ATC makes mistakes and I get reported

A

Anon

Guest
Hello all,

So this is the second time something similar has happened to me, and both times it was reported and then dismissed without any adverse consequence to the controllers that were controlling the airspace. There were two issues the last time.

Issue 1 - ATC wants me to land on the same runway on which there is another airplane that is already on the ground but still taxiing. We have a 3000 feet separation as reported by tower, but the airplane that landing is taxiing (at a brisk walk pace presumably) and I am doing 65 knots over the threshold. I have a closure rate of estimated 50 kts, and that separation will become much less if the airplane on the ground decides to take the next taxiway. Uncomfortable, so I asked if I can go around - and got ready to go around, permission or not.

Issue 2 - ATC tells me to report left downwind on the go around which I do (a bit later than midfield). I report left downwind and they say what I thought was turn base. It ended up being "I'll call your base" but extremely fast. I said turning base, and turned base. Now from base, I see a formation of 6 airplanes behind me doing an overhead break and talking among themselves. ATC never corrected what I said and never corrected my base turn until I started turning final and there were a lot of people on the radio. Then I heard go around step to the right - which I did. Then they came back with "possible violation, call this number" - so called the number and actually went and talked to the tower.

Controller on duty at the time was actually a trainee that never verified my readback and also never caught what I was doing even though I was on a base leg and fully visible from the tower. On top of that, I was reported to FAA for a possible pilot deviation - which I knew wouldn't hold any water.

So on that flight, I feel ATC put me in two places that I didn't belong. I am in their airspace and I feel they failed to keep me separated and safe. They failed to do this by putting a trainee in an airspace with 6 very fast moving planes in the pattern that were talking among themselves. And then I get violated.

So should I just be happy that there was no certificate enforcement against me and be happy about that, or should I go ahead and see if I can actually hold ATC responsible for the mistakes they made? How do you even do that?
 
so many things I'd like to say. will let someone else go first tho lol.

EDIT: actually, is the field on liveatc? then we can pull the tapes and all judge.
 
@eman1200

I do not see how pilots can hold ATC's feet to the fire. This has never come up before.
Now, as for the rest, I can see at least five things the OP should have done. Is my list too short?

Tim
 
Go around is assumed until wheels touch the ground and even then is a viable option, if you need to go, go. That's my story anyway and I'm sticking to it.
 
Without knowing more, runway length, etc. it's hard to comment about your specific situation. That said, people (including controllers) make mistakes, especially in training. I don't think controllers have the ability to make judgement calls on pilot deviations anymore. If it was me, I would file an ASRS and move on...
 
I would have landed given 3000’ of runway, that’s more than enough to come to a complete stop so I would care less what the other plane is doing, after all on the ground we’re often much closer, I understand busy airports can put demands on the tower and pilots, and try to help if I can even if requires bending a rule.
So #1 is a non issue in my opinion.
For #2, ideally you would have been listening to tower and realized planes were on final and should respond with unable. Sounds like a miscommunication, they have to self report any incidents, that’s probably what they were saying, doesn’t sound like they were unprofessional (be nice to hear it for ourselves).
I had an incident and was berated by the ground controller, until a jet pilot interrupted him and basically told him to shutup, the tower apoligic. You can’t take it personally, we all make mistakes.
 
tspear said:
@eman1200

I do not see how pilots can hold ATC's feet to the fire. This has never come up before.
Now, as for the rest, I can see at least five things the OP should have done. Is my list too short?

Tim
Click to expand...
??? I’m not seeing where eman said anything like this.
 
Anon said:
Hello all,

So this is the second time something similar has happened to me, and both times it was reported and then dismissed without any adverse consequence to the controllers that were controlling the airspace. There were two issues the last time.

Issue 1 - ATC wants me to land on the same runway on which there is another airplane that is already on the ground but still taxiing. We have a 3000 feet separation as reported by tower, but the airplane that landing is taxiing (at a brisk walk pace presumably) and I am doing 65 knots over the threshold. I have a closure rate of estimated 50 kts, and that separation will become much less if the airplane on the ground decides to take the next taxiway. Uncomfortable, so I asked if I can go around - and got ready to go around, permission or not.

Issue 2 - ATC tells me to report left downwind on the go around which I do (a bit later than midfield). I report left downwind and they say what I thought was turn base. It ended up being "I'll call your base" but extremely fast. I said turning base, and turned base. Now from base, I see a formation of 6 airplanes behind me doing an overhead break and talking among themselves. ATC never corrected what I said and never corrected my base turn until I started turning final and there were a lot of people on the radio. Then I heard go around step to the right - which I did. Then they came back with "possible violation, call this number" - so called the number and actually went and talked to the tower.

