What would/should you do?
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
Something does not quite add up, or is not complete, in Strakes's original word-picture of the situation he faced, since it is hard to comprehend that a TWR controller would behave as described to an aircraft within around 1 minute of landing.
Three possible explainations:
1. Assuming your calls to TWR were callsign only, the TWR controller may have thought you were on the ground. In this case giving priority to the jet may well have been correct, eg if he was trying to get him away on a fast-approaching slot. Here the problem was poor coordination between APP and TWR. Resolve by making clear in your second call eg '[callsign] Final.'
2. Was the TWR service an ATC service or was it an RADIO or INFORMATION service where no cordination is provided from approach? An example could be "Wolverhampton International,"
where approach functions are provided by Shawbury or Birmingham, but the airfield service is AFIS. If this were the case, I think you would have been entitled to land (if safe) as the AFISO cannot provide clearances.
3. TWR was having a bad hair day.
Three possible explainations:
1. Assuming your calls to TWR were callsign only, the TWR controller may have thought you were on the ground. In this case giving priority to the jet may well have been correct, eg if he was trying to get him away on a fast-approaching slot. Here the problem was poor coordination between APP and TWR. Resolve by making clear in your second call eg '[callsign] Final.'
2. Was the TWR service an ATC service or was it an RADIO or INFORMATION service where no cordination is provided from approach? An example could be "Wolverhampton International,"
where approach functions are provided by Shawbury or Birmingham, but the airfield service is AFIS. If this were the case, I think you would have been entitled to land (if safe) as the AFISO cannot provide clearances.
3. TWR was having a bad hair day.
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: UK
Ive just happened across this thread.....and have a few
comments to make.
[Rant mode on]
1. i am OUTRAGED
at 'Genghis the Engineer' - and engineer you might be because airmanship is not in your vocab....
No good reason?!?! No good reason?! You need a good reason to LAND *not* a good reason to go around...if my students took this attitude they would be set right fairly quickly...one reason for go-around 'not happy with ANYTHING' - and I can probably list at least another 6. Perfectly valid reason....mutter mutter.
[Rant mode off]
2. Cleared to final?! If you are on base or cleared to join base then you can proceed to base....there is no clearance to 'final' once cleared to base...if you are on base then you have little choice but to turn final and execute the go-around (i suggest by 200'). If on the other hand you simply 'fly away' you have broken the patterns and you become an aircraft milling about the place - a nightmare for ATC & other pilots. So you execute *known* procedures.
3. The ATCO needs to be reprimanded. An aircraft on approach has priority over ALL other traffic. The *other* aircraft should have been told to 'standby'. I personally would lodge a formal complaint against the ATCO for ignoring an aircraft in the air on approach and favouring one on the ground...The only time this is acceptable is if there is immediate danger to the aircraft on the ground...in which case the airbourne aircraft should be told to go-around off of the approach.
4. Landing?! Who suggested that?! Without a clearance it shows a huge disregard to airmanship, and clearly against rules. Unless you are in an emergency situation then you should go-around. If you lose radio contact and are not cleared to land you go-around...
5. Verbal over the air....eh?! Lets be sensible about this...if you wanna argue/sneer/be sarcastic keep it OFF the RT and onto the telephone after you have landed. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE over the RT. Simply follow standard procedures.
ho hum. I must say its no wonder the CAA regulate heavily given some of the rather niave and blantant breaking of rules advised here....I thought most pilots were more sensible...certainly there are one or two here I would not like to meet in the air....
As an instructor there are really only two options available - orbit or fly the approach & miss-approach. If it messes up the controller - tough luck - he should correct his priorities. Personally I believe the approach & go-around to be most appropriate, given a clearance to base. However, If i did not know the traffic situation I would orbit. (In the direction of the circuit(if known) or left-hand. Although orbiting produces its own somewhat ambiguous problems.
Hope this helps.
comments to make.
[Rant mode on]
1. i am OUTRAGED
at 'Genghis the Engineer' - and engineer you might be because airmanship is not in your vocab....
causes a hell of a fuss if there was no good reason for you to do a go-around.
