Jump to content

I have a number for you... advise when ready to copy


skydvrboy

Recommended Posts

I thought for sure I'd hear these words from a controller long before I'd be issuing them TO a controller, but I found myself doing just that tonight.  So about the time I was turning base, the controller cleared me to land and asked me to keep my speed up to the numbers as he had a jet on a 12 mile straight in final.  At this point, I was still doing 160 mph and I'm thinking OK, I'll do a no flap landing with an approach speed around 95 -100 mph.  

As I'm turning final, just a bit high, the controller asks me if I can exit Bravo (1,700 ft from the numbers).  Sure, I make Bravo all the time, I'll just have to slow down on short final, adding in flaps, and maybe use light braking to make the turn.

So as I'm just starting to round out, the jet calls 2 mile final and says he still doesn't have the traffic in sight and asks if I'm on the runway.  Controller tells him I should be landing in about 10 seconds and will be exiting Bravo.  Just as I start my flare, tower says Mooney 441WS go around.  I hesitate a bit thinking, did I just hear that right?  Again with a bit more urgency... Mooney 441WS go around.  OK... less than 10 feet off the runway... I go around.

Next call from the tower, apology to the jet for the close call.  Then calls me, apologizes for putting me in front of the jet and clears me to land #1.  At this point I'm pissed, but I have my hands full with full power, full flaps, and full nose up trim, and getting everything back into a climb configuration... just fly the plane. 

I run my landing checklist, realize my gear is still down, green light, double check the handle is in the right position.  Uneventful landing... off at Bravo.

After I clear the runway, I call the tower "Tower, I have a number for you to call... advise when ready to copy."  I give him my cell and tell him to call in five minutes.  I then spent the next 10 minutes chewing him out for sending me around while in my flare to give priority to the following jet traffic.  I'm proud I was able to keep my cool enough not to use any curse words.  So flame away... what would you higher time pilots have done differently?  Obviously, put the gear up on the go around ;), but what else?

 

  • Like 10
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same thing happen to me while I was a student pilot.  Except I was about 200 feet AGL in a Cessna.  It was a good practice for go-around.  The jet got a little pissy at the tower for putting a Cessna in front of him.  I enjoyed the brief argument between them while I climb up to pattern altitude.  

Keep in mind that if you feel tower's instructions is putting your aircraft in danger, as you the PIC can always ignore him and land the aircraft anyway.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 on go-arounds...

Keep in mind... they are not an emergency, and instant, full power is not required... while getting gear up and flaps stowed...  

Mooneys have so much power... we can add enough power to arrest the descent, trim some, feed more power in... trim some more...
 

It is a real balance of power...

  • Arm strength vs. trim speed vs. engine power...
  • Cognitive strength flying the plane vs. cog strength of situational awareness of everything going on around you...
  • A well executed go-around takes some practice... and helps to have electric trim...

 

+1 on sharing the situation with the controllers... done properly, the world is a better place...

+1 on sharing the experience here... I’m glad to hear the experience...

 

It would be nice to have a rear view mirror... to see how far back the big plane really is...  :)

It is a real balance of cognitive power to execute a GA, while being afraid of getting run-over...

Thanks for sharing and best regards,

-a-

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple weeks ago, landing at towered home field VFR, straight in and practicing letting  George fly an approach I was cleared to  land, gear was down.  Wind at altitude was high so ground speed was slow.  Controller asked  for a right 360 to allow a citation jet  in first that was 5 miles in trail.    Back on course, cleared to land.    Short final, less than 150 feet, controller directed me to go around for another jet that approach had handed off as a visual on a left base.  Controller then requested a right side step.  So I'm cleaning and climbing thinking 'OK now I'm going opposite direction of the right downwind.'   The jet was cleared and controller said I could just do a right 360.   After 180 I can now see the Lear jet on a 1 mile short final and I'm thinking I could have been on the ground and off the runway.    Controller then cleared me to land a third time.  Now I was close and high.  Flaps out all the way descending turn....hmm doesn't seem right.   Gear horn.

They would never do that to jet traffic.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id just clean up the plane concentrate on getting back in position, biting my tongue cussing to myself, that’s it.

Recently I was on right base to final at Hilton Head, windy gusty conditions, I knew there was a commuter jet a few miles, the dumb ass controller has me do a left 360 n the base leg to let him land, I seriously wanted to contact the tower but realized it’d be useless, we encounter many situations which are undesirable be on your game fly the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

 

They would never do that to jet traffic.

