The Option...

luvflyin said:
Have you ever noticed that happening for a long period of time?
Click to expand...
I think when it is has happened to me it was right in the beginning or tail end... at SEE at least you'll sometimes hear a female voice on one and male on the other. Funny, I was coming back into MYF and didn't catch on ATIS that they were split, so I loaded the main frequency up while still way outside the FAF. When approach handed me over to MYF approach gave me the alternate frequency, then when I got on tower they put me back on the main frequency. LOL.
 
Larry in TN said:
That defeats the purpose of the option clearance. If you know you will be doing a full-stop landing then request a full-stop landing instead of the option. Once you receive a clearance for the option, however, there is no requirement, or even suggestion, to notify the controller of which option you intend to take. If a full stop landing would cause any difficulties for the controller then it is up to him to include that restriction in the clearance.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, you are right. But I always found it was a nice courtesy like @luvflyin said to just say tell them this last one will be full stop. If for nothing more, if there are 4-5 other planes in the pattern, it might help them with planning ahead in case there is someone a few miles out setting up for an approach or something. I'll typically tell them on either the upwind or crosswind leg "this next one will be full stop" and then my last clearance is a "cleared to land"
 
So the controller gets accustomed to pilots adding that extra information when cleared for the option but planning a full-stop then someone else comes in and does it by the book and the controller is caught off guard. Maybe he even scolds the pilots over the frequency as was reported above. That is negative training. The "good idea" has replaced the standard procedure in the minds of many while others continue to use the standard.

Same kind of thing with "downwind abeam" report. "Abeam" isn't a location. It's like saying "over" or "behind". It can describe a position RELATIVE to something else. If the leave out the something else, as luvflyin did above, it is meaningless. Is it downwind abeam the tower, abeam midfield, abeam the approach end, abeam the departure end, or abeam what? Controllers at a particular airport might be in the habit of having pattern traffic report downwind abeam [insert local landmark] and pilots and controllers at that airport may have slipped into the habit of shortening that to "downwind abeam" but non-local pilots won't know that. People reading forum posts won't know that. Pilots at a different airport won't know that (and may have their own, different, commonly used "abeam" point).

My bigger point is to avoid "local" or "individual" procedures in favor of the established standards. The system works much better when everyone, and every airport, isn't making up their own practices.
 
Tantalum said:
But I always found it was a nice courtesy like @luvflyin said to just say tell them this last one will be full stop. If for nothing more, if there are 4-5 other planes in the pattern, it might help them with planning ahead in case there is someone a few miles out setting up for an approach or something.
Click to expand...
The option includes both full-stop landings as well as stop-and-goes. If there is enough room for a stop-and-go then there's plenty of room for a full-stop. If there isn't room for the full-stop then the controller probably shouldn't be issuing a clearance for the option.

If all the option means is a touch-and-go or low-approach then the definition in the AIM and P/CG needs to be changed. If controllers are issuing the option under the assumption that it will be either a low-approach or touch-and-go them perhaps they should reconsider.
 
Larry in TN said:
The option includes both full-stop landings as well as stop-and-goes. If there is enough room for a stop-and-go then there's plenty of room for a full-stop. If there isn't room for the full-stop then the controller probably shouldn't be issuing a clearance for the option.

If all the option means is a touch-and-go or low-approach then the definition in the AIM and P/CG needs to be changed. If controllers are issuing the option under the assumption that it will be either a low-approach or touch-and-go them perhaps they should reconsider.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Stop and Go is the one that’s most likely to be unabled, other options approved. It can mess up sequencing and separation. In most of the cases we’d be talking about here, piston singles, 3000’ feet on the runway is what’s needed for subsequent arrivals. Even if the first plane is a full stop and not off the runway yet. But not if it is going stop and stay on the runway for awhile instead of rolling out and getting off the runway
 
Larry in TN said:
So the controller gets accustomed to pilots adding that extra information when cleared for the option but planning a full-stop then someone else comes in and does it by the book and the controller is caught off guard. Maybe he even scolds the pilots over the frequency as was reported above. That is negative training. The "good idea" has replaced the standard procedure in the minds of many while others continue to use the standard.

