ATC: Right turn in final.. for faster plane behind??
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by snapper41
Been reading this thread with interest; surely the best thing is for ATC to allow the ac already on finals to go ahead and land, and tell the faster one to go around? Or am I being simplistic?
I agree snapper41, that would be the normal thing to do - and the safest - and most in compliance with MATS Pt 1 ...
JD
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snapper, you are not being simplistic at all. However there are only two viable scenarios IMHO
1. 152 lands, jet go's around.
or
2. 152 go's around, jet lands.
Now if 152 is on a series of circuits the only thing he/she misses out on here is touching the wheels on tarmac, but saves half a landing fee and gets a free GA practice in to the bargain, which is good for training and experience. I have been in such situations in training where I offered to go around, no big deal.
Of course the jet could help if up to snuff with situational awareness by slowing down to slowest approach speed and maybe throwing in an S-turn VMC (which I suppose it was) to fit in with slower traffic. Also good for training and experience. The comfortable approach speed in my aircraft is 120KT, but I often find myself bringing her back to blue line 100KT at a busy GA airfield to fit with the slower traffic. Its called good airmanship, which may be becoming a thing of the past
Many countries, particularly US, have uncontrolled airfields which serve a variety of different aircraft up to large business jets. The pilots have to learn to co-operate, with no ATC to adjudicate.
But getting back to the thread, requests for a low level orbit in all but emergency situations have no place in a controllers toolbox IMHO.
1. 152 lands, jet go's around.
or
2. 152 go's around, jet lands.
Now if 152 is on a series of circuits the only thing he/she misses out on here is touching the wheels on tarmac, but saves half a landing fee and gets a free GA practice in to the bargain, which is good for training and experience. I have been in such situations in training where I offered to go around, no big deal.
Of course the jet could help if up to snuff with situational awareness by slowing down to slowest approach speed and maybe throwing in an S-turn VMC (which I suppose it was) to fit in with slower traffic. Also good for training and experience. The comfortable approach speed in my aircraft is 120KT, but I often find myself bringing her back to blue line 100KT at a busy GA airfield to fit with the slower traffic. Its called good airmanship, which may be becoming a thing of the past
Many countries, particularly US, have uncontrolled airfields which serve a variety of different aircraft up to large business jets. The pilots have to learn to co-operate, with no ATC to adjudicate.
But getting back to the thread, requests for a low level orbit in all but emergency situations have no place in a controllers toolbox IMHO.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO NO NO You should never ask an aircraft(with perhaps a less than experienced pilot in command) to orbit at those levels and in his landing configuration. Go around,re-position,or send the second guy around. Use common sense BUT bear in mind that what seems like a "sensible" option for you (ATCO) may lead the light aircraft into a place where he feels he HAS to comply and ends up in a dangerous and unrecoverable situation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sternone doesn't comment on what was behind him
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a commercial IFR driver I wonder whether Sternone's circuit was wider and therefore took longer than TWR anticipated?
Also, did you go up to TWR to ask for their point of view? I often call up the controllers at my home base just to clarify things (very busy with lots of a/c with very differing capabilities and performance) as I realise neither of us may have the full picture (nor the time to discuss on RT) to appreciate what really happened and learn from the experience. They certainly like to hear the pilot's view as much as I like to know how they arrived at their chosen options.
I seem to remember that EBAW is quite limited in the sense of built up areas all around the rwy and lots of noise sensitive areas, which may limit the room for manoeuvre as well.
Also, did you go up to TWR to ask for their point of view? I often call up the controllers at my home base just to clarify things (very busy with lots of a/c with very differing capabilities and performance) as I realise neither of us may have the full picture (nor the time to discuss on RT) to appreciate what really happened and learn from the experience. They certainly like to hear the pilot's view as much as I like to know how they arrived at their chosen options.
I seem to remember that EBAW is quite limited in the sense of built up areas all around the rwy and lots of noise sensitive areas, which may limit the room for manoeuvre as well.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be a bit late to poke my nose into this discussion, but in my opinion ATC operators are as well trained at their job as pilots are in theirs. Therefore, also in my opinion, this sort of un-professional behaviour on the part of ATC amounts to the equivalent of pilot error & I believe should be treated as such. ATC are there to assist the pilot to maintain safety, not the other way round. There seems to be an attititude here that ATC are God & cannot be held to account unless someone dies as a result. If the pilot of the "faster" a/c had declared an emergency, fine, if not then he should do the maneuvering as he sees fit. In my opinion. And I think it is bad news that ATC controllers are doing things like this which they would not have done a few years ago, ie: being less than professional.
I would point out by the way that this is only my opinion.
I shall now take cover.
I would point out by the way that this is only my opinion.
I shall now take cover.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i guess i'm to unexpierenced to say to atc: CANNOT COMPLY or ask him what the hell was going on!!