What happens to biz jet traffic is that it gets the dreaded, "light aircraft on 3 mile final, reduce to your final approach speed" call while 15 miles out.  If it can't slow enough, it is told either to go around, or given the option for some bizarre iteration of a VFR pattern entry.  Happily, virtually everyone in the jet has been in the light aircraft world and can see both points of view.  It would be nice if every light aircraft pilot could spend a day in a jet trying to fit in with slower traffic.

Live and let live.  Let's all be safe and charitable.  It's a big sky.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intuition would suggest the #2 landing traffic that is too close should go around.  

But is there any official guidance for controllers on this topic? If so does it incorporate considerations like the relative speed of the two aircraft?  From this thread it seems like its pretty common for them to give priority to the jets.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO I believe some “controllers/tower guys” are so sticky that they adhere to regs (traffic separation and the like) as if  they are reading them from the King James Version (and that’s not necessarily bad).  Some are so relaxed that you wonder why you didn’t get a traffic call-out when it’s obvious a conflict is imminent (even though it’s our responsibility in VMC...) You could have said unable, minimum fuel but that probably wouldn’t have flown with a fuel sipping Mooney.  You could have said you have priority over following traffic on two mile final (once cleared to land number one) and would have had a strong leg to stand on.  (Same runway separation sounded like greater than 6000 ft.) Then you’d be relying on two more folks (tower and the jet pilot) to execute safely.  Tower should have instructed the jet pilot to slow to minimum approach speed and you probably would have been able to continue to land and exit just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DXB said:

Intuition would suggest the #2 landing traffic that is too close should go around.  

But is there any official guidance for controllers on this topic? If so does it incorporate considerations like the relative speed of the two aircraft?  From this thread it seems like its pretty common for them to give priority to the jets.  

The related issue is controller knowledge of aircraft limitations, including "relative speed" and what that means for operation. This may or may not be the case, but just to illustrate, It sounded like the controller was anticipating (1) keeping speed up and (2) slowing down so quickly as to be able to make an early exit.

Speed-related sequencing at a towered airport is, in the real world, a mutual issue, whatever "the book" might say about each's responsibilities.

(BTW, we got one of those last second go-arounds on a dual night cross country with a primary student at a Class B airport. It was fun.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

Seems to me that you had right of way and you could argue that safety of flight was reason enough to not comply.  

They should have given the following jet a speed restriction and s-turns or 360 which is pretty common and safe.  

No "argue" required. Just one word if it's a safety issue. "Unable." Perhaps a few extra words to make it clearer. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

No "argue" required. Just one word if it's a safety issue. "Unable." Perhaps a few extra words to make it clearer. 

In this specific scenario, I'm not sure what those few additional words to explain "unable" would be.  Presumably there was plenty of runway remaining and day vfr conditions.  In our planes, a go around, even from the flare, should be no big deal.  Perceived discourtesy from the controller in giving priority to #2 jet traffic after making the OP work hard to comply with previous instructions might make him irritated, but perhaps not "unable."  And unless the controller violated the regs or gave a potentially hazardous instruction (not yet sure either is the case here), I don't know what the basis is to talk to the tower later. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On short final the controller advised of potential hazard to #1 and provided direction to eliminate the hazard. As PIC in #1, he was put in a position to decide if the short notice of change from cleared to land to go around would put him in a hazardous situation. If he called unable and landed instead, the jet behind would have been advised to go around. IMO, the controller miscalculated the closure rate of the jet when clearing the Mooney for #1 and should have made #2 go around. The most critical phase of flight is short final. It is unwise to add unnecessary work load. #2 was higher and further out and should have been made to go around. Glad that you were able to safely abort the landing. As far as calling, I would have requested their number so I could after I cooled off.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happens to me 3 or 4 times a week. Controllers are fallible. We all make mistakes. Try not to get emotional. Unable would have been the safer choice. If you go around and the jet has to go around right after you theres no way to maintain good seperation. That puts everyone in a box with no lid:) The controller knows he screwed the pooch, as do we when we screw up. Save the phone calls to address on going issues not one off mistakes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jets burn more fuel in a go around then we’ll burn in a long cross country, so they will always get 1st priority.
Same applies to boating, big boats get the right of away.
Yes, there’s nothing the FARs to that state this but I think we’ve all had it happen, it’s an unwritten rule.
If the controller apologizes on the radio I would let it go, $hit happens.
I got had to do a 360 to let a jet go by me, and then they just entered the pattern instead of a straight in? I did talk to them after landing.


Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballsy.

I like it, well done!!!

Only thing I can think of... I dont know where 'Bravo' is, but if you're fast, you'll likely be landing long. You've already done the guy one favor by agreeing to keep the speed up. They get the favor. They don't necessarily get two favors. Next time consider 'unable' to the second request. The controller needs to see and learn that their plan isn't working before their late go-around call and your ass-chewing.

