Did the tower mess up? Or do I share responsibility?

[poadeleted20]

As Clark explained above, "Go Around" is not the best answer. First, as he pointed out, it puts the faster plane in a "must land" situation, second it makes your own pattern larger, might as well take the short cut back to final to drop in behind him.

The controller need only say "Go around, right/left side" to have you displace off the runway and leave room for the plane too close behind to pass you up the centerline (or on the opposite side of the runway) if need be. OTOH, telling someone to make a 90-degree turn at very low altitude and near landing speed is not a good idea -- that's how stall-spin accidents occur.

 

[N747JB]

I think you handled it well, the controller was probably caught a little off guard by the speed of the 340 vs your speed. It doesn't take long to close the gap when one is 70 knots and the other is 140 going in the opposite direction. The 340 could have been approaching the airport at 150 knots or 110 knots or anywhere in between, so I can see the controller trying to get you in first and realizing he wouldn't have separation and having you go around. It seems that most of the time the piston single will get the "go around" vs the faster heavier airplanes.

 

[poadeleted20]

It seems that most of the time the piston single will get the "go around" vs the faster heavier airplanes.

I think it's more the case of the airplane going round and round the pattern doing T&G's for training getting the "go around" vs the plane arriving to full-stop getting to land.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Presumably you were responding to the post before me. But yes of course I do that too, normally. The exception being if I have to extend my downwind to follow traffic. Or if I happen to end up in an very wide pattern for whatever reason.

Most of the time if the tower has me extend, they do so early.... Before I have started a descent.

If I've descended below TPA, and I'm instructed to extend, I climb back up to TPA.

 

[Clark1961]

I understand how it works, I'm the peon doing pattern work.

As multiple people have said, just make me do a go-around might have been better. I'm not sure if he was new or not. I'm really used to most of the comtroller's voices and this one wasn't familiar so perhaps he was new.

PS - I'm not a student pilot, not sure of the post above implies that or not. I just had an instructor along while I was learning a new aircraft.

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like the instructor wasn't paying quite as much attention as they should have been. You were focused on operating a new-to-you aircraft and the CFI has safety-of-flight responsibilities...

Glad you handled the instructions and flew the plane well - you successfully unscrewed the controller's screw-up.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I'm not sure I can blame the instructor.

We both looked as I was turning base and neither of us could spot the 340 so we just assumed he was out(which he probably was at the time).

My patterns are generally not far from the runway... I usually roll out on base and then turn to final after just a second. Sure I was slow at 70-80 knots but he must have been hauling the mail.

 

[Timmer]

My patterns are generally not far from the runway... I usually roll out on base and then turn to final after just a second. Sure I was slow at 70-80 knots but he must have been hauling the mail.

Of course, that speed differential is even more when you're spending most of that 70-80 knots going away from or perpendicular to the runway while he's heading towards it.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Definitely.

Question. The controller has a ground speed readout of the aircraft on his radar doesn't he?

 

[Velocity173]

Definitely.

Question. The controller has a ground speed readout of the aircraft on his radar doesn't he?

Correct.

In your case a go around would have worked fine. It doesn't mean the twin behind you would be in a "must land " situation either. They could have easily given you a go around and either had you parallel the right side of the runway, or give you an early crosswind. You said the twin was still on final after you reentered the downwind, so it wasn't even close. Even if the twin needed to go around and it looked like he was going to catch you, they could instruct him to parallel the left side of the runway and then do left traffic. Multiple ways of handling it.

Look at it this way, there are plenty of times you have a higher performance aircraft landing behind a lower performance aircraft that's departing. That's why ATC has increased same runway separation (4,500 or 6,000 ft) for those situations.

 

[flyingron]

At least he didn't say "Just Kidding."

 

[poadeleted20]

Question. The controller has a ground speed readout of the aircraft on his radar doesn't he?

Not all tower controllers have such a display. Further, in your situation, that GS readout could be deceptive due to wind effects. You might show a 100-knot GS while on downwind making it appear you'll be down and clear with plenty of room to spare before the twin gets to the threshold, but have it drop to 60 knots on final giving the twin 50-100 knots of unexpected overtake. That could bugger an unwary controller's separation plan.

