ATC: You WILL land here...

[Jaybird180]

I had a controller order me to land once. I was on my sixth ILS in actual, which I was doing for currency purposes, and he cleared me to land instead of clearing me for low approach as he had the previous five times. He said that the field had gone above minimums and that he couldn't approve any "VFR requests." He wanted me to land and pick up a departure clearance on the ground. Finally he asked me for my intentions, and I told him I was going to continue flying the approach, and then I was going to fly the missed approach. He stopped arguing with me, and after that I went home, as I had finished what I needed to do.

Of course, the joke of it is that having this discussion while on the ILS was so distracting that I got off course to the point that I had to stop my descent and start a climb for the missed approach. It wouldn't have been legal to continue the approach, and it wouldn't have been legal to land, as I never got below the ceiling.

I'm not IR, so take it for what it's worth:

If you're cleared to land, that implies cleared to approach. I would have flown the approach and at my discretion landed or gone missed when I determined whever I decided to do. It would have been safe and legal.

I would not have argued with him after being cleared to land.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I'm not IR, so take it for what it's worth:

If you're cleared to land, that implies cleared to approach. I would have flown the approach and at my discretion landed or gone missed when I determined whever I decided to do. It would have been safe and legal.

I would not have argued with him after being cleared to land.

This is the clue: "Of course, the joke of it is that having this discussion while on the ILS was so distracting that I got off course to the point that I had to stop my descent and start a climb for the missed approach."

If you are on an ILS approach and get off either the localizer or the glideslope enough that you get a full needle deflection you must execute the missed approach.

 

[Velocity173]

§ 91.123
Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.
(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.
(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.


Since he gave her a vector and altitude assignment could this controller be coverd by (b) and (e)? It's a stretch, I know.

 

[azure]

I'm not IR, so take it for what it's worth:

If you're cleared to land, that implies cleared to approach. I would have flown the approach and at my discretion landed or gone missed when I determined whever I decided to do. It would have been safe and legal.

I would not have argued with him after being cleared to land.

He was still in the clag as I read it, and had lost the localizer. In that situation the only thing you can do is climb and try to join the missed approach course, or climb and ask for vectors.

I'm a little unclear though on the prevailing conditions at the time. Were they below minimums so that no one had been landing anyway, now they were above minimums so there was IFR traffic incoming to land and the controller wanted him on the ground or otherwise out of the way? Or did palmpilot mean that conditions had gone *below* minimums instead of above? I'm guessing the former as it makes more sense, but the part about not approving VFR requests still has me scratching my head.

 

[denverpilot]

I'm not IR, so take it for what it's worth:

If you're cleared to land, that implies cleared to approach. I would have flown the approach and at my discretion landed or gone missed when I determined whever I decided to do. It would have been safe and legal.

I would not have argued with him after being cleared to land.

Number of problems with this. The OP said he was flying approaches. He didn't say if he was IMC at the time the controller said "cleared to land" instead of "cleared for the XXX approach".

Either he was IMC without a Safety Pilot and couldn't get to the airport without an IFR clearance, and needed to say "unable" to the direct landing clearance, or he had a Safety Pilot and was VMC and the controller was clearing him "cleared XXX (Practice) Approach, maintain VFR".

The story is borked up in various ways.

 

[tonycondon]

Regardless of who owns the airspace, no controller has the authority to demand that you land anywhere. They merely have the authority to clear you (or not) once you tell them where you want to go.

as one of our towpilots says: "The problem with air traffic controllers is that they think they are in control"

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm not IR, so take it for what it's worth:

If you're cleared to land, that implies cleared to approach.

I didn't have to rely on an implied clearance. I had already been given explicit clearance for the approach, and it was never rescinded.

I would have flown the approach and at my discretion landed or gone missed when I determined whever I decided to do. It would have been safe and legal.

I don't think a landing clearance constitutes an instruction to land, and I'm pretty sure that an instrument approach clearance constitutes clearance for the missed approach too, so you're probably right. The problem is that the clearance differed from what he said the previous five times, so it took me by surprise, and since I was already on final approach in IMC, there wasn't time to figure all that out.

I would not have argued with him after being cleared to land.

§ 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC. [emphasis added]​

At that point I was confused by the clearance he gave me, so the part I put in bold came into play. I don't think I said anything more than was required by the regulation. I also think it is important from a safety point of view for pilots and ATC to be clear on each other's expectations and intentions, especially when the aircraft is in IMC.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I think they've helped me understand the situation more fully.

 

[Palmpilot]

He was still in the clag as I read it, and had lost the localizer. In that situation the only thing you can do is climb and try to join the missed approach course, or climb and ask for vectors.

