Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2016, 07:40:32 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  They'll give a pilot's license to anyone these days
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: They'll give a pilot's license to anyone these days  (Read 64533 times)
SkanknTodd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« on: March 12, 2008, 09:45:39 PM »

A mooney decides to stop on an active runway...

* GetOffTheRunway.mp3 (2969.51 KB - downloaded 7878 times.)
Logged
NY Z Pilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195


« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2008, 11:23:52 PM »

wow!!! thats funny!

[Mod: Edited for language.  Try to keep it clean for all of our users.]
« Last Edit: March 13, 2008, 08:42:46 AM by Jason » Logged
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2008, 12:20:06 AM »

That guy sounded like he didnt have a clue in the world about what he was doing.
Logged
penguin44
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2008, 09:11:51 AM »

Correct me if I am wrong, it happens, but if you land that runway is yours no one can land/taxi on it until you clear it. Sounds like he was wanting to taxi somewhere. It wasn't clear. I know STOPPING on the active is not a good thing ever and should exit when able, but that runway should be his if he was the only aircraft on it. I know there was traffic behind him, but the runway was his.
Logged
A_J_D_C
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53



« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2008, 10:06:51 AM »

Wow, intense, its a bit hard to tell, maybe the clip has been edited, but correct me if I'm wrong, its to my understanding that a TWR controller is not allowed to issue and landing clearance to any more than 1 (ONE), A/C at a time. Now although the second A/C was issued a Clear touch and Go  clearance, its as good as a landing clearance. The reason only 1 A/C can be issued a "clear to land" is a prime example in this clip. The second A/C is on final, has been cleared to T&G, he is now setting up for the touch and go making sure everythings right, then at what ever point the twr has issued a go around. If the twr hadn't issued a T&G instead issued a "expect a late landing", the 79 delta would have been more prepared for a go around. Too bad if the 79 was a full stop landing. So too my original question. i thought only 1 A/C can be issued a clearance for the rwy, when that A/C is cleared of the active, the next in line is then issued a clearance to use the rwy?
Logged
NY Z Pilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195


« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2008, 10:19:34 AM »

you can have a mooney land, then have a cessna land behind it while the mooney is still on the runway, i think the separaton is 4500ft. That was my hometown airport...seems like he landed 32, and was asking permission to cross the intersecting 1/19. He requested Echo ramp, which is on the other side of 1/19. Guess he didnt know once hes cleared to land on 32, he owns that whole runway...time to hit the books again!
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2008, 10:31:58 AM »

you can have a mooney land, then have a cessna land behind it while the mooney is still on the runway, i think the separaton is 4500ft. That was my hometown airport...seems like he landed 32, and was asking permission to cross the intersecting 1/19. He requested Echo ramp, which is on the other side of 1/19. Guess he didnt know once hes cleared to land on 32, he owns that whole runway...time to hit the books again!

JO 7110.65S §3-10-3(a) allows 3,000 feet separation between Category I aircraft landing behind a Category I/II.  Can you imagine 5 or 10 of these guys all trying to land at the same time?  Yup, that's DXR on a sunny summer weekend.  Luckily there's too much bizjet and airline traffic at HPN to attract these non-proficient pilots.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2008, 10:37:23 AM by Jason » Logged
kkjlai
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2008, 01:31:02 PM »

Try Oshkosh..  up to 3 planes can land on a runway (but at different threshold, called "dots" ? ) at one time.. 
Logged
SkanknTodd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2008, 02:26:36 PM »

Wow, intense, its a bit hard to tell, maybe the clip has been edited, but correct me if I'm wrong, its to my understanding that a TWR controller is not allowed to issue and landing clearance to any more than 1 (ONE), A/C at a time. Now although the second A/C was issued a Clear touch and Go  clearance, its as good as a landing clearance. The reason only 1 A/C can be issued a "clear to land" is a prime example in this clip. The second A/C is on final, has been cleared to T&G, he is now setting up for the touch and go making sure everythings right, then at what ever point the twr has issued a go around. If the twr hadn't issued a T&G instead issued a "expect a late landing", the 79 delta would have been more prepared for a go around. Too bad if the 79 was a full stop landing. So too my original question. i thought only 1 A/C can be issued a clearance for the rwy, when that A/C is cleared of the active, the next in line is then issued a clearance to use the rwy?

The clip was edited down from about 10 mins to only the relevant stuff.  At republic, if you have your traffic to follow in sight, and no one will be taking off ahead of you, they'll issue a landing clearance.  If they do decide to depart an aircraft ahead of you, they will cancel the clearance and reissue it once the plane is rolling.  Republic was using 19 and the mooney was asking if he could cross intersecting runway 14-32 to make a right turn onto Alpha which would take him to the Echo Ramp.  Apparently, he started turning off the runway and then turned back on.

