"Call the Tower"

[Unregistered]

OP here. It's interesting to read the responses here, and I'm glad to see that some good discussion has come up. A couple points:

I didn't view this situation as "I know better than the controller." I viewed it as I had two options of getting to the required point, and I chose the one I viewed as safer. The tower controller explained why it wasn't the safer option given the circumstances. I see a communication issue that goes both ways as we both had expectations of what the other meant (but did not say). I see the errors on my part, but also think that the points he made on the phone would have been more useful had he made them either through the ATIS (which wasn't on) or talking to me, and that would have changed my decision. I also should have pointed out I was better set up for a right downwind to help him know where I was.

This was not a difficult situation. In actuality it was very simple, but I think what threw me off more than anything was that it's a departure from my norm for a few reasons.

I won't be calling a lawyer if the FSDO calls, and agree with Rotorandwing that seems like a good way to make it worse. If I get a call from the FSDO we will have a conversation, I will be polite and explain what happened, where I think the communication failures occurred, and what I learned from it and intend to do differently. He did not ask for my name, cert #, etc. He also didn't say that he intended on pursuing it or not. Obviously my tail # would make it easy to find me.

Entering the traffic pattern at 500 ft above is a bad idea. In my low-wing with poor downward visibility I will probably not see the plane that I will descend on.

The real summary for those looking to learn something:

- I made a mistake and was asked to call the tower
- I did so promptly, was respectful, had a good conversation
- I learned something and went back about my business

In other words, it wasn't a big deal.

 

[Geico266]

Move on from a learning experience. Really, it was no big deal, but some here like to make it one. It's what we do. .

 

[flyingron]

(This is the standard in Canada at uncontrolled fields. Note that crossing at midfield is done at pattern altitude. Hence my joke about telling the controller you're Canadian.

This is standard in much of the world other than the US as well. It's the standard procedure when I flew in Australia. It's not forbidden in the US, just less common.

However in the US or not, we're talking about UNCONTROLLED FIELDS.

 

[roncachamp]

Went for a $100 hamburger yesterday to a sleepy towered airport. Called the tower 15 miles out, was told to report midfield left downwind for the runway. ATIS was inop, no NOTAMs for that.

I was better set up for a right downwind. Rather than cross over what would be the area of departing traffic pretty much at their altitude a few miles out, I instead crossed over midfield and then reported my midfield left downwind, cleared to land.

As I was rolling out, tower said they needed me to call when I parked. So I asked him to standby until I could copy down the phone number, wondering what he wanted.

The tower guy explained he didn't like my pattern entry, saying that crossing over midfield at pattern altitude like that was technically a pilot deviation and present a safety hazard for departing traffic. Somewhat ironic since my specific reason for doing it was to avoid traffic, and it's a pretty standard pattern entry. He suggested that if I was better set up for a right downwind I should just say as such. That part made sense. I've not had this issue at other towered airports, but then again the main ones that come to mind where it's come up had different features around them that changed the standard entry.

He was polite enough, I accepted his critique receptively. I can see his point. I think more than anything it was a difference of convention from what I was used to compared to what he was used to.

I would have asked him the reason for specifying an entry on the far side of the runway.

 

[roncachamp]

The controller is full of crap. There's not PILOT DEVIATION. If he had a routing he wanted you to fly to get into the midfield left downwind, he should have stated it.

'Zackly.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Soon controllers are going to be tossing flashbangs and shooting dogs.

 

[Unregistered]

I would have asked him the reason for specifying an entry on the far side of the runway.

We discussed that. He didn't have radar. I correctly identified my location to a T, but he typically expected me to be a bit further over and set up for a left downwind better. Then he expected that I report that I wasn't set up for that as well.

A different set of assumptions.

 

[roncachamp]

We discussed that. He didn't have radar. I correctly identified my location to a T, but he typically expected me to be a bit further over and set up for a left downwind better. Then he expected that I report that I wasn't set up for that as well.

