Cross-Controlling the Airplane

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

How far off the centerline to you have to be to get violated? An inch? A mile?

Controller’s discretion I would imagine; I can’t wait to see how this knee-jerk “policy” works out!

[N201MKTurbo]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Controller’s discretion I would imagine; I can’t wait to see how this knee-jerk “policy” works out!

Just don't piss off the tower guy (or gal) and you will be fine.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Just don't piss off the tower guy (or gal) and you will be fine.

Pretty sure that’s always been good advice

[RLCarter]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

From the FAA safety notice NOT2929

• If inside one mile and you stray from the extended runway centerline…….

Isn’t that special….. thought there was a reg that parallel runways had to be so far apart to have 2 landing at the same time or ATC couldn’t authorize both to land?

[KSMooniac]

25 minutes ago, RLCarter said:

Isn’t that special….. thought there was a reg that parallel runways had to be so far apart to have 2 landing at the same time or ATC couldn’t authorize both to land?

True, but there are still boneheads that overshoot base-to-final and/or line up on the wrong runway.  A Cirrus did that in CO a couple years ago and hit a Merlin on final on the parallel runway as a recent example...

[KSMooniac]

11 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

You can definitely tell that by the radio calls. I never heard junk like "last call"* or "position checks" until YouTube. 
 

(*If things are not to busy, I respond with, "two bud lights.")

Have you heard the meows on Guard yet? 

[Justin Schmidt]

8 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

C'mon man! thats not the narrative! Climate change didnt affect the minor league HR % tho. Selective isnt it? 

Back on topic, stay out of rapid climate change when flying and you just may live.

But I thought it was suppose to be fun to fly right behind and below an A380

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, RLCarter said:

Isn’t that special….. thought there was a reg that parallel runways had to be so far apart to have 2 landing at the same time or ATC couldn’t authorize both to land?

That may be for simultaneous close parallel INSTRUMENT approaches.

[M20F]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:40 PM, midlifeflyer said:

Well, that pretty much covers it. 

Haha 3 pages later and I agree!

[midlifeflyer]

17 hours ago, MikeOH said:

From the FAA safety notice NOT2929 Air Traffic Operations Reid Hillview Tower Controlled Airport:(https://faasafety.gov/SPANS/noticeView.aspx?nid=12929

To be transparent it is specifically directed to CFIs but the salient quote seems draconian and I wonder if it would also be applicable to other pilots:

Regardless of where you are on the approach, if you are misaligned with the assigned runway you will be instructed to go-around. 

• If inside one mile and you stray from the extended runway centerline air traffic must file a mandatory operating report or if inside half-a-mile it will be treated as a pilot deviation with the accompanying records forwarded to the FSDO

It seems to be something to address a problem with  "The close spacing of the parallel runways 31L and 31R/13L and 13R and proximity to Capitol Expressway on the East Side" at RHV. Having flown at APA for 20 years (where the Cirrus hit the Metroliner), I'm not sure I'd call reporting a pilot deviation causing a potential conflict for investigation particularly draconian. 

Reading it, I'd say the policy is reporting incursions by any pilot who causes a problem. The notice to CFIs is to alert them and insist they take steps to prevent incursions when giving dual.

 

[midlifeflyer]

17 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

How far off the centerline to you have to be to get violated? An inch? A mile?

I guess enough to cause a potential conflict and  loss of separation with traffic that is or would be on the parallel. Enough to a lead a controller to fill out and file the paperwork.

This policy seems very similar to the policy begun at the height of the runway incursion focus to report all incursions to the FSDO. And not that different than enforcement focuses I've seen in other problem areas (not just aviation).

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

It seems to be something to address a problem with  "The close spacing of the parallel runways 31L and 31R/13L and 13R and proximity to Capitol Expressway on the East Side" at RHV. Having flown at APA for 20 years (where the Cirrus hit the Metroliner), I'm not sure I'd call reporting a pilot deviation causing a potential conflict for investigation particularly draconian. 

Reading it, I'd say the policy is reporting incursions by any pilot who causes a problem. The notice to CFIs is to alert them and insist they take steps to prevent incursions when giving dual.

 

We’ll, not sure why the Capitol Expressway even factors into it, close parallels are the issue.

It is draconian because of the absolute nature of the wording: MANDATORY reports and incursions (to an undefined specification) WILL BE TREATED AS A PILOT DEVIATION.