Same kind of thing with "downwind abeam" report. "Abeam" isn't a location. It's like saying "over" or "behind". It can describe a position RELATIVE to something else. If the leave out the something else, as luvflyin did above, it is meaningless. Is it downwind abeam the tower, abeam midfield, abeam the approach end, abeam the departure end, or abeam what? Controllers at a particular airport might be in the habit of having pattern traffic report downwind abeam [insert local landmark] and pilots and controllers at that airport may have slipped into the habit of shortening that to "downwind abeam" but non-local pilots won't know that. People reading forum posts won't know that. Pilots at a different airport won't know that (and may have their own, different, commonly used "abeam" point).

My bigger point is to avoid "local" or "individual" procedures in favor of the established standards. The system works much better when everyone, and every airport, isn't making up their own practices.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I shouldn’t have said “abeam.” The point in that post, #39, was some controllers ask for a report somewhere each trip around, some don’t. Abeam was just an example and I’m kicking myself in the azz for opening up the what’s abeam mean can of worms.
 
luvflyin said:
I’m kicking myself in the azz for opening up the what’s abeam mean can of worms
Click to expand...
I know what you meant.. if a controller says "report abeam [the tower]" and you click up with "34PA is abeam" I'm pretty sure they'll know what you mean

Granted, I'm not married to giving the courtesy call that my next landing will be full stop, it just seems to be what most of the local pilots do around here
 
I prefer to see how the landing goes before deciding whether it will be full stop.
 
^I've done the same thing too, in that case I have to say won't tell them halfway through the touchdown that it will be a full stop or not
 
I'm sure this has been somewhere on this site before but it will apply to all of us one time or the other.
 
AKBill said:
We get a lot controllers in Juneau that give you the option of "short approach, long landing approved". With an 8800 x150 ft runway most of the commercial 135 outfits take the short approach option. I take the short/long most of the time. I respond either "short approach or normal approach" depending on what I am set up for. I always let tower know my intentions.
Click to expand...

IN the 135 world there in Juneau, every minute is either revenue or lost revenue. If I'm landing 26, I always request a short approach and turn at the tree stand. Try and touch down at Delta and off at Charlie. Landing Rwy 8, I shoot to exit at Charlie every time.
 
Larry in TN said:
From the PIlot/Controller Glossary:

CLEARED FOR THE OPTION− ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so that an instructor can evaluate a student’s performance under changing situations.​

Full stops are authorized under a clearance for the option.
Click to expand...

This is how I was taught too. Landing is an option for the option..
 
hawk25u said:
I'm sure this has been somewhere on this site before but it will apply to all of us one time or the other.
Click to expand...
I have heard that song before, but this time it's with a better video.
 
Larry in TN said:
...If a full stop landing would cause any difficulties for the controller then it is up to him to include that restriction in the clearance.
Click to expand...

Its a rare occurrence indeed when a controller would ever deny a full stop landing. They will extend someone behind you which is why its nice to let the controller know ahead of time.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Its a rare occurrence indeed when a controller would ever deny a full stop landing. They will extend someone behind you which is why its nice to let the controller know ahead of time.
Click to expand...
If someone would have to be extended in order to accommodate a full-stop landing then why did the controller issue a clearance for the option? What if the preceding airplane had decided to do a stop-and-go which would occupy the runway even longer?
 
Larry in TN said:
If someone would have to be extended in order to accommodate a full-stop landing then why did the controller issue a clearance for the option? What if the preceding airplane had decided to do a stop-and-go which would occupy the runway even longer?
Click to expand...

Because if someone requests the option, controllers assume they are going to do a touch and go or something that will afford the separation required for the next guy. For the second question, read one of my earlier posts in this very thread in which I state: "Unable stop and go, other options approved."
 
Timbeck2 said:
By "split frequencies" @Tantalum do you mean everyone was on one frequency? Believe me, when its busy you want everyone on the same frequency because otherwise people are talking all over each other and it slows things down quite a bit with a whole lot of "sorry you were stepped on, say again."
Click to expand...

luvflyin said:
MYF has parallel runways. When they 'split' there's a Local Controller for each
Click to expand...

Yeah. When the controller on 119.2 starts going down the tubes with a bunch of pattern work and inbounds from both directions (VFR inbounds during the day tend to approach from the west, while IFR traffic is nearly always vectored for straight ins from the east), they put a controller on the other frequency to just handle the touch and goes on 28R. The issue is that they can't simply send people around for left traffic, because there is already left traffic for 28L. At night, they can put people in the pattern for RT on 28R then use LT for 28R for arrivals from the west.
 