A different set of assumptions.

His expectations were not realistic.

 

[wabower]

Tower controllers here know where to look for planes that have been assigned left downwind. For southerly flow, it's in the vicinity of the Galleria, not over their shoulder towards Cowboy VOR or passing over the tower to enter.

When approaching KADS from the south arrival over KDAL, the instruction is identical to that received by OP. If I did the cross-over mid-field downwind entry, I'd expect a call too.

His expectations were not realistic.

 

[bbchien]

What is wrong with just being co-operative? Move diagonally to the correct side at TPA (16 miles to 5 miles out, over 11 miles to do this, well below the departuress) and enter/report at the discussed slot....or call him back!

 

[roncachamp]

Tower controllers here know where to look for planes that have been assigned left downwind. For southerly flow, it's in the vicinity of the Galleria, not over their shoulder towards Cowboy VOR or passing over the tower to enter.

When approaching KADS from the south arrival over KDAL, the instruction is identical to that received by OP. If I did the cross-over mid-field downwind entry, I'd expect a call too.

If I had been the OP I would have questioned the controller's instruction as it made little sense. The OP didn't question it, but he did comply with it so the controller's assertion that it was technically a pilot deviation is a load of crap.

 

[jnmeade]

Curious, did the controller ever give you a squawk and call you identified on radar? Was there ever any doubt that the controller knew your altitude, ground track and ground speed?

 

[roncachamp]

Curious, did the controller ever give you a squawk and call you identified on radar? Was there ever any doubt that the controller knew your altitude, ground track and ground speed?

Message 47:

We discussed that. He didn't have radar. I correctly identified my location to a T, but he typically expected me to be a bit further over and set up for a left downwind better. Then he expected that I report that I wasn't set up for that as well.

 

[nddons]

15 miles out? Should be no big deal to cross over. If there is traffic you have your head out the window, right?

Between 15 and 4 miles you are in Tracon/Center or Class G airspace - he can ask you to do something - and there is no real reason to not do it. If you say ok and then don't do it - that's just crazy.

Inside 4 miles you are inside his airspace - your rear is his. Crossing over midfield is nutso given you are in his airspace and violating his instruction at that point . .

KISS.

Exactly.

 

[DJTorrente]

What is wrong with just being co-operative? Move diagonally to the correct side at TPA (16 miles to 5 miles out, over 11 miles to do this, well below the departures) and enter/report at the discussed slot....or call him back!

(emphasis mine)

This is probably just me, but when I look down the length of a runway airborne from ~TPA (unless I am on final), particularly knowing departing traffic is likely coming my way, I get the feeling as if I was looking down the barrel of a gun -- that I am looking at something that could very well kill me unless done under tightly controlled circumstances, and even then for good reason. Something to be avoided if at all possible.

 

[steingar]

I can't see that nay rules were broken, and no metal was bent. I might have done the same thing, but if the tower was that sleepy I would have briefed the controller on what I wanted to do. My absolute and only criticism. Always works better when everybody is on the same page.

 

[roncachamp]

Inside 4 miles you are inside his airspace - your rear is his. Crossing over midfield is nutso given you are in his airspace and violating his instruction at that point . .

Please explain how crossing over midfield violates the instruction.

 

[docmirror]

(emphasis mine)

This is probably just me, but when I look down the length of a runway airborne from ~TPA (unless I am on final), particularly knowing departing traffic is likely coming my way, I get the feeling as if I was looking down the barrel of a gun -- that I am looking at something that could very well kill me unless done under tightly controlled circumstances, and even then for good reason. Something to be avoided if at all possible.

I have to agree with this. I've been routed over PHX, DFW, LAX, SFO perpendicular to landing traffic at midfield more times than I can count. This is a usual and prevailing method for large airports, I can't see why it doesn't scale well to any runway. I want nothing to do with the appr and departure end of any runway as that puts me in target range of a whole lot of other fixed wing traffic. I'll take my chances with a balloon(easy to see), rotorcraft(hard to see but rare) by going over midfield any day rather than off the end of a runway.

