roncachamp
Final Approach
At a towered field the direction of turns in the pattern is determined by the tower. Unless told otherwise, an aircraft instructed to go around should overfly the runway and climb to pattern altitude.
Traffic Pattern question. VFR
- Thread starter JasonM
- Start date
At a towered field the direction of turns in the pattern is determined by the tower. Unless told otherwise, an aircraft instructed to go around should overfly the runway and climb to pattern altitude.
roncachamp
Final Approach
In that case the tower instructed you to side step, absent that instruction you'd be expected to overfly the runway. From the P/CG:
GO AROUND− Instructions for a pilot to abandon
his/her approach to landing. Additional instructions
may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a
VFR aircraft or an aircraft conducting visual
approach should overfly the runway while climbing
to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern
via the crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan
making an instrument approach should execute the
published missed approach procedure or proceed as
instructed by ATC; e.g., “Go around” (additional
instructions if required).
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wait......you were already cleared to land ahead of SWA and tower told YOU to go around so the 737 could land???
If so, that is pretty messed up.
roncachamp
Final Approach
How so?
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, unless the 172 pilot was dilly-dallying, the need for the go-around was the result of either the controller botching the sequencing/separation or the Southwest pilot's excessive approach speed (most likely given the airline mentioned).
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
If the need for the go-around was created by the 737 pushing the approach speed to make their quick turn and eat up the separation that the controller created, then yes, SWA needs to suck it up and go around.
I say this because in the last several years I have seen that airline get a bit too pushy with their speed both on the ground and in the air. I lost count on how many SWA jets I have seen going around at SAN because they can't slow down on the approach.
Thanks everyone. I think this topic clears this up for me. Has not been a real scenario, but something that came to mind and made me think.. I assume this could also be a possibility if someone cuts you off and lands without clearance in front of you.
In 25 years I have not been cut off at a tower controlled field, at least not without prior arraignment. Pilot controlled fields are another story, but even then it's been rare to have a conflict.
roncachamp
Final Approach
That the need for a correction was caused by one or more of the three parties involved goes without saying. What's messed up about instructing the C172 to go around instead of the 737?
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Steven, this is a GA board. You're likely to get a different response from a commercial operator's board.
roncachamp
Final Approach
And if the need for the go-around was caused by the 172 pilot dilly-dallying or the controller botching the sequencing/separation?
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Then by all means tell his sorry butt to go-around.
I will admit to being a wee bit cynical entirely due to the airline mentioned.
Conversely, if he was told to go around for an AMR flight, I would have KNOWN it was the 172's fault
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
Then by all means tell his sorry butt to go-around.
I will admit to being a wee bit cynical entirely due to the airline mentioned.
Conversely, if he was told to go around for an AMR flight, I would have KNOWN it was the 172's fault
So the aircraft that caused the go-around to become necessary is the one that gets sent around, without regard to the big picture?
What if the need was caused by the controller botching the sequencing/separation? Which aircraft goes around then?
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Kind of depends.....ultimately it is a judgement call for the controller.
But like I said, I just suspect that the issue was pushed by the particular airline in question.
Let's think about this, with the exception of some slow poke putzing along like some old mo driving 35 mph on the interestate, even if the controller doesn't add in a cushion in the separation, the 737 pilot (if he has half a brain) knows that he needs to keep the approach speed reasonable. The idea that a jetliner with paying passengers is somehow more important is exactly why a 737 ended up on its belly at SNA several years ago.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Do you believe the idea that a jetliner with paying passengers is more important than a 172 contributes to the controller's judgment call?
Captain
Final Approach
Big Picture:
737 GA: 132 pax worried. 5,000 lbs minimum of Jet A burned. More strain on system sequencing a 737 back to approach for a 25 mile circuit. Pilots duty time affected. Airlines resources spent. Pax on ground waiting for next flight delayed.
