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

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,322
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
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.
 
Towers fault for clearing you. You didn't do anything wrong.

I would of done the same if they were 5 miles out. 2-3 miles and I'd of extended.
 
I don't see where you did anything wrong.
Possibly the tower underestimated the speed of the twin.

I would have done what you did given that set of instructions.
 
Pfff I would of told tower "unable" and made the twin do a 360.
 
That's another question I had.

I'm not piling on but why did I have to abandon a less than 1 mile final because of traffic behind and above(do right of way rules apply in a Class C environment? I'm not sure of that answer)..?

I feel like the twin could have been made to do a 360, an S turn, or even go around. But I just followed directions.
 
I was actually making a joke.

Of course I'd do what tower told me to. Although its kinda ****ty they made the little guy change direction.


I thought the airplane on final had the right of way on this situation.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
That's another question I had.

I'm not piling on but why did I have to abandon a less than 1 mile final because of traffic behind and above(do right of way rules apply in a Class C environment? I'm not sure of that answer)..?

I feel like the twin could have been made to do a 360, an S turn, or even go around. But I just followed directions.
Click to expand...
The right-of-way rules didn't come into play because the controller moved you out of the way. If he hadn't, it would have been the pilot of the twin's responsibility to avoid you.

My guess is that the controller sent you around because you were doing a touch-and-go while the twin was full stop.

Good job on questioning the direction he wanted you to go!
 
Sounds like a speed estimation failure on the part of ATC, its happens. The Tower seemed to drop it so I'd just move on.

If you really want to you can file a NASA report. It might help ATC in the future.
 
Brad Z said:
And unless you were having an emergency, you'd be in violation of 14 CFR 91.123(b).
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting thought. During the solo phase of my training, my instructor advised me to use "unable, student pilot" if I was given an instruction by ATC that I felt I could not complete safely given my level of experience. As I recall, a specific example she used was instruction for last-minute S turns while on final, which she apparently didn't want me to perform early on in my training.

I never had occasion to use the phrase, and I don't want to get into the weeds with that example, so let's just keep a high-level view of it. Is the use of "unable" or "unable, student pilot" in response to an ATC instruction truly a violation of 91.123(b)? I always thought of it as a to-the-point expression of my inability to safely follow an instruction, and a request for alternate instructions, all rolled into one. Though now I wonder if I was steered wrong.
 
thehulk06 said:
I was actually making a joke.

Of course I'd do what tower told me to. Although its kinda ****ty they made the little guy change direction.


I thought the airplane on final had the right of way on this situation.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the twin on final before the Archer? The twin had right of way by virtue of being on final before the Archer even turned base. If the Archer had been able to land without forcing the twin to alter its approach, no harm no foul. Since he couldn't, the Tower broke him off and rightly so.
 
Sounds like the controller misjudged the situation and didn't realize the Baron was too close behind you until it was too late to fix it. In such cases, they will usually have the plane doing the T&G go around and let the plane intending to full-stop go ahead and land. However, telling a plane on short final, "Make a left/right turn to the [cardinal direction]" is not appropriate -- unless they saw another potential conflict with the departing Challenger, they should simply tell you to go around.

If it really bugs you, call the Tower Manager tomorrow and ask about it. Otherwise, just let it go -- you're not in trouble or they would have said something to you at the time.
 
asechrest said:
This brings up an interesting thought. During the solo phase of my training, my instructor advised me to use "unable, student pilot" if I was given an instruction by ATC that I felt I could not complete safely given my level of experience. As I recall, a specific example she used was instruction for last-minute S turns while on final, which she apparently didn't want me to perform early on in my training.

I never had occasion to use the phrase, and I don't want to get into the weeds with that example, so let's just keep a high-level view of it. Is the use of "unable" or "unable, student pilot" in response to an ATC instruction truly a violation of 91.123(b)? I always thought of it as a to-the-point expression of my inability to safely follow an instruction, and a request for alternate instructions, all rolled into one. Though now I wonder if I was steered wrong.
Click to expand...

I'd would still say it or tell my students to say it. If you can't perform the requested instruction because of performance or experience I would tell them. Pilots are getting too worried that the FAA is going to come kidnap you.

