Mooney doesn’t clear runway fast enough

[Echo]

On 10/7/2024 at 1:21 AM, MikeOH said:

@PeteMc

You COMPLETELY miss the point:  What he did was the SAFE decision.  Keep right on bashing him for "not knowing" he 'owned' the entire runway, but his 'pilot error' showed good judgement: he was concerned with conflict. The fact that there was NOT any conflict is irrelevant.  He was uncertain about a PERCEIVED safety issue and acted to eliminate it. That's good ADM.

Nope.  His lack of knowledge resulted in a disturbance of the flow.  That domino could of resulted in a botched go around that resulted in an accident.  That it didn't is NOT the issue.  Just because his ignorance to a very basic procedure didn't result in an accident is a non-factor.

Bottom line: His lack of knowledge on procedure could of resulted in a tragedy.  Had HE NOT been ignorant the accident chain would not have begun.  No pass for "erring on caution" given.  Do better next time.

I DO understand what you are saying.  I just flat out disagree.  I have made many errors of ommission and lack of knowledge.  It is how we learn as pilotsand humans.  You have a history of "feeling" that we are throwing other pilots under the bus.  We are not.  We all learn from reading and discussing others errors whether of ommission or commission.  We are ALL fallable.  
 

 

[Echo]

This topic should of been under safety section.

[Marc_B]

2 hours ago, Echo said:

That domino could of resulted in a botched go around that resulted in an accident.

That's an interesting argument...how dangerous is a go around?  We're taught that we should be able to safely go around if things don't look right, too fast, runway contaminated, don't break out of IMC at DA/MDA, per controller instruction, etc.  I think in this case it was a squeeze play, so when the aircraft behind was told to go around, it was probably still on final and perhaps even 0.5 mile out?  Also surely I would expect that the go around pilot should have been able to see that an aircraft is on the runway and be hearing the controller so they should ALREADY be prepped to go around.  The go around should have been a non-issue, I think.

There may be times when a go around is unable, but it seems that for most traffic that it should be a non issue, especially in a tower controlled environment where you have someone sequencing and giving instructions.

EDIT: to be fair though...from my perspective the break in flow from a go around makes me paranoid of gear up so I probably quadruple check my gear when I've gone around...the break in flow certainly has the risk of missing a check list item.

Edited October 8 by Marc_B
added an after thought

[PeteMc]

15 hours ago, Andy95W said:

You’re still missing MikeOH’s point.

Was that comment for me?  Sorry, I get @MikeOH's point and I get we all need to do what we think is Safe.  And I'm not "bashing" the guy, I'm just saying he blew it.  But where it sounds like he stopped he had FOUR EXITS, two on each side of the Rwy BEFORE crossing 14/32.  So there was no need to stop, even if he had a perceived safety issue. 

So let's say he had a brain fade and was thinking the Rwy in front of him was the same as if he was on a Taxiway and can't go further without permission.  So what!  You just taxi off like any other landing before you get to the intersecting runway.    

[T. Peterson]

On 10/6/2024 at 9:33 AM, 201Steve said:

I’m with Geebee on this one. The plan didn’t come together for the tower. Oh well, adapt and overcome. If he was so strapped for time and energy he could have denied requests for training touch and gos. The brasher warning was a jerk flex. Would have been way more productive to clean up the situation and simply let the pilots know what he expected at his airport. They are all different and as much as controllers like to think everything they do is standard, that’s not how it works in the real world. Every tower operation is so different. It just takes reps to get people on the same page. 

Legally, when you are cleared to land you own the runway, but to needlessly dawdle or stop on the runway is unprofessional and selfish.

[midlifeflyer]

20 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Legally, when you are cleared to land you own the runway, but to needlessly dawdle or stop on the runway is unprofessional and selfish.

Agree.

Not only unprofessional or foolish but the exact opposite of "Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC."

[PeteMc]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

Legally, when you are cleared to land you own the runway, but to needlessly dawdle or stop on the runway is unprofessional and selfish.

A little more than that... Not a Reg, but per the AIM...

4−3−20. Exiting the Runway After Landing
The following procedures must be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.
a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots
must not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating
control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.

Note the very last part says "...pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval."

[MikeOH]

31 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Agree.

Not only unprofessional or foolish but the exact opposite of "Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC."

Unprofessional and 'exact opposite' the AIM, 100% agree.  To be clear, I am NOT defending his lack of knowledge.