Correct. Fortunately, the obstacle environment around that airport is benign for many miles, so I flew back toward the approach course while climbing. (The moving map GPS aided in this.)

I'm a little unclear though on the prevailing conditions at the time. Were they below minimums so that no one had been landing anyway, now they were above minimums so there was IFR traffic incoming to land and the controller wanted him on the ground or otherwise out of the way?

Correct as to the weather conditions. I can only speculate as to the controller's motivations, but based on what he said, that is a reasonable interpretation.

Of course, he didn't know that this was my last planned approach. (If the conversation hadn't been so rushed, maybe it would have occurred to me to mention that.)

...the part about not approving VFR requests still has me scratching my head.

You and me both!

As I mentioned in my ASRS report, if the guy didn't want any more low approaches, the appropriate thing to do would have been to relay that through the approach controller while I was being vectored for the approach, not while I was on final in IMC!

 

[Palmpilot]

Number of problems with this. The OP said he was flying approaches. He didn't say if he was IMC at the time the controller said "cleared to land" instead of "cleared for the XXX approach".

Either he was IMC without a Safety Pilot and couldn't get to the airport without an IFR clearance, and needed to say "unable" to the direct landing clearance, or he had a Safety Pilot and was VMC and the controller was clearing him "cleared XXX (Practice) Approach, maintain VFR".

The story is borked up in various ways.

Sorry if my account was confusing. Hopefully my subsequent posts have clarified it.

 

[onwards]

Poor girl. I was cringing so many times during this conversation. She deserves an apology.

 

[denverpilot]

Sorry if my account was confusing. Hopefully my subsequent posts have clarified it.

Still confused here, if you were on an IFR clearance for the approach, you then get "cleared to land", you can say "cleared to land XXX runway" in response, and still go missed.

So I'm not understanding how you got from the cleared to land that it was somehow a demand? Sure, acknowledge it... and go missed anyway.

The controller has no option to say "cleared for the approach" that doesn't include the missed approach procedure. He added "cleared to land" so now you could lose the electrics and go NORDO and he'd better be ready for either a landing or a missed.

How did it turn into "you must land?". Unless he said, "cancel approach clearance" and gave you a new IFR clearance?

He can't just make up crap. "The field went VMC." So what? Enjoy the sunshine, cupcake. Haha.

 

[Everskyward]

Back to the OP. I think we are only hearing the end of a saga. It would be interesting to know what went on before the start of the tape.

 

[Velocity173]

Back to the OP. I think we are only hearing the end of a saga. It would be interesting to know what went on before the start of the tape.

Yeah, like what was the pilot deviation to begin with?

 

[Palmpilot]

Still confused here, if you were on an IFR clearance for the approach, you then get "cleared to land", you can say "cleared to land XXX runway" in response, and still go missed.

So I'm not understanding how you got from the cleared to land that it was somehow a demand? Sure, acknowledge it... and go missed anyway.

I'm clear on that now, but due to the fact that he had cleared me for low approach five times in a row (or the option, I don't remember which), I was unclear on why the change in terminology, and I was unclear on his expectations. I think I said "Cessna XXX will be making a low approach," or something like that, because I've been taught to make sure that tower controllers know what to expect from me, and I think safety is best served by doing that.

The controller has no option to say "cleared for the approach" that doesn't include the missed approach procedure. He added "cleared to land" so now you could lose the electrics and go NORDO and he'd better be ready for either a landing or a missed.

Just to clarify, the approach clearance was issued by approach control, and the landing clearance was issued by the tower controller.

How did it turn into "you must land?". Unless he said, "cancel approach clearance" and gave you a new IFR clearance?

I don't remember the exact words, but after I told him that I was going to do a low approach, he told me that the airport had gone above IFR minimums, that he needed me to land and request a departure clearance on the ground, and that he couldn't approve any "VFR requests." (I mentioned this in post #66, but maybe I didn't write it clearly.) At the end of this conversation, he said "Say intentions," and I said "My intentions are to fly the approach and then to fly the missed approach." That was the end of the conversation until I reported executing a missed approach, at which time he gave me a frequency change back to approach control. Nobody ever said "Cancel approach clearance."

He can't just make up crap.

My observation is that sometimes people do make up crap that they "can't" make up.

"The field went VMC." So what? Enjoy the sunshine, cupcake. Haha.

The field wasn't VMC; the ceiling came up to or above IFR minimums.

I never heard anything more about it, and I'm glad you agree that what I did was legal.

This was the first time this had happened to me in twenty years of instrument flying. If it ever happens again, I'll be ready, and hopefully I will not drop the airplane to fly the microphone like I did this time!

So getting back to the OP, did the controller on the recording "make up crap" when he ordered her to land, and if so, what would have been the proper way for the pilot to deal with it?

