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

[Ibra]

2 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

In this situation, I didn't feel I was able to take my time going around.  The urgency in the controllers voice along with the instruction to sidestep to the east made me think the jet was rather close and I needed to get out of the way NOW.

Yes, you do get harsh clear instruction but I do feel it is usually ok to fly go-around as you wish, preferably to the inactive/dead side of the runway and take your time, unless ATC completly miscalculated their planning but then it is nog your fault neither 

One day, I got an orbit instruction on base to final VFR at 600ft to let the way for a fast IFR bizjet on short final, I just ignored and flew parallel to runway heading on climb to rejoin the pattern again slightly to dead side, making a radio call and ATC were not very fussed about it, I would have done that orbit if I am the only SOB but I got a sensitive passenger that day, also the Mooney does not like low level orbits with gear/flap down  but she does very well for a fast tower/pattern beat up 

[midlifeflyer]

11 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

"Unable"?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean in the situation where a pilot has been instructed to go-around.

Unable to go around?  Really?

Instructions to go around in effect cancel landing clearance.  Are you advocating landing without clearance?

A go around is as basic a maneuver as landing an aircraft.  Pilots must be proficient at both.  The tower is not asking the pilot to do something unsafe.  If there are other (safety) reasons for rejecting the instruction to go-around, instead of saying "unable", I'd suggest declaring an emergency....otherwise, immediately go-around and save your objections for later.

I mean exactly what I said. If the pilot believed that a fo-around, or any other instruction, presents a safety issue, "Unable" is an appropriate response. I agree completely that "go around" should not present a safety issue under normal circumstances.

Edited December 16, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[gsxrpilot]

8 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I mean exactly what I said. If the pilot believed that a fo-around, or any other instruction, presents a safety issue, "Unable" is an appropriate response. I agree completely that "go around" should NOT present a safety issue under normal circumstances.

Fixed it.

[GeeBee]

Seeing a lot of people having trouble flying their airplane here.

 

 

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

Controller that makes me go around in the flare for jet traffic on final is going to have a little talk.  No phones needed, i'll happy pay him or her a visit in the tower.  No shouting, you can dress someone down far better with a calm voice.  

I promise you they'll never do it again.

And I really don't want to hear and of this "controller is hard job" shit.  They don't die when they fuck up.  We do.

Umm... okay.

[skydvrboy]

3 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

§ 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

That makes more sense.  I guess that's the difference between KNOWING the regulations and only being familiar with them.  Thanks.

@kortopates  I completely agree that it's reasonable for a controller to expect every pilot to be capable of going around at any point.  I'd like to think I'm skilled enough to accommodate any of the requests I was given, short approach, keep my speed up, exit the 1700' turnoff, and a go-around while in the flare.  In reality, I'm probably just not experienced enough to know I couldn't handle the first three sufficiently, thus I was given the fourth instruction, GA.

I sincerely appreciate the feedback on this.  When I originally posted, I was looking for two things.  First, what could/should I have done differently, and second, is there any protocol that ATC is supposed to follow on who goes around in a situation like this.  I think we've covered what I could/should have done differently well enough...  calmly execute the go around and discuss it with them later when on the ground.  As for ATC protocol, it seems like it's just their decision based on whatever they think will be the easiest way to deconflict the situation... little VFR guys move out of the way for bigger IFR guys.  If that's the general rule, I'm OK with that, but I may request to be sequenced behind faster traffic in the future.

[epsalant]

Hmmm...I think it's good practice to be prepared to go-around EVERY landing until on the runway and at a slow speed.

Heck, I practice go-arounds! Controller gave you a chance to do it for real at a comfortable altitude. I have had to do several go-arounds for real.

Land at any non-towered airport in Jersey (and a lot of other places, I'm sure, even towered airports) and you'd better be prepared for a deer to dart in front of you.

I mean no disrespect, but if you aren't comfortable with the maneuver, you should probably practice with a CFI.

The controller apologized. Who amongst us hasn't done something boneheaded. I have joined a pattern, spotted traffic, gotten pissed off at the guy in the Bonanza--isn't it always a Bonanza--he didn't make a single call...oops, I'm on the wrong frequency ...and apologized to everybody in the pattern. I felt horrible. The only response I got was "No worries!". Nothing more was necessary.

Go-arounds are a normal maneuver. Even if controller screwed up, he wasn't asking you to do anything dangerous. It'll cost you a gallon or two if fuel, no more.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[GeeBee]

Everyone needs to think about this a little bit. If he sends the leading slow aircraft around, he has got one aircraft in the pattern. If he sends the jet around and then you abort your landing, he's got a serious loss of separation with a passenger airliner. Also, any time he sends a 121 aircraft around, he has to write it up. For some companies, the Captain has to write up a  go around as well because believe me, some passengers are going to complain (to get free miles to shut them up that they "were scared for their lives"). A go around for an airliner also takes one pilot out of the loop as he has to go on the PA and reassure the passengers. All in all, it is easier and safer for the little Part 91 guy to go around. 