[Rant mode off]
2. Cleared to final?! If you are on base or cleared to join base then you can proceed to base....there is no clearance to 'final' once cleared to base...if you are on base then you have little choice but to turn final and execute the go-around (i suggest by 200'). If on the other hand you simply 'fly away' you have broken the patterns and you become an aircraft milling about the place - a nightmare for ATC & other pilots. So you execute *known* procedures.
3. The ATCO needs to be reprimanded. An aircraft on approach has priority over ALL other traffic. The *other* aircraft should have been told to 'standby'. I personally would lodge a formal complaint against the ATCO for ignoring an aircraft in the air on approach and favouring one on the ground...The only time this is acceptable is if there is immediate danger to the aircraft on the ground...in which case the airbourne aircraft should be told to go-around off of the approach.
4. Landing?! Who suggested that?! Without a clearance it shows a huge disregard to airmanship, and clearly against rules. Unless you are in an emergency situation then you should go-around. If you lose radio contact and are not cleared to land you go-around...
5. Verbal over the air....eh?! Lets be sensible about this...if you wanna argue/sneer/be sarcastic keep it OFF the RT and onto the telephone after you have landed. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE over the RT. Simply follow standard procedures.
ho hum. I must say its no wonder the CAA regulate heavily given some of the rather niave and blantant breaking of rules advised here....I thought most pilots were more sensible...certainly there are one or two here I would not like to meet in the air....
As an instructor there are really only two options available - orbit or fly the approach & miss-approach. If it messes up the controller - tough luck - he should correct his priorities. Personally I believe the approach & go-around to be most appropriate, given a clearance to base. However, If i did not know the traffic situation I would orbit. (In the direction of the circuit(if known) or left-hand. Although orbiting produces its own somewhat ambiguous problems.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by FormationFlyer; 15th August 2002 at 16:48.
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: UK
Wolverhamption is called Wolverhampton Business Airport AFAIK...not international.....
TWR *is* an ATC service - unless the post is incorrect. Because the callsign for the a/d would be radio or information NOT...xx TWR.
It obviously wasnt an AFIS...because in either case they do not control *anything* airborne (or in the case of radio - anything at all).
Given there was an instructor on board we can safely assume a clearance to land was necessary...
TWR *is* an ATC service - unless the post is incorrect. Because the callsign for the a/d would be radio or information NOT...xx TWR.
It obviously wasnt an AFIS...because in either case they do not control *anything* airborne (or in the case of radio - anything at all).
Given there was an instructor on board we can safely assume a clearance to land was necessary...
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
FF, If you joined an airfield and an inept operator told you to land with a 15kn tailwind would you simply obey, or would you question it?
G
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 15th August 2002 at 18:00.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
FF
I sincerely hope not - for the reasons stated earlier in the thread.
Ghenghis
Unfortuanately I can also think of a reason why this is a bad thing to do - the apparently clear runway which suddenly becomes blocked by an aircraft on tow which has been legitimately cleared to cross. That would be very nasty indeed 
CM
However, If i did not know the traffic situation I would orbit.
Ghenghis
A captain is wholly responsible for his aircraft - the ATC is only partly so, and if deprived of information about what is going on, and presented with an empty runway, I can think of worse options than to land and turn off asap
CM
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 15th August 2002 at 18:03.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
The comment CM's quoted I decided I didn't like (along with some other stuff) and deleted about 5 minutes after making it. Oh well.
But you do emphasise the valid point, that our hero was put into a position where no action, or inaction, avoided the risk of problems entirely.
G
But you do emphasise the valid point, that our hero was put into a position where no action, or inaction, avoided the risk of problems entirely.
G
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: UK
Genghis
BTW ATC dont 'tell' you to land - they 'clear' you to land - two very very different things indeed. obey? It is not an order - it is a clearance which I do not have to take up - I can go-around even IF cleared to land....
So..Yes I would question it. I wouldnt argue...I would simply state..
'Unable to comply due tailwind component. Request rwy xx.'
I believe that covers it.
Chilli
As for orbiting - I did say that brings with it its own problems. But if you are concerned about the possibility of traffic on final approach you have little options left....hence my comments...I dont necessarily advoate orbiting - and it should not be taken lightly....but orbiting is not a dangerous manoeuvre if the a/c behind is actually using his eyes (remember folks - this is a VMC manoeuvre in a VMC circuit ).....and obviously you would tell ATC on the radio as soon as possible...
