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

ATC today ordered me (while i was in final, 400ft above the ground) to immediatly make a right turn, because the plane behind me was faster than my good old Cessna 152 trainer...

IS THAT NORMAL ???

That is absolutely NOT what i have been studying about who has priority!!!!

It was today at my home airport EBAW !! the ****ers!! AWOOO BOOOHHHH!!

If I was in your position and I had been cleared to land (did you have clearance? I assume you did being at 400ft?), I think I would say something along the lines of 'unable to comply'.

If it's ATC, they can pretty much tell you to do what they like, but you would expect common sense from them. Personally I would have thought a go-around would have surficed.

And what would happen if the following traffic also required to go-around for some reason?

I assume Sternone that you are still a student?
If so then IMHO this is a very poor request from AT. It doesn't matter whether it's a local farm strip or a large aerodrome, this should not be happening.
One only has to read the thread about the poor 16 year old who lost his life on his first solo at Southend as a result of being asked to do something like that.
Someone more qualified than me may beg to differ of course, but that's how I see it.:=

G-EMMA has the link!

It's not unusual for some ATC airfields to "scatter" circuit traffic (by asking them to orbit) to allow an IFR arrival to get in.

This may appear a questionable practice but the alternative is for the arrival to cancel IFR, which ATC can't force them to. Also if the airfield gets £10 from a spamcan and £100 from a King Air.... not to mention the very substantial fuel sale. Almost every GA airfield can accomodate a KA and they have to make ends meet somehow.

In the UK, as long as you are not a training aircraft (Z priority) ATC is supposed to be organising expeditious flow of traffic, not revenue maximisation. Although from this you can see my experience is that airways IFR traffic is more equal than others.

You obviously fly from the wrong airfields.

Saturday afternoon, nice day. 1 in the circuit (C152), 2 inbounds from the north (PA28 & C152, 4 & 6 miles respectively). B737 at 12 miles.

Any guesses on the landing order? (I'll give you a clue - it doesn't bear out your experiences). Like I explained in the past - it has more to do with efficient traffic handling than anything else.

If GA wants to continue to have reasonable access to regional airports like Antwerp, we're going to have to accept a little give and take.

I fly out of a controlled airfield and we mix with 737s on the ILS all the time. It happens regularly that either ATC instructs us to orbit, or that we are called "number 2 to the 737 on 4 miles final" and we ask ATC for an orbit. But all that happens on downwind. Having to break off an approach while on final either suggests very poor planning from ATC, or extreme dallying on the pilots part, causing a ruin of ATCs plans.

In this case I would probably call ATC afterwards, tell them I was a bit shaken by the whole situation, and kindly ask what exactly happened.

I can understand give and take, and I can understand being told/requested to do orbits to make space for others. But sternone was on final, at 400ft, which in my book would be short final for a cleared landing. If the ATC and following traffic mess up seperation why should sternone be the one made to suffer, and worse, be thrown into an unfamiliar situation at low level? Knowing the 'faster' traffic was coming in why didn't ATC request him to extend his downwind? Was this faster traffic a complete suprise?

Absolutely right to not push traffic from the final approach just because a faster one is behind them. That is bad ATC.

Downwind is fine, and as bookworm says, some give and take is required.

No instructor should send a pilot solo until the pilot can fly all this stuff. This is one of the stupid things about PPL training: the strong emphasis on "going solo" as early as possible and you don't grow the proper CAA approved hairs on your chest until you have been solo. People sitting in the bar looking all despondent if their first solo has been delayed. So people are sent solo when they can only just about manage to fly a plain simple circuit without crashing down. If you were training somebody you care about to fly, you would never do things this way round, and the latest work in the USA (taking a student through a whole PPL/IR using a scenario based approach) supports this.

The best call would have been "OO-sternone - expedite your runway departure"

Yes, or maybe to that other fast plane: go around or do 360 in downwind ?

Yes i had!!

Like skyhawk said, i tought the same, if that plane is that fast, and something happens, i would only notice he had to go around if he would have striked me during that maneuvre... maybe ATC tought the same thing and said, safest is to let him do a 360.. i think that ATC guy messed things up right there... and he new it

Yes, i understand that, but doing a 360 at 400ft isn't funny for a student pilot...