Unlike you I am NOT a perfect pilot and have overshot final on occasion. I find it disturbing that this is now a mandatory pilot deviation at RHV and sets a concerning precedent.

Finally, getting into this debate of how “righteous” this policy may or may not be wasn’t my point. My point was that while this policy will likely reduce the probability of another north Las Vegas midair, it may well GREATLY increase the number of base to final stall-spin accidents.

To believe this unintended outcome is not possible is similar to believing pilots don’t alter their behavior when considering medical treatment due to their choices affecting their medical certificate.

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

We’ll, not sure why the Capitol Expressway even factors into it, close parallels are the issue.

It is draconian because of the absolute nature of the wording: MANDATORY reports and incursions (to an undefined specification) WILL BE TREATED AS A PILOT DEVIATION.

Unlike you I am NOT a perfect pilot and have overshot final on occasion. I find it disturbing that this is now a mandatory pilot deviation at RHV and sets a concerning precedent.

Finally, getting into this debate of how “righteous” this policy may or may not be wasn’t my point. My point was that while this policy will likely reduce the probability of another north Las Vegas midair, it may well GREATLY increase the number of base to final stall-spin accidents.

To believe this unintended outcome is not possible is similar to believing pilots don’t alter their behavior when considering medical treatment due to their choices affecting their medical certificate.

I'm far from perfect. I'm just less paranoid about these things than some others. 

"Treated as a pilot deviation?" Of course it will. It is a pilot deviation. You were cleared to land 31L and you crossed over to interfere with the approach path for 31R. What will happen with it is a completely different issue.

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

I'm far from perfect. I'm just less paranoid about these things than some others. 

"Treated as a pilot deviation?" Of course it will. It is a pilot deviation. You were cleared to land 31L and you crossed over to interfere with the approach path for 31R. What will happen with it is a completely different issue.

 

Sheesh! Forget about the violation aspect!

For the third time: Do you think this policy will affect base to final stall-spin accident rates?

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Sheesh! Forget about the violation aspect!

For the third time: Do you think this policy will affect base to final stall-spin accident rates?

No. I don't think it will have any effect at all on the less than 4% of traffic pattern stall accidents which take place in the downwind to base to final turn. 

That this kind of policy was published suggests to me that lane cross-overs have been a significant problem at RHV or an outgrowth of concerns about crossover accidents  like the ones at APA and VGT in the past few years.  If anything, I'd expect the policy to make pilots more aware of the need for proper pattern operations and learning to  properly fly a rectangular pattern while anticipating and compensating for winds. I'd be more worried about if leading to more 152 pilots flying 737 patterns than an increase in the stall spin rate (maybe the reference to Capitol Expressway?).

 

 

[MikeOH]

@midlifeflyer

Interesting chart.  Very surprising to me that departure stalls are much more common!

My concern is more WHEN the inevitable happens and the turn to final is overshot, that the fear of certificate action may cause an even more aggressive turn back to final.  However, if the increase in awareness reduces the number of overshoots to begin with then I could see the 'no effect' result possibility.  I suspect this one airport 'experiment' is going to provide such limited data as to be inconclusive.

[midlifeflyer]

32 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@midlifeflyer

Interesting chart.  Very surprising to me that departure stalls are much more common!

My concern is more WHEN the inevitable happens and the turn to final is overshot, that the fear of certificate action may cause an even more aggressive turn back to final.  However, if the increase in awareness reduces the number of overshoots to begin with then I could see the 'no effect' result possibility.  I suspect this one airport 'experiment' is going to provide such limited data as to be inconclusive.

 

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Sheesh! Forget about the violation aspect!

 

I agree an overshoot is inevitable. Heck I did an stupid overshoot last week although not with parallel runways. But I can assure you my first thought was not about whether it was a deviation. I doubt even 1% of them will be thinking about a certificate action (amendment, modification, suspension or revocation) that is unlikely to occur or even be consciously aware of the policy.

When you do something wrong in the air, is your first thought about being violated? Like, you realize you climbed into a Bravo or Charlie by accident (altitude deviations have been the #1 pilot deviation for many years). Is your first thought, "OMG! I might get violated," so you slam the yoke forward creating negative Gs? 

[Pinecone]

5 hours ago, MikeOH said:

For the third time: Do you think this policy will affect base to final stall-spin accident rates?