The modification I would have made is to stay higher during crossing, maybe 700' above TPA and then do a right turn spiral back in for a std entry. This also gives me a nice scan of the std entry pattern as I come in to look for other traffic.

 

[RV10flyer]

What is wrong with just being co-operative? Move diagonally to the correct side at TPA (16 miles to 5 miles out, over 11 miles to do this, well below the departuress) and enter/report at the discussed slot....or call him back!

Been there, done that last summer. It worked in my RV-10 too. If I really wanted a right downwind entry, I would have ask for it. It did not really matter to me and I like left turns in the pattern better anyway. While on downwind, a large business jet was landing and I ask to extend my downwind for wake turbulence. Tower approved. It should not be difficult for us to communicate what our intentions and desires are, RV or not.

 

[JimNtexas]

File a NASA report. Any misunderstanding between ATC and a pilot has safety implications for all of us.

Heck, you don't even have to buy a stamp any more!

 

[Velocity173]

This is just another example of a controller not being explicit in their instructions. First, get an accurate position report from the aircraft. Second, issue specific instructions to the aircraft to either pass over midfield to enter the downwind or navigate around the field to enter downwind.

 

[docmirror]

I'm beginning to get the impression that the tower was bored to death and chose this pilot to vent on a little. the fact he mentioned a PD at all is an indication of the old 'do as I say, not as I do' mantra. If the ctlr wanted better comms procedure, then due your own diligence and use better comms procedure.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Great way to turn something that is a formality into an enforcement or better yet, a 44709 ride.

..... then close out the PTRS as informal counseling.

....Be nice, admit the mistake, listen to the advice and move on.

When your first make contact with the pilot do you tell him right off the bat that you're just going to mark this as informal counseling??

Also I didn't know you could 709 anyone that you felt like, I thought you had to prove they F'd up first??

What I said was file a NASA report to semi-cover your ass.

Then

Seek legal counsel IF the Feds call, don't tell them you're calling a lawyer, a simple "I'm busy right now, can I call you back?" would work.
Explain everything to the lawyer , who might mearly tell you to call the FSDO back and you have nothing to worry about.

I think it would be wise to seek the advise of someone who knows the law and is on your side, before opening your mouth and "admitting mistakes" to the Feds...who can and will fine and penalize you if you give them the rope to do it.

 

[wabower]

I've been getting the same instruction for 25 years at KADS without the need for questioning or any feeling that it made little sense. The OP's method of compliance is in question IMO.

I'm not arguing PD, just common sense and methods of avoiding phone conversations that pilots normally don't normally enjoy. Obvious solution? Slide over to the other side and enter downwind. How hard can it be? Want to chat with tower by phone? Fly a right-left crossover downwind and wait for the phone to ring.

If I had been the OP I would have questioned the controller's instruction as it made little sense. The OP didn't question it, but he did comply with it so the controller's assertion that it was technically a pilot deviation is a load of crap.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I'm not clear on just how far off the centerline of the runway the OP was when he first made contact with the tower. If he was 15 miles out, and, say, 20 degrees offset to the left of the runway, I don't see that there should be an issue that he cuts over to the right, miles from the field (yes, crossing the departure line) for left downwind. This is *very* commonly done at Fullerton when approaching from the east. Crossing the departure end of the runway many miles out presents very little risk of conflict vs. adding in extra turns in the pattern right over the airport.

If the OP was much farther offset, then I can see the value in possibly crossing over the runway or asking for a right traffic pattern. I would *never* assume that a controller request for left downwind entry authorized me to just cut over the runway to get into that position.

 

[poadeleted20]

He was polite enough, I accepted his critique receptively. I can see his point. I think more than anything it was a difference of convention from what I was used to compared to what he was used to.

Sounds like another day at the office -- you learn and move on, and nobody else is involved. I'd say thanks and go back to work.