 

[N801BH]

Back to the OP. I think we are only hearing the end of a saga. It would be interesting to know what went on before the start of the tape.

+1....

To the computer literate guys/gals here.... Can you see if the whole deal was archived somewhere.

 

[jesse]

Honestly, based on the little I heard, I don't blame him that much. She didn't sound like she was in much control. There is probably more to this and he sounds quite calm about it...I don't think his actions were his emotions...I think it was a calculated move based on her actions.

 

[SkyHog]

Honestly, based on the little I heard, I don't blame him that much. She didn't sound like she was in much control. There is probably more to this and he sounds quite calm about it...I don't think his actions were his emotions...I think it was a calculated move based on her actions.

All true - but I think he exceeded his authority by a VERY large margin by doing it. It's like seeing someone accidentally peeing on the floor of a bathroom and responding by beating him in the head with a baseball bat to correct the behavior.

 

[bflynn]

Honestly, based on the little I heard, I don't blame him that much. She didn't sound like she was in much control. There is probably more to this and he sounds quite calm about it...I don't think his actions were his emotions...I think it was a calculated move based on her actions.

It was beyond his authority.

"Unable, please say operating initials".

 

[N801BH]

All true - but I think he exceeded his authority by a VERY large margin by doing it. It's like seeing someone accidentally peeing on the floor of a bathroom and responding by beating him in the head with a baseball bat to correct the behavior.

Yup..... And when the ground controller fed her a ration of *****, that to me was over the top..

 

[jesse]

All true - but I think he exceeded his authority by a VERY large margin by doing it. It's like seeing someone accidentally peeing on the floor of a bathroom and responding by beating him in the head with a baseball bat to correct the behavior.

I'd need to see the whole story (audio and radar) but-- at some point -- if a pilot is unable to understand basic instructions and is a risk to my own flight I wouldn't mind if a controller "exceeded their authority" and made/demanded they land.

 

[Everskyward]

It's like seeing someone accidentally peeing on the floor of a bathroom and responding by beating him in the head with a baseball bat to correct the behavior.

Not really. None of us has any idea what she did before the start of the tape, and being told to land isn't anything like being beaten in the head with a baseball bat. I think we are judging the controller without adequate information.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think we are judging the controller without adequate information.

True.

 

[Jaybird180]

Not really. None of us has any idea what she did before the start of the tape, and being told to land isn't anything like being beaten in the head with a baseball bat. I think we are judging the controller without adequate information.

"I'm not liking what I'm seeing here..."

I don't think so. If she successfully took to the air, then successfully landed, what's the problem? To whom is she a threat?

Aircraft separation is the controller's duty, regardless if one pilot is making it difficult for him.
Secondly, all pilots share responsibility to see and avoid. If I see some nutjob doing something stupid in the pattern, I get out of the way and let them become a crater of 1.

 

[jesse]

"I'm not liking what I'm seeing here..."

I don't think so. If she successfully took to the air, then successfully landed, what's the problem? To whom is she a threat?

Aircraft separation is the controller's duty, regardless if one pilot is making it difficult for him.
Secondly, all pilots share responsibility to see and avoid. If I see some nutjob doing something stupid in the pattern, I get out of the way and let them become a crater of 1.

A controller cannot provide aircraft separation if a pilot is unable to follow the controller's instructions which then means said pilot shouldn't be flying.

I don't think she "successfully" did much of anything if she caused enough drama for a controller to demand she land and get a flight instructor.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't think so. If she successfully took to the air, then successfully landed, what's the problem? To whom is she a threat?

There are many ways you can screw up and be a threat between takeoff and landing. There's a current thread about someone flying in the clouds VFR. We had another one not too long ago that was a long tape of some guy lost in NJ . People crucified him. Not enough facts to judge the controller here.

 

[N801BH]

There are many ways you can screw up and be a threat between takeoff and landing. There's a current thread about someone flying in the clouds VFR. We had another one not too long ago that was a long tape of some guy lost in NJ . People crucified him. Not enough facts to judge the controller here.

AND............ Not enough facts to crucify the pilot either.. IMHO...

I might add....

Considering the demands thrown at her by the controller I thought her radio work was ok, She could have melted down........ but she didn't.

 

[roncachamp]

A controller cannot provide aircraft separation if a pilot is unable to follow the controller's instructions which then means said pilot shouldn't be flying.

What's the separation minima ATC must provide to VFR aircraft in Class D airspace? What ATC instructions does the tape indicate she was unable to follow?

I don't think she "successfully" did much of anything if she caused enough drama for a controller to demand she land and get a flight instructor.

What drama did she cause? The only performance the tape calls into question is the controller's.