 

[N747JB]

Not all tower controllers have such a display. Further, in your situation, that GS readout could be deceptive due to wind effects. You might show a 100-knot GS while on downwind making it appear you'll be down and clear with plenty of room to spare before the twin gets to the threshold, but have it drop to 60 knots on final giving the twin 50-100 knots of unexpected overtake. That could bugger an unwary controller's separation plan.

And if the twin kept his speed higher than what the controller assumed, it could have reduced the separation margin even further.
Bottom line, no harm no foul, everyone walked away happy and the OP got to do a go around in his new airplane!

 

[poadeleted20]

Bottom line, no harm no foul, everyone walked away happy and the OP got to do a go around in his new airplane!

I'm not entirely convinced there was no foul. I don't like the idea of the controller telling someone on short final to make a 90-degree right turn rather than just saying "go around right side".

 

[alfadog]

I always reduce power and start descending abeam the numbers.

For you to suggest that I should be turning base at pattern altitude goes against what every instructor has taught me.

Agree. Did you turn base immediately once the controller told you "base turn your discretion"? If so, I can see no fault on your part. Where in the mp3 is the exchange?

edit: I see that you did.

 

[Henning]

I'm not sure I can blame the instructor.

We both looked as I was turning base and neither of us could spot the 340 so we just assumed he was out(which he probably was at the time).

My patterns are generally not far from the runway... I usually roll out on base and then turn to final after just a second. Sure I was slow at 70-80 knots but he must have been hauling the mail.

One clarification, did something bigger just land? The reason I ask is the "Caution wake turbulence" comment from ATC. That serves as a clue you're meant to be number two behind someone.

 

[poadeleted20]

One clarification, did something bigger just land? The reason I ask is the "Caution wake turbulence" comment from ATC. That serves as a clue you're meant to be number two behind someone.

No. According to Post #1, something bigger (a Challenger) had just departed. No problem landing behind that as long as you keep your touchdown point short of where the jet rotated, and that shouldn't be hard in a light single.

 

[Ted]

OP did fine, tower screwed up. It was a good learning opportunity for you. I wouldn't bother calling the tower. Controller knows his mistake and was probably training.

As the guy just out practicing vs the 340 that was likely on a mission, it makes sense for you to be the one asked to get out of the way. For one, it's a good learning tool for you. For two, the plane that's going somewhere is trying to get a job done. It really annoys me when I've been flying for 4 hours, I need to use the bathroom, and I'm vectored around for someone who's doing practice/training. Going the other way, I've volunteered to get out of the way of an airliner or other planes if I'm not in a hurry.

 

[BillTIZ]

Tower screwed up. You did fine. It's all on the tower.
1) thought he could sequence you in between the departure and arrival and misjudged the twins arrival GS.
2) should have used the term, "make short approach", or " turn base now" to squeeze you in, or " I'll call your base" to get the twin in first.
3) confused the pilot by mixing direction of turn with cardinal heading, especially if they don't match. Just use left or right. Clarification delayed the turn and narrowed the miss margin.

 

[BillTIZ]

I once had a tower call for a 360 on base. I was down to about 500-600ft AGL with 1/2 flap in a C-150. He wanted to let an airliner land in front of me. I'm into the 360 and he clears me to land following the DC-9, "caution wake turbulence".

Thanks any way tower, I'm going around for turbulence avoidance.
It was at SAC Metro in the early 80s.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Ron is correct. A jet was departing... I don't recall exactly when he was rolling, but I know when I turned base he was for sure rolling if not way down the runway or even airborne.

 

[Chanse]

One really important rule to remember--- The cemetery is full of people who had the fight of way and they are still racing to get there.

 

[Kevin87]

I posted the recording a page back

oh whoops. Thanks

 

[kkoran]

No. According to Post #1, something bigger (a Challenger) had just departed. No problem landing behind that as long as you keep your touchdown point short of where the jet rotated, and that shouldn't be hard in a light single.

The wake turbulence could have been an issue on the climbout from the touch and go.

 

[N747JB]

I'm not entirely convinced there was no foul. I don't like the idea of the controller telling someone on short final to make a 90-degree right turn rather than just saying "go around right side".

That certainly would have been a more clear instruction.

 

[poadeleted20]

The wake turbulence could have been an issue on the climbout from the touch and go.

Good point -- I'd forgotten it was a T&G.

 

[poadeleted20]

That certainly would have been a more clear instruction.

...as well as a lot safer and easier to comply with.

