ATC: Right turn in final.. for faster plane behind??

[Final 3 Greens]

rmac

At any time on the approach, even at 50ft over the keys, a good pilot should have it in mind that they should have to do so, and the manouevre is well practiced and safe.

Very good advice.

The lowest I've gone around was approx 15', when an aircraft commenced its take off roll on a taxiway across the runway I was about to arrive on - the pilot was also talking to another airfield at the time .... a strange story, but true.

As I had no idea of the PICs intentions, I chose to climb away and avoid a nasty incident.

As my former neighbour (A320 capt) used to say, you have completed the landing when the engines are off and the parking brake is on.

[DX Wombat]

rmac

it was your contention that it was OK to orbit at low level off of an approach which IMHO is not normal, dangerous and only appropriate to an emergency situation.

I said no such thing! Nor did I imply it. Read my post again VERY carefully this time please. As for your unwarranted comments about what happened to me at Duxford - or to be more precise on the way there, I have said repeatedly that I am NOT going to publish the details. All I will say is that it was problems with the aircraft which started the whole sequence of events which included a nasty radio failure. I think the fact that my actions were described as "Exemplary" should tell you something.
Kindly apologise for your nasty remarks alleging that I am too much of a skinflint to purchase a GPS for my aircraft. It wasn't my aircraft and it wasn't equipped with GPS, although in light of what actually happened even if it had been fitted it is quite possible that it too would have been seriously affected.

[rmac]

DX I have gone back and re-read your post, and what threw me was the context. I would suppose that every student should have an instructor that teaches them a stable go around, and indeed the unfortunate young student who died would probably been reasonably happy with a GA. But as the subject matter is unexpected low level orbits off an approach in dirty configuration, your comment would appear out of context.

So I assume that we both agree that the request by ATC for an orbit in such circumstances is a no no ?

For the record I publicly apologise wholeheartedly for accusing you of being too cheap to install a GPS

[DX Wombat]

We certainly do agree about that.
I do think that everyone is laying the blame solely at the feet of ATC and from what I can see it was the result of a lot of different factors not the least of which seems to have been the poor lad's inability to remember (if indeed he really knew how) to go-around. We can't ask him so have to rely on what we are told. Stress does strange things to people and it would have been very easy for him to forget all he had been taught. No matter how mature they may appear to be, young people of his age don't always have sufficient maturity to be able to cope with situations outside their normal experience. Whatever the reason, the fact that he is no longer here is a tragedy.
Thank you very much for the apology which is much appreciated.
Whilst I am here, I must say that D&D did a brilliant job for me under difficult circumstances and I will always be grateful to them and the Emirates Airbus pilot who was eventually able to re-establish contact with me.

[bookworm]

...I felt the aircraft wallow a bit and checked the yaw damper was engaged, which it was, looked back at the primary instruments, and speed had decayed to 20kts below VYSE and 10kts above stall. Quick check, somehow I had forgotten to raise the gear and flap, but had set power and programmed the A/P for pitch rate appropriate for cruise climb.

Reminds me of something that happened to me in an instrument practice session. ILS only on one end of the runway, so flying an ILS 23 with 05 in use for the visual circuit. The usual procedure was to descend to ILS decision altitude, then go around making a climbing left turn to establish on a right hand downwind for a visual circuit on 05. I'd done it dozens of times before, so it was no big deal and I didn't even think about it.

What I forgot was that before I'd always done this on two engines and this approach was simulated asymmetric. My safety pilot yelled at me as he saw the ASI winding down towards the red line in a 30 degree bank with a very uncomfortable nose attitude and a virtually zero rate of climb. We sorted it out, but it gave me a healthy respect for non-standard manoeuvres at low level.

[Single Spey]

DX Wombat:

not the least of which seems to have been the poor lad's inability to remember (if indeed he really knew how) to go-around.

Not quite correct (if you are referring to the Southend accident) as the final instruction to him was not to go around.

The student pilot reported on final and the Aerodrome controller replied "GOLF BRAVO BRAVO ROGER AND ER MAINTAIN RUNWAY CENTRELINE BUT GO AROUND ER CIRCUIT HEIGHT ONE THOUSAND FEET THERE ’S FAST TRAFFIC BEHIND TO LAND". The student replied "BRAVO BRAVO MAINTAIN CENTRELINE".

The Aerodrome Controller then replied "ER GOLF BRAVO BRAVO DISREGARD THAT JUST TAKE A LEFT TURN AND FLY NORTH I ’LL CALL YOU BACK IN VERY SHORTLY".

Shortly afterwards the ADC transmitted "GOLF BRAVO BRAVO JUST TO CONFIRM TURN NORTHBOUND NOW ". Shortly afterwards,
having still received no reply, the controller called "GOLF BRAVO BRAVO TURN NORTH CONFIRM ". The student replied "BRAVO BRAVO TURN NORTH".

In no way can this be considered a go-around. Agree fully that the consequences were tragic.

[DX Wombat]

Sorry Spey, my misinterpretation.

[Knight Paladin]

Skyhawk - Yes, it is alarmist nonsense. If the aeroplane behind you has to go around, he is hardly likely to choose to fly into the aeroplane in front of him!

DX - You didn't half get your knickers in a twist for a moment back there, did you mate? Demanding apologies, without actually explaining what happened... Calm down!

[DX Wombat]

DX - You didn't half get your knickers in a twist for a moment back there, did you mate?

No, I was really offended by the remarks and their implications.

Demanding apologies, without actually explaining what happened...

I asked for the apology for the offensive remark about using D&D instead of purchasing a GPS. That is self explanatory.

Calm down!

