Landing without clearance on checkride.

MAKG1 said:
Tower may have screwed up, but so did everyone else in this narrative. The BIG screw up for the OP was ceding PIC. Looking to a "more experienced" (and wrong) pilot for a decision indicates he wasn't ready.
Click to expand...
Part of flying is using all available and necessary sources to make a decision. This is true if in the air or on the ground. I do not find fault in the OP for asking the DPE for help if he was uncertain. That in of it self shows good resource management. However, the OP should have known that the DPE was giving him bad advice, and at that point should have said "no I do not have clearance to land and therefore I am not going to land." The DPE should have either said you are the PIC and need to decide what to do, or given him the choice to end the checkride there and taken over as PIC. Unfortunately, in effect what happened was the plane at that point had no PIC and was being flown by two passengers or two copilots.
 
steingar said:
Pilots need to be thinking beings, and not just quoters of regulations.
Click to expand...
I agree we need to be thinking beings, and not automotons, but whether we like them or not there are rules and regulations that need to be followed. I agree some of them are arcane, and I for one do not know all of them, or probably even the majority of them, but some basic ones are certainly important. Not landing without clearance to land at a towered airport seems to be one of the important ones to me. We do not know why the tower did not communicate with him, we do not know why he did not get clearance to land, and in all reality the why's are not important. What is important is he did not have clearance to land, and landing at a towered airport without clearance to land is a clear violation of the regulations. I think we can all agree on that if nothing else. If he had an emergency, real or imagined, then he needed to declare the emergency prior to landing(unless the emergency prevented him from doing that).
 
douglas393 said:
However, the OP should have known that the DPE was giving him bad advice,
Click to expand...

Um - an inexperience aviator, asking a highly experienced aviator, about a situation that they are unfamiliar with and in a time critical situation. It's a discrete deal, either land, or don't. Not sure how you can postulate that the person asking advice should somehow know it's good or bad, otherwise I don't think they would be asking? hmmmm
 
docmirror said:
Um - an inexperience aviator, asking a highly experienced aviator, about a situation that they are unfamiliar with and in a time critical situation. It's a discrete deal, either land, or don't. Not sure how you can postulate that the person asking advice should somehow know it's good or bad, otherwise I don't think they would be asking? hmmmm
Click to expand...
Maybe, yes, but I still think it was covered pretty clearly in ground training, and in flight training (at least for me) that you cannot land at a towered airport without clearance to land. I trained at a untowered airport and knew that when I took my checkride. I think that is basic information that anyone taking their PPL checkride should know. If they do not, maybe as someone else said they are not ready yet.

If he asked the DPE if he had missed the tower giving clearance and the DPE said yes I heard them give you clearance then I would say the DPE is at fault. However, he asked the DPE what he should do. The DPE gave him bad advice, plain and simple. I think that if I was in that situation at that point in my training, I would have known better than to have landed.
 
The recommending CFI, the DPE and the applicant are all at fault. And remember, that there are new controllers doing training in towers too and as Stephen said, there may have been more going on in the tower than any of us will ever know. It was a complex situation with hopefully a simple solution.
And, the student now PP learned a very valuable lesson.

Be honest, be willing to continue to learn and I bet this will work out fine.
Let us know.
 
docmirror said:
Um - an inexperience aviator, asking a highly experienced aviator, about a situation that they are unfamiliar with and in a time critical situation. It's a discrete deal, either land, or don't. Not sure how you can postulate that the person asking advice should somehow know it's good or bad, otherwise I don't think they would be asking? hmmmm
Click to expand...

When in doubt (and it's an option), don't land. This is ADM 101. In the absence of an emergency, the proper course of action was to get out of the area and let Tower sort it out. It won't be the last time Tower screws up, and I'm highly skeptical that it was the first. Tower screws up landing clearances all the time. I've received my share from the hold short line.

Approaching to land is a very dangerous time. Almost anyplace else is safer. Generally higher and further away.

The basic rule about landings is that you don't touch the ground unless all the ducks are in a row. Usually, that's talking about good approach speeds and all that, but it applies to everything else as well. The default action is a go-around. Anytime ANYthing is out of place, including Tower's wits.

Landing under these circumstances was a form of "get-there-itis."
 
douglas393 said:
Maybe, yes, but I still think it was covered pretty clearly in ground training, and in flight training (at least for me) that you cannot land at a towered airport without clearance to land.
Click to expand...