And we should all remember that isnt it the definition of the AAIB - Where a committee takes 6 months to decide the action that should have been taken by a pilot who had 2 secs to make it.
BTW ATC dont 'tell' you to land - they 'clear' you to land - two very very different things indeed. obey? It is not an order - it is a clearance which I do not have to take up - I can go-around even IF cleared to land....
So..Yes I would question it. I wouldnt argue...I would simply state..
'Unable to comply due tailwind component. Request rwy xx.'
I believe that covers it.
Chilli
As for orbiting - I did say that brings with it its own problems. But if you are concerned about the possibility of traffic on final approach you have little options left....hence my comments...I dont necessarily advoate orbiting - and it should not be taken lightly....but orbiting is not a dangerous manoeuvre if the a/c behind is actually using his eyes (remember folks - this is a VMC manoeuvre in a VMC circuit ).....and obviously you would tell ATC on the radio as soon as possible...
And we should all remember that isnt it the definition of the AAIB - Where a committee takes 6 months to decide the action that should have been taken by a pilot who had 2 secs to make it.
Last edited by FormationFlyer; 15th August 2002 at 21:17.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Being picky, whilst I know that ATC can't tell you to land, they can tell you if you're going to, which runway to land on. I had no doubt that you would question the instruction / clearance, my point was that sometimes one must question, or even in extremis disregard an instruction and announce that you've done so. The sin, IMHO, would be to do your own thing without talking.
w.r.t. Eyes open, a couple of weeks ago I was rejoining at Old Sarum, half way between Alderbury VRP and the airfield, I heard a Warrior (faster than what I was flying) call same join behind me. I made a precuationary call reminding Warrior that I was there. They couldn't see me, and did a couple of orbits until they did (I was slow, but painted bright yellow with a 30ft span, same level). Assuming other pilots have their eyes open isn't always a safe option. (Fully accept my RT was totally non standard at the time, but infinitely preferable to a PA28 up my backside, so far as I know neither the other pilot nor OS Radio had a problem either).
G
w.r.t. Eyes open, a couple of weeks ago I was rejoining at Old Sarum, half way between Alderbury VRP and the airfield, I heard a Warrior (faster than what I was flying) call same join behind me. I made a precuationary call reminding Warrior that I was there. They couldn't see me, and did a couple of orbits until they did (I was slow, but painted bright yellow with a 30ft span, same level). Assuming other pilots have their eyes open isn't always a safe option. (Fully accept my RT was totally non standard at the time, but infinitely preferable to a PA28 up my backside, so far as I know neither the other pilot nor OS Radio had a problem either).
G
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Having been busy the last week, I've only just come upon this thread; interesting stuff.
Virtually the same thing happened to me recently, at Wolverhampton (Business Airport, known colloquially as Wolverhampton International, owing to their obvious delusions of grandeur
) WBA has only recently become ATC, and controllers aren't used to it yet, and neither are pilots. I was in an R22, and doing the usual helicopter low level approach, and told "report final for south side grass". I did, and got no response. I repeated it, slowing down - as a helicopter can - still no reply. I then called, obviously urgently: "Wolverhampton Tower, helicopter G- XXXX, extemely short final for south side grass; please confirm that I'm cleared to land", at which point he finally did.
I'm not sure what I'd have done if I hadn't been cleared to land. Probably landed, though yes, it's strictly illegal. But it would have been safe, and I knew the ATCOs were having a hard time coping. But I know the airfield. At an unfamiliar one I'd likely have gone around.
In the long run though, it's not desperately important, so long as what you do is safe. The situation shouldn't happen, and it forces you to make a very quick decision. If it were easy, this thread wouldn't have run to four pages. So FormationFlyer, don't you think your comments are a little over the top? Some of these comments may not be perfect, but questioning people's airmanship! Come on now, had you had a bad day, or what? Because every post so far has been useful...and flame wars help nobody.