As for asking him what was going on, not a good idea in those circumstances. As I said, call up the tower later, tell him you were a bit shaken up and whether you could come 'round to discuss it. (FWIW, it's a good excuse as any to visit the tower anyway.)
Sternone, you did it exactly right.
Priority ONE is Aviate and that you did by complying with ATC as best you could while remaining within safe flight parameters and your training.
Communicate is priority THREE; if you're too busy with the airplane, then don't bother talking. It's called shedding non-essential workload in favor of staying alive.
I don't turn below 700' in a powered a/c except 500' for turning final and crosswind in a circuit.
Lets leave the low level maneuvers for the military and air show folks.
Priority ONE is Aviate and that you did by complying with ATC as best you could while remaining within safe flight parameters and your training.
Communicate is priority THREE; if you're too busy with the airplane, then don't bother talking. It's called shedding non-essential workload in favor of staying alive.
I don't turn below 700' in a powered a/c except 500' for turning final and crosswind in a circuit.
Lets leave the low level maneuvers for the military and air show folks.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may not always be the field's ATCO who is at fault. At my airport yesterday (which is Class C airspace), a 737 who was pretty fast was asked to slow down on about 6-8nm finals. The approach controller had the 737 vectored in behind a Hawker and informed the Boeing's crew of the other aircraft's horizontal separation. Naturally, the 737 capt. assumed a faster speed would be adequate. However, approach control had failed to consider the Bonanza in the pattern which the tower was sequencing in behind the Hawker. While the Boeing was able to slow down in time, it could have been a similar situation to those described here. Just pointing out that sometimes the tower's "errors" may have started way up the line.
As an aside, on my first solo (16th birthday) I was asked to turn onto an extended downwind from final to accommodate a 737 on final behind me. I was high and on a long final as the tower had already had me extend the downwind for other traffic, so it was not a problem.
This raises the question of how student pilot's competency should be assessed. I think a pilot's ability to fly a standard pattern counts for nearly nothing. Most accidents don't develop from standard situations. They are caused by something unfavorable but usually surmountable (fog not burning off as early as forecast) being made worse by a pilot's lack of judgment. If I were an instructor, I would NEVER send a student up for a solo until I had seen him cope with a completely new and unheard of situation in a competent manner. If pilots only had to do the exact same thing they did on the last flight, over and over, we would have gotten rid of human pilots years ago.
Anyway, just my opinions on the subject. And, to clarify, I am NOT referring to the tragic incident of the 16 year old on his 2nd solo in my above paragraph. Just stating my opinions on the matter in GENERAL...
As an aside, on my first solo (16th birthday) I was asked to turn onto an extended downwind from final to accommodate a 737 on final behind me. I was high and on a long final as the tower had already had me extend the downwind for other traffic, so it was not a problem.
This raises the question of how student pilot's competency should be assessed. I think a pilot's ability to fly a standard pattern counts for nearly nothing. Most accidents don't develop from standard situations. They are caused by something unfavorable but usually surmountable (fog not burning off as early as forecast) being made worse by a pilot's lack of judgment. If I were an instructor, I would NEVER send a student up for a solo until I had seen him cope with a completely new and unheard of situation in a competent manner. If pilots only had to do the exact same thing they did on the last flight, over and over, we would have gotten rid of human pilots years ago.
Anyway, just my opinions on the subject. And, to clarify, I am NOT referring to the tragic incident of the 16 year old on his 2nd solo in my above paragraph. Just stating my opinions on the matter in GENERAL...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were an instructor, I would NEVER send a student up for a solo until I had seen him cope with a completely new and unheard of situation in a competent manner.
a) the student may never find himself in one of these situations, and at what point do you say "oh, well, lets send him solo now anyway" ?
a) you will eventually run out of completely new and unheard of situations, unless someone invents one... and then it's not new and unheard of.
do you know what i mean? There has to come a point where the student is "let loose", otherwise we'd never have any new pilots going solo.
Having said all that, I am an advocate for having a few more hours under the belt before blasting off alone. Experience counts for a hell of a lot more than luck...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kc
I think you may have misread the comment.
I think the suggestion is that the student should be given one new situation before going solo (presumably even if this is contrived) to ensure that he copes (with it).
I think you may have misread the comment.
I think the suggestion is that the student should be given one new situation before going solo (presumably even if this is contrived) to ensure that he copes (with it).
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think i misunderstood it...
but if it is what you say, why not incorporate this as a lesson?
A whole, dedicated lesson focusing on "possible, unforseen and maybe catastropic things that could happen to you while post-solo"?
but if it is what you say, why not incorporate this as a lesson?
A whole, dedicated lesson focusing on "possible, unforseen and maybe catastropic things that could happen to you while post-solo"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having said all that, I am an advocate for having a few more hours under the belt before blasting off alone.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, i don't know to be completely honest - I'm not experienced enough in instructing to crack that number...
but i do have my thoughts about people who brag about going solo at 7 hours to those that might take 12 or 13 - they may have taken longer but they have more experience! And I strongly believe that in that status, as a brand new, low-hour, ab-initio pilot EVERY SINGLE MINUTE helps!
