Controller Mistake at KLGB

Unit74 said:
Wouldn't the Cesna be the one to go around? After all, you were already occupying the runway. Sounds to me like he FUBARed it all up.

And the high wing for FWB........flying while blind.
Click to expand...

I don't think they even use standard same runway separation at OSH. Seems like anything goes there. All I know was I got pos and hold and was waiting for an RV-4 to do his right turn out. I got my clearance for take off and was cancelled about 50 ft into the roll. I sat there wondering what if I did something wrong only to look up and see a high wing pass over land maybe a 1,000 ft in front of me. Controller appoligized and then sent me on my way. I shrugged it off as something to expect at OSH and then proceded to out do the RV-4's pitch out in front of me. :D
 
Velocity173 said:
I got this at Oshkosh one year:

"Glasair you're cleared for take off runway 36 with a right turn out."
A couple seconds later after I already started rolling I hear "Glasair cancel takeoff clearance! Hold position!" I hit the brakes and look up to see a Cessna passing overhead and landing right in front of me. Stuff happens.
Click to expand...

At Oshkosh the guys at the moocow (the departure guys) are not in contact with the tower (which handles landing). They're listening to the arrival frequency and visually looking for gaps to flag guys out for departure.

Usually I hold up my "You look good in pink!" sign while I'm waiting.

And for what it's worth, it's happened to me at IAD.
 
Henning said:
Well, the plane in the air on final has right of way so in that particular mistake at that point in it, the safer move was to have the person on the runway stop.
Click to expand...

Not if the runway is occupied by an aircraft. Tack on he was cleared there by the tower. Final or not, the aircraft in the air can execute the missed much faster and easier than guy sitting on the numbers can get the hell out of the way. The bird on the strip owns it till he is clear.
 
Unit74 said:
Not if the runway is occupied by an aircraft. Tack on he was cleared there by the tower. Final or not, the aircraft in the air can execute the missed much faster and easier than guy sitting on the numbers can get the hell out of the way. The bird on the strip owns it till he is clear.
Click to expand...

No, the controller owns it at a towered field (and you are still responsible to look up final to assure it is clear when directed to take the runway, so even at a towered airport you will carry partial liability), and the aircraft on final has it at a non towered field. The aircraft taking off is always low man on the pole, and the reason is they are at the lowest state of energy. Redirecting energy always comes at a hazard, on short final a go around has risk because you are doing a rapid pitch up maneuver from a low state of energy, often lower than rotation, with full flaps. If the tragectory of that plane leads it forward of the aircraft barely moving, the safest thing to do is have the low energy aircraft just stop, and allow the high energy aircraft to complete its stabilized transition to lower energy.

Check your ego at the ramp and leave it behind. This isn't about "owning the runway" this is about managing destructive potentials of energy in the safest manner.
 
Last edited:
It's not my ego.....it's simple laws.


Laws of physics. If ol boy on final doesn't go around, a mix of potential energy, kinetic energy and heat are going to make everyone have a bad day. Pretty simple, and rather cowboy-ish for you to say that.

Reminds me of the story about a ships captain arguing with a lighthouse keeper about who has right of way.
 
Unit74 said:
It's not my ego.....it's simple laws.


Laws of physics. If ol boy on final doesn't go around, a mix of potential energy, kinetic energy and heat are going to make everyone have a bad day. Pretty simple, and rather cowboy-ish for you to say that.

Reminds me of the story about a ships captain arguing with a lighthouse keeper about who has right of way.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the simple laws of motion though. You are accelerating from zero to 65, I am decelerating from 85-65, and I am passing over you as I saw your dumb rule and procedure breaking ass take the runway. I cannot hit you, only you can hit me. The only way this ends in an accident is if you **** it up. The man on short final ALWAYS has right of way.
 
Last edited:
VWGhiaBob said:
Wouldn't this be considered a controller mistake?

I was cleared to land on runway 25L KLGB behind a Cessna. On short final, I noticed the Cessna was still on the runway with no assurance he'd be off.

About 1000 feet from the numbers, I asked the tower if they'd like me to go around.

The controller said, "Ahhh, yes. Yes! 371CD go around immediately."