Controller on duty at the time was actually a trainee that never verified my readback and also never caught what I was doing even though I was on a base leg and fully visible from the tower. On top of that, I was reported to FAA for a possible pilot deviation - which I knew wouldn't hold any water.

So on that flight, I feel ATC put me in two places that I didn't belong. I am in their airspace and I feel they failed to keep me separated and safe. They failed to do this by putting a trainee in an airspace with 6 very fast moving planes in the pattern that were talking among themselves. And then I get violated.

So should I just be happy that there was no certificate enforcement against me and be happy about that, or should I go ahead and see if I can actually hold ATC responsible for the mistakes they made? How do you even do that?
Click to expand...

Issue 1 isn't an issue. 3000 feet is the required same runway separation between two single engine arrivals. I would have landed. You chose not to which is well within your rights to go-around. If you don't like 3000, you should avoid busier controlled airports and for sure never go to OSH during the show.

Issue 2: I agree with @eman1200 in that if you put your time and airport, someone can link the voice tapes and it will help out tremendously. Right now the only version of the story that you want people to weigh in on is yours. Many times pilots (and controllers) will guarantee that things went down as they remember in their head only to be proven wrong by the recorded data.

If you are certain your stuff don't stink and you "want some butt's" (thank you Top Gun :)), you can call the facility's QA department and explain how right you were and how wrong they were and if found to be correct, the controller will be schooled. The facility (rightfully so) won't tell you how the schooling/action takes place. Just like when a pilot has a deviation the FSDO doesn't tell the controller the action taken against the pilot.

Reference the ATC training going on, that is a fact of life. Controllers are training in much busier airspace than you were in and pilots are training all over the NAS as well. That's life.
 
idahoflier said:
Without knowing more, runway length, etc. it's hard to comment about your specific situation. That said, people (including controllers) make mistakes, especially in training. I don't think controllers have the ability to make judgement calls on pilot deviations anymore. If it was me, I would file an ASRS and move on...
Click to expand...
ASRS is filled out, not divulging the tapes due to the nature of what and who is involved.

This is up for discussion, so looking for comments - positive and negative. Also please read all of it. The second item is really what's important.

The crux of the matter here is that I feel ATC is at fault. This is the second time this has happened to me and I ignored it the first time. I can ignore and go past again, but there has to be a way to hold ATC responsible so that they can think twice about violating pilots. We spend a lot of money to get here and don't want records like these to reflect badly on us pilots.
 
Anon said:
So on that flight, I feel ATC put me in two places that I didn't belong. I am in their airspace and I feel they failed to keep me separated and safe. They failed to do this by putting a trainee in an airspace with 6 very fast moving planes in the pattern that were talking among themselves. And then I get violated.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that the tower is responsible to keep you separated from other aircraft while in the air? Because they have NO such responsibility. That's your job. Refer to the FAR/AIM, section 3-2-5, paragraph e.

"No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft."
 
Oh I have a few! From both a former controller and CFI perspective. As has been stated, 3000' was adequate, you didn't like that so you GA. Your call.

Tower told you to report turning downwind and you didn't until you were about to turn base. You could have caused a near hit with those military jets by turning base when you were told to extend downwind because of the fighters in the overhead pattern.

I sense an attitude of you never mess up so blame ATC or someone else. You need to listen up closer to ATC, regardless if there's a trainee in position. By the way, when a trainee is in position a fully rated controller is also plugged in and monitoring the trainee, with the capability to override and/or correct a mistake a trainee may make.

Yeah this episode is on you IMO. Sorry.
 
You said "..so called the number and actually went and talked to the tower."

What was said?

As Kevin said there is "always" training going on in the tower and in the airplanes that fly in tower's airspace. Most of these conflicts are usually attributed to "training in progress." It doesn't sound like anyone is going to get their pee pee shwacked over such a non issue and that includes you. But again, what was said in your conversation with the tower?
 
Ryanb said:
??? I’m not seeing where eman said anything like this.
Click to expand...

No,, eman said he found a lot wrong, and was not going first.
I replied I found five items by the OP, and one concept by the OP (hold the controller feet to the fire) I had no idea about, or even how to do, or that it had even occurred to me before.