But, foolish? Vehemently disagree.  Foolish is continuing into a situation that you PERCEIVE to be potentially dangerous even if you have the slightest doubt; that to me is the height of BAD judgement and poor ADM.

All of you 'Monday morning QBs' can continue to point out that he only stopped because he "didn't know the rules". Well, DUH, thank you captains obvious! I'd much rather have the pilot that stops when he's uncertain, regardless of reason, than the one that has the "it's all good, man" attitude and just keeps on going when confronted with a possible safety issue.

The idea that "his foolish/dangerous/ignorant/fill-in-the-deprecating blank" action would result "in a tragedy" is ridiculously overzealous hyperbole (I realize not your post, Mark).  If the guy behind him can't perform a safe go-around REGARDLESS of the reason, that's on him, not the pilot stopped on the runway!  Are we going to give the go-around pilot a pass if the plane on the runway gear-upped?  I guess so, since the guy blocking the runway was at fault for not putting the gear down, right?  Or, blown tire?  I guess we can look and find out that the tire was bald; once again, blame it on the guy on the ground!  Maybe the tire blew because of FOD on the runway from a previous departure?  Let's blame that guy, and give the incompetent pilot that couldn't perform a safe go-around another pass!

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

But, foolish? Vehemently disagree.  Foolish is continuing into a situation that you PERCEIVE to be potentially dangerous even if you have the slightest doubt; that to me is the height of BAD judgement and poor ADM.

Agreed.

[Echo]

An accident is an unplanned unwanted event that may or may not result in personal injury and or property damage.  Ten percent of accidents result from physical defect.  80% are the result of human error.  Nine percent the environment.  One percent act of God.

The domino theory of accident causation is well known and accepted.

Do pilots botch go arounds and crash aircraft or is that NOT a "thing"?

Do gear ups occur?  Like a go around pilots are supposed to know how to lower their gear.

Errors that result in death DO result from being "overly cautious".  

Someone botches a go-around that they should know how to do as a result of someone stopping on the active runway.  One event starts a chain of events.

Knowledge and practice help prevent human error, the leading cause of accidents.

Edited October 9 by Echo

[PeteMc]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

All of you 'Monday morning QBs' can continue to point out that he only stopped because he "didn't know the rules".

Maybe there's a little disconnect on why we're having problems with this guy that you seem to want to defend.

1) I have NO problem with him stopping because he perceived a danger in the moment.

2) I am making an ASSUMPTION that since he's flying a Mooney he is not a Student/Learner pilot on a Solo flight.

However....  He screwed up big time at a very busy airport.  So sorry, he doesn't get a pass.  Hey, we've all screwed up, but you're saying your friends, CFII, enemies can't call you on it?  Especially something like this??  

I am also sort of defending the Controller for those people saying he was wrong for jumping all over this guy.  Again, no real issue, he just stopped because he didn't remember/know a very basic principal.  And yes again , I'll point out he had FOUR exit options that would have kept him from having to cross 14/32.  

As for "...The idea that "his foolish/dangerous/ignorant/fill-in-the-deprecating blank" action would result "in a tragedy" is ridiculously overzealous hyperbole..."   Well, the mix there runs from quite possible the person behind him could have been a first time solo (I get it was really a Bo) or any of the people forced to go around could have been a solo.  And there is not a lot of Airspace to go fly off into .  You've got the NY Class B to the West and the Islip Class C to the East.  FRG is basically in a canyon.  It is pretty safe to say by the stepped on transmissions and the what I hear in the very short clip that it was a busy day.  So now you have at least a few planes being sent off to where there are probably other planes.  It would not shock me if there already both a Left and a Right Downwind.  So it's also not that you just put one on the other side for a moment. 

So, no, not dismissing your concern for safety at all.  But sorry, the guy blew it and gets what's tossed at him. 

   

[MikeOH]

@PeteMc

I don't think it's so much a disconnect as a different perspective; it's not that I'm defending him for not knowing a rule (I'm not) but defending his action because he perceived a safety issue and chose to stop.  Sounds like item 1 that you agree with.  That's been my point all along.

Yes, he 'screwed up'.  IMHO, however, I hardly think this rises to the level of 'big time'.  No, that doesn't give him a pass for inconveniencing others (controller and Bo pilot), but I find the suggestion that he created some major safety issue for others to be a bit ludicrous.