Virtually the same thing happened to me recently, at Wolverhampton (Business Airport, known colloquially as Wolverhampton International, owing to their obvious delusions of grandeur
) WBA has only recently become ATC, and controllers aren't used to it yet, and neither are pilots. I was in an R22, and doing the usual helicopter low level approach, and told "report final for south side grass". I did, and got no response. I repeated it, slowing down - as a helicopter can - still no reply. I then called, obviously urgently: "Wolverhampton Tower, helicopter G- XXXX, extemely short final for south side grass; please confirm that I'm cleared to land", at which point he finally did.I'm not sure what I'd have done if I hadn't been cleared to land. Probably landed, though yes, it's strictly illegal. But it would have been safe, and I knew the ATCOs were having a hard time coping. But I know the airfield. At an unfamiliar one I'd likely have gone around.
In the long run though, it's not desperately important, so long as what you do is safe. The situation shouldn't happen, and it forces you to make a very quick decision. If it were easy, this thread wouldn't have run to four pages. So FormationFlyer, don't you think your comments are a little over the top? Some of these comments may not be perfect, but questioning people's airmanship! Come on now, had you had a bad day, or what? Because every post so far has been useful...and flame wars help nobody.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: Behind You
Picking the bones out of the original thread the basic question was, should this aircraft turn finals? and in my opinion (and it appears to be the general opinion), yes. Next question what should one do from that point on due to a lack of landing clearance. Well rule 5, low flying rule is relaxed for any aircraft which lands and takes off in accordance with normal flying practice at a licenced aerodrome. So what at what height do you go around? answer...a safe height..or alternatively, how long's a piece of string(imho).
I wonder if the same situation would have occured if the aircraft was say a 737 full of slf ?
I wonder if the same situation would have occured if the aircraft was say a 737 full of slf ?
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: UK
Whirlybird
Bad day - not at all.
Re my comments about go arounds - I see them as completely sound. Not flame at all. I was annoyed yes and admit that set the tone - but lets face it I try very hard to ensure students understand a go-around should be initiated when:
Approach is not stable
Runway is not clear, or is possibly not going to clear
Not cleared to land (if reqd)
If you are unhappy in any way about the approach.
I would suggest that 100-200' as a minimum height is appropriate for 'go around if not cleared by'.
Unfortunately I think your own comments show precisely the thing I am trying to train people against - continuing approach long after a go-around should have been commenced - and you do suggest this is (paraphrasing) 'ok because you know the a/d'. It s*not* all right....
As for questioning airmanship - every pilot should question it in themsleves and others. Personally if I stuff up Ill put my hand up straight away...ask Brize when I blundered into their airspace some time ago at low level...I put my hand up and took the bollocking (quite rightly so) - I called them whilst airborne even & had the phone number to call on my landing......im not perfect...far from it...but on the ground... forums like this can be used to help people formulate opinions about what would be the best thing to do...on the flight I just mentioned - I can list probably 3 major things I screwed up ith that put me in that situation...safe..well yes - at no point was the safety of any aircraft compromised...but it still matters doesn't it - because at that point it showed that I had made some bad judgements - now I have learnt from them...isnt *that* what its all about - and isn't that what we should be promoting here - learning and improvement.
One of the things I seek to improve is that every pilot should understand there is no pressing need to land regardless - do the right thing - if you arent happy go around... no problem there...
As for the ATCO...well its a two way process - some atc are good some are bad - some are incredible (hello brize, cardiff, gloucester and D&D!), if an incident occurs you must complain...I would certainly be phoning the SATCO to have a chat and see what the hell was going on...ok maybe not a formal complaint as an a/c was not endangered - ok I take that back - hasty annoyed typing does me no favours...
Bad day - not at all.
Re my comments about go arounds - I see them as completely sound. Not flame at all. I was annoyed yes and admit that set the tone - but lets face it I try very hard to ensure students understand a go-around should be initiated when:
Approach is not stable
Runway is not clear, or is possibly not going to clear
Not cleared to land (if reqd)
If you are unhappy in any way about the approach.
I would suggest that 100-200' as a minimum height is appropriate for 'go around if not cleared by'.
Unfortunately I think your own comments show precisely the thing I am trying to train people against - continuing approach long after a go-around should have been commenced - and you do suggest this is (paraphrasing) 'ok because you know the a/d'. It s*not* all right....