N1120A said:
Yeah. When the controller on 119.2 starts going down the tubes with a bunch of pattern work and inbounds from both directions (VFR inbounds during the day tend to approach from the west, while IFR traffic is nearly always vectored for straight ins from the east), they put a controller on the other frequency to just handle the touch and goes on 28R. The issue is that they can't simply send people around for left traffic, because there is already left traffic for 28L. At night, they can put people in the pattern for RT on 28R then use LT for 28R for arrivals from the west.
Click to expand...

Only thing I could add to that is replace “down the tubes” with ‘down the sheeter like ol’ Tex Ritter.’
 
Timbeck2 said:
Because if someone requests the option, controllers assume they are going to do a touch and go or something that will afford the separation required for the next guy.
Click to expand...
Does it seem like a good practice for a controller to issue a clearance which allows several options under the assumption that the pilot will not use any of the approved options which may not provide the required separation?

It sounds like you are describing the actions of a controller who has already become conditioned to expect notification from pilots which they aren't required to make.
 
Larry in TN said:
Does it seem like a good practice for a controller to issue a clearance which allows several options under the assumption that the pilot will not use any of the approved options which may not provide the required separation?

It sounds like you are describing the actions of a controller who has already become conditioned to expect notification from pilots which they aren't required to make.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that absent a statement that a certain operation is not allowed (i.e. unable stop and go) that the controller is spacing for the worst case scenario in regards to time on the runway which likely is the stop and go. If traffic is such that it is not so conducive to all operations such as in the case of several planes doing pattern work or a lot of inbounds, then the controller would issue the option clearance with the exception. At least that’s my understanding.
 
Larry in TN said:
Does it seem like a good practice for a controller to issue a clearance which allows several options under the assumption that the pilot will not use any of the approved options which may not provide the required separation?

It sounds like you are describing the actions of a controller who has already become conditioned to expect notification from pilots which they aren't required to make.
Click to expand...

Larry, just tell the controller exactly what you'd like to do. This is not a topic I thought would be impossible for someone to grasp.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Larry, just tell the controller exactly what you'd like to do. This is not a topic I thought would be impossible for someone to grasp.
Click to expand...
When I approach a towered airport for taxibacks, I always say "inbound for taxibacks." The tower controller invariably clears me for the option.
 
SkyDog58 said:
If traffic is such that it is not so conducive to all operations such as in the case of several planes doing pattern work or a lot of inbounds, then the controller would issue the option clearance with the exception. At least that’s my understanding.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding as well. Once you've been cleared for the option there's no reason to tell the controller which of the "options" you intend to make as he should have already provided runway separation for all of them.

Timbeck2 said:
Larry, just tell the controller exactly what you'd like to do. This is not a topic I thought would be impossible for someone to grasp.
Click to expand...
I agree. It shouldn't be a problem at all.
 
Timbeck2 said:
The controller should be clearing you to land, but I don't work there.
Click to expand...

I’ve gotten “cleared for the option” when it was clear we were doing full stop/taxiback. Didn’t bother me, but I assume you’re saying that goes against the 7110, or something?
 
No, it doesn't but if both of you (you and the tower) know that you're going to full stop taxi back, why would anyone clear you for the option?
 
JDACO said:
On really windy days, I ask for the option. Example: Two weeks ago I was doing a maintenance flight in my RV. I was out in the practice area and heard one of the controllers give a wind check. 23G45 45 degrees off the runway. It was nothing when I took off but got gusty while I was up. Waited about 20 minutes and went back to land. I asked for the option in case I needed to go around. I do it out of courtesy for the controllers so that they know there is the potential and can plan accordingly.
Click to expand...

Ya know, honestly, I don't really care what the controller wants. If I need to go around, it's gonna happen and they can deal with it. If the plane is flying, they are second fiddle.
 
Unit74 said:
Ya know, honestly, I don't really care what the controller wants. If I need to go around, it's gonna happen and they can deal with it. If the plane is flying, they are second fiddle.
Click to expand...

I actually do care what the controller wants. If I need to go around, I will, obviously; I'm still PIC and I will do what I need to in order to maintain safety... but there's no need to be rude about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top