172 GA: 1 pilot not worried. 2 gallons of 100LL burned. Very little strain on ATC system. 5 mile or less pattern to get back. No pilot duty time issues. Pilots resources spent. No pax on ground getting delayed.
From ATC's perspective the 172 is going around each and every time regardless who is at fault. The only time the 737 is going around is if it's safety related. ie, the 172 is emergency aircraft. The 737 reports overweight and wants to fly more. The controller feels it's safer for the 172 to land instead of the 737. That sort of thing.
You seem to focus on SWA. Yes, they do push their schedules. That's what they do. But they are also professional pilots and I'm not so quick to throw them under the bus and conclude they 'flew too fast'. They get paid to move iron and get from A to B...but they are professional pilots first and I doubt any of them are about to throw safety out the window.
I'd be more likely to think that either the 172 pilot or the controller screwed up. But, regardless of who's at fault the proper thing to do is send the 172 around except for extreme circumstances.
737 GA: 132 pax worried. 5,000 lbs minimum of Jet A burned. More strain on system sequencing a 737 back to approach for a 25 mile circuit. Pilots duty time affected. Airlines resources spent. Pax on ground waiting for next flight delayed.
172 GA: 1 pilot not worried. 2 gallons of 100LL burned. Very little strain on ATC system. 5 mile or less pattern to get back. No pilot duty time issues. Pilots resources spent. No pax on ground getting delayed.
From ATC's perspective the 172 is going around each and every time regardless who is at fault. The only time the 737 is going around is if it's safety related. ie, the 172 is emergency aircraft. The 737 reports overweight and wants to fly more. The controller feels it's safer for the 172 to land instead of the 737. That sort of thing.
You seem to focus on SWA. Yes, they do push their schedules. That's what they do. But they are also professional pilots and I'm not so quick to throw them under the bus and conclude they 'flew too fast'. They get paid to move iron and get from A to B...but they are professional pilots first and I doubt any of them are about to throw safety out the window.
I'd be more likely to think that either the 172 pilot or the controller screwed up. But, regardless of who's at fault the proper thing to do is send the 172 around except for extreme circumstances.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
I am focusing on SWA because in the past several years, I have seen them get more and more aggressive and less professional as they push the limits of safety. You don't have to throw the book out to push things over the limit. No one in the 121 world pushes quite like Southwest.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
It can feel that way sometimes.
Going into KCLT, I started getting ATC vectors 65nm away for traffic (that I never saw). The vectors (of course) were taking me off course and delaying my arrival. Then when I got cleared to land, I got constant poking from the tower ("do you have 18L in sight" "Have 18L in sight, cleared to land" - I need to get lined up for it after you vectored me in another direction away from the airport, geez). Then when I was about 150agl "Traffic 6 O'clock 3 mile final, expedite!"
I thought about replying "Yeah, tell him caution for my wake turbulence"
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Here is my issue with the scenario in question. I have seen alot of go-arounds....mostly involving either two GA or two 121 aircraft. Every case I have seen where controllers were having to mix GA with 121 jets, ATC did an outstanding job of handling the mix.
Now, in every single GA vs GA or 121 vs 121 go-around, it was always the aircraft in trail that was told to G/A.
So this idea that because we all of the sudden have an airliner behind the 172 with all of those paying passengers, then it suddenly has priority is simply jacked. It creates a dangerous precedent for 121 operators like Southwest. Why should SWA slow down or square his turn to final if he knows the GA aircraft ahead is going to be the one told to go around? ??? It was that exact mindset that caused the SNA accident.
Now, in every single GA vs GA or 121 vs 121 go-around, it was always the aircraft in trail that was told to G/A.
So this idea that because we all of the sudden have an airliner behind the 172 with all of those paying passengers, then it suddenly has priority is simply jacked. It creates a dangerous precedent for 121 operators like Southwest. Why should SWA slow down or square his turn to final if he knows the GA aircraft ahead is going to be the one told to go around? ??? It was that exact mindset that caused the SNA accident.