As for questioning airmanship - every pilot should question it in themsleves and others. Personally if I stuff up Ill put my hand up straight away...ask Brize when I blundered into their airspace some time ago at low level...I put my hand up and took the bollocking (quite rightly so) - I called them whilst airborne even & had the phone number to call on my landing......im not perfect...far from it...but on the ground... forums like this can be used to help people formulate opinions about what would be the best thing to do...on the flight I just mentioned - I can list probably 3 major things I screwed up ith that put me in that situation...safe..well yes - at no point was the safety of any aircraft compromised...but it still matters doesn't it - because at that point it showed that I had made some bad judgements - now I have learnt from them...isnt *that* what its all about - and isn't that what we should be promoting here - learning and improvement.
One of the things I seek to improve is that every pilot should understand there is no pressing need to land regardless - do the right thing - if you arent happy go around... no problem there...
As for the ATCO...well its a two way process - some atc are good some are bad - some are incredible (hello brize, cardiff, gloucester and D&D!), if an incident occurs you must complain...I would certainly be phoning the SATCO to have a chat and see what the hell was going on...ok maybe not a formal complaint as an a/c was not endangered - ok I take that back - hasty annoyed typing does me no favours...
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
formationflyer,
OK, I think the "correct" answer, as you say, should be: turn final, if not cleared to land, initiate a go-around from a safe height. Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if I was an instructor that's what I'd teach my students too.
But this thread is called "What would/should you do?" And perhaps we've been mixing up what you "should" do, from what you "would" do, in a real life situation.
In my situation, I could have initiated a go-around at any point whatsoever, even from low level at low speed; this is a helicopter we've talking about . And yes, I do have the experience to know I can do that safely. Though I'm not actually sure what the rules would be for that, on a low level approach to the south side grass - helos at WBA don't use the circuit; they come in below everyone else and land on the grass. But of course, in practice, I'd climb to a safe height and make a radio call. BUT I had been on frequency for a while, had excellent vis, knew there was no other traffic around, and certainly no other helicopters. A go-around in such a situation might be "right". But it would have been damn stupid.
I think the initiator of this thread (sorry, forgotten who you are by now!) was partly asking a similar question, ie are "should" and "would" necessarily the same, and is "would" necessarily wrong. I believe Genghis, as an experienced aviator, was making the same kind of point. After all, we're all human beings - even confused ATCOs at Wolverhampton Intergalactic (nice place to fly out of, for the record).
But yes, if we're going by the book, you're absolutely correct. Er...I think. (Have to put that, don't want to risk a good thread ending )
OK, I think the "correct" answer, as you say, should be: turn final, if not cleared to land, initiate a go-around from a safe height. Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if I was an instructor that's what I'd teach my students too.
But this thread is called "What would/should you do?" And perhaps we've been mixing up what you "should" do, from what you "would" do, in a real life situation.
In my situation, I could have initiated a go-around at any point whatsoever, even from low level at low speed; this is a helicopter we've talking about . And yes, I do have the experience to know I can do that safely. Though I'm not actually sure what the rules would be for that, on a low level approach to the south side grass - helos at WBA don't use the circuit; they come in below everyone else and land on the grass. But of course, in practice, I'd climb to a safe height and make a radio call. BUT I had been on frequency for a while, had excellent vis, knew there was no other traffic around, and certainly no other helicopters. A go-around in such a situation might be "right". But it would have been damn stupid.
I think the initiator of this thread (sorry, forgotten who you are by now!) was partly asking a similar question, ie are "should" and "would" necessarily the same, and is "would" necessarily wrong. I believe Genghis, as an experienced aviator, was making the same kind of point. After all, we're all human beings - even confused ATCOs at Wolverhampton Intergalactic (nice place to fly out of, for the record).
But yes, if we're going by the book, you're absolutely correct. Er...I think. (Have to put that, don't want to risk a good thread ending
)
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: Box Hill or Bust
FFF wrote
Just to take a diiferent slant. In a situation where a controller knows that the runway is going to be occupied when a go-around is going to be executed i.e. it has been requested from an instrument approach or aircraft in the circuit, then the procedure is to issue a go-around instruction which includes a restriction to 400 feet or above the threshold elevation. While this is 100 feet lower than the 500 foot rule I believe it has its origins there. Rule 5 states the rule does not apply to landing and take off in accordance with normal aviation practises and it is my opinion that flying to within 50 feet or so of a vehicle or personnel is not 'normal aviation practise'.