Tim
 
Here is my list:
1. Asked to go around. Just say you are going around, no permission required.
2. Did not say when turning downwind till half way down downwind
3. When controller spoke fast, did not confirm directions
4. Turned base early, instead of on direction
5. Turned base at mid field. never give up runway unless an emergency

Tim
 
Anon said:
I am in their airspace and I feel they failed to keep me separated and safe. They failed to do this
Click to expand...

Some mistakes may have been made but this is a dangerous and incorrect assumption on your part and is a common misconception. The only time you are guaranteed separation services VFR is inside Bravo. While they will do their best to sequence, it is still 100% on the pilot to see and avoid all the way to the runway. Relying on ATC to do that can be a fatal mistake if you are assuming that will happen automatically.

IMO, every approach to landing is a go-around until proven otherwise.
 
slacktide said:
Are you under the impression that the tower is responsible to keep you separated from other aircraft while in the air? Because they have NO such responsibility. That's your job. Refer to the FAR/AIM, section 3-2-5, paragraph e.

"No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft."
Click to expand...
Good point there. Take evasive action as I see fit - but I am under positive control of ATC in the pattern, I am not going where I want to go. Likewise if VFR in Bravo.

Otherwise ATC could have sent the 6 jets around me and we all go home happy.
 
Issue # 1 is impossible to prove without seeing exactly how far you were from the preceding aircraft and at what point you did your go around.

I take it Issue # 2 was the PD since you turned base when giving “I’ll call your base.” Really the controller should have put an “extend downwind” before it though. Anyway, I don’t see how you could get “I’ll call your base” confused with “turn base.” They, not catching your incorrect readback, while a violation of the order on their end, isn’t that big of a deal especially since no sep was lost on their end. Your PD, not complying with an ATC instruction won’t be a big deal either since you misheard the instruction. An error that the FSDO will take with a grain of salt and most likely end up with counseling.

The trainee on position and the 6 aircraft conducting the overhead, really aren’t relevant to anything. The trainee has to get experience with higher and more complex levels of traffic before they can get certified. Ultimately it comes down to the student’s monitor if indeed an readback error catch was made on their end.
 
Last edited:
Radar Contact said:
Issue 1 isn't an issue. 3000 feet is the required same runway separation between two single engine arrivals. I would have landed. You chose not to which is well within your rights to go-around. If you don't like 3000, you should avoid busier controlled airports and for sure never go to OSH during the show.
Click to expand...

3000 feet of separation is not the requirement. The requirement is that the preceding aircraft be 3000 feet past the threshold of the runway. This can result in less than 3000 feet of separation and still be perfectly legal.
 
Judging by your story, I would suggest you take careful notes of the good information the others have provided on your airmanship, delete this thread, and go on your merry way. Possibly seek out the services of a competent CFI.
 
Anon said:
Hello all,

So this is the second time something similar has happened to me, and both times it was reported and then dismissed without any adverse consequence to the controllers that were controlling the airspace. There were two issues the last time.
Click to expand...
First, how do you know there were "no adverse consequence to the controllers"?

Second, were there actual adverse consequences to you?

Third...if this is happening to you often, maybe the problem isn't with the controllers.
 
Lots of mistakes by our OP:

Like the others said, every landing is a go-around. You asked someone in a room to make a PIC decision for you. Bad juju.
3K feet is more than enough to land most GA aircraft. If the OP feels he cannot he needs instruction. This is critically important. Some day the chips may be down, and there might not be 3K feet to land in. Might only be one. He has to know how to land short.
You don't understand something a controller says, ask him or her to repeat it until you do.
You come around to land and see a bunch of airplanes doing you know not what, you don't land until you know EXACTLY what they're doing. If you can't get joy out of the tower, go elsewhere.
Guys at a controlled field doing an overhead break maneuver should be in contact with the tower. You should have heard what was going on. If you didn't you should assume they're rouge and get out of dodge. Sort it out later when there's less traffic.

All that said, I doubt our OP will read any of this. Usually when folks don't hear what they wanted to hear in the first place they stop listening.
 
Well in his defense, if there is a flight of aircraft at initial they are most likely military. If they are military, they are probably talking on UHF.

I'm not condoning any of the OP's actions, just pointing out what may not be obvious to others.
 
Radar Contact said:
Issue 1 isn't an issue. 3000 feet is the required same runway separation between two single engine arrivals. I would have landed. You chose not to which is well within your rights to go-around. If you don't like 3000, you should avoid busier controlled airports and for sure never go to OSH during the show.