Obviously he missed the fact I was cleared onto a runway that was not ready.

I'm not saying the controller is responsible for me to see and avoid, but don't they usually watch for these events and send us around early?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have even asked for a go around, I would got it going and then told them what I was doing...
 
woodchucker said:
Well, that wasn't very appropriate of the controller. He or she isn't flying the damn plane. If I feel compelled to do a go around for safety reasons, I will go ahead and do that and he or she can kiss my fat ass. Plus, I'm sure they knew you were a training flight.
Click to expand...
That was my first solo landing at a towered airport.

Getting chewed by the tower shook me up to the point where I actively avoided controlled airspace for a few years after getting my ticket.

Only later, after an older/wiser pilot pointed out that the controller was nothing but a very well-paid government bureaucrat, did I fully accept that they were sitting in that tower for me to use, not the other way around.

Once I got that straight in my head, flying into controlled airspace became a pleasure. :)
 
If you had landed - and saw the aircraft in front of you and hit the brakes hard without locking them up . . . do you think you would have hit him? I doubt it -
 
Bobanna said:
Are we jumbling the physics with the assumptions of a clearance? I can't think of a situation where a landing aircraft is expected to yield to an aircraft on the ground (absent careless or reckless operation). I presume the aircraft taxied onto the runway following a (conflicting) clearance. As I said earlier, a "position and hold" or "line-up and wait" clearance bothers me; seems that any pilot pulling onto an active wants to be able to check the final for conflicts. I decline and wait. configured, outside the hold-short line. That last look before rolling has always been part of a takeoff for me.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume the other guy hadn't been cleared to land?:dunno: Mistakes like this happen, especially at slow fields where you can call in 10 miles out and they clear you to land straight in because at that time, nothing was moving.

In the end the controller agreed with my risk assessment and stopped the plane that was rolling for take off because it was the safest thing to do, and likely took his "deal" for it, or whatever they call it.

Regardless the clearance onto the runway, the PIC is still burdened with looking up final before doing so.
 
Last edited:
I'm about 300 yards from Logan Int and have been for the past month. Almost every single departure involves a line up and wait. I have yet to here anyone decline it and usually includes an aircraft on final.

I can see where big iron would have a serious problem arresting the sink rate and getting a positive climb on a short final, but in this case we are talking about two bug smashers. Safest thing to do is bring the high wing around for another try. Tower screwed the pooch and put a plane on the runway.

Trying to say the aircraft on final has the last dog in the fight is pure and simple foolishness. Get your head of the AIM and just try to stay alive. Common sense is apparently an uncommon virtue.
 
Why would an aircraft on the runway with clearance and no eyes in the back of his head not have the right of way? The plane on final can see and avoid, the plane taking the active can't. The situation is laid out where the pilot on final has way more situational awareness and ability to move than the guy on the ground who would have to exit the active at a taxiway or stop on the takeoff roll and that still wouldn't solve the problem
 
Listen, there's nothing wrong with putting an aircraft LUAW while another aircraft is on final. Nothing wrong with clearing the aircraft on final to land once the departing aircraft is rolling. If in the controller's judgment they'll have the required same runway sep when the arrival passes the threshold, it's completely legal.

In my situation, they either forgot about me, thought they'd have enough room behind me with the arrival or the guy on final might have even landed on the wrong runway. It's Oshkosh, anything is possible.
 
Unit74 said:
I'm about 300 yards from Logan Int and have been for the past month. Almost every single departure involves a line up and wait. I have yet to here anyone decline it and usually includes an aircraft on final.

I can see where big iron would have a serious problem arresting the sink rate and getting a positive climb on a short final, but in this case we are talking about two bug smashers. Safest thing to do is bring the high wing around for another try. Tower screwed the pooch and put a plane on the runway.

Trying to say the aircraft on final has the last dog in the fight is pure and simple foolishness. Get your head of the AIM and just try to stay alive. Common sense is apparently an uncommon virtue.
Click to expand...

No, the safest thing regardless anything is to stop the person who just started moving and has the minimum energy and will be the one colliding into the other. No need to send the other aircraft around for 6 minutes when the other can wait for 6 seconds till the guy landing clears 3000' and is heading off the runway to the taxiway.