Obviously in situations where the preceding aircraft is slow to depart or vacate the runway this procedure can not always apply and the go-around my be initiated from a lower level, but at an aerodrome with full ATC this will be in a 'controlled environment'.
AussiAndy also said that being VFR you should be able to see any obstruction on the runway. Don't you believe it. You may have read an article that occurred at the weekend in Brazil. A pilot put down on a disued airfield which is now used as a park by local people and manager to kill a woman out walking. Also I know of an incident where a pilot mistakenly made an approach to the wrong airfield and it was only when over the threshold it became apparent that the runway was closed and occupied by a number of maintainance vehicles. Apparently the workmen scattering was like something out of Benny Hill only a little more serious.
I don't think that would apply here, since low-flying rules don't apply when you're making an approach to land. It's not unusual to get a clearance very late (even though it's unusual to be ignored until this point), so I think strake would have been quite justified in continuing his approach as normal, with the expectation of being cleared to land. Interesting to hear what other think on this one, though - as you say, certainly doesn't harm to do things by the book if matters are going to be taken further.
Obviously in situations where the preceding aircraft is slow to depart or vacate the runway this procedure can not always apply and the go-around my be initiated from a lower level, but at an aerodrome with full ATC this will be in a 'controlled environment'.
AussiAndy also said that being VFR you should be able to see any obstruction on the runway. Don't you believe it. You may have read an article that occurred at the weekend in Brazil. A pilot put down on a disued airfield which is now used as a park by local people and manager to kill a woman out walking. Also I know of an incident where a pilot mistakenly made an approach to the wrong airfield and it was only when over the threshold it became apparent that the runway was closed and occupied by a number of maintainance vehicles. Apparently the workmen scattering was like something out of Benny Hill only a little more serious.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
FF
Ok, so let me run this scenario by you:
PA28 throws in a self initiated orbit, putting him head to head with the Beech 200 / Citation / Faster twin who is bearing down him. What options does that give the faster traffic who has been passed the traffic information and has fully accepted that they will have to extend downwind. Said trafic now has to take avoiding action in the circuit and possibly files an AIRPROX through the manoeuvere done by the orbiting traffic. By the time you tell ATC you're doing it the damage has been done.
Still think it's not dangerous? Just by saying you're going to do it doesn't make it right - it is potentially lethal.
So - I will re-iterate this again for the benefit of those that have not got the message:
Pilots should NOT self initiate orbits in the circuit
CM
but orbiting is not a dangerous manoeuvre if the a/c behind is actually using his eyes
PA28 throws in a self initiated orbit, putting him head to head with the Beech 200 / Citation / Faster twin who is bearing down him. What options does that give the faster traffic who has been passed the traffic information and has fully accepted that they will have to extend downwind. Said trafic now has to take avoiding action in the circuit and possibly files an AIRPROX through the manoeuvere done by the orbiting traffic. By the time you tell ATC you're doing it the damage has been done.
Still think it's not dangerous? Just by saying you're going to do it doesn't make it right - it is potentially lethal.
So - I will re-iterate this again for the benefit of those that have not got the message:
Pilots should NOT self initiate orbits in the circuit
CM
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: UK
Chilli
In the situation as you state I agree whole heartedly.
That is where situational awareness comes in - which will of course modify any actions you take....I agree that *normally* pilots should not self-initiate orbits - however I would not go as far as saying NEVER....the pilot is up there and ATC are on the ground - ultimately the pilot has to make the decision - given all the options available if the pilot believes that orbiting is the answer then so be it....I personally would say it is one of the last options I would take...extending legs or departing the circuit completely are the more preferable two...
As a twin pilot in the situation you pose the answer is clear - you orbit. You did allow yourself a reasonable separation for the a/c to land? - exactly - we arent flying in formation here....citation?! In the same circuit as a PA28? whoever mandated that needs their head examined - for a start the citation would be hard pushed to maintain the same circuit pattern...so lets keep it real shall we...Its as bad as putting grob 109s or microlights in the same circuits as pa28/c152 - you have 40kt difference in speed - it causes huge problems for pilots.