Edited by Immelman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were me I would probably apologize to the controller and buy him pizza next week. He knows he screwed up. Didn’t need the phone call from you to let him know that. You do more for your long term relationship acting like a professional than you do rubbing his nose in it.

Being a controller is a hard job and most of them do an amazing job most of the time. They’re human just like we are (although technically Spock is half-human). What if the situation were reversed? If he had you call him to chew you out and tell you how badly you screwed up (when you already know you did) how would this affect your relationship in the future. What if he told you where the error was, how it happened, and how you could both work together to prevent it in the future? Would you have a different opinion?

Situational awareness is your responsibility as well as the controllers. It not uncommon for me to say “is the separation adequate or would you like me to do something different” when I am concerned about what the controller is doing. They have always been receptive to it and I think it has avoided some uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situations.

If this is somewhere you fly regularly, I would seriously consider making a peace offering. You may be surprised how controllers can bend over backwards to make your life easier.

Edited by ilovecornfields
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One time I was with ATL approach. They switched me to the south side runways even though I was north of the airport. I was crossing north complex traffic on the down wind with this maneuver. The controller was talking a mile a minute and I could see a traffic conflict developing. We were T-bone with an MD-88 on downwind, same altitude. We tried to get a word in edgewise but could not. We were IMC, I could not make a move until TCAS barked. I disconnected the autopilot ready for the coming melee`. Just as the TCAS barked "Descend!" the controller gave me a 180 "immediately".  If the airplane had not been off autopilot and I was primed, we would have been very close or possible collision.

After a I landed ground control asked me to call the tower. I did, and the first thing I said to the supervisor is...."How is your guy, is he OK?." Now I knew he had just became disqualified from his position by this loss of separation. He nearly ran metal together. Turns out, I knew him, he went to my church. Good guy, overloaded

The point is this. We all operate in the same airspace, we just have different jobs. Just as you live in the same house with your spouse. Everyone is going to make mistakes. Sometimes bad ones. You have a certificate, he has a certificate. Ripping into each other is not the way to go. Someday you are going to screw up and you will need some understanding. If you have a reputation for understanding, you will likely be understood, when the time comes. It is likely this was a "loss of separation" incident and not good for the controller.

A wise Captain once told me, "Never get mad or curse in a disagreement you know you will win and never fail to bank a favor."

Opportunity missed.

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

If it were me I would probably apologize to the controller and buy him pizza next week. He knows he screwed up. Didn’t need the phone call from you to let him know that. You do more for your long term relationship acting like a professional than you do rubbing his nose in it.

Being a controller is a hard job and most of them do an amazing job most of the time. They’re human just like we are (although technically Spock is half-human). What if the situation were reversed? If he had you call him to chew you out and tell you how badly you screwed up (when you already know you did) how would this affect your relationship in the future. What if he told you where the error was, how it happened, and how you could both work together to prevent it in the future? Would you have a different opinion?

Situational awareness is your responsibility as well as the controllers. It not uncommon for me to say “is the separation adequate or would you like me to do something different” when I am concerned about what the controller is doing. They have always been receptive to it and I think it has avoided some uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situations.

If this is somewhere you fly regularly, I would seriously consider making a peace offering. You may be surprised how controllers can bend over backwards to make your life easier.

Yep ! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little more background details that will answer a few questions that have come up.  Conditions were night VFR.  There was a solid overcast, but it was at 10,000 with excellent visibility below.  I was flying solo with low fuel, so I was very light.  My fuel was low enough that it was on my mind, but not low enough I was worried about it.  I knew I had about 8 gallons on board for the first landing attempt.  This is a really busy airport M-F 8:00-5:00 with very little traffic evenings and weekends.  Being late on a Saturday night, no other planes came in during the 1/2 hour before I left the airport.

I thought about saying unable and landing anyway.  My struggle with this is that a go around is a normal procedure that any pilot should be able to execute, yet it obviously adds additional risk as evidenced by multiple accident reports.  My mind immediately flashed back to the ASI Accident Case Study of the Cirrus at Houston Hobby.  She had the same beginning to the chain of events that led to her going around 2 more times and eventually stalling and spinning into a parking lot.  Her primary failure was retracting her flaps with inadequate airspeed, so I was ultra focused on keeping my speed up throughout the go around and making a good second approach.

I do know the tower supervisor, so I may call him tomorrow and discuss the situation, apologize for loosing my cool, find out when the controller works next, and arrange to send him a pizza.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.