Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

What would you have done???

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

What would you have done???

Old 5th Oct 2015, 18:57
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: South Africa
Age: 32
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question What would you have done???

Hi All,
I had an interesting flight the other day. Everything went according to plan until the moment I was cleared to land. I was returning to base after the usual precision and non precision approaches in piper Seneca I. I had planned for flapless landing jst for fun, I was cleared to land on 10, I did my checks trimmed the aircraft to 100mph passed the MDA.
I was 100 ft below the MDA and 200ft above the touch down zone when the controller tells me to land and stop before the intersection of 18 (which is only 180m from threshold) uses break break and instructs other aircraft to depart from 36. Before I could intervene the other aircraft said rolling. And the radio went busy with othe calls.

I didnt know what to do, I had a lot of thots but only a second to decide. The main reason for my stress was that the aircraft requires 210m of runways with full flaps to come to complete stop (according to POH) and the intersection was about 180 m away and I was flapless.

I pulled the three notches of flaps (in stages while maintaining pressure on the control) landed on the numbers and used max breaking... i had roughly 30 m to spare and there it was, another seneca lifting off the ground right in front of me.

I had to make decision and I chose to land... i dont know if it was right decision but i had taken this decision on the basis of the following thoughts that popped up in my mind in that fraction of second.

1 what if I dont stop before the intersection and the other aircraft doesnt lift off or executes a rejected t/o

2 should I cross the intersection and land, that way I would have plenty of runway to stop, but what if he lifts off and collides right into me

3 if I execute a missed approach and dont get enough power to climb away then I might crash into him or I will have higher speed to deal with and thus creating a greater chance of 1 to happen.


Guys please comment on what I should have done to mitigate the risk, would it have been better if I had chosen to Go-Around. The reason I am asking is bcoz, I have been taught that one is committed to land once DA or MDA is passed. I would appreciate your point of views.
wannabepilot1991 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 19:08
  #2 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes on 239 Posts
Seems to me that you did what you could except to have answered "Negative, cannot comply!" but at the time you didn't know the other aircraft was going to be cleared to take off across you.

Your next step should be to file an occurrence report.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 21:08
  #3 (permalink)  
MIQ
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: No
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This sounds like quite a tricky situation. Thinking about it for a while and based on the information that you provided I would have probably executed a G/A even though you weren't able to advise tower of your G/A. You require 210 meters to land according to POH and that is with flaps, you had 180 meters available to the intersection. Based on that you were quite likely to collide with the aircraft departing on the intersecting runway. Despite you being quite low, you were in a pretty clean configuration with only the gear down. With full power you would have had a pretty good climb rate (not knowing the density altitude of your day but I'm assuming) with only the gear causing drag. Based on how I imagine the scenario, I think you would have been well above the departing aircraft. The other thing is, even though you wouldn't have been able to advise tower of your G/A, the controller would have most likely seen what you are doing and (hopefully) instructed the departing traffic to reject the take off.
Like I said, it's tricky and always easier to make a decision when on the ground with plenty of time to spare. I don' blame you for the decision you made. Once you are below the MDA and you are kind of committed to land in your mind, it's hard to overcome that mindset. Especially in split seconds like you had it.
Like the previous poster said, either way an occurrence report should be filed. That definitely was a dangerous situation that could have had a potentially catastrophic outcome. I'm glad that everything worked out well though.
MIQ is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 21:50
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You should definitely file a report. You were put in an impossible situation, where you were almost as likely to come to grief by going around as you were by landing.
I have been taught that one is committed to land once DA or MDA is passed.
I think that is poor teaching. That is only the case when you pass 'Single Engine Committal Height'.

For what it's worth, I would have gone around.


MJ

Ps. Just re-read this part:
...land and stop before the intersection of 18 (which is only 180m from threshold) uses break break and instructs other aircraft to depart from 36.
He cleared another aircraft to take off on the same runway, in the opposite direction to you landing??????
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 21:55
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have been taught that one is committed to land once DA or MDA is passed. I would appreciate your point of views.
IMHO you have been taught wrong then, all sorts of things can cause a GA below decision ht, messed up landing, windshear and runway incursion to mention 3. Personally I would have gone around and turned to be clear of the departing aircraft - then, after landing phoned the control tower and filed an MOR!
foxmoth is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 22:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
another aircraft to take off on the same runway, in the opposite direction to you landing??????
Must be Netherthorpe!
thing is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 22:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think that controller would have got a lot more than a phone call if I were you!


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 00:04
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Controller put you in a tricky situation. Split second decision making depends on so many things, but you are showing a good attitude by asking others for input.