None of this has any relevance in the student telling the DPE that his advice is bad(in time context). Surely - after the fact, in the comfort of the couch, with the laptop tuned into POA, that is true, but we aren't talking about that. This all happened in the space of a few thousand feet, and a minute or so during a stressful flight.
 
roncachamp said:
I think you were collateral damage. I cannot imagine a situation in which the go-around of the other aircraft was required because you touched down instead of initiating a go-around yourself.
Click to expand...
After talking this over with someone in HQ Flight Standards, I think Steven may be onto something. The fact that there was no telephone call request at the time of the event, and the passage of time since then before the letter was sent, suggests that this may be an ATC QC issue discovered the fact.

At this point, they may be just trying to figure out what happened to cause that loss of separation between the OP and the plane behind him, and the only thing that will happen to the OP and DPE will be to be counseled informally. One consideration I hadn't thought of is that the DPE may have felt that safety was already compromised by controller error, and that at that point, landing was the safer of two bad alternatives. This would come out when the FSDO interviews the DPE, and could be a defense for his actions.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
I could've sworn this was the case. Before my check ride our chief examiner went over this with my CFI and me. He said that who is PIC is more of a gray area during a checkride
Click to expand...
The language of 61.47 is quite clear.
The examiner is not the pilot in command of the aircraft during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement...
Click to expand...

but the generally accepted thing is that if you pass you were PIC, if you fail you were not.
Click to expand...
Nothing in 61.47 about outcomes.

This is because you do not have your private pilots license and thus are a student pilot, and as a student pilot you cannot be PIC with another person... unless you pass.
Click to expand...
That's covered in paragraph (c) of that section:
(c) Notwithstanding the type of aircraft used during the practical test, the applicant and the examiner (and any other occupants authorized to be on board by the examiner) are not subject to the requirements or limitations for the carriage of passengers that are specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...
 
MAKG1 said:
When in doubt (and it's an option), don't land.
Click to expand...

Why are you telling me? I didn't advise anyone to land in this situation. I said there were two discrete actions avail.
 
douglas393 said:
Yeah, and I am unsure the results of that experiment has anything to do with the OP landing.
Click to expand...

The point is that people will defer their judgment to an authority figure, particularly under unusual circumstances. I don't think a student being examined is going to argue with their examiner, especially not during a crunch.
 
dmspilot said:
The point is that people will defer their judgment to an authority figure, particularly under unusual circumstances. I don't think a student being examined is going to argue with their examiner, especially not during a crunch.
Click to expand...
I understood the point you are trying to make, I respectfully do not agree it applies. I think the situations differ.

Maybe your checkride was different, but I was specifically told that during the checkride that there would be situations presented, or developed by the DPE, that would test my ability to fly with distractions occurring, and to make confident and correct decisions during flying. I was also told my DPE would try to have me do things that would not be recommended and if asked to do something that I did not agree with it was my responsibilty not to do it. In other words, I was told that I was to act as the PIC for the checkride. Now whether or that meant I was truly PIC is immaterial, the goal was for me to do what was required as a PIC, to show to the DPE that I was capable as acting as a PIC.

I would therefore propose that the situation the OP describes is an example of demonstrating appropriate ADM during a checkride. It is the responsibility of the PPL candidate to determine what is a correct or incorrect action. For example during my checkride the cloud ceilings were about 1500 feet at one point. My DPE told me to up to 1200 feet and I refused saying it would be a violation of cloud clearance. He then told me that it was not and as long as I was clear of clouds it was okay. I politely disagreed with him and told him I was going to stay at 1000 feet and proceeded to continue the flight at that altitude. I did not fail my checkride, but I believe I should have been if I took his advice and climbed to 1200 feet. Later on when doing maneuvers(the clouds by that time had cleared) I said to my DPE I was going to first perform clearing turns. Again he said it was not necessary and again I politely disagreed and performed them. Likewise, if I did not do them I should have been failed.

I do not think the OP's situation is much different. Maybe I am reading into it things that are not there, but I still feel that by the point in training of the checkride, it should be known that to land at a towered airport, you need clearance to land and a specific runway stated. If my DPE had told me otherwise I would have politely disagreed and done what I felt was safe and correct. If I was doing something unsafe then it would have been his responsibility to end the checkride and take over the controls.
 