Its better then having a solo student freak out because ATC is asking to much of them.
 
asechrest said:
Is the use of "unable" or "unable, student pilot" in response to an ATC instruction truly a violation of 91.123(b)?
Click to expand...
No, it is not, but it better be a situation where safety of flight is in immediate jeopardy if you do what they instructed. This is especially true in the traffic pattern where planes are close together, things happen fast, and a pilot's "unable" may leave the controller no good options remaining.
 
asechrest said:
This brings up an interesting thought. During the solo phase of my training, my instructor advised me to use "unable, student pilot" if I was given an instruction by ATC that I felt I could not complete safely given my level of experience. As I recall, a specific example she used was instruction for last-minute S turns while on final, which she apparently didn't want me to perform early on in my training.

I never had occasion to use the phrase, and I don't want to get into the weeds with that example, so let's just keep a high-level view of it. Is the use of "unable" or "unable, student pilot" in response to an ATC instruction truly a violation of 91.123(b)? I always thought of it as a to-the-point expression of my inability to safely follow an instruction, and a request for alternate instructions, all rolled into one. Though now I wonder if I was steered wrong.
Click to expand...

How do you think that excuse would play out with the inspector when he calls you to ask what happened? Were you never trained on how to do right turns? or go arounds?

Unable would be something like flying in class B and getting vectored into a cloud as a VFR only type.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sounds like the controller misjudged the situation and didn't realize the Baron was too close behind you until it was too late to fix it. In such cases, they will usually have the plane doing the T&G go around and let the plane intending to full-stop go ahead and land. However, telling a plane on short final, "Make a left/right turn to the [cardinal direction]" is not appropriate -- unless they saw another potential conflict with the departing Challenger, they should simply tell you to go around.

If it really bugs you, call the Tower Manager tomorrow and ask about it. Otherwise, just let it go -- you're not in trouble or they would have said something to you at the time.
Click to expand...


Yeah the Challenger was rolling when I was just past abeam so that definitely wasn't a factor.

I don't know how close that twin was but we did see him about a mile out as I was re-entering the downwind. Now that you say it, I'm puzzled as to why he didn't just say go around.

It doesn't bug me much, I just want to be sure there isn't something different/better I could have done in this situation. I didn't delay my base turn and aside from maybe requesting to extend, I don't think there was anything else I could have done:dunno:
 
The audio does exist. The part where I asked for clarification and the reply are cut off(tower and approach share the same channel)... initially I repeated the turn direction but then asked for clarification. Starts at 2:55

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kmsn/KMSN-Jun-23-2014-2330Z.mp3

This 340A was behind me. No idea how fast they are.

710445.jpg


Good learning experience anyways. Didn't really ruffle my feathers or anything, just out of the ordinary.
 
I listened to the recording. It really does just sound like TWR didn't realize how fast the Twin Cessna was moving.

No biggie. :D
 
Man, that might have been a new controller training or something.
He was stepping all over himself.

You did the right thing.
 
asechrest said:
This brings up an interesting thought. During the solo phase of my training, my instructor advised me to use "unable, student pilot" if I was given an instruction by ATC that I felt I could not complete safely given my level of experience. As I recall, a specific example she used was instruction for last-minute S turns while on final, which she apparently didn't want me to perform early on in my training.

I never had occasion to use the phrase, and I don't want to get into the weeds with that example, so let's just keep a high-level view of it. Is the use of "unable" or "unable, student pilot" in response to an ATC instruction truly a violation of 91.123(b)? I always thought of it as a to-the-point expression of my inability to safely follow an instruction, and a request for alternate instructions, all rolled into one. Though now I wonder if I was steered wrong.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with an "unable" response if you think that the order will put your flight in jeopardy. However, if it's something that should be no issue to perform and it causes a major issue with traffic, then a 44709 ride may be coming your way. Student pilots get a lot of leeway in what is expected of them, once you have a ticket you still get leeway and PIC over ride authority, but you may have to answer as to why you were unable to comply with something that should be routine ability. Regardless though, if you don't think you can safely comply, don't.
 
This is a perfect example where our great aviation forefathers have provided us with a very clear, concise way to communicate and it was simply not used.