JHW
En-Route
it's fairly predictable how employees of the losing company react to people who not only work for the winning competitor, but who also seem to enjoy their jobs more.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Captain
Final Approach
SWA business model is quick turns and expiditious and efficient flight. I am friends with guys at SWA. Everyone I have ever been in contact with is the utmost professional and would never push speed down final to force a go around for anyone.
But let's suppose your right and this particular flight had Maverick in command and he did push the power up to get to the gate quick. Well, I submit that 99.9% of the airports served by SWA has radar in he tower. If Maverick was being tricky trying to force a bug smasher off the road then Tower would be there to assign a speed.
That didn't happen from the story. I think this is a case of an honest mistake by either the 172 or tower. It's not a big deal and the 172 went around. There's no reason to throw the 121 pilot or his airline under the bus here. Things happen and in this case it got resolved...correctly.
But let's suppose your right and this particular flight had Maverick in command and he did push the power up to get to the gate quick. Well, I submit that 99.9% of the airports served by SWA has radar in he tower. If Maverick was being tricky trying to force a bug smasher off the road then Tower would be there to assign a speed.
That didn't happen from the story. I think this is a case of an honest mistake by either the 172 or tower. It's not a big deal and the 172 went around. There's no reason to throw the 121 pilot or his airline under the bus here. Things happen and in this case it got resolved...correctly.
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
That the airliner was given priority because of all those paying passengers is strictly an assumption on your part. One of the aircraft had to go around, it's more likely the 172 was selected because it was easier to resequence a Skyhawk than a 737.
JHW
En-Route
right after the twa hub moved, I remember touching down at Lambert:
STL: "Lear 4BF left 1st high speed"
Me: "4BF has no reversers"
STL: "TWA 123 heavy go around fly runway heading"
Left seater to me: "We just got back every TWA ticket we've ever bought or will buy"
STL: "Lear 4BF left 1st high speed"
Me: "4BF has no reversers"
STL: "TWA 123 heavy go around fly runway heading"
Left seater to me: "We just got back every TWA ticket we've ever bought or will buy"
jspilot
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,346
- Display Name
Display name:
jspilot
Wow had no idea my post was going to cause such a response. So to clarify what happened the controller botched the sequencing and I certainly was not at fault or "dilly dallying."To be honest, where I fly out of KISP, Southwest gets the royal treatment and I'm certainly in no position as a Private Pilot to stand in their way, nor do I want to. Honestly, if I have to get out of the way from a plane full of paying customers for the safety of all involved, I'm more than happy to do so. I'd rather be safe and be told to go around 500ft from the runway then create an unsafe situation by landing and having to speed off the runway or create a go around for the 737, which I would imagine would scare the living poop out of the passengers.
I remember thinking at the time that it was not big deal, more time flying is fine with me.
I remember thinking at the time that it was not big deal, more time flying is fine with me.
Captain
Final Approach
ding ding ding.
Correct answer and correct attitude. It's not that the 737 is better than anyone. It's a function of what makes sense. It's a crud load more work for that 737 to go around than the 172.
Who knows? Maybe that SWA captain flies a 172 on his off time. I'm sure he wouldn't mide going around in the same situation.
Thanks for that jspilot.
Shepherd
Final Approach
I'm going to have to disagree with this statement, becuae it's happened to me TWICE, at the same airport, within the last 6 months.
Controllers are human, and they make mistakes.
Back in May I was number one for the option, and just about to make a left turn to base when the tower came on and cleared a plane for a right base, #1 to land. I immediately contacted the tower (who had realized his mistake) and the tower told the other plane to pull up, fly parallel and to the left of the runway and go around left pattern.
In August, the same thing happened. In this case the other plane was much bigger and faster. I opted out of the landing, giving way to the other plane, and I went around for another pass.
To err is human. How you cope with errors will determine how long you live in this racket.
Shep