Under no conditions or circumstances is sending the guy flying on a go around with the guy on the ground accelerating the safest way to do this, never, no, no way. It defies both physics and the rules of Right of Way which were designed with the the rules of physics in mind.
 
nauga said:
SMH.

Nauga,
who knows hyperbole is not a trig function
Click to expand...

If his definition of "bureaucrat" is a public servant who works in a demanding and fluid environment where 50 % of those hired washout in training, then I'd say yeah, that applies to ATC. :wink2:
 
Velocity173 said:
If his definition of "bureaucrat" is a public servant who works in a demanding and fluid environment where 50 % of those hired washout in training, then I'd say yeah, that applies to ATC. :wink2:
Click to expand...

bureaucrat

[byoo r-uh-krat]

noun
1. an official of a bureaucracy.
2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.
Click to expand...


I've known controllers who fit that definition.
 
roncachamp said:
I've known controllers who fit that definition.
Click to expand...

Sure, and I've known plenty of people working in the private sector who fit the second part of the definition as well. Point is, to apply that definition to controllers as a whole is naive at best.
 
Velocity173 said:
Sure, and I've known plenty of people working in the private sector who fit the second part of the definition as well. Point is, to apply that definition to controllers as a whole is naive at best.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make is that the controllers are in the tower for us to use. In that regard, they are a resource, no different than avgas and tires, and we should use them, not be afraid of them.

Which I was, as a student and new pilot, many moons ago.
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
The point I was trying to make is that the controllers are in the tower for us to use. In that regard, they are a consumable, no different than avgas and tires, and we should use them, not be afraid of them.

Which I was, as a student and new pilot, many moons ago.
Click to expand...

I would rephrase that to "resource" rather than "consumable", but yes, I agree, it goes for all ATC. ATC is a resource that in many places prefers you to use it. Unless I'm on a local maneuvering flight monitoring the air to air for training flights, I'm on FF.

I'm not afraid of ATC or anyone in the FAA, I have no need.
 
Henning said:
I would rephrase that to "resource" rather than "consumable", but yes, I agree, it goes for all ATC. ATC is a resource that in many places prefers you to use it. Unless I'm on a local maneuvering flight monitoring the air to air for training flights, I'm on FF.

I'm not afraid of ATC or anyone in the FAA, I have no need.
Click to expand...
Good suggestion. I've made the change.
 
Henning said:
No, the safest thing regardless anything is to stop the person who just started moving and has the minimum energy and will be the one colliding into the other. No need to send the other aircraft around for 6 minutes when the other can wait for 6 seconds till the guy landing clears 3000' and is heading off the runway to the taxiway.

Under no conditions or circumstances is sending the guy flying on a go around with the guy on the ground accelerating the safest way to do this, never, no, no way. It defies both physics and the rules of Right of Way which were designed with the the rules of physics in mind.
Click to expand...

This makes perfect sense, but in the original post, the surface plane was already on the runway (just landed) and was essentially blind to the plane on final that visually had all the information and could choose to land or go-around. Unless I'm missing something, your hypothetical scenario is a surface plane that is just about to taxi onto the runway such that it can and should just "wait for 6 seconds" for the plane on final.

I'd be surprised if anybody disagrees with that.
 
vintage cessna said:
How far down the runway was the other Cessna? Is it automatically unsafe to land on a runway if another aircraft is still on the runway?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely allowed to land with another airplane on the runway. It happened to me once in which the controller allowed me to land behind an airplane that was more than 5,000 feet down the runway. The controller explained to everyone on frequency that it is completely legal to land as long as the other airplane is more than a certain distance ahead in the runway. This is, of course, referencing 2 single engine airplanes as I'm sure the rules for jets is totally different!
 
again....be the PIC.

Don't let momma ATC tell you what is safe for you....

and landing on a runway that has traffic maybe perfectly safe for you....and it might not too. ATC doesn't always see what you see nor do they know "your" capabilities.