His certificate level, even student, or experience level, or even the reason he stopped has no relevance to whether the pilot that has to go-around gets to blame this guy!  Think about it, on the one-hand many here are blaming this guy for not knowing he 'owns the runway", well does he if he now is blamed for using it??  Sorry, that's why pilots are supposed to know how to perform a safe go-around.  So, now your argument is that the REASON for the go-around can be a valid excuse for screwing it up!!  Spinning in after a botched go-around would be a 'screwup big time' in my opinion!  Creating all the 'scenarios' in your post, busy airport, multiple runways, nearby Class B, etc....those are all just red-herrings.

Finally, we get to why I have angst over threads like these.  We eat our own and justify our vitriol with lame excuses like, 'we all learn from others mistakes'.  So, no, I don't think anyone is served by claiming he's 'got it coming' or 'gets what's tossed at him'.  How is that productive or educational?  The only argument with a tiny sliver of logic is to claim public shaming will prevent  others from transgressions out of fear.  That is a pretty sad defense.  Put it another way, how effective a teaching method do think it would be for CFI(I)s to berate their students (whatever their certification level) for their errors with the acrimony seen here?  Therefore, how does one justify it as an effective method for 'learning from others' mistakes' here?

The unprofessional behavior was on the controller and the jacka$$ that made the derisive comment on frequency.  Pretty ironic that they've been defended and 'praised';  pretty sad, IMHO.

[PeteMc]

24 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

The unprofessional behavior was on the controller

Have you been to NY airspace much?   

You think he was bad, wait till one of the N90 Controllers rip you a new one.  They may use more "appropriate" terminology, but believe me, you'll know it when you hear some poor guy getting gutted on on the Freq.  

[Echo]

27 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@PeteMc

I don't think it's so much a disconnect as a different perspective; it's not that I'm defending him for not knowing a rule (I'm not) but defending his action because he perceived a safety issue and chose to stop.  Sounds like item 1 that you agree with.  That's been my point all along.

Yes, he 'screwed up'.  IMHO, however, I hardly think this rises to the level of 'big time'.  No, that doesn't give him a pass for inconveniencing others (controller and Bo pilot), but I find the suggestion that he created some major safety issue for others to be a bit ludicrous.

His certificate level, even student, or experience level, or even the reason he stopped has no relevance to whether the pilot that has to go-around gets to blame this guy!  Think about it, on the one-hand many here are blaming this guy for not knowing he 'owns the runway", well does he if he now is blamed for using it??  Sorry, that's why pilots are supposed to know how to perform a safe go-around.  So, now your argument is that the REASON for the go-around can be a valid excuse for screwing it up!!  Spinning in after a botched go-around would be a 'screwup big time' in my opinion!  Creating all the 'scenarios' in your post, busy airport, multiple runways, nearby Class B, etc....those are all just red-herrings.

Finally, we get to why I have angst over threads like these.  We eat our own and justify our vitriol with lame excuses like, 'we all learn from others mistakes'.  So, no, I don't think anyone is served by claiming he's 'got it coming' or 'gets what's tossed at him'.  How is that productive or educational?  The only argument with a tiny sliver of logic is to claim public shaming will prevent  others from transgressions out of fear.  That is a pretty sad defense.  Put it another way, how effective a teaching method do think it would be for CFI(I)s to berate their students (whatever their certification level) for their errors with the acrimony seen here?  Therefore, how does one justify it as an effective method for 'learning from others' mistakes' here?

The unprofessional behavior was on the controller and the jacka$$ that made the derisive comment on frequency.  Pretty ironic that they've been defended and 'praised';  pretty sad, IMHO.

Wow.  I get it now.  I totally agree with everything you say.  I apologise for having a different opinion.  How dare I?  Face palm.  Loser am I.  You sir are the defender of all aviators.  It's a secret club.  Like the cabin and the mancave.  What happens in the plane stays in the plane.  Lets stop taping transmissions and for God sakes shooting video and photos.  Shhhh.  We have egos here.  Very fragile egos.  Please forgive my transgressions.  You are the defender.  All hIl the defender.  Hail!  Hail!  Hail!

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, Echo said:

Wow.  I get it now.  I totally agree with everything you say.  I apologise for having a different opinion.  How dare I?  Face palm.  Loser am I.  You sir are the defender of all aviators.  It's a secret club.  Like the cabin and the mancave.  What happens in the plane stays in the plane.  Lets stop taping transmissions and for God sakes shooting video and photos.  Shhhh.  We have egos here.  Very fragile egos.  Please forgive my transgressions.  You are the defender.  All hIl the defender.  Hail!  Hail!  Hail!