Issue 2: I agree with @eman1200 in that if you put your time and airport, someone can link the voice tapes and it will help out tremendously. Right now the only version of the story that you want people to weigh in on is yours. Many times pilots (and controllers) will guarantee that things went down as they remember in their head only to be proven wrong by the recorded data.

If you are certain your stuff don't stink and you "want some butt's" (thank you Top Gun :)), you can call the facility's QA department and explain how right you were and how wrong they were and if found to be correct, the controller will be schooled. The facility (rightfully so) won't tell you how the schooling/action takes place. Just like when a pilot has a deviation the FSDO doesn't tell the controller the action taken against the pilot.

Reference the ATC training going on, that is a fact of life. Controllers are training in much busier airspace than you were in and pilots are training all over the NAS as well. That's life.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:
 
Anon said:
The crux of the matter here is that I feel ATC is at fault. This is the second time this has happened to me and I ignored it the first time. I can ignore and go past again, but there has to be a way to hold ATC responsible so that they can think twice about violating pilots. We spend a lot of money to get here and don't want records like these to reflect badly on us pilots.
Click to expand...

I understand you're not happy about what happened, but the reality is that there isn't and won't be a way to "hold ATC responsible so that they can think twice about violating pilots.". I'm not saying it's right, it just is and there is no point trying to fight it, you're just going to waste your time and get more frustrated.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Well in his defense, if there is a flight of aircraft at initial they are most likely military. If they are military, they are probably talking on UHF.

I'm not condoning any of the OP's actions, just pointing out what may not be obvious to others.
Click to expand...

Even if they did, you always hear the tower's reply. I have always assumed when ATC clicks transmit it is on every frequency they are listening on.

Tim
 
Anon said:
Good point there. Take evasive action as I see fit - but I am under positive control of ATC in the pattern, I am not going where I want to go. Likewise if VFR in Bravo.
Click to expand...

NO. You are NOT under positive control in Class D airspace. I suggest that you review the AIM and the pilot-controller glossary if you do not understand what this means.

POSITIVE CONTROL− The separation of all air traffic within designated airspace by air traffic control.

No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft in Class D airspace.
 
Velocity173 said:
Issue # 1 is impossible to prove without seeing exactly how far you were from the preceding aircraft. Since you did a go around, the 3,000 ft runway sep on their end wasn’t broken.

I take it Issue # 2 was the PD since you turned base when giving “I’ll call your base.” Really the controller should have put an “extend downwind” before it though. Anyway, I don’t see how you could get “I’ll call your base” confused with “turn base.” They, not catching your incorrect readback, while a violation of the order on their end, isn’t that big of a deal especially since no sep was lost on their end. Your PD, not complying with an ATC instruction won’t be a big deal either since you misheard the instruction. An error that the FSDO will take with a grain of salt and most likely end up with counseling.

The trainee on position and the 6 aircraft conducting the overhead, really aren’t relevant to anything. The trainee has to get experience with higher and more complex levels of traffic before they can get certified. Ultimately it comes down to the student’s monitor if indeed an readback error catch was made on their end.
Click to expand...

Closure rate of 50kts is the key on the runway. Been to Oshkosh multiple times, landed on the same runway with upto 4 aircraft on the same runway multiple times, going about the same speed as everyone else.

No confusion when I read back and turned base. I read back and complied with what I thought I was told. What I understood and read back WAS my clearance. If ATC thinks it wasn't, then they needed to correct it immediately. As I mentioned, there was a separate overlapping communication from the other set of aircraft - so there was a lot of chatter. Sitting at home and going over the tape a couple of times revealed what was said. He may have said "extend downwind" as well - I just didn't hear it. I am used to "extend downwind, I'll call your base" so nothing new there. I read it back and comply with it all the time.

I agree the the monitor needed to correct the wrong readback. There were three people in the tower - all probably watching the overhead break :)

Don't really want this thread to turn emotional, just educational. As pilots and ATC, we work together. Ultimate goal is to have a safe flying environment for everyone. We do what we're cleared to do or say "unable" if we can't. But our clearance is what we read back, not what ATC says. There has to be a two way handshake. If ATC doesn't listen and verify what we read back, there is really no point in reading back instructions, is there?