As a reminder....not every tower has radar. Many are still using Mark II eye balls to spot traffic....so don't be intimidated with them barking commands. After the latest mid-air between a helo and a SR-22 at my airfield....I've been quickly reminded of this. We have a brand new tower and they do not have radar on field. They're using eye balls and binoculars to spot traffic and they don't always "see" it all. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
You are absolutely allowed to land with another airplane on the runway. It happened to me once in which the controller allowed me to land behind an airplane that was more than 5,000 feet down the runway. The controller explained to everyone on frequency that it is completely legal to land as long as the other airplane is more than a certain distance ahead in the runway. This is, of course, referencing 2 single engine airplanes as I'm sure the rules for jets is totally different!
Click to expand...

No jets.

A single-engine propeller-driven airplane weighing less than 12,500 pounds requires 3,000 feet to land behind single and twin-engine propeller-driven airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds that are landing ahead of them.

A twin-engine propeller-driven airplane weighing less than 12,500 pounds requires 4,500 feet to land behind single and twin-engine propeller-driven airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds that are landing ahead of them.
 
The Pilot in Command has 100% authority to make a call to go around if they so choose for safety reasons whether that be something in the runway, wind gust, approach not shaping up OK or any other reason.

If the controller is annoyed with the pilot for making such a call then thats just too bad. Inform them you're going around and they should tell you what to do to get back in the traffic pattern. Should be a non-event with any good controller.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
The Pilot in Command has 100% authority to make a call to go around if they so choose for safety reasons whether that be something in the runway, wind gust, approach not shaping up OK or any other reason.

If the controller is annoyed with the pilot for making such a call then thats just too bad. Inform them you're going around and they should tell you what to do to get back in the traffic pattern. Should be a non-event with any good controller.
Click to expand...

Right, different scenario. In that one it was the landing pilot who decided to go around still with a lot of altitude. Personally at LGB I would have enquired if that plane was going to roll or hold. If I hear him pop up 'rolling' or 'holding', unless I was really tight in, I'd land ahead of or behind him. 25L at LGB is a big runway with lots of turn off options. If I didn't hear them pop up though, I would go around.

As long as you are aware of each other, no real need to crash. Heck, you could use the centerline as a divider and each take a lane and still have plenty of room with most GA planes.
 
Henning said:
Right, different scenario. In that one it was the landing pilot who decided to go around still with a lot of altitude. Personally at LGB I would have enquired if that plane was going to roll or hold. If I hear him pop up 'rolling' or 'holding', unless I was really tight in, I'd land ahead of or behind him. 25L at LGB is a big runway with lots of turn off options. If I didn't hear them pop up though, I would go around.

As long as you are aware of each other, no real need to crash. Heck, you could use the centerline as a divider and each take a lane and still have plenty of room with most GA planes.
Click to expand...

I have done formation take off's using that concept and the tower has never said NO, you can't do that.... But every time I /we asked for a formation landing, we got denied...
 
MAKG1 said:
You can't stop in 1700 feet at a sea level airport? You should be capable of half that.
Click to expand...

Gonna feel pretty dumb if the brakes fail and you run up the arse end of the airplane that was already occupying the runway you landed on.
 
Katamarino said:
Gonna feel pretty dumb if the brakes fail and you run up the arse end of the airplane that was already occupying the runway you landed on.
Click to expand...

You'd be in a good sized plane that didn't roll to a stop in 1700'. Plus it's a big runway, just because the brakes fail doesn't mean you can't steer.
 
Henning said:
You'd be in a good sized plane that didn't roll to a stop in 1700'. Plus it's a big runway, just because the brakes fail doesn't mean you can't steer.
Click to expand...
In my plane it means exactly that. No brakey, no steery. :)
 
So at a non-towered field, do the same runway separation rules apply, or is it anything goes as long as you don't wreck?
 
Henning said:
What speed do you lose rudder at?
Click to expand...

I imagine they're all about the same. Mushy as crap under 20 knots, beginning to get some bite from there on up. I think Jay has an RV-8 (tail wheel).

I have a Tiger, so at speed I can steer, but there's going to be a point where braking is absolutely essential if you plan to turn. There are some tricks like blasting the rudder with a burst of power/throttle, but without brakes, that's going to speed you up again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top