go around on parallel runways

[poadeleted20]

Control deviation?? Really??

Visual separation was maintained by at least one pilot.

Class D provides separation on the runway. Only one was on the runway at a time.

Visual separation by the pilots is not sufficient, and it doesn't matter whether the airspace under the tower's control is Class B, C, D, E, or G. OTOH, the controller can, under certain circumstances, have more than one plane on the runway at a time, and that, too, applies at all tower-controlled airports regardless of airspace classification.

3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION ​

a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists or unless authorized in para 3-10-10, Altitude Restricted Low Approach.
1. The other aircraft has landed and is clear of the runway. (See FIG 3-10-1.) Between sunrise and sunset, if you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft has landed, it need not be clear of the runway if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:
(b) When a Category II aircraft is landing behind a Category I or II- 4,500 feet.
(See FIG 3-10-3.)

FIG 3-10-3
Same Runway Separation

​

2. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end. (See FIG 3-10-4). If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft is airborne, it need not have crossed the runway end if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:
(a) Category I aircraft landing behind Category I or II- 3,000 feet.
(b) Category II aircraft landing behind Category I or II- 4,500 feet.
(c) When either is a category III aircraft- 6,000 feet. (See FIG 3-10-5.)

FIG 3-10-4
Same Runway Separation

FIG 3-10-5
Same Runway Separation

​

3. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter, visual separation may be applied in lieu of using distance minima

 

[roncachamp]

Then why did you suggest in post #33 that the pilot could have landed after that go-around call if the required separation was present? The FAA does seem to frown on such behavior by pilots.

I didn't suggest that. If you review the sequence of messages you'll see they do not include the fact that the tower initiated the go around.

 

[N801BH]

C. E. Page (KRCE) in Oklahoma City

Thanks guys... That is more airports then I expected... Good to know.

 

[denverpilot]

Many of the towered airports with parallel runways close the tower at night and become uncontrolled airports also.

 

[alfadog]

Smart A$$...

And yeah.. I would like to hear about a grass strip with parallel runways.

I was more thinking of a grass strip parallel to a paved trip. Very common, X51 and F45 are two that I use.

Anyone know of a grass field with parallel grass runways? I imagine there are some that have an ultralight strip next to the main strip but what about two full grass runways?

 

[Everskyward]

If you're landing 35L and 35R is clear, they'll let you slide over top of it.

Actually they'll have you sidestep over and land on it.

 

[denverpilot]

Actually they'll have you sidestep over and land on it.

Well... True. But maybe not as low as the OP said he was given his go-around at KBJC.

Heck, at 100' I'd slide over and land if they'd let me, but most Towers won't do that unless they recognize your aircraft and voice.

I want to see you guys do it in the jet.

 

[N801BH]

Well... ...
I want to see you guys do it in the jet.

All ya need to do is attend the Jack Roush school of low level banking.

 

[denverpilot]

All ya need to do is attend the Jack Roush school of low level banking.

Nicely done!

Dang. I missed that comedy opportunity!

 

[alfadog]

All ya need to do is attend the Jack Roush school of low level banking.

Ouch.

 

[BillTIZ]

Control deviation?? Really??

Visual separation was maintained by at least one pilot.

Class D provides separation on the runway. Only one was on the runway at a time.

I agree. But under the new rules, they have to turn themselves in for failure to maintain spacing that forced the 2nd aircraft to go around. Yes, visual seperation was provided by the #2 pilot. But those comments on the tape will not help the controller at all.

 

[roncachamp]

I agree. But under the new rules, they have to turn themselves in for failure to maintain spacing that forced the 2nd aircraft to go around. Yes, visual seperation was provided by the #2 pilot. But those comments on the tape will not help the controller at all.

What new rule is that? The OP estimated there was about 4700 feet between the two aircraft. It doesn't appear to have been spacing that forced the 2nd aircraft to go around.

 

[poadeleted20]

What new rule is that? The OP estimated there was about 4700 feet between the two aircraft. It doesn't appear to have been spacing that forced the 2nd aircraft to go around.

The OP's estimate from his perspective and the controller's determination from the tower may have been significantly different, and the tower controller must go by those predetermined visual references they have up there.

 

[roncachamp]

The OP's estimate from his perspective and the controller's determination from the tower may have been significantly different, and the tower controller must go by those predetermined visual references they have up there.

You're assuming the go around was called for spacing. There's no evidence of that.

 

[poadeleted20]

You're assuming the go around was called for spacing. There's no evidence of that.

Good point, but pilots still should remember that what the controller sees is not necessarily the same as what the pilot sees, and the controller must act on what the controller sees. BTW, as a controller, can you explain for educational purposes what reasons besides not having the required spacing the controller might have for sending the OP around?

 

[roncachamp]

Good point, but pilots still should remember that what the controller sees is not necessarily the same as what the pilot sees, and the controller must act on what the controller sees. BTW, as a controller, can you explain for educational purposes what reasons besides not having the required spacing the controller might have for sending the OP around?

Runway incursion, critters on the runway, ASDE alarm, blown LAHSO, aircraft unable to exit the runway, etc.

Some years ago on a clear, dark, moonless night I instructed an aircraft to go around when I observed the runway lights blinking. Runway lights aren't supposed to blink, when they appear to it means something is moving between the lights and the observer. I concluded deer were crossing the runway and a bit of clear, concise, standard phraseology was called for; "Belchfire 34A go around." Once the airplane gained some altitude I explained the situation. No further blinking was observed and the airplane landed without incident.