Well we're batting this one around a lot. I will say this, had I been in the OP's position as a PPL candidate I would have landed. I would have taken the recommendation of the DPE who said to land. If the DPE said, "I don't know you're PIC", then I wouldn't have. The problem with having 60 hours is you don't know what you don't know, you might not even be sure if you were cleared to land or not, so when a DPE tells you to do something, you do it unless you think it's going to kill you, damage the aircraft, etc.

One other idea for the OP, perhaps call the DPE and discuss the letter. See what he recollects from that day. Since he was under no pressure and not flying he may have more information. Also, being a DPE, given the scenario, he may be willing to help.
 
Well, the DPE is potentially going to tell you to do something that would lead to a bust but it would be unprovoked by the situation created by a third party(ATC/tower). If the candidate were approaching a towered airport and the DPE spoke up and said 'go ahead and land straight ahead without a radio call, it will be ok'. That would be a logical test for a bust.

In this case, the abnormal situation was created by either a failing xmit function of the radio, or by the tower. I seriously doubt the DPE had a hand in either of those actions, confirmed after the fact that the OP got a PD letter. This was not a situation caused, or involving anything to do with the exam. It was clear to me, and I'm sure clear to the DPE that the OP was asking for advice on an unusual situation and how best to respond.

If the DPE had any hand in a situation like this, it could be construed as a dangerous and uncontrollable situation, and no DPE would do that in controlled airspace. The pilot's request for advice was from a novice student aviator to someone who has the stature of a tenured aviator, who the FAA trust to perform pilot evals. Sadly, that advice was incorrect.
 
douglas393 said:
I agree we need to be thinking beings, and not automotons, but whether we like them or not there are rules and regulations that need to be followed. I agree some of them are arcane, and I for one do not know all of them, or probably even the majority of them, but some basic ones are certainly important. Not landing without clearance to land at a towered airport seems to be one of the important ones to me. We do not know why the tower did not communicate with him, we do not know why he did not get clearance to land, and in all reality the why's are not important. What is important is he did not have clearance to land, and landing at a towered airport without clearance to land is a clear violation of the regulations. I think we can all agree on that if nothing else. If he had an emergency, real or imagined, then he needed to declare the emergency prior to landing(unless the emergency prevented him from doing that).
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with you. A few years ago, I was taking recurrent training with a CFI on Long Island. This was probably my second flight after a ten year hiatus. I already had my certificate but wasn't current.

We were doing pattern work and on short final, the tower told me to go around and remain in the pattern. This was my first go-around in ten years (the CFI said I did great:) ). Well after another lap around the pattern at pattern altitude, the tower announced that they were closing the airport and evacuating the tower shortly:yikes:.

We looked at each other and looked around the field to see if we could tell what was going on. We had no clue. No fire trucks, no police, nothing:dunno:.

The CFI asked if we could land first and tower said yes, and also cleared another CFI and student to land before closing.

After we taxied in and parked, we found out what happened.

It was the 5.8 magnitude earthquake of Virginia:hairraise:

http://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/08/23/long-island-feels-tremors-from-virginia-earthquake/
 
Ron Levy said:
After talking this over with someone in HQ Flight Standards, I think Steven may be onto something. The fact that there was no telephone call request at the time of the event, and the passage of time since then before the letter was sent, suggests that this may be an ATC QC issue discovered the fact.

At this point, they may be just trying to figure out what happened to cause that loss of separation between the OP and the plane behind him, and the only thing that will happen to the OP and DPE will be to be counseled informally. One consideration I hadn't thought of is that the DPE may have felt that safety was already compromised by controller error, and that at that point, landing was the safer of two bad alternatives. This would come out when the FSDO interviews the DPE, and could be a defense for his actions.
Click to expand...

Hopefully this is the case. My instructor called me today and gave me the name of someone from the FSDO that will be calling me sometime soon.
 
docmirror said:
None of this has any relevance in the student telling the DPE that his advice is bad(in time context). Surely - after the fact, in the comfort of the couch, with the laptop tuned into POA, that is true, but we aren't talking about that. This all happened in the space of a few thousand feet, and a minute or so during a stressful flight.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's highly doubtful IMO that many of us would have done otherwise.