 

[MAKG1]

Sounds like another day at the office -- you learn and move on, and nobody else is involved. I'd say thanks and go back to work.

But I do think an ASRS would be helpful here. Not as a CYA; I don't think that's necessary, and it doesn't sound as if the OP did anything even slightly wrong. Rather, there was a failure to communicate, and that can have safety implications. The point of ASRS is to make safety improvements, not to cover butts. The latter is a side effect deemed necessary to make the program more reliable.

 

[roncachamp]

I've been getting the same instruction for 25 years at KADS without the need for questioning or any feeling that it made little sense. The OP's method of compliance is in question IMO.

I'm not arguing PD, just common sense and methods of avoiding phone conversations that pilots normally don't normally enjoy. Obvious solution? Slide over to the other side and enter downwind. How hard can it be? Want to chat with tower by phone? Fly a right-left crossover downwind and wait for the phone to ring.

How hard could it have been for the controller to ascertain where the pilot was and issue instructions that made sense?

 

[wabower]

Dog simple IMO, but not the point. After 50+ years of doing this stuff I've never given ATC my phone number and asked them to call. I don't want to talk to anybody after landing other than about dinner reservations.

How hard could it have been for the controller to ascertain where the pilot was and issue instructions that made sense?

 

[poadeleted20]

But I do think an ASRS would be helpful here. Not as a CYA; I don't think that's necessary, and it doesn't sound as if the OP did anything even slightly wrong. Rather, there was a failure to communicate, and that can have safety implications. The point of ASRS is to make safety improvements, not to cover butts. The latter is a side effect deemed necessary to make the program more reliable.

I agree -- that's what ASRS is really there to accomplish.

 

[Jim Logajan]

How hard could it have been for the controller to ascertain where the pilot was and issue instructions that made sense?

Since there are no restrictions on either left or right turns for airplanes mentioned in 91.126 or 91.127 for airports in Class G or E airspace having operational control towers, it would appear doubly important for ATC to insure that the pilot is given clear instructions what approach path is to be taken.

 

[roncachamp]

Dog simple IMO, but not the point. After 50+ years of doing this stuff I've never given ATC my phone number and asked them to call. I don't want to talk to anybody after landing other than about dinner reservations.

What is your point?

 

[Jim Logajan]

What is your point?

Wayne knows all the unwritten rules?

 

[docmirror]

How hard could it have been for the controller to ascertain where the pilot was and issue instructions that made sense?

Gosh, I don't know. What I'm seeing is the pilot reported his position in clear terms, and the ctlr issued instructions in clear terms. "Report left downwind midfield" if I'm not mistaken. the absence of an instruction is not an instruction. It seems to me the pilot understood the instruction well, and complied perfectly. It made sense to me, and rather than fly around the airport, just go direct to left downwind midfield and call back.

 

[roncachamp]

Since there are no restrictions on either left or right turns for airplanes mentioned in 91.126 or 91.127 for airports in Class G or E airspace having operational control towers, it would appear doubly important for ATC to insure that the pilot is given clear instructions what approach path is to be taken.

And if ATC doesn't give such instructions it has nothing to ***** about if a pilot does something unexpected.

 

[roncachamp]

Gosh, I don't know. What I'm seeing is the pilot reported his position in clear terms, and the ctlr issued instructions in clear terms. "Report left downwind midfield" if I'm not mistaken. the absence of an instruction is not an instruction. It seems to me the pilot understood the instruction well, and complied perfectly. It made sense to me, and rather than fly around the airport, just go direct to left downwind midfield and call back.

Yes, but the instruction issued required the pilot to enter downwind on the far side of the runway. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Yes, but the instruction issued required the pilot to enter downwind on the far side of the runway. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Nope. Nothing in that instruction required downwind entry on that side of the runway. The controller assumed, in error, that to be the case. And got her panties in a wad over it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

When your first make contact with the pilot do you tell him right off the bat that you're just going to mark this as informal counseling??