If you can't go around after the mains touch, learn to do so. You will likely miss that venison dinner on the hoof someday.

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Everyone needs to think about this a little bit. If he sends the leading slow aircraft around, he has got one aircraft in the pattern. If he sends the jet around and then you abort your landing, he's got a serious loss of separation with a passenger airliner. Also, any time he sends a 121 aircraft around, he has to write it up. For some companies, the Captain has to write up a  go around as well because believe me, some passengers are going to complain (to get free miles to shut them up that they "were scared for their lives"). A go around for an airliner also takes one pilot out of the loop as he has to go on the PA and reassure the passengers. All in all, it is easier and safer for the little Part 91 guy to go around. 

Sure, I'll gladly spend my fuel money to keep some SOB burning free fuel from having to fill out a piece of paper . . . I'll get out of the way if told by Tower, with a comment on the air to the bonehead behind who follows instructions so poorly that he's costing me time and money!

[skydvrboy]

19 minutes ago, epsalant said:

Hmmm...I think it's good practice to be prepared to go-around EVERY landing until on the runway and at a slow speed.

I totally agree.  As many unfamiliar sub 2,000' grass strips as I fly into for get-together's and camp outs, I'm well practiced at go-arounds.

18 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If he sends the jet around and then you abort your landing, he's got a serious loss of separation with a passenger airliner. Also, any time he sends a 121 aircraft around, he has to write it up.

This was most likely a Part 135 flight, perhaps a Part 91 flight, but definitely not Part 121.  I don't feel like there was anything unsafe about having me go around.  Undoubtedly, it added an additional element of risk, but so did my acceptance of the instructions to fly direct to the numbers, keep my speed up, and exit at the 1,700' turnoff.  My question was more around the justification of sending the #1 plane around that was about to touch down, instead of #2 who was still a mile or two out.

[Skates97]

31 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Everyone needs to think about this a little bit. If he sends the leading slow aircraft around, he has got one aircraft in the pattern. If he sends the jet around and then you abort your landing, he's got a serious loss of separation with a passenger airliner. Also, any time he sends a 121 aircraft around, he has to write it up. For some companies, the Captain has to write up a  go around as well because believe me, some passengers are going to complain (to get free miles to shut them up that they "were scared for their lives"). A go around for an airliner also takes one pilot out of the loop as he has to go on the PA and reassure the passengers. All in all, it is easier and safer for the little Part 91 guy to go around. 

If you can't go around after the mains touch, learn to do so. You will likely miss that venison dinner on the hoof someday.

Hold on.... This is sounding an awful lot like a touch and go, which I have heard rumors on MS that it is either 'no big deal' or 'dangerous and leads to accidents'. 

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Fixed it.

Thanks. Me too.

[midlifeflyer]

55 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Hold on.... This is sounding an awful lot like a touch and go, which I have heard rumors on MS that it is either 'no big deal' or 'dangerous and leads to accidents'. 

A go around is not a touch and go, even if the wheels have touched the ground. 

A go-around is a quasi emergency maneuver to, at its earliest, elect to terminate a landing sequence and, at its latest, a decision to get back in the air immediately due to a sudden issue on the runway, reconfiguring the airplane on the fly.

A touch and go is a landing practice timesaver in which a pilot performs the landing of her choice, leisurely reconfigures the airplane for, and then performs the takeoff of her choice.

we will find one specifically discussed in the ACS and manufacturer aircraft checklist and the other not at all.

Edited December 17, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[Skates97]

21 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

A go around is not a touch and go, even if the wheels have touched the ground. 

A go-around is a quasi emergency maneuver to, at its earliest, elect to terminate a landing sequence and, at its latest, a decision to get back in the air immediately due to a sudden issue on the runway, reconfiguring the airplane on the fly.

A touch and go is a landing practice timesaver in which a pilot performs the landing of her choice, leisurely reconfigures the airplane for, and then performs the takeoff of her choice.

we will find one specifically discussed in the ACS and manufacturer aircraft checklist and the other not at all.

Ok, now you're taking the fun out of my feeble attempt at a joke.