(And I'm strictly talking GA here - I have no qualms about military hours)
I guess there are pro & cons for both, but maybe 15-20 hours as a ballpark? Any thoughts from experienced instructors? (As opposed to experienced students, please!
)
but i do have my thoughts about people who brag about going solo at 7 hours to those that might take 12 or 13 - they may have taken longer but they have more experience! And I strongly believe that in that status, as a brand new, low-hour, ab-initio pilot EVERY SINGLE MINUTE helps!
(And I'm strictly talking GA here - I have no qualms about military hours)
I guess there are pro & cons for both, but maybe 15-20 hours as a ballpark? Any thoughts from experienced instructors? (As opposed to experienced students, please!
)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiwi Chick
Not an instructor sorry but out of about ten or so students at my club going through the course at the same time average was 15- 25 & one or two 30+ seems to depend on the level of Altzheimers & Dementia. Most instructors seem reluctant to put a figure on it in case they upset the slow ones & make the fast ones over confident.
Not an instructor sorry but out of about ten or so students at my club going through the course at the same time average was 15- 25 & one or two 30+ seems to depend on the level of Altzheimers & Dementia. Most instructors seem reluctant to put a figure on it in case they upset the slow ones & make the fast ones over confident.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had this experience at a large controlled field with a lot of scheduled traffic. A couple of years ago I had a landing clearence cancelled and an instruction to make an immediate right turn when I was about at about 50 ft due to an Airbus on short final behind. I didn't think about an "unable to comply call" I just carried out the action. This resulted in me giving any interested parties in the terminal a close up view of the oil stains on underside of my 172 as I climbed back into the downwind. Not a problem if one has the experience and understands the performance envelope of the a/c but quite a different matter as a low houred pilot or early solo. In any case a low hour pilot or early solo would probably not have the confidence/presence of mind to make an "unable to comply" call. In my case I did get an apology and an expression of thanks from ATC so no harm done. IMHO ATC should not give an instruction to orbit once an a/c is established on final. The instruction should always be a go around with a an immediate turn once positive climb is established. A simple go around doesn't work - what happens if the heavy traffic behind also has to go-around?
Compare this with an experience I had in the States flying into Kahalui on Maui with a 25-30kt headwind. We were cleared number one to land with a 757 number 2 and (not suprisingly) catching us up very quickly. The 757 Captain suggested that he should go around but the controller merely replied that he should expect late landing clearance and asked us to keep the speed up and expedite our runway clearance at the first exit. We did, stopped very quickly (again not suprising) and cleared the active runway. The 757 thumped down what seemed like seconds after. No panic, no grief, no issue but it was quite clear to me that the controller was perpared to give; and the airline crew were prepared to carry out a go around. There was no question of us having our landing clearance cancelled.
Compare this with an experience I had in the States flying into Kahalui on Maui with a 25-30kt headwind. We were cleared number one to land with a 757 number 2 and (not suprisingly) catching us up very quickly. The 757 Captain suggested that he should go around but the controller merely replied that he should expect late landing clearance and asked us to keep the speed up and expedite our runway clearance at the first exit. We did, stopped very quickly (again not suprising) and cleared the active runway. The 757 thumped down what seemed like seconds after. No panic, no grief, no issue but it was quite clear to me that the controller was perpared to give; and the airline crew were prepared to carry out a go around. There was no question of us having our landing clearance cancelled.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Compton Abbas
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the comments about someone not being confident enough to say "unable to comply" quite worrying. I understand them, but students should absolutely be being taught that they are the pilot, they're in control, and whily they're flying nobody can make them do anything which they feel is potentially dangerous. If some ATC asks them to do something which in their mind could be dangerous because they're too inexperienced to perform it safely, "unable to comply" should be the first thing they think of. Better that than to attempt it and risk death. It then becomes the ATC's problem, as it should be!
I find the comments about someone not being confident enough to say "unable to comply" quite worrying.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"unable to comply" should be the first thing they think of
(The nearest I've ever come to it, several years after getting the PPL, is to refuse an overhead join instruction because there weren't 2000' between the runway and the cloud base. By which time of course negotiating what sort of of join both I and ATC were going to be happy with was routine.)
I simply don't believe that it's going to be one of the first three, or even hundred, things that a low hours student is going to think of.
Look, pilots are famous for being obsessive about reading the accident reports, so that they can have some chance of avoiding killing themselves the way others have done. But what do we have here? Just a couple of weeks after the publication of an accident report, taking the original post at face value we have some other ATC unit doing exactly the same thing. Don't ATC read accident reports like wot pilots do then??
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Just a couple of weeks after the publication of an accident report, taking the original post at face value we have some other ATC unit doing exactly the same thing. Don't ATC read accident reports like wot pilots do then??
SD