Absolutely YES, but remember who is gonna fly in the future jets that buys the fuel to make their ends, maybe me ???

Ok, but maybe your ATC planned more correctly, i don't mind doing 360's in downwind... no problem at all, makes me practice it, and check out the ground for visual markings...

Me to, but the question is how far does it goes ?

anyways i survived!

I'm very curious what my next training this afternoon will give :hmm::hmm::hmm:

There are a few points that emerge from this thread.

1. You should only comply with ATC instructions if you are able to.

2. Instigating a go around from 400 ft agl in a small light is no big deal.

3. Being asked to turn to the right or what ever instruction it was in this instance must follow killing the decent and at the very least achieving S & L flight BEFORE you commence the turn.

4. For craps sake, don't start that turn before you kill the decent. Dig out the principles of Flight book and remind yourself of what happens to lift when you bank the wing. Mind your speed.

5. ATC issue instructions. Pilots behavior in accepting / carrying out those instructions determines the workload.

6. If you don't feel you can follow ATC instructions (AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT FOR ALL, PARTICULARLY STUDENTS), then don't. In this case, put it on the ground and allow the following aircraft to make the go around. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If you are an experienced, student or low houred pilot who cannot comply, avoid drawn out communication at all times, particularly 400 ft agl. Fly the bleeding aircraft. "Golf - Alpha bravo, unable to comply". Getting more chatter in your headset as a result (unlikely)?? Let us not write on your headstone that you exhibited good quality radio, but were a crap pilot. You are the captain. Behave like one and control the situation.

You will of course have to explain yourself afterwards, but without exception, I have yet to meet another pilot (plenty) or controller (a few) who would have anything other than helpful advice in the "de-brief" that would follow.

The Wombat

It is more of a deal if you have a faster aircraft breathing up your @r$e, so close to you that it is the reason for you going around. As I asked previously what would happen if it had to go-around as well? Hardly an ideal situation.

But that's where the give-and-take comes in. Occasionally, ATC does screw up, just as pilots screw up. No big deal: within the constraints of safety, do what you can to make sure that everyone continues to have a nice day.

I'd rather occasionally get told to go-around or manoeuvre on final in such circumstances than have ATC regularly hold me orbiting downwind with a slowish jet 6 miles out.

The other interesting scenario is if the slow a/c on final does decide to pull up and go around and the faster a/c coming along behind him has already made that same decision too. :uhoh:

interesting thread, while I can see what IO540 is saying ie the faster jet uplifting a considerable amount of fuel, and airfields are after all a business, to make money,
Where I fly, I have heard ATC many times saying no turns below 1000ft
I guess the controller, just got it wrong, its certainly worth popping in for a friendly chat

No, sternone, emphatically it is NOT normal.

ATC will normally have cleared you to land by 400 feet, unless they have previously warned you to expect a late landing clearance. In the circumstances you describe, it seems the fault must lie with ATC in allowing this situation to develop.

At 400 feet, only in exceptional (i.e. emergency) circumstances should you be given anything other than a clearance to "Land" or "Go-around". This was not an emergency, merely a convenience for ATC to remedy a situation probably of their own making. The response should be simply "Unable to comply" and, if necessary, the following traffic may have to Go-around, which would be inconvenient, but at least it is a standard manouevre

The sad incident at Southend last July (referred to above) is a case in point and the report concludes by saying:

During his second solo flight the student was instructed to carry out an unfamiliar and non-standard manoeuvre.

Earlier in the report, it also says:

He had also been trained to comply with those ATC clearances that might be expected after turning onto the base leg and commencing his approach to the runway. These would be: to ‘continue’ and await clearance to land; to ‘land’ having been cleared to do so; and to ‘go-around’. Consequently, it is likely that he was properly prepared for the circuit environment that his instructor might reasonably have anticipated.

The report ends by making the following recommendation:

Safety Recommendation 2007-037
The Civil Aviation Authority should amend MATS Part 1 so that, with the exception of issuing instructions to go‑around, controllers shall not issue instructions that would require an aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional overriding safety considerations apply.

That says it all, really ...



JD
:)