Here's a link to the airport diagram...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0802/00704AD.PDF
Logged
coz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2008, 07:14:34 PM »

Feel bad for the pilot.  He was obviously lagging behind everything that was going on with the missed radio calls, etc.  Of course, never stay on the runway after you land, but still with a controller yelling at you like that it sure doesn't help things.

The pilot should not have frozen up on the runway and may want to get some radio practice in.

The controller should have simply issued a go-around and not gotten all flustered and yelled at the guy.

P.S.  If you are ever given a number to call--throw it away.
Logged
RHZ100
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2008, 07:51:32 PM »

Not sure what is funnier, eye eye sir or the jesus mary and joseph. 

but really, Eye Eye, Sir??!!?? 

Logged
bogman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2008, 08:37:08 PM »




P.S.  If you are ever given a number to call--throw it away.


Are you not obliged to call ATC if they request it?

Not a pilot so not sure......... grin
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964


« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2008, 08:45:21 PM »

I haven't listened to the clip yet, but I do have a question.

Was the pilot in question given the option? If so, he is in the right to stop on the runway. If he wasn't, that's another story altogether.

Quote
but correct me if I'm wrong, its to my understanding that a TWR controller is not allowed to issue and landing clearance to any more than 1 (ONE), A/C at a time.

Not entirely true, at least in the US. As we hear on other feeds, more than one aircraft can be cleared to land, even 7 - 10 miles out on final, let alone be #3 or #4 for the runway. But once again, it all depends on what the pilot is doing. In this case, if the pilot was going to land full stop, touch/go, or low approach, those #2 and #3 could be cleared to land. If he was stop and go, those inbound would be extended out on their downwind or given a longer final to accommodate the stop/go.

BL.
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2008, 08:53:59 PM »


P.S.  If you are ever given a number to call--throw it away.


Are you not obliged to call ATC if they request it?

Not a pilot so not sure......... grin

If you receive one for a possible pilot deviation and don't call, you could very well face a violation.  If you call and sort it out with them (and it didn't cause a loss of separation) you're usually off the hook.  Not calling the number is definitely not a good way to deal with it.

I haven't listened to the clip yet, but I do have a question.

Was the pilot in question given the option? If so, he is in the right to stop on the runway. If he wasn't, that's another story altogether.

He was issued a full landing clearance, not an option.

Quote
but correct me if I'm wrong, its to my understanding that a TWR controller is not allowed to issue and landing clearance to any more than 1 (ONE), A/C at a time.

Not entirely true, at least in the US. As we hear on other feeds, more than one aircraft can be cleared to land, even 7 - 10 miles out on final, let alone be #3 or #4 for the runway. But once again, it all depends on what the pilot is doing. In this case, if the pilot was going to land full stop, touch/go, or low approach, those #2 and #3 could be cleared to land. If he was stop and go, those inbound would be extended out on their downwind or given a longer final to accommodate the stop/go.

BL.


The local controller can issue landing clearances to multiple aircraft, but is not authorized to clear an aircraft for a full-stop, touch-and-go, stop-and-go, option, or unrestricted low approach if another aircraft has been instructed to taxi into position and hold, is taxiing into position, or is holding in position on the same runway (which is why you often hear the phrase "continue" for aircraft on a 5 or 10 mile final) without a waiver or when the "safety logic system to that runway is in full core alert runway configuration."  Once the departing aircraft starts rolling, the controller can issue the clearance. (JO 7110.65S §3-10-5(b))  This is a relatively new addition to the 7110 (within the last year).
Logged
coz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2008, 02:26:29 AM »


P.S.  If you are ever given a number to call--throw it away.


Are you not obliged to call ATC if they request it?

Not a pilot so not sure......... grin

If you receive one for a possible pilot deviation and don't call, you could very well face a violation.  If you call and sort it out with them (and it didn't cause a loss of separation) you're usually off the hook.  Not calling the number is definitely not a good way to deal with it.

ition to the 7110 (within the last year).

Obviously there is more than one correct answer here, but I will give more information on my side of things.  If *I* had been in that situation I most definately would have copied down the phone number, read it back, never called, and filed a NASA ASRS report.

If you call up, and discuss it, any information you give them will be used if they decide to issue a violation.  If you don't call and don't give them any information, and they issue you a violation, then you have a good amount of time to come up with an appropriate response with the help of an aviation attorney as well as time to file a NASA safety report before the violation gets filed.