Hindsight is 20/20:yes:
 
MAKG1 said:
Nope. A go-around would have been safer. It's much more likely that he would compromise safety for an aircraft he can't see (behind him), if he slows and lands.
Click to expand...

I must respectfully disagree. I can land safely on a clear runway ahead of me. The guy behind me should see what I'm doing if he had his eyes open. If not, we collide on the ground, but not in the air.

Going around in busy airspace all kinds of things can happen. Perhaps you don't see traffic, perhaps the engine konks out. Who knows? Unless I'm really clear on who's where I'll set it down regs be damned. It's my six. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

MAKG1 said:
Tower may have screwed up, but so did everyone else in this narrative. The BIG screw up for the OP was ceding PIC. Looking to a "more experienced" (and wrong) pilot for a decision indicates he wasn't ready.
Click to expand...

The fact that he busted the checkride would indicate that he wasn't ready.
 
steingar said:
I must respectfully disagree. I can land safely on a clear runway ahead of me. The guy behind me should see what I'm doing if he had his eyes open. If not, we collide on the ground, but not in the air.

Going around in busy airspace all kinds of things can happen. Perhaps you don't see traffic, perhaps the engine konks out. Who knows? Unless I'm really clear on who's where I'll set it down regs be damned. It's my six. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.



The fact that he busted the checkride would indicate that he wasn't ready.
Click to expand...

I think that's what being PIC is all about. Making the best decision under the current circumstances and being prepared to accept the consequences.

Under the circumstances of the OP (with a DPE telling me to land it anyway), I probably would have done the same thing. However, at my current experience level, I'm going around, unless I have an emergency. And if I land it under an emergency without a clearance, you can bet I'm calling it....an EMERGENCY:D
 
I find it very odd that Tower said nothing of this at the time of landing. Leads me to agree with those who have claimed it was part of something bigger.
 
Flyboy,

Don't sweat this too much. As you can see, people with varying levels of experience debate whether what you did was proper. All would agree that at worst it was an honest mistake under difficult circumstances. It is highly unlikely that the FAA wants a pound of flesh from you. Man up, own it, and learn from it when the FAA comes calling. But it seems you already know that. So try not to worry too much. It won't help, anyway. Grant yourself forgiveness. The sooner you do, the better off you will be.
 
PPC1052 said:
Flyboy,

Don't sweat this too much. As you can see, people with varying levels of experience debate whether what you did was proper. All would agree that at worst it was an honest mistake under difficult circumstances. It is highly unlikely that the FAA wants a pound of flesh from you. Man up, own it, and learn from it when the FAA comes calling. But it seems you already know that. So try not to worry too much. It won't help, anyway. Grant yourself forgiveness. The sooner you do, the better off you will be.
Click to expand...

Having dealt with the FAA in the past, honesty and remorse is the best policy... My infraction was a little… OK a lot worse than yours and in the end all that was needed was some remedial instruction.

ebykowsky said:
I find it very odd that Tower said nothing of this at the time of landing. Leads me to agree with those who have claimed it was part of something bigger.
Click to expand...

That too! Usually with something like this the tower is going to be real quick with Bla Bla Bla you ready to copy a number... Sounds to me like there was problem with tower being asleep at the switch..

One other thing, you may want to get a copy or a transcript of the communications from that day. They should have this an you are entitled to it..
 
Last edited:
Sorry to gravedig the thread. Finally got a call from the FSDO today. Just some basic questions, than he asked about my total time flying. Is it standard procedure for them to ask about total time, time in the last 90 days, time in last 24 hours, ect? Also, he said he's still waiting for the tapes from the tower. They still have them from the end of November, around 2 months ago? One last one. How long does formal/informal counseling stay on your record an how does this affect a career as a pilot?
 
Last edited:
The post incident paperwork I have seen from the FAA has total time, last 12 months, last 90 days and last 24 hrs boxes. Odds are he was just filling in the data.
 
flyboy595 said:
Sorry to gravedig the thread. Finally got a call from the FSDO today. Just some basic questions, than he asked about my total time flying. Is it standard procedure for them to ask about total time, time in the last 90 days, time in last 24 hours, ect? Also, he said he's still waiting for the tapes from the tower. They still have them from the end of November, around 2 months ago? One last one. How long does formal/informal counseling stay on your record an how does this affect a career as a pilot?
Click to expand...