No, I explain what the call is about and that I would like to discuss what happened. In the case of the OP I would be comfortable in saying I didn't feel this warranted anything further than a counseling and that I would appreciate his cooperation.

Also I didn't know you could 709 anyone that you felt like, I thought you had to prove they F'd up first??

Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Chapter 447, § 44709

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.— The Administratorof the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.

From FAA Order 8900.1

5-1418 GENERAL.

A. Authority. Under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) § 44709 (formerly § 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FA Act)), the Administrator is authorized to reexamine any airman at any time. Reexamination of an airman does not hinder the taking of punitive enforcement action when appropriate. When an airman fails to comply with a request for reexamination, 49 U.S.C. § 44709 provides legal procedures to be followed to enforce reinspection or reexamination. Detailed information on the enforcement aspects is found in the current edition of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 2150.3, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program.

B. Basis for Reexamination. The reexamination of an airman on the basis of lack of competency is never to be undertaken lightly. There must be ample or probable cause for requesting the reexamination. In most cases a reexamination will result from the inspector’s investigation of an accident or incident where the airman’s competence was the apparent cause of the occurrence.

5-1419 BASIS OF REEXAMINATION TEST. When an inspector has sufficient reason to believe that an airman may not be qualified to exercise the privileges of a particular certificate or rating, a reexamination may be required. The inspector reaches this conclusion either through reliable reports, personal knowledge, or on the basis of evidence obtained through an accident, incident, or enforcement investigation.
A. Notification. In accordance with the Pilot’s Bill of Rights (PBR), Letters Requesting Reexamination under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, reexaminations of an individual’s qualifications is not considered an investigation for the purpose of determining whether a violation exists, only some of the written notifications under the PBR apply. Inspectors must use the Letter Requesting Reexamination under 49 U.S.C. § 44709 (Figure 5-140) for any airman who is the subject of a reexamination of his or her qualifications to continue to hold an airman certificate, rating, or inspection authorization. This letter will provide the required notification for a situation where the airman places his or her certificate on temporary deposit pending reexamination. The inspector must send the letter requesting reexamination via certified mail, or hand deliver the letter, in order to be able to record the date the airman received the information required by the PBR.

NOTE: Under the PBR, the inspector does not issue a Letter of Investigation (LOI) when sending out a letter requesting reexamination.
1) The letter should give adequate consideration to the convenience of the airman.

2) The letter should not indicate in any way that the FAA considers the reexamination a punishment for an act that the airman may have committed. Instead, the letter should clearly state that, through the process of reexamination, the FAA is promoting safety in air commerce byensuring the airman’s competence.

What I said was file a NASA report to semi-cover your ass.

Then

Seek legal counsel IF the Feds call, don't tell them you're calling a lawyer, a simple "I'm busy right now, can I call you back?" would work.
Explain everything to the lawyer , who might mearly tell you to call the FSDO back and you have nothing to worry about.

I think it would be wise to seek the advise of someone who knows the law and is on your side, before opening your mouth and "admitting mistakes" to the Feds...who can and will fine and penalize you if you give them the rope to do it.

Again, you are taking a benign situation such as misunderstanding a clearance and blowing it out of proportion. Unless the OP was 1) Flying without proper certification either himself or the aircraft or 2) had committed other violations in conjunction with the misunderstood clearance there is no need to play the "I'm busy and I'll call you back" game.

But it's your time and your money. My advice from being the guy on the other end of the phone is to cooperate, discuss and walk away with a mutual understanding.

 

[Henning]

Also I didn't know you could 709 anyone that you felt like, I thought you had to prove they F'd up first??

Nope, anytime:


(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.

 

[roncachamp]

Nope. Nothing in that instruction required downwind entry on that side of the runway. The controller assumed, in error, that to be the case. And got her panties in a wad over it.

You're mistaken. I suggest you sketch out the flight path on paper.