 

[denverpilot]

The controller need only say "Go around, right/left side" to have you displace off the runway and leave room for the plane too close behind to pass you up the centerline (or on the opposite side of the runway) if need be. OTOH, telling someone to make a 90-degree turn at very low altitude and near landing speed is not a good idea -- that's how stall-spin accidents occur.

Around here the call would have been...

"Cessna 123 go around, left side. Early crosswind turn approved, when able, remain east of the runway."

This keeps the urgency out of the turn out of it but allows you to cut the corner to come back to do it again.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Screenshot as promised. 480' AGL and 89 knots when I started the turn. Not sure the distance from the threshold but you can see it in the bottom of the picture.

 

[BillTIZ]

The wake turbulence could have been an issue on the climbout from the touch and go.

The wake turbulence can also be n issue on landing. Not so much from wing tip vortices but from the engines spooling up before brake release.

 

[bluesky74656]

This weekend was controller amateur hour for me at least. Saturday I had a ground controller put me nose-to-nose with inbound traffic on the taxiway *twice*, an approach controller running my ASR approach give me just a horrible correction angle, and another approach controller keep trying to vector me after I intercepted the final approach course.

I chalk it up to they need to practice too.

 

[Clark1961]

The wake turbulence can also be n issue on landing. Not so much from wing tip vortices but from the engines spooling up before brake release.

I watched a G-somethingreallybig depart ahead of me one bright and sunny day. It kicked up a couple-er-three truck loads of snow. After the jet left I called ready for departure and fortunately for me tower suggested a small delay. I readily agreed since the snow was still swirling.

 

[Jmcmanna]

A little more positive control from the controller may have helped....base turn at your discretion means you could have extended another mile and pointed right at the other guy....just an error in judgment, the controller then did what he thought was the most appropriate to keep the airplanes apart. Not a pilot in the world hasn't made a mistake, nor has any controller.

 

[IlyaK18]

This evening I was doing touch and goes in an Archer. I just got checked out in it last week, but wanted to get a few more laps in it with an experienced Piper driver to get a bit comfortable with the airplane, so I took an instructor.

We were doing right hand patterns off 21 at MSN. At one point I am a ways past the numbers, around the 45 degree mark. One notch of flaps in and slowed down a bit, descending. Here's the exchange as well as I can recall it...

Tower - Archer 62S, Challenger departing runway 21, base turn your discretion, traffic is a(forget but it was a twin Cessna of some sort) on a 5 mile final, runway 21 cleared touch and go, caution wake turbulence.

Me - Challenger in sight, turning base, clear touch and go, 62S

I didn't delay my base turn. Turned base, then final. On the PAPI, about 80 knots, starting to slow to 70.

I'm probably less than 1 mile final now:

Tower - Archer 62S, make a right turn to the east.

I'm not expecting this and to make matters worse, a right turn is to the west, not the east. So I ask for clarification on direction of the turn.

Tower - Archer 62S, turn to the West right now.

So I read it back, added full power and made a climbing right turn. My memory escapes me as to when I retracted the flaps, but at some point on re-entering base for the same runway I deployed them again.

Anyways nothing else was said except as I was on the "crosswind" and climbing, the tower told me to re-enter the right downwind for 21 and cleared touch and go.

The instructor asserted that the tower screwed up and mis-judged the situation but here is why I ask if I maybe share some blame:

When the tower said there was a twin on a 5 mile final and I could turn base(wasn't even on it yet), in the back of my head I thought that maybe was kind of close. I however figured that the tower had the separation figured out(apparently they didn't). So I "followed directions".

I'm wondering if I should have just offered to extend and let the twin pass off my right wing and then follow it in.

What say you guys? MSN is a class C airport so they do have radar.

Unfortunately there is no recording, looks like the Live ATC feed is down for that time period.

The similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots?
If a pilot screws up, the pilot dies.
If ATC screws up, the pilot dies.

I fly out of FRG , which gets super busy at times. Flying out of such a busy airport taught me that I need to verify in my head everything that tower tells me. If I was told that there is a twin on 5 mile final , and im still in the downwind, I would have definitely told tower that il be coming in behind that twin. Logically thinking, it is probably going at a faster speed than the archer, so by the time the archer completes that base turn and gets to final , the twin will already be there.

Tower does not always make the best choices and I verify in my head all the time if what they said makes sense , so that the tower doesnt get me killed.