[Leezyjet]

After reading that accident report, one of the things that surprised me was that in ultra safe JAA land, it is not mandatory for a student on a solo flight to use the callsign "student g-xx" to alert the controller that there is an inexperienced student pilot flying solo.

Even in deepest darkest Africa where I did my PPL, this was standard phraseology on first contact with an ATC unit !!!.

I was also taught to treat every landing as a potential go-around in which you decide to land rather than go-around, that way you are always prepared to shove that throttle open if needs be.

[Knight Paladin]

" I asked for the apology for the offensive remark about using D&D instead of purchasing a GPS. That is self explanatory."

It's called a joke mate, AKA banter..... I'm fairly sure that wasn't a serious accusation!

[SkyHawk-N]

Skyhawk - Yes, it is alarmist nonsense. If the aeroplane behind you has to go around, he is hardly likely to choose to fly into the aeroplane in front of him!

Knight Paladin, thanks for putting me right about that, I thought he would DELIBERATELY fly into him, oh well you live and learn!

So let me get this right. You are saying that a Cessna 152 climbing out on a go-around at 60 knots along a long commercial runway (5,000ft) with a Boeing 737 (for the sake of argument) behind it with less than standard seperation travelling at 200 knots is an ideal situation? Is this why the ATC asked stenone to carry out an unconventional manoeuvre instead of a standard go-around?

[wombat13]

SkyHawk-N, you really are not going to look at this from the point of view shared by the rest of the industry. Maybe all we need to know about you is in the title you give yourself.

Perhaps you should switch to the safer sport of golf and run the risk of getting bashed on the head with a golf ball and dying. But then again, I don't know anyone that has happened to. But it could, really, yes. It could. I mean, all you need to do is visualise it.

I can't imagine how you can enjoy your flying if you are worrying about ATPL flight crews, with many thousands of hours experience and ATC teams with WORLD CLASS training, track record & experience both conspiring to "come after" poor little SkyHawk-N.

Get help. Or at the very least, if you are struggling for confidence in your post skills test phase, when the FI is no longer in the rhs, find a more experienced pilot to fly with you, who can help you to enjoy your flying.

GA does not need people with the brown wallet (which you tell me you have) writing on a public forum about such silly issues.

The Wombat

[SkyHawk-N]

You didn't answer my question Wombat, is it an ideal situation? yes or no?

As for the rest of your rant, whatever!

[rmac]

Back to Asia again, great place to pick up experience quickly, just out of Jakarta on the SID when radar tells me " N-#####, traffic, your six o'clock' climbing through your level, its an Airbus"

Only option, sit tight and hope he's got his TCAS on, as it was I saw him steam past me on the right about a mile offset.

Skyhawk a faster, more powerful aircraft behind you on final, will also be above you on the GS, and will probably be motivated to enter a climb in order to avoid spearing you (pilot is always the first at the scene of the accident) and will convert speed in to a climb rate that you can only dream of. So don't worry

More worrying is some xponder-less tw3t who cuts right across your GS when you are on a longish final, mistakenly thinking that he is transiting outside the zone. Now that has happened to me a few times, once close enough to encourage a change of underwear after landing

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk-N

So let me get this right. You are saying that a Cessna 152 climbing out on a go-around at 60 knots along a long commercial runway (5,000ft) with a Boeing 737 (for the sake of argument) behind it with less than standard seperation travelling at 200 knots is an ideal situation?

Clearly not - Aircraft going around isn't ideal and aircraft with less than standard separation isn't ideal. But there is a world of difference from a safety (and I would imagine controller/pilot pucker factor) between :

A -A 152 is going to be plodding in front of the approaching guy for the next 2 1/2 minutes (including runway occupancy) - The approaching traffic is maybe 5 miles away but will land with the 152 still on the runway if something isn't done - so send the 152 around - no big deal.

and

B - "Oh S!*t, where did that 152 come from" - 1/2 mile separation (say), non standard manoeuvres all-round and new underwear .


What started this thread sounded like case A - fairly standard situation, part of the give and take of aviation life - but low level orbit is still not a good way to resolve this (IMHO).

[SkyHawk-N]

Skyhawk a faster, more powerful aircraft behind you on final, will also be above you on the GS, and will probably be motivated to enter a climb in order to avoid spearing you (pilot is always the first at the scene of the accident) and will convert speed in to a climb rate that you can only dream of. So don't worry

Thanks for the ADULT response rmac .

I'm not worrying about it, I know what I would have done in the circumstances. I'm trying to understand the request to turn right on short final. If a go-around is the obvious/standard/safest option why would ATC request a non-standard/more risky(?) alternative?

[SkyHawk-N]

mm_flynn said:

What started this thread sounded like case A - fairly standard situation, part of the give and take of aviation life - but low level orbit is still not a good way to resolve this (IMHO).

That's probably where I read the situation differently. The instruction to do the non-standard low level orbit seemed to me a bit of an act of urgency, especially as it was issued to a student so far around the circuit.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk-N

mm_flynn said:
That's probably where I read the situation differently. The instruction to do the non-standard low level orbit seemed to me a bit of an act of urgency, especially as it was issued to a student so far around the circuit.

While I have no idea the circumstances in the case in question, the low level orbit does appear to be part of the 'normal kit bag' for some controllers. We don't know what the following aircraft, but I would bet it was small (in the sense of not needing vortex separation) and the controller in this case (and probably Southend) thought he was doing the 152 a favour with a quick 2 minute circle and then a landing rather than probably 5-6 minutes of going around and slogging around the circuit again.

Sternone doesn't comment on what was behind him, but in Southend it was a Turbo Prop single with an approach speed similar to a Bonanza and the controller request was around sequencing, not digging out from a near miss.

[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?