"Go around"

If we all just use the book, it's so much simpler.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I'm not piling on but why did I have to abandon a less than 1 mile final because of traffic behind and above(do right of way rules apply in a Class C environment? I'm not sure of that answer)..?

I feel like the twin could have been made to do a 360, an S turn, or even go around. But I just followed directions.
Click to expand...

Why? Likely because you were in the pattern doing practice anyway. The twin was most likely coming in from a trip. If you were a controller, who would you choose to inconvenience? The guy on a real trip or the guy in the pattern boring holes in the sky?
 
I've been in a similar situation. The traffic on final was closer but slower than the twin in the OP's situation. When I got the call to turn base I didn't use "unable" I just pointed out the situation to the tower. They were good with me extending the downwind.

Now demanding a student pilot have that situational awareness is wrong and it sounds like the tower made a spacing error. It happens...they corrected it and put the student pilot in an unusual situation. Glad the stud had the skills to make it work. Calling for a go around might have been better for the stud but would have put the twin in a "must land" situation.

As Ron suggested, call the tower manager and discuss it. Be friendly and ask for the controller's point of view. It'll be educational for all involved.
 
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.
 
The issue of the plane on final having the ROW does not apply in a controlled airspace.
You are required to follow the instructions from the tower (assuming you can). That is why it is called controlled airspace.
Yeah, the 340 is a slippery missile (unlike most older Cessna stuff) It caught the controller off guard. He learned a LOTmore from it than you did.

One time I was in the pattern at our local jet port and he cleared a 737 4 miles behind me to land #2 . I was flying a Cessna 120 into a pretty good headwind. I pictured it in my minds eye and decided it was not going to be pretty. I asked the tower for a right hand 360 - that was instantly granted.
The pilot of the jet, in a good ol boy southern drawl said, 'goood on ya, buddy'.
Just part of sharing the airspace.
 
Dr. O said:
The issue of the plane on final having the ROW does not apply in a controlled airspace.
Click to expand...
SAY WHAT? No that's not true. 91.113 applies except on water.
You are required to follow the instructions from the tower (assuming you can).
Click to expand...
That is the crux of the matter. It's not an ROW issue at all when ATC is giving you instructions.
That is why it is called controlled airspace.
Click to expand...
Umm...no. It's called controlled airspace because ATC is exercising control over someone, but not necessarily EVERYONE in the airspace.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
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.
Click to expand...
One of you should have sized up the situation better, I think. You were in the "key position" 45° from the numbers--and descending? While still on downwind? Before turning base? Why?

Good pattern discipline would have you at regular pattern altitude and thereby made a decision to extend much easier and obvious methinks. Any twin only five miles out will eat you up from behind on final if you've trundled along making two 90° turns and flown the length of a base leg, possibly a long one. So, bad on your CFI and the tower operator for not figuring that one out sooner.

That said, once the tower operator screwed up by giving you the right of way, s/he should have had the twin do the go-around or a 360°, or something. The situation should have been apparent to the twin pilot as well, and a competent one would have had no problem adjusting speed or doing "S" turns on final, etc.

In short, a comedy of errors, IMO. You all share blame. :)

dtuuri
 
I don't think the OP messed up. How is he supposed to judge the closing speed of the aircraft on final? He probably can't see it if it's five miles out. If I'm in a position to turn base and there is a plane "on a five mile final", 99% of the time I'm going to be on the ground and out of the way before the traffic on final would be an issue. But I generally fly tight, steep patterns. Could be an issue if I was flying something that had a lot of float to it, requiring a wider, longer pattern.
 
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.
 
MSN is on LiveATC. I would go back and grab audio of the archive.
 
"Unable" is a very useful tool, and no one should hesitate to use it. The P/C Glossary says it is to be used to indicate inability to comply with a specific clearance, instruction, or request. There is no conflict with any other regulation.

Bob Gardner
 
fiveoboy01 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I agree. That is how I teach them too.
Click to expand...

And if your student needs to extend, like this OP should/could have? Do you make them climb again to pattern altitude? Just level off? I think either way is unnecessary. FWIW, I'd have them maintain altitude until turning base, slowing to approach speed while holding altitude on downwind is good practice for primary students too, and doesn't hurt the pros either, IMO.

dtuuri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top