I figure it will make them worse.

With this, people will turn early to avoid overshooting, then jink around to get lined up, leading to more slow speed, low altitude turns.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

 

 

I agree an overshoot is inevitable. Heck I did an stupid overshoot last week although not with parallel runways. But I can assure you my first thought was not about whether it was a deviation. I doubt even 1% of them will be thinking about a certificate action (amendment, modification, suspension or revocation) that is unlikely to occur or even be consciously aware of the policy.

When you do something wrong in the air, is your first thought about being violated? Like, you realize you climbed into a Bravo or Charlie by accident (altitude deviations have been the #1 pilot deviation for many years). Is your first thought, "OMG! I might get violated," so you slam the yoke forward creating negative Gs? 

Well, you are a superior pilot but I'm not sure you are open to the idea that others might not be!  Picture a low time CFI building hours for a career...you don't think, just maybe, he's not only well aware of RHV's new policy but the idea of a pilot deviation on his record scares the crap out of him!  Yes, in the ideal world he's paying rapt attention to his student 100% of the time...real world the student unexpected overshoots and he panics.  As in, he DOES react first and think later; he doesn't have your level of experience and wisdom.

[Will.iam]

You overshoot tower tells you have a brasher warning and call this number when you land. After you talk with tower file a NASA report. As long as it wasn’t intentional or deliberate and you were not doing something else illegal like flying without a current medical or smuggling drugs etc it should protect you from getting violated by the FAA. There is a 5 year don’t do the same thing again so don’t think you can use this instead of getting training to not do it in the future. 

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, you are a superior pilot but I'm not sure you are open to the idea that others might not be!  Picture a low time CFI building hours for a career...you don't think, just maybe, he's not only well aware of RHV's new policy but the idea of a pilot deviation on his record scares the crap out of him!  Yes, in the ideal world he's paying rapt attention to his student 100% of the time...real world the student unexpected overshoots and he panics.  As in, he DOES react first and think later; he doesn't have your level of experience and wisdom.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that anyone not as incredibly terrified as you seem to be of liability and enforcement think they are superior pilots. 

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, Will.iam said:

You overshoot tower tells you have a brasher warning and call this number when you land. After you talk with tower file a NASA report. As long as it wasn’t intentional or deliberate and you were not doing something else illegal like flying without a current medical or smuggling drugs etc it should protect you from getting violated by the FAA. There is a 5 year don’t do the same thing again so don’t think you can use this instead of getting training to not do it in the future. 

Always file the NASA, but it probably won't even get as far as using the the important but limited protection it provides. (The NASA program does not protect you from being violated, just from the suspension.) An unintentional deviation is more likely to be handled under the compliance program than by certificate action. 

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I'm not sure why you seem to think that anyone not as incredibly terrified as you seem to be of liability and enforcement think they are superior pilots. 

LOL!  Not sure why my debating that I think this new policy at RHV may have a negative effect on safety amounts to incredible terror on my part???

While you didn't actually try and make a counter argument to my example of an inexperienced CFI how about another example?  You wrote above that you had done "a stupid overshoot last week". Do you think a mandatory pilot deviation would have been okay?  Why should it matter if there's a parallel runway or not if, as you said, you are not thinking about a deviation?

[1980Mooney]

The outcome of this new policy will be that flight schools will abandon training at towered airports with close parallel runway operations. It is probably a good idea that makes sense.  
“real world the student unexpected overshoots and he panics.” - They should not be training there.  And for the rest of us, if we can’t maintain centerline at a busy parallel ops airport, then we deserve to be reported. 

[midlifeflyer]

44 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

LOL!  Not sure why my debating that I think this new policy at RHV may have a negative effect on safety amounts to incredible terror on my part???

While you didn't actually try and make a counter argument to my example of an inexperienced CFI how about another example?  You wrote above that you had done "a stupid overshoot last week". Do you think a mandatory pilot deviation would have been okay?  Why should it matter if there's a parallel runway or not if, as you said, you are not thinking about a deviation?

Yes. If I were at a towered airport and did that screw up, I'd expect it to be treated as a deviation, just like if I was IFR and given a heading of 010 and flew 100 instead. After all, if I cross over badly enough, I might well be causing a problem with the aircraft on the opposing downswind or base. 

But I do think there's a difference between single and parallel runways, namely the safety consequences. That's probably the reason for the announcement.