And out of curiosity, do only women practice touch and go's, or if you practice them that makes you a woman? (asking for a friend) 

[Ibra]

Long-term, go-around in Mooney is the only way to save engine & prop anytime yoke and nose move in opposite ways, it does not matter if the wheels are in the air, on the ground or locked inside 

Confession: I never gone around in the Archer/Dimond, few times on taildraggers but I do dozens in the Mooney (I was told once, if you have to go-around a lot then go-away ) 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, skydvrboy said:

I totally agree.  As many unfamiliar sub 2,000' grass strips as I fly into for get-together's and camp outs, I'm well practiced at go-arounds.

This was most likely a Part 135 flight, perhaps a Part 91 flight, but definitely not Part 121.  I don't feel like there was anything unsafe about having me go around.  Undoubtedly, it added an additional element of risk, but so did my acceptance of the instructions to fly direct to the numbers, keep my speed up, and exit at the 1,700' turnoff.  My question was more around the justification of sending the #1 plane around that was about to touch down, instead of #2 who was still a mile or two out.

Again, it is a matter of potential separation and "what if". For instance, if you have parallel runways less than 3500' apart, they will not roll you simultaneously with a multi engine aircraft. Guess why? You may be #1 for take off, but if that ME aircraft is a jet, he is going to roll first because he is out of the way, faster than you are. Pounds of tin per minute. Likewise in this case, his error is not sending you around, but for forcing the situation with less than optimal spacing. If that controller had a do over, you would be #2. As it was he tried to squeeze you in, and when it all came unraveled (most likely because the jet failed to slow) he had two choices. Send you around or send the jet around. If he sent the jet around, and you aborted your landing he would then be in a loss of separation situation. If he sends you around, he can turn you out before the jet arrives thus he has assured separation no matter what happened.

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Skates97 said:

Ok, now you're taking the fun out of my feeble attempt at a joke.

And out of curiosity, do only women practice touch and go's, or if you practice them that makes you a woman? (asking for a friend) 

If I used "he" would you have asked that question?

[Brian E.]

2 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

My question was more around the justification of sending the #1 plane around that was about to touch down, instead of #2 who was still a mile or two out.

No doubt you got hosed by the controller trying to squeeze you in, perhaps, trying to do you a favor.  It would be interesting to listen to the tapes and see if they applied "first come, first served."  Of course controllers should consider aircraft characteristics so that the flow is operationally advantageous to all NAS users. Having said that there could be more going than you were made aware of.  But my bet is that the controller set up a bad landing sequence trying to expedite everyone and they only way to prevent the jet from going around or just eating you up was to send you around.

   Bad judgement are made very day,  some are just more obvious than others.

[jlunseth]

Sorry, but I am wondering why there is even on thread on this. “I shoulda been first.” Controllers make mistakes.  Pilots make mistakes.  Controllers help us stay out of trouble.  We help them stay out of trouble. They are not our enemies, we are not theirs, and if the day comes when you have to declare a real emergency and get their help, you will be glad of it. Flying is not an ego contest. Most of the Mooney pilots I know are pros, its not a big deal for them to do a go around 10 feet off the runway. This isn’t worth a discussion. 

[skydvrboy]

47 minutes ago, Brian E. said:

No doubt you got hosed by the controller trying to squeeze you in, perhaps, trying to do you a favor.  It would be interesting to listen to the tapes and see if they applied "first come, first served."  Of course controllers should consider aircraft characteristics so that the flow is operationally advantageous to all NAS users. Having said that there could be more going than you were made aware of.  But my bet is that the controller set up a bad landing sequence trying to expedite everyone and they only way to prevent the jet from going around or just eating you up was to send you around.

After reviewing the recording yet again, I have no doubt the controller was trying to do me a favor by squeezing me in front of the arriving traffic.  The jet first contacted the tower 3:30 after I first contacted the tower.  However, it's obvious that the controller knew he was coming has he told me to keep my speed up only 50 seconds after my first contact and made 3 attempts to call the arriving jet before he got an answer from them.  I guess it's true that things happen MUCH faster in a jet, he reported a 2 mile final only 1:30 after his first contact with the tower and was exiting the runway 1:35 after that.

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

If he sent the jet around, and you aborted your landing he would then be in a loss of separation situation. If he sends you around, he can turn you out before the jet arrives thus he has assured separation no matter what happened.

I think this makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.  Since the jet is faster, I would/could be right under it if I had to abort.  It would seem though that the jet would/could be right under me if it had to abort.  However, I think you are saying that since I'm more maneuverable, I can turn crosswind before there is a conflict.  I'm pretty certain the controller was worried about this vertical separation since he asked me to sidestep to the east of the runway during my go around.

Now for my questions, could the jet just as easily sidestep away from the runway to provide this vertical separation?  Also, how does the jet's higher climb rate (angle of climb) factor in?  Couldn't the jet just climb fast enough on a go around that they would be far enough above me that they would be no factor if I aborted my landing?

