a conclusion that our planning is wrong and question our competence at the slightest hint that things may not have fitted your plan and picture. You really do need to sit in on a busy App/Area sector and see how much is done to accomodate the GA community so it works out well for all. It's evident that you haven't a clue about the bigger picture and are keen to continue criticising the people that, at the end of the day are responsible for you and the many others that receive services from ourselves.

As far as I see it, it wasn’t a case of delaying commercial traffic at all. I tend to give aircraft priority judging by where they are in the air and how their flight characteristics are, not what category of flight they are. If I’ve got a trainer in the hold wanting the procedure and I’ve got jet traffic at 12 miles vectoring for the ILS, I will give priority to the jet. If the jet is at 20 miles then it would probably get number 2 to the trainer, obviously dependent on particular circumstances at the time. The category of flight normally comes last in the controller’ decisions – if we can get them down we will do so. It’s our job to shift traffic and we are paid for using our own judgment and initiative in the circumstances.

Quote:

---

I may have missed it but nobody has noted that ATC were concerned about the number of unidentified aircraft in the area who were not in contact with them. This was given as a significant factor in their decision not to delay the faster traffic.

---

Have you ever tried providing a radar service with vectoring to an aircraft released two minutes before the overhead of an airfield in the South of England in Class G using primary radar only? Doesn’t matter whether the conflicting traffic is at FL40 or FL400, the controller has to get five miles on it. As a radar controller, I can certainly see why the approach controller wanted to get the IFR down as soon as possible. And if there was a go around, nobody can guarantee whether that aircraft would accept a visual circuit. In addition the IFR was able and willing to carry out a visual approach and was given traffic information on the Cessna.

I would bet a large chunk of my salary that the controller(s) had not even considered flight priorities when they planned and executed their sequence. They did not, however, expect that the student pilot would not interpret their instructions correctly.

Quote:

---

It is not your zone...

---

When I’m doing Radar it most certainly is my zone Matey. If I clear you in, it is on my licence, and, given the litigious world we live in, if you cock up my head may well be on the block. If you sound or act like a clown you ain’t getting in on my watch.

Quote:

---

...how often are ATCOs at airports in the UK independently assessed for competence by the CA or SRG?

---

ATCOs are assessed every 12 months. Depending on the strength of the unit either SRG will do the renewal otherwise a Local Competency Examiner based at the unit will carry out the task on their behalf.

UK ATCO licences are renewed annually, after being assessed by designated unit-based examiners. This is based on both continuous assessment by Local Competency Examiners throughout the year and a dedicated practical check and theory assessment.

Edit: As you see in the above post, at smaller units the regional SRG inspector would carry out the practical check.