Wow. What a flawless logical response to points in my post.

No doubt you'll be inundated with job offers from countless law firms looking for your argumentative skills

[Echo]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Wow. What a flawless logical response to points in my post.

No doubt you'll be inundated with job offers from countless law firms looking for your argumentative skills

You are always right.  I get it now.  What a fool am I to actually submit information, as I did above?  Zero point because youur mind will never change and I can and did change mine.  Your strong support has won my over defender.  God bless for all you do for fellow nameless aviators.

[midlifeflyer]

I dunno @MikeOH. Sure, there’s gonna be the “whatta jerk” vitriol. Just this past year or so we’ve discussed a Mooney pilot flying into a tower while on an instrument approach, a Mooney pilot or two who seems to be clueless how to load and fly an IAP and indeed even how to fly headings and altitudes. Now we have a Mooney pilot who stops dead in the middle of a busy runway for no objective reason. (Doing what one thinks is safe because they don’t know how it works is subjective.) 

These kinds of events reflect badly on pilots. They reflect badly on GA. Worse yet, they reflect badly on Mooney pilots. So, yeah, I understand your feelings about it but I understand the human need to vent, especially in a Mooney forum, especially since it’s pretty harmless. None of us have the authority to take his certificate away,

The controller tongue-lashing? Meh. A bit unprofessional but understandable and pretty  mild.  The Bozo go-around pilot piling it on? Uncalled for. But I think both are pretty irrelevant to the pilot knowledge /error discussion. 

[MikeOH]

@midlifeflyer

Pretty reasonable rebuttal. I agree the controller and Bo Zo pilot are irrelevant; I addressed them as others seem to feel the need to include them in the discussion.

I still think stopping when you are unsure of crossing a runway, or anywhere you might feel there is a conflict, is OBJECTIVELY a good decision regardless of finding out it was unnecessary after the fact.

Honestly, I thought the whole thing was pretty “meh”… just another day at the races at a busy airport; sometimes stuff happens.

[Andy95W]

9 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Have you been to NY airspace much?   

You think he was bad, wait till one of the N90 Controllers rip you a new one.  They may use more "appropriate" terminology, but believe me, you'll know it when you hear some poor guy getting gutted on on the Freq.  

I love NY controllers, with their congested airspace I think they’re probably the best in the world.  I’m okay with the tower controller yelling at the Mooney pilot (but not the BO jerk that piled on).

About 25 years ago I was delivering an old Piper Apache to the Republic airport (FRG).  It was IMC and they were doing ILSs.  The Apache was not in very good shape, one of its problems was the glide slope receiver was inop.

I let the approach controller know that we’d be flying the approach as a localizer-only, since our glideslope was inop.  I didn’t want him to be concerned when we were below the glideslope descending to get to the MDA.

His response: “I don’t care about your equipment problems.  Cleared for the ILS, contact the tower.”  

[Schllc]

Lotta irony in these posts. 
But I believe the discussion is good and healthy, and makes all of (who are open to having our opinions challenged), think about this from different perspectives. 
IMHO, the pilot needs some remedial training, the controller needs to control his emotions and be more professional, and the pilot piling on is a douchebag. 
I mean, to be fair, we have all probably muttered the same to ourselves at one time or another, but we had the good sense and decorum to resist the urge to hit the transmit button!  Even though I have been temped many times!!
 

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, MikeOH said:

@PeteMc

I don't think it's so much a disconnect as a different perspective; it's not that I'm defending him for not knowing a rule (I'm not) but defending his action because he perceived a safety issue and chose to stop.  Sounds like item 1 that you agree with.  That's been my point all along.

Yes, he 'screwed up'.  IMHO, however, I hardly think this rises to the level of 'big time'.  No, that doesn't give him a pass for inconveniencing others (controller and Bo pilot), but I find the suggestion that he created some major safety issue for others to be a bit ludicrous.

His certificate level, even student, or experience level, or even the reason he stopped has no relevance to whether the pilot that has to go-around gets to blame this guy!  Think about it, on the one-hand many here are blaming this guy for not knowing he 'owns the runway", well does he if he now is blamed for using it??  Sorry, that's why pilots are supposed to know how to perform a safe go-around.  So, now your argument is that the REASON for the go-around can be a valid excuse for screwing it up!!  Spinning in after a botched go-around would be a 'screwup big time' in my opinion!  Creating all the 'scenarios' in your post, busy airport, multiple runways, nearby Class B, etc....those are all just red-herrings.