BTW, this is not the first time I have heard ATC not correct a readback, but some of them are somewhat minor - but I wish they would do it every time. Creates better pilots.
 
idahoflier said:
I understand you're not happy about what happened, but the reality is that there isn't and won't be a way to "hold ATC responsible so that they can think twice about violating pilots.". I'm not saying it's right, it just is and there is no point trying to fight it, you're just going to waste your time and get more frustrated.
Click to expand...

Not true. In all reality and as others have said, there is a trainee and the trainee is being monitored by a rated controller and in most places, both are being monitored by a supervisor. If this was an incident in which the tapes (all digital now but we still call them that) were reviewed and the tower was indeed at fault then the monitor and possibly the supervisor could lose their ratings. This would be more likely in a mishap or an incident, none of which were described in this case. In this case it sounds like somebody's delicate feelers got hurt. So although the OP may not have "directly" got to hold the controller's feet to the fire, internal checks and balances within the tower most likely took place which could have been anything ranging from a stern look to rating being pulled. In either case, pilots rarely hear about it.

But I'm still curious, what was said in the conversation between the OP and the tower?

<steps up to the pulpit>

Controllers and ATC aren't out to get anyone and they aren't always right. But controllers have to deal with multiple aircraft and do the best they can to keep them separated even when pilots, who only have to control their own aircraft, don't always listen or do what they're told. If that happens, its always up to the controllers to figure out an alternate plan. So don't get your panties in a bunch because you and your one aircraft didn't get to do what you wanted to when you wanted to do it. If you didn't swap paint or even worse, bend your airplane, then learn from the experience and move on.
 
Last edited:
slacktide said:
NO. You are NOT under positive control in Class D airspace. I suggest that you review the AIM and the pilot-controller glossary if you do not understand what this means.

POSITIVE CONTROL− The separation of all air traffic within designated airspace by air traffic control.

No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft in Class D airspace.
Click to expand...

So why was there an issue? Why was I told to call tower? Anything wrong there? I didn't land without clearance.
 
tspear said:
Even if they did, you always hear the tower's reply. I have always assumed when ATC clicks transmit it is on every frequency they are listening on.

Tim
Click to expand...

Obvious at least to you and me - however in the OP's case, unless he fesses up with more information such as where the controller told the flight at initial to break or "you're following (OP's aircraft) downwind midfield" we may never know.
 
Anon said:
. But our clearance is what we read back, not what ATC says. There has to be a two way handshake. If ATC doesn't listen and verify what we read back, there is really no point in reading back instructions, is there?
.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, you are so wrong. Controllers issue control instructions, not pilots.
 
Time to step-back and re-evaluate what happened. From this view, it sounds like you got flustered when you were cleared to land with another airplane on the runway. You didn't like that, and chose to go around (your call, I won't judge there). As you re-entered the pattern, you were still flustered and things went downhill from there. I suggest that, rather than directing negative energy at ATC, you get with your favorite CFI and go do some practice, both landings so the 3000ft separation isn't an issue in the future and practice go-around or other quick-change type scenarios so that you avoid the helmet fire in the future. In short, less blaming ATC, more self-reflection and learning opportunity.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Obvious at least to you and me - however in the OP's case, unless he fesses up with more information such as where the controller told the flight at initial to break or "you're following (OP's aircraft) downwind midfield" we may never know.
Click to expand...

I suspect the fighters flew the break over the numbers and that's why local told him to extend downwind. But then he turns base, surprised he didn't get run over by a fighter.
 
mscard88 said:
Oh boy, you are so wrong. Controllers issue control instructions, not pilots.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I haven't looked into it lately, but my best recollection from a CLE a few years ago is that the NTSB caselaw is mixed on whether a pilot deviation is appropriate where an instruction is readback improperly and the controller fails to correct the pilot.
 
If you were in control of the aircraft, PIC, anything that went wrong was your fault. If you were PIC, and not in control of the aircraft, then it was a complete failure.

Blaming ATC, is a clear indicator that you need better training IMO. Doesn't matter what anyone else does, if you are PIC, everything that happens in that aircraft is under your control, and any consequences fall squarely on your lap!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
idahoflier said:
I understand you're not happy about what happened, but the reality is that there isn't and won't be a way to "hold ATC responsible so that they can think twice about violating pilots.". I'm not saying it's right, it just is and there is no point trying to fight it, you're just going to waste your time and get more frustrated.
Click to expand...

Besides, ATC does not violate pilots. They may read them the riot act but that isn't "violating". They may report them to the FSDO but then it would be up to the FSDO whether or not to violate.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top