[Ibra]

6 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

I think this makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.  Since the jet is faster, I would/could be right under it if I had to abort.  It would seem though that the jet would/could be right under me if it had to abort.  However, I think you are saying that since I'm more maneuverable, I can turn crosswind before there is a conflict.  I'm pretty certain the controller was worried about this vertical separation since he asked me to sidestep to the east of the runway during my go around.

Now for my questions, could the jet just as easily sidestep away from the runway to provide this vertical separation?  Also, how does the jet's higher climb rate (angle of climb) factor in?  Couldn't the jet just climb fast enough on a go around that they would be far enough above me that they would be no factor if I aborted my landing?

 Yes, besides loss of separation (and ATC getting locked in a room), a fast heavy traffic overtaking a slow light piston from the above is not pretty for anyone: visual avoidance, wake turbulence, jet/piston inertia...

No idea of your exact circumstances but sidestep away from the runway is always a good thing, you also get nice views when the other traffic is climbing at 6000ft/min

 

[Hank]

Based on this last post, I am now certain it was the fault of the jet jockey, not ATC. Blame the yahoo in the jet for not communicating and not slowing down.

[GeeBee]

9 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

After reviewing the recording yet again, I have no doubt the controller was trying to do me a favor by squeezing me in front of the arriving traffic.  The jet first contacted the tower 3:30 after I first contacted the tower.  However, it's obvious that the controller knew he was coming has he told me to keep my speed up only 50 seconds after my first contact and made 3 attempts to call the arriving jet before he got an answer from them.  I guess it's true that things happen MUCH faster in a jet, he reported a 2 mile final only 1:30 after his first contact with the tower and was exiting the runway 1:35 after that.

I think this makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.  Since the jet is faster, I would/could be right under it if I had to abort.  It would seem though that the jet would/could be right under me if it had to abort.  However, I think you are saying that since I'm more maneuverable, I can turn crosswind before there is a conflict.  I'm pretty certain the controller was worried about this vertical separation since he asked me to sidestep to the east of the runway during my go around.

Now for my questions, could the jet just as easily sidestep away from the runway to provide this vertical separation?  Also, how does the jet's higher climb rate (angle of climb) factor in?  Couldn't the jet just climb fast enough on a go around that they would be far enough above me that they would be no factor if I aborted my landing?

No, a sidestep and a parallel is not legal separation between a single and multi engine aircraft. If the ME lost and engine, directional control could create further loss of separation. The controller has to see establishment of diverging course. The jet cannot make his turn until 400' under most operating specs, you can however. This problem is one that you see for instance at KSFO and KSJC. The runways are too close together. Watch parallel operations at these airports and you will see staggering. An aircraft on the hold for 28L will not be cleared for takeoff until the approaching aircraft on 28R lands. Simultaneous approaches are staggered by at least 1 mile so the two do not touch down simultaneously. Again it is loss of engine issues as well as aborts. With a single runway the controller when he clears you to land has two things in mind. Is the runway clear and where do I put that aircraft if he aborts? He needs either 1 mile or observing diverging course as separation assurance. The idea of "first come, first serve" is quaint but not a requirement. The controllers job is to move as many aircraft as he can within time while maintaining separation standards. Being first, or low in the pattern as a right to land only applies to uncontrolled fields.

 

[kris_adams]

I've certainly done a boneheaded thing a time or two (or three or four) over 30 years of flying.  I've been given grace by controllers many times and they generally are very appreciative the handful of times they ask me for a favor...a go around, a 360 (I volunteered that one for spacing), a super long final for the student pilot dragging in a cessna or even an emergency once.  Not getting on the OP but a lot of times I find that things that feel good in the short term don't feel good in the long stretch.  I'm happy to pass some of that grace back to the controllers when they need help keeping the dots separated on the radar.  After all, my flying is for fun so if I get a little more flying that's a good thing (most of the time...again this isn't towards the OP who was nearly at minimum fuel).  -KA

[whiskytango]

This may be somewhat off-topic but it is something I would like to know, and maybe ATC folks on MS can advise.  

At my home 'drome the ATIS almost alway includes "Land and Hold Short Operations in Progress".  We have two 9,000 foot +/- long runways, so LAHSO would be easy for GA aircraft, and the airlines could use full length on the intersecting runway.   But in flying into this airport on a weekly basis for over 10 years, I have been given a LAHS clearance maybe 5 times, at most.  I have even suggested to ATC that I would be happy to accept a LAHS clearance, but they don't give it.  It seems that some of the separation issues raised in this topic could be avoided if LAHSO were used more often.  Is is more difficult for ATC to coordinate LAHSO?