One other reason NOT to call: "..One of the most difficult elements for the FAA to prove on appeal may be the identity of the pilot-in-command of the aircraft at the time of the alleged violation." (Practical Aviation Law -- HAMILTON)

This also includes answering the question "Did you have an engine failure or something?" I would have responded "Request taxi to xxxx", reverted to absolute standard phraseology and said nothing else.  They are going to have a difficult time proving that you took longer than necessary to vacate the runway as it is a bit subjective.  Exactly how much time is necessary?

Of course Jason has a very valid point, and that is if you call and work things out in a polite manner and apologize, then they most likely won't write you up and it will be a non-issue.   The problem is, once they write you up, and you called them and apologized and admitted what you did, the violation is a lot more likely to stick.

So for me at least, it is pretend to copy the number, and then never call--of course, I haven't actually been given a phone number to call yet.

-------
One other thing (offtopic), if ever asked when I broke out of the clouds?  I respond "above minimums".   Don't want to give a number and then realize too late that I was reading the wrong minimums or something else...


Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2008, 06:26:03 AM »

Of course Jason has a very valid point, and that is if you call and work things out in a polite manner and apologize, then they most likely won't write you up and it will be a non-issue.   The problem is, once they write you up, and you called them and apologized and admitted what you did, the violation is a lot more likely to stick.

So for me at least, it is pretend to copy the number, and then never call--of course, I haven't actually been given a phone number to call yet.

Well, no doubt you have to mind what you say because you're talking with an FAA representative, but you have a better chance of getting off if you don't blow off the call completely.  The FAA isn't stupid when they violate you, they do research.  Be careful what you say, and consult with a reputable aviation lawyer before you make the call.  Nothing says you must make the call before you leave the airport.  Go home, debrief yourself about the incident, call a lawyer and talk it out with him/her, file a NASA ASRS report, and then call the facility having planned what you're going to/not going to say.  Luckily, I have a good friend who is an aviation lawyer should something arise.

If you fly for a living, it's a matter of having a violation in your file or not (especially if you're thinking of applying for another job).  Anything to help stay violation and warning letter free is worth it, even if it means talking with the facility using selected phrases and words.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 06:29:20 AM by Jason » Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2008, 09:42:20 AM »

Not sure what is funnier, eye eye sir or the jesus mary and joseph. 

And now for a dissenting opinion:   

The "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.. COME ON!" comment by the approaching pilot IMO was completely unnecessary and could have actually partially blocked an important ATC instruction, ultimately contributing to the confusion.   What was that pilot doing there?  Touch and goes, right?   So, instead of one T&G he got to practice a go-around, which actually is a very valuable lesson given that some GA pilots get into trouble with these every year.    Agree or not, to me this comment was an example of an alarmingly increasing air-rage mentality that was once non-existent in GA.  There is absolutely no room for this mentality when there is so much at stake.

One more point that no one has yet brought up.  Yes, on the surface here this incident demonstrated very, very poor and dangerous piloting skills on the part of the subject pilot but consider this:  The pilot that caused this incident in this clip sounded like a very elderly male.  Couple this with the fact that he was flying a Mooney suggests to me that he probably had his certificate a long time.  I would offer that this incident was not due to his lack of experience as a pilot but rather due to age-induced incompetence.   

Don't misunderstand me - this incident should force the pilot to evaluate whether he should ever take to the air without a pilot-rated passenger again.  But it also underscores the fact that the average age for the GA pilot base is actually on the increase (not enough young people becoming pilots) and the US third class medical does not really have a method for determining one's declining mental acuity, an issue that faces automobile licensing, too.


Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2008, 10:58:38 AM »

If you decide to consult a lawyer or someone else before making the call, understand this... if I have an 'encounter' with a pilot, I, or the supe/cic has the final call to declare it a pilot deviation or not. Even though it may actually be a dev. We try to educate rather than prosecute. We don't get bonuses for issuing devs. If you call the facility soon after the incident, you have a better chance of getting to talk to the controllers involved. If you wait, you most likely won't get them, you will get the next shift, or the next day's crew. Now, in order for them to have any idea about what you're calling about, there has to be some information entered somewhere for these people, hence, it becomes official. Talking it over before they have to log any of the particulars, allows it to stay 'in-house' and stay a non-event. We have certain timelines that we must follow and certain words we must say.
 
A clearance to land is NOT a clearance to park on a runway. A stop and go gives the pilot a descretion as to the amount of time he spends on a runway. Cleared to land, cleared for touch and go, etc doesn't. If you want to park, go to the ramp. You are expected to exit an active runway at your first available, safe exit point. Even staying on the runway full length to exit at the end, requires permission. Additionally, pilots should be aware of other 'traffic' on the freq and what they might be doing.