 

[roncachamp]

There are many ways you can screw up and be a threat between takeoff and landing. There's a current thread about someone flying in the clouds VFR. We had another one not too long ago that was a long tape of some guy lost in NJ . People crucified him. Not enough facts to judge the controller here.

Au contraire. The controller ordered her to land at an airport that was not her destination. That one fact is enough.

 

[jesse]

Au contraire. The controller ordered her to land at an airport that was not her destination. That one fact is enough.

It was the airport she was nearest to and currently at. Given her inability to follow instructions and the pilot deviation being issued for her actions there they didn't want her departing again.

 

[roncachamp]

It was the airport she was nearest to and currently at. Given her inability to follow instructions and the pilot deviation being issued for her actions there they didn't want her departing again.

What instruction was she unable to follow? What was the pilot deviation?

 

[jesse]

What instruction was she unable to follow? What was the pilot deviation?

There was some issue with her not climbing to the altitude specified by the controller. There was also the controller giving her a number for potential pilot deviations. I doubt he was just making things up -- he sounded quite in control.

Of course you're just going to argue with me for 10 or 20 pages, at which point more evidence will be posted likely supporting me, which you'll continue to argue for another 20 or 30 pages. So I'm not going to bother, I'm out

 

[roncachamp]

There was some issue with her not climbing to the altitude specified by the controller.

An altitude the controller lacked the authority to specify, and we don't know that she wasn't climbing to it.

There was also the controller giving her a number for potential pilot deviations.

Which indicates what?

I doubt he was just making things up -- he sounded quite in control.

He sounded incompetent.

Of course you're just going to argue with me for 10 or 20 pages, at which point more evidence will be posted likely supporting me, which you'll continue to argue for another 20 or 30 pages. So I'm not going to bother, I'm out

Where would this evidence come from? There's none on the tape, what other source could there be?

 

[Everskyward]

I'm out

So am I.

 

[Velocity173]

She sounded like she was a threat to national security and the controller acted accordingly. I would've had cops waiting for her at shutdown!

 

[GCA319]

Nope. Separation services are not required to be provided. Some deltas don't even have radar. Gotta go to a charlie or bravo for that.

Even then, seperation is only provided to VFRs in B. This is why class B WX mins are lower.

 

[MachFly]

Based on that recording it sounds like that controller was specifically unhappy with her rate of climb to 3500ft...

 

[Velocity173]

Even then, seperation is only provided to VFRs in B. This is why class B WX mins are lower.

If you go back in the thread I corrected it. I meant to put class B. Hearing the controller issue a vector and altitude assignment me believe so. In reality this was just a class D controller issuing instructions he had no authority to issue.

 

[Johnyc]

Kiwa is an ATP location, and with her accent, volume of training, and potentialy a high number of deviations it might have been the smart thing to do to get her on the ground and sort of the issues there.

At the end of the day the controler may have exceeded his authority, but everyone lived. The same cant be said for many of those in the NTSB files who might be alive had they had the skill or a controller who had given them direction needed to save themselves and others. Notice she didn't refuse the direction given to her by the controller, which to me at least indicates a lack of confidence in her own ablities.

Also we don't know the original violation. there looks to be tons of restricted and congested airspace out there. Something to think about. And again everyone walked away from the incident so I would say that was a successful outcome.

 

[Jaybird180]

Kiwa is an ATP location, and with her accent, volume of training, and potentialy a high number of deviations it might have been the smart thing to do to get her on the ground and sort of the issues there.

At the end of the day the controler may have exceeded his authority, but everyone lived. The same cant be said for many of those in the NTSB files who might be alive had they had the skill or a controller who had given them direction needed to save themselves and others. Notice she didn't refuse the direction given to her by the controller, which to me at least indicates a lack of confidence in her own ablities.

Also we don't know the original violation. there looks to be tons of restricted and congested airspace out there. Something to think about. And again everyone walked away from the incident so I would say that was a successful outcome.

Or was simply being obedient to the detriment of her authority as PIC.

 

[MassPilot]

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcav...an-airport-it's-not-a-good-idea-to-fly-there/

This thread on LiveATC includes a little more info. Not sure if you have to be registered to view it. I believe that many of these posts occurred before the full archived recording for KIWA expired, so they had more info than us. Here is a highlight:

Some was missing from the clip supplied in the thread. She called inbound over the mall, a vfr reporting point just outside of the "D" and was not answered as it was stepped on. I assume she continued just inside of the delta because the controller asked who is over the mall she replies to him which is the first transmission on the above link. I feel for her now because she did try to do everything right. Taking a radio call for someone else happens. Over the mall if you aren't replied to immediately you have to be quick to turn west to remain south of FFZ class d and north of iwa class d. Apparently she didn't do that. Making her land was extremely excessive and above his pay grade, IMO.