 

[gprellwitz]

I agree. But under the new rules, they have to turn themselves in for failure to maintain spacing that forced the 2nd aircraft to go around. Yes, visual seperation was provided by the #2 pilot. But those comments on the tape will not help the controller at all.

What new rule is that? The OP estimated there was about 4700 feet between the two aircraft. It doesn't appear to have been spacing that forced the 2nd aircraft to go around.

I think Bill is alluding to the new safety reporting program for controllers.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think Bill is alluding to the new safety reporting program for controllers.

There are two. The first provides protection to the controller if they self-report their own mistakes. The second requires them to report all deviations by pilots, no exceptions, no "you screwed up now don't do it again" warnings. Personally, I don't think that's fair, but it's the FAA.

 

[TMetzinger]

There are two. The first provides protection to the controller if they self-report their own mistakes. The second requires them to report all deviations by pilots, no exceptions, no "you screwed up now don't do it again" warnings. Personally, I don't think that's fair, but it's the FAA.

I'm hoping that the motivation for this is to get accurate data on the number of operational errors, not to increase enforcement actions. If all that happens is that the "I'm sorry, I understand how I screwed up" conversation takes place between the pilot and an ASI or maybe an ATC supervisor rather than the pilot and the actual controller, that's fine.

Note I'm trying to be optimistic. That's not the same as believing my own wishful thinking.

 

[BillTIZ]

I'm hoping that the motivation for this is to get accurate data on the number of operational errors, not to increase enforcement actions. If all that happens is that the "I'm sorry, I understand how I screwed up" conversation takes place between the pilot and an ASI or maybe an ATC supervisor rather than the pilot and the actual controller, that's fine.

Note I'm trying to be optimistic. That's not the same as believing my own wishful thinking.

We've already had FSDO calling local student pilots and others asking "why the change in your flying" based on reports under the new reporting system.

A pilot gets caught with increasing winds that were not forecast to arrive for a few more hours and makes multiple attempts at the crosswind landing with winds 70 degrees off and at 30G40. He eventually catches the timing at a null in the winds, lands safely and taxis in. Tower reports to FSDO and the pilot now faces a possible 709 ride on weather forecasts and cross wind landings.

What will this new reporting really accomplish?

 

[poadeleted20]

We've already had FSDO calling local student pilots and others asking "why the change in your flying" based on reports under the new reporting system.

A pilot gets caught with increasing winds that were not forecast to arrive for a few more hours and makes multiple attempts at the crosswind landing with winds 70 degrees off and at 30G40. He eventually catches the timing at a null in the winds, lands safely and taxis in. Tower reports to FSDO and the pilot now faces a possible 709 ride on weather forecasts and cross wind landings.

What will this new reporting really accomplish?

AFAIK, there is no requirement under the Pilot Deviation reporting rules for ATC to call the FSDO in this situation. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

 

[TMetzinger]

AFAIK, there is no requirement under the Pilot Deviation reporting rules for ATC to call the FSDO in this situation. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

Yeah, what deviation occured?

 

[roncachamp]

AFAIK, there is no requirement under the Pilot Deviation reporting rules for ATC to call the FSDO in this situation. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

Based on the information supplied there was no pilot deviation in this situation.

 

[poadeleted20]

That said, anyone can report anything to the FSDO if they think safety demands it, and the FSDO is required to look into it. But don't blame the controllers' PD reporting rule for for this one.

 

[BillTIZ]

AFAIK, there is no requirement under the Pilot Deviation reporting rules for ATC to call the FSDO in this situation. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

That's a great guess, we are all wondering the same thing.
The tower reported multiple attempts for the landing. One or two other aircraft landed on their first attempt. Maybe the tower figured the pilot had other issues?

We have yet to learn the final outcome.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's a great guess, we are all wondering the same thing.
The tower reported multiple attempts for the landing. One or two other aircraft landed on their first attempt. Maybe the tower figured the pilot had other issues?

That's my guess. Or maybe they just thought he was either really weak or really stupid, and either way, he scared them enough that they wanted someone to deal with him before he hurt himself or someone else. That does happen occastionally even if it's not mandated, and it's not just controllers who make those calls.

 

[BillTIZ]

A super cub, fresh out of maintenance on the brakes, on the third landing the brakes lock up and plants the nose into the runway, it does not go all the way over.

The FSDO wanted a 709 ride on the pilot, no investigation of the maintenance facility.
Luckily a well know DPE that knows the young pilot intervenes and the 709 ride is not required.

What happened to the kinder, gentler FAA of the 80s and 90s?

 

[poadeleted20]

A super cub, fresh out of maintenance on the brakes, on the third landing the brakes lock up and plants the nose into the runway, it does not go all the way over.

The FSDO wanted a 709 ride on the pilot, no investigation of the maintenance facility.
Luckily a well know DPE that knows the young pilot intervenes and the 709 ride is not required.

What happened to the kinder, gentler FAA of the 80s and 90s?

When taildraggers are involved in landing accidents, "709 first and ask questions later" seems to be the rule. Not saying I like it, just saying that's how it seems to be. As for the "kinder, gentler" FAA, I think they got tired of accidents involving repeat performers who had been treated kindly and gently the first time. When you really look at most of the pilot skill/judgement accidents, there are usually prior warning signs and/or previous incidents that were not dealt with effectively.