Age does have a large part in some pilots' abilities/skill. We have had many pilots that bore-sighted other planes because they were doing something other than flying...

Most controllers have certain opinions about Mooney/Bonanza pilots, but I'll not go there today.
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
GanderGander
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2008, 11:28:46 AM »

Hello all, i was the instructor in question for the 'sweet mary and joseph come on'

Ksyr-pjr-I do not suffer from air rage, what i do suffer from is a lack of patience for incompetence.

We are flying planes, not driving golfcarts, which is what this guy, should have been doing instead.

Flying should not be considered recreational, those who consider it as such should be partaking in less daunting ventures.

P.S i could have blurted something much worst, and if i was truly causing confusion, i would have had to make a phonecall as well...so please Ksyr, leave your armchair piloting to the flight simulator.
Logged
JALTO
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2008, 12:18:16 PM »


P.S i could have blurted something much worst, and if i was truly causing confusion, i would have had to make a phonecall as well...so please Ksyr, leave your armchair piloting to the flight simulator.


So in this case you being an FAA certified instructure do you think you were setting a bad example for your student in proper phraseology over the radio?

PS..I'm a armchair pilot....KSYR-PJR is a real world pilot and coments like that have no place here. 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 01:05:15 PM by JALTO » Logged
GanderGander
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2008, 01:14:29 PM »

thank you for the ethics class Jalto, ill be sure to use proper phraseology from now on
Logged
Aardvark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2008, 01:15:05 PM »

Gander, not everyone can be as perfect as you. People make mistakes and you not only made the situation worse, but you didn't confim the go around. Keep that crap in the cockpit - why would you xmit it? Poor guy dosen't need that when he is already confused enough. I would have hated to have you as an instructor.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2008, 01:22:15 PM »

Hello all, i was the instructor in question for the 'sweet mary and joseph come on'

You were the one who made that comment AND you supposedly are a CFI?  Hmmm.... Sorry to point this out chief, but blurting that out over the air sets an extremely poor example for your students and you being an instructor only strengthens my opinion of your actions.

Ksyr-pjr-I do not suffer from air rage, what i do suffer from is a lack of patience for incompetence.

And is it REALLY your place to offer this critique over the air?  Not in my opinion or experience. 

so please Ksyr, leave your armchair piloting to the flight simulator.

LOL!  Squawking like that won't get you a free cup of coffee out of me.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
coz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2008, 03:45:38 PM »

Hello all, i was the instructor in question for the 'sweet mary and joseph come on'

Ksyr-pjr-I do not suffer from air rage, what i do suffer from is a lack of patience for incompetence.

We are flying planes, not driving golfcarts, which is what this guy, should have been doing instead.

Flying should not be considered recreational, those who consider it as such should be partaking in less daunting ventures.

P.S i could have blurted something much worst, and if i was truly causing confusion, i would have had to make a phonecall as well...so please Ksyr, leave your armchair piloting to the flight simulator.


I have to agree that the comment by the CFI (if that was you) was almost just as disturbing to me as the way the controller yelled at the pilot.

If everyone had not been so caught up in yelling at the poor guy, and instead of yelling and repeating "get off the runway!" the local controller just said "exit first left, you can exit onto the inactive runway there if you want, please keep it moving" I bet you would not have had to go around.  I would say everyone's attitude at the field and the way in which they talked to this guy was a significant factor in this case.

I hope I never have to visit this field.

The poor guy has already been given a number to call, he doesn't need more headache from you.

Personally I would rather share the skies with the old guy in the Mooney, who when unsure of what to do, and if it is OK to taxi onto an inactive runway stops and asks for clarification.  Yes you had to do a go-around, so what?  To me this is safer than a guy who has an ego or are smug about their ability as a pilot.  There is no room for egos in aviation.  It is a dangerous mix.
Logged
mk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94



« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2008, 04:17:50 PM »

yeah..throw away the number and throw away your certificate.  like RV1 said, the phone call will most likely result in educating the pilot WHY what he did was not looked highly upon. 

an aircraft violated the ADIZ around DC during the week,  they intercepted, turned him out, talked to him on freq, and told him he'd be meet at his destination (ROA)  by law enforcement and FAA.  Well, the high performance twin who was VFR made a descent to land then ducked below radar and never showed.  DUMB DUMB DUMB.  if you're talking to ATC or the DOD in this case on the radio they have your tail number.  now this guy will probably end up in jail...he WILL lose his certificate and his flying job.

be smart...call the facility. learn from the mistake. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!