Thinking about it I would have done a G/A. My reason would be, if I think I can not stop before the intersection, it would be better to stay flying. I have no idea of the performance of the other aircraft, but I know that I can fly.
Edgington is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 06:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,582
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
another aircraft to take off on the same runway, in the opposite direction to you landing??????
I don't think 10 and 36 are the same runway however bad your maths is, they are intersecting runways. The controller should not have done this and needs to be reported. If you are visual MDA is irrelevant. If landing is in doubt go around.
Whopity is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 07:19
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: South Africa
Age: 32
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks a lot for your input guys... Next time, god forbid, but in such situations Go- Around it is. And yes, the controller did get a piece of my mind and also from his instructor. But there was no occurrence filed as he was a student and he had gone solo for the first time, well , thats what his instructor told me.


Originally Posted by Mach Jump
I think that is poor teaching. That is only the case when you pass 'Single Engine Committal Height'.

For what it's worth, I would have gone around.


MJ
I guess I was confused between Single Engine Committal Height and Committed to land mentality on passing DA.


Originally Posted by Mach Jump
Ps. Just re-read this part:

He cleared another aircraft to take off on the same runway, in the opposite direction to you landing??????
Heheheh no, he had me cleared for R/W 10 and told me to stop before the intersection of R/W 18-36 and cleared other guy to t/o from r/w36.
wannabepilot1991 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 07:28
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Never been a big fan of LAHSO and the controller was definitely wrong to issue a LAHSO clearance without waiting for your confirmation that you could achieve it. Even if you had accepted it, were all ready in 'short field' mentality with a strong headwind 180m in a Seneca is a VERY big ask from blue line and so many things can go wrong. Brake failure....???

MOR for sure. What did your Safety Manager advise? Our students / pilots are encouraged to file SOTS for these types of events so we can analyse occurrences. It also provides a good base for 'what if....' discussions with students as a learning exercise.
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 10:18
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But there was no occurrence filed as he was a student and he had gone solo for the first time, well , thats what his instructor told me
All the more reason to file one - I do not think the student would have got into trouble but first solo students need protecting from controllers like this!
MORs are not there so much to apportion blame but to prevent repetition of incidents like this.

Last edited by foxmoth; 6th Oct 2015 at 13:18.
foxmoth is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 12:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Refuse the clearance.
S-Works is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 15:40
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I don't think 10 and 36 are the same runway however bad your maths is...
Heheheh no, he had me cleared for R/W 10 and told me to stop before the intersection of R/W 18-36 and cleared other guy to t/o from r/w36.
OOps should have read more carefully. Situation just marginally less bad than I thought then.


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2015, 04:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,273
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
"Unable" would have been my instant reply to ATC's instruction. You were configured for a particular type of landing that required a book figure greater than the LAHSO available distance. You are in no way required to change your configuration from your *stabilised* approach to suit ATC. Never let ATC fly your plane.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2015, 08:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: With Wonko, outside the Asylum.
Age: 56
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATC aspects:

The OP said:

the controller tells me to land and stop before the intersection of 18 (which is only 180m from threshold) uses break break and instructs other aircraft to depart from 36
(My bold).

This makes refusing the instruction impossible, at least immediately, and one instruction, followed by 'break break' and then by another one on which compliance with the first instruction depends, is wholly unacceptable.

I gather that the controller was under training, in which case it was up to his instructor to put the situation right. I would be very worried indeed about any ATC training system which produces a trainee capable of issuing that original instruction.

The whole thing needs proper investigation by your regulator, and that's why you should report it.

What should the OP have done? Go-around, immediately. Landing was no longer assured for the reasons he stated. But, he has a misconception that go-around below DA is not permitted. That's another problem; go-around OEI below ACH is not possible, and that's why, for example, one would declare an emergency, to ensure some sterilisation of the runway. But AEO, go-around is always an option, (until and unless reverse or spoilers are activated, on aircraft which have them), so the OP needs to talk to his instructor to clear up that confusion, or get another instructor or school.

So, there seem to be fundamental failings in the pilot training, too.
TheiC is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2015, 08:40
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When in that situation if in doubt, go-around.
Above The Clouds is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2015, 14:29
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: In the Jungle
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have been taught that one is committed to land once DA or MDA is passed.
Consider this scenario, you've just passed your MDA and notice the runway is not clear (ie, the traffic in front of you that landed is still on the runway or taxiing traffic accidentally enters your runway to get to the other side). Would you go-around or continue to land and risk a collision?

Like others have said, when in doubt, go-around.
A321Driver is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.