The answer is separation.
Anyway in your example clearly the pa28 pilot is wrong as he can and is expected to extend downwind...to orbit in this situation would show a complete lack of situational awareness on the part of the PA28 pilot.
However, extending downwind in the case in question was not an option - back to the orginal post...the pilot is on a base leg...if unsure what to do (i believe we all agree he should have gone to final and executed a go-around) what do you blasting through the final approach track - possibly to the deadside where descending aircraft may be more than a little surprised to you?
Ill give you an example...I was airborne with a student on a direct base approach, I called 'left base to land' and tower said 'WAIT'. This non-standard use of RT left me in an interesting situation - there was a heavy on final approach. Do I proceed to final? or do I HOLD or what?! Apparrently the controller meant 'STANDBY' - which if he had said I would have continued...but the non-standard RT meant I was now unsure where I should be going - particularly if I was being told to hold off....therefore a self-initiated orbit was sensible - it bought vital time to clarify the controllers meaning without the a/c flying into what could have potentially been a conflict situation...due to the nature of the a/d I did not know if another a/c was on final (particularly a heavy) because they would have been talking to a different controller.
As I say...never say never..its all a question of options...
In the situation as you state I agree whole heartedly.
That is where situational awareness comes in - which will of course modify any actions you take....I agree that *normally* pilots should not self-initiate orbits - however I would not go as far as saying NEVER....the pilot is up there and ATC are on the ground - ultimately the pilot has to make the decision - given all the options available if the pilot believes that orbiting is the answer then so be it....I personally would say it is one of the last options I would take...extending legs or departing the circuit completely are the more preferable two...
As a twin pilot in the situation you pose the answer is clear - you orbit. You did allow yourself a reasonable separation for the a/c to land? - exactly - we arent flying in formation here....citation?! In the same circuit as a PA28? whoever mandated that needs their head examined - for a start the citation would be hard pushed to maintain the same circuit pattern...so lets keep it real shall we...Its as bad as putting grob 109s or microlights in the same circuits as pa28/c152 - you have 40kt difference in speed - it causes huge problems for pilots.
The answer is separation.
Anyway in your example clearly the pa28 pilot is wrong as he can and is expected to extend downwind...to orbit in this situation would show a complete lack of situational awareness on the part of the PA28 pilot.
However, extending downwind in the case in question was not an option - back to the orginal post...the pilot is on a base leg...if unsure what to do (i believe we all agree he should have gone to final and executed a go-around) what do you blasting through the final approach track - possibly to the deadside where descending aircraft may be more than a little surprised to you?
Ill give you an example...I was airborne with a student on a direct base approach, I called 'left base to land' and tower said 'WAIT'. This non-standard use of RT left me in an interesting situation - there was a heavy on final approach. Do I proceed to final? or do I HOLD or what?! Apparrently the controller meant 'STANDBY' - which if he had said I would have continued...but the non-standard RT meant I was now unsure where I should be going - particularly if I was being told to hold off....therefore a self-initiated orbit was sensible - it bought vital time to clarify the controllers meaning without the a/c flying into what could have potentially been a conflict situation...due to the nature of the a/d I did not know if another a/c was on final (particularly a heavy) because they would have been talking to a different controller.
As I say...never say never..its all a question of options...
PPruNaholic!
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
From: Buckinghamshire
Hooligan: yeah, but as you said it was someone landing at the wrong airfield - so the big issue is not the one under discussion here in that case, as presumably he/she would've been talking to the WRONG TWR, leading obviously to exceptional risks due to a failure of navigation.
But I take your point that one might not visually pick-up absolutely everything that might be about to cross the runway - fair point (but you'd hope if TWR had cleared e.g. vehicles across the RWY that he/she then WOULD be talking to the traffic on final!?)
But I take your point that one might not visually pick-up absolutely everything that might be about to cross the runway - fair point (but you'd hope if TWR had cleared e.g. vehicles across the RWY that he/she then WOULD be talking to the traffic on final!?)