Finally, we get to why I have angst over threads like these.  We eat our own and justify our vitriol with lame excuses like, 'we all learn from others mistakes'.  So, no, I don't think anyone is served by claiming he's 'got it coming' or 'gets what's tossed at him'.  How is that productive or educational?  The only argument with a tiny sliver of logic is to claim public shaming will prevent  others from transgressions out of fear.  That is a pretty sad defense.  Put it another way, how effective a teaching method do think it would be for CFI(I)s to berate their students (whatever their certification level) for their errors with the acrimony seen here?  Therefore, how does one justify it as an effective method for 'learning from others' mistakes' here?

The unprofessional behavior was on the controller and the jacka$$ that made the derisive comment on frequency.  Pretty ironic that they've been defended and 'praised';  pretty sad, IMHO.

You takes you chances when you chose to follow your gut over ATC instructions.  ATC is sometimes wrong and a perceptive pilot might save his own skin as well as others by refusing to obey an instruction that puts their aircraft in harms way.  If you're going to do it, you better have good a reason.  "Feelings" are not a reason in my opinion.  "I feel unsafe rolling through a crossing runway with out permission" is a hazard that exists entirely in the pilot's mind unless there is visible activity on the crossing runway.  I understand your argument is that he deferred to his conservative side by not entering the runway and that it only caused minor inconveniences to others in the pattern and tower.  However, your position taken to it's logical conclusion, boils down to this:

 It's not only OK to ignore ATC instructions due to one's ignorance of the regs, but it's also a sign of good judgement to ignore ATC instructions provided that one's ignorance of the regs makes them uncomfortable with ATC instructions. 

That is no way to operate civil airspace...

[PeteMc]

3 hours ago, Andy95W said:

His response: “I don’t care about your equipment problems.  Cleared for the ILS, contact the tower.”  

Sounds about right.   As long as you're going where they want you to go, you're doing what they want you to do AND you're not talking much, they're happy!  (They really are, even if it doesn't sound like it! )

 

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I still think stopping when you are unsure of crossing a runway, or anywhere you might feel there is a conflict, is OBJECTIVELY a good decision regardless of finding out it was unnecessary after the fact.

We might just be disagreeing on the semantic use of "objectively." I don't think of a decision based on a mistaken belief to be "objective."

IOW, "Well, I thought the light was green so I went into the intersection" is not an objective decision in my book. 

[hubcap]

I had to go around a couple of years ago at a Delta class airport after the student pilot landed on the numbers and did a full length taxi before exiting. The tower didn't say a word to him even though I was on short final and there were multiple opportunities for him to exit. I'm sure there are exact FAR's to determine "fault" on this incident.

As for me, anytime I am not sure what I am supposed to do, I am going to ask. I am not going to "assume" a clearance. Sometimes on the ground it can be confusing at a strange airport at ground level. I'm not a professional pilot and I would rather take a chance on "not" doing something rather than "assuming" that it is the right thing to do. I have stopped before crossing a runway before to make sure I have clearance and I will do it again if I am unsure.

Rude behavior on the air is never "good", in my opinion. The Bonanza guy passed up a wonderful opportunity to "keep his mouth shut" and added nothing positive to the circumstances, in my opinion.

[EricJ]

47 minutes ago, hubcap said:

I had to go around a couple of years ago at a Delta class airport after the student pilot landed on the numbers and did a full length taxi before exiting. The tower didn't say a word to him even though I was on short final and there were multiple opportunities for him to exit. I'm sure there are exact FAR's to determine "fault" on this incident.

You only need 3000 feet of runway separation to land behind another Catgory I or Category II (less than 12,500 lbs) aircraft, and sometimes the tower is monitoring that.   I know roughly how far down the north runway that is at DVT, because it's not unusual to wind up landing behind somebody else and they're still on the runway.   On a few occassions the tower has specifically spoken up that there's adequate clearance for me to land, but they don't always because they're probably busy with other things, too.    It's obvious that they're aware of the rules, though, since it's a very busy airport and I've seen them handle it many times.

There's nothing wrong with a precautionary go-around, though.    I don't know what the situation was in your case, but if the tower thought there'd be more than 3000 feet of separation on the runway they may not have said anything.