 

[Palmpilot]

I just noticed Tower's use of the phrase "base turn your discretion." I would say that answers the question "Do I share responsibility?" since it seems to call on the pilot to assess the situation in deciding when to turn. I'm not sure whether it constitutes an inappropriate passing of the buck, however.

 

[bluesky74656]

I just noticed Tower's use of the phrase "base turn your discretion." I would say that answers the question "Do I share responsibility?" since it seems to call on the pilot to assess the situation in deciding when to turn. I'm not sure whether it constitutes an inappropriate passing of the buck, however.

The same instruction included "Cleared touch and go", which in my mind at least implies that he can turn base his discretion, but should be number 1 for landing ahead of the twin. He turned base immediately and still couldn't stay ahead of the twin. Controller's error entirely.

That being said, he could have helped the controller out by saying he could extend his downwind and follow the Cessna, but by no means was he required to do that, and I don't think it would be licit to extend downwind in order to land number two without the controllers approval despite the instruction to turn at his discretion.

 

[Palmpilot]

The same instruction included "Cleared touch and go", which in my mind at least implies that he can turn base his discretion, but should be number 1 for landing ahead of the twin. He turned base immediately and still couldn't stay ahead of the twin. Controller's error entirely.

That being said, he could have helped the controller out by saying he could extend his downwind and follow the Cessna, but by no means was he required to do that, and I don't think it would be licit to extend downwind in order to land number two without the controllers approval despite the instruction to turn at his discretion.

Does a landing clearance without a statement of sequence automatically mean that you're number one? I'm not sure.

However, if the pilot were not free to decide whether or how much to delay the base turn without further approval, that would render the "your discretion" meaningless. Of course, it would be beneficial for the pilot to inform the controller of his decision.

 

[fiveoboy01]

You're right, but I thought it was ATC's job to assess and maintain separation. Yes I agree with see and avoid and the final responsibility for safety lies with the pilot... But I don't think that relieves the controller of his job in this situation.

The controller mentioned the traffic but if he really wanted me to turn later to get behind it, he would have specified a downwind extension. Or he could have specified a short approach.

What if I, being oblivious, had turned at my discretion but a while later? Potential collision course and an even stickier situation.

If it happens again, I'll ask to extend and follow the traffic in.

 

[Velocity173]

Does a landing clearance without a statement of sequence automatically mean that you're number one? I'm not sure.

However, if the pilot were not free to decide whether or how much to delay the base turn without further approval, that would render the "your discretion" meaningless. Of course, it would be beneficial for the pilot to inform the controller of his decision.

Sure it does. If you're not given a sequence, then you're either number one or whatever traffic that is ahead of you is so far ahead that it's not even worth mentioning. Without any instruction to follow the twin, its a given he was number one. Especially in this case since tower told him the twin was following him.

All this is, is a situation of a controller either underestimating the speed on the twin on final, or completely forgetting about the twin on final. It happens everyday in controlled airspace all around the country. I've seen it so many times as a controller and later as a pilot that I can't even begin to count. These guys are working hundreds...thousands of operations per year. It happens. As JC said they make mistakes just like pilots. If there's no operational error involved, thèn chalk it up to a learning experience and move on.

 

[BillTIZ]

You're right, but I thought it was ATC's job to assess and maintain separation.

A VFR tower controller's responsibility is seperation of traffic on the runway. Normally archived by the proper sequencing of traffic both on the ground and in the air.

And even then they can't get it right when two meet at an intersection or on one lands on top of another staged for departure.

 

[Palmpilot]

You're right, but I thought it was ATC's job to assess and maintain separation. Yes I agree with see and avoid and the final responsibility for safety lies with the pilot... But I don't think that relieves the controller of his job in this situation.

I'm not saying that it does. Note that the question I answered was about shared responsibility.

The controller mentioned the traffic but if he really wanted me to turn later to get behind it, he would have specified a downwind extension. Or he could have specified a short approach.

What if I, being oblivious, had turned at my discretion but a while later? Potential collision course and an even stickier situation.

If it happens again, I'll ask to extend and follow the traffic in.

My thinking is that when a controller says pilot's discretion, I don't know when it relieves the controller of responsibility and when it doesn't, but it's a wise idea for the pilot to look at the situation, and exercise our discretion as wisely as we can.