That questionnaire is from the ATQA (Air Traffic Quality Assurance) database where the pilot deviation is filed. This is attached to a form 8020-17 ( Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report) which was filed by the reporting facility.

It's a standard questionnaire and these questions help build a database to possibly identify problems within the ATC system.

For more information see Order 8020.11C

flyboy595 said:
How long does formal/informal counseling stay on your record an how does this affect a career as a pilot?
Click to expand...

A record is made in to the PTRS (Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem) which is a database the FAA uses for a multitude of task.

It's given a number, a category number, date, inspector, result (closed) airmen name and certificate number and a brief description of what occurred.

While technically not "on your record" it is retrievable through a search function. If the airmen was involved in another incident the Inspector could do a quick search through SPAS (Safety Performance Analysis System) and the PTRS record would appear.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
While technically not "on your record" it is retrievable through a search function. If the airmen was involved in another incident the Inspector could do a quick search through SPAS (Safety Performance Analysis System) and the PTRS record would appear.
Click to expand...
Two questions:

1) Is that record available to anyone other than the FAA?
2) Does it ever get expunged?
​
 
douglas393 said:
If this happened to me I would remain on base if I was cleared to base and inform tower of the issue and wait for them to respond. If I ended up out of their airspace and still did not here from them, I would try ATC on my alternate radio and if still got no response would do failed radio procedures. If on final I would do a go around and continue in the same fashion. I could be wrong in how I would deal with it but I see no other way in my limited experience. 91.3 if I interpret it correctly says I cannot land if I do not have a clearance to land from the tower controlling the field, unless it is an emergency.
Click to expand...
If the tower told you to enter a left base, you wouldn't turn final without a landing clearance?
 
gismo said:
1) Is that record available to anyone other than the FAA?
​
Click to expand...


No. However, if you do an FOIA request it will show up there. PTRS is used for everything, for example ramp checks, 135 check rides, DPE reports, etc. Anything you do with the FAA that involves your certificate number will have a record generated.


gismo said:
2) Does it ever get expunged?
Click to expand...


No, PTRS records are historical and archived.
 
Last edited:
R&W, let's assume someone does something and gets a suspension. How does that recordkeeping, or really, the sharing of that information to others like potential employers, differ from the counseling?
 
TMetzinger said:
R&W, let's assume someone does something and gets a suspension. How does that recordkeeping, or really, the sharing of that information to others like potential employers, differ from the counseling?
Click to expand...

That record (suspension) comes from the EIS enforcement database. That database is usually searched during a records check.

And there will be a PTRS record that will reference an EIR code that will lead to that record.

PTRS is not part of the record search for pre employment records.
 
RotorAndWing said:
That record (suspension) comes from the EIS enforcement database. That database is usually searched during a records check.

And there will be a PTRS record that will reference an EIR code that will lead to that record.

PTRS is not part of the record search for pre employment records.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
RotorAndWing said:
That record (suspension) comes from the EIS enforcement database. That database is usually searched during a records check.

And there will be a PTRS record that will reference an EIR code that will lead to that record.

PTRS is not part of the record search for pre employment records.
Click to expand...

And there is no longer expungement of the EIS record of a suspension. People took deals receiving a suspension believing (as it was then) that it could be expunged later. They now can't have it expunged and wish they hadn't taken the deal.
 
RotorAndWing said:
For those that are interested, you can do an FOIA search on your name and certificate number and you will get everything in the databases back, copies of PTRS, copies of all 8710's, etc.
Click to expand...

Could I trouble you for the details of how this is done?
 
ebykowsky said:
How did you fail the slip to a landing? Doesn't seem like there's much to screw up there but I've yet to take the check ride.
Click to expand...

I did not fail my slip during the checkride, but only because we did it during an imitation of emergency landing, not during a real landing. It took immense mental activity, thinking, "rudder goes there... ailerons go here...". I only started making slips effortlessly by the time I had some 120 hours. By 200 hours I was able to lift a wing in level flight and look under it. Took intentional training. So, I can see where Mr. flyboy595 comes from.

BTW, I was in a situation when tower forgot about me. Every time it was resolved in the last moment, but my action would be to initiate a go-around.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top