"Traffic to follow, report in sight"

[Narwhal]

Does this mean you automatically follow the traffic when you see them, even if when you call them in sight, the controller doesn't acknoweldge your transmission? It seems that's what tower thought it meant in this scenario....but maybe it does mean that and I am completely off-base?

Scenario:

Flying downwind, extermely busy Class D. Multiple helicopters (3?) close in or departing/arrival, at least 6 fixed wing bugsmashers, and a few turboprops.

13:15 Call up tower prior to class D entry, Tower: "Enter right downwind, report (report point X)"

00:17:27 Me: "Tower, (Callsign) reporting point X
00:17:30 Tower: "continue downwind"

00:20:09 Tower: "Traffic is a pilatus over (reporting point at your 2 oclock and 4 miles), report traffic in sight to follow".
00:20:20 Me: "Wilco, (my callsign), negative contact".

00:20:54 Tower: "(My callsign) your traffic is over (reporting point Y) now"
(*looking as hard as I can*)
00:20:57 Me: "(callsign) has traffic approaching airport now, a helicopter, in sight, but negative pilatus" (only said it this way because I thought intitially the helo was the pilatus, but realized mid transmission it was NOT, helo was on very similar bearing).

00:21:49: Tower: "(my callsign) the Pilatus you're following is just south of you, about a mile."
00:21:53 Me: "(My callsign), looking out"

Mega frequency congestion ensues, I finally get the PIlatus along with 2 other traffic targets on the same bearing after a minute or so. Getting the traffic takes a minute because he is pointing right toward me as I am on downind, very little relative motion, and it's white airplane below me over a snow covered landscape seemingly with no landing lights on.

After I finally get a visual:

00:22:33 Me: "Tower, (callsign) pilatus traffic in sight"
No response.

I continue downwind. Huge frequency congestion, so I keep quiet and continue downwind for about 30 seconds until I can get a word in to report the traffic to foloow in sight again.

00:23:05 Tower: "(my callsign) Do you have traffic to follow to turn your base?"
00:23:10 Me: "Pilatus in sight, (callsign)"

00:23:15: Tower: "(my callsign) State your intentions! You had 3 miles to turn base, the pilatus is almost off the runway now!"

00:23:25 Me: "Intention is to land RWY XX"
00:23:30 Tower: "My callsign, just continue"

00:23:35 Me: "Continue downwind, callsign"

00:23:45 Tower: "(My callsign), turn base now"
00:23:48 Me: "Turning Base, (my callsign)."

Still mega frequency congestion, so I turn final.

00:26:30 (on 1/2 mile final) "Tower, XXX request landing clearance?"
0026:35 Tower: *audible sigh* "AGAIN, CLEARED TO LAND Rwy XX".
0026:40 Me: "First time recieved, Runway XX cleared to land, (callsign)".

I verified all of this on live ATC, no fibs. It played out just this way, no landing clearance til I asked.

What was going on here? Should I have just automatically followed the turboprop and assumed I was cleared to land? "Is "traffic to follow" an actual instruction or an advisement of an upcoming, subsequent instruction to expect?

I get it, high stress, extremely busy class D bugsmasher/helicopter airport on the weekend. ATC was really prioritizing dressing people down over giving people proper instructions it seemed like, but heck, maybe I was totally wrong! It's just as likely as not, I suppose.

Any input appreciated.

 

[mandm]

Always have a situational awareness of traffic, both by adsb traffic, and visual. Use ATC comms as guidance, fly the airplane first, feel free to verify. I normally fly within the adsb band so I feel more comfortable with traffic alerts on foreflight, sometimes it would give me a warning picking myself up, so once I asked ATC if there was traffic nearby, then just hoped no collision haha (there was no traffic, it was myself).

 

[mandm]

Follow traffic in my opinion is good enough, you should hear the words clear to land though before touching ground. (If you didn’t, do a go-around if weather and fuel / airplane are non issue. Otherwise you always have the declare emergency card to use.) Usually ATC will say follow traffic runway X clear to land. Each airport has its own practices, some are relaxed, some are rude. One time I believe ATC told me I don’t need permission to turn base, but I don’t recall exactly. You can also ask ATC, they are not always right either, sometimes you get a new person or non-pilot so there are confusions from time to time. My airport is pretty relaxed, even if you messed up they would be ok. Some airports will ask you to write down a phone number.

 

[Tools]

No right answer… you could have turned base. You weren’t comfortable doing so, so I think you made the right decision.

Never mind tower “rudeness”, it happens, not intentional (most likely).

I practically guarantee had you turned base when HE had in his mind you shouldn’t, it woulda been uglier.

 

[Joepilotmsp]

I would have done exactly as you did. They will say clear tip and rwy XX. If their panties get in a knot, damned if I care. If they get mad, they’ll get glad. I have asked them for a number I will be calling on landing. Don’t know how worried that made em, but buddy, it changed the vibe right quick. There is only a sliver of a percentage point that are dicks. Even those ask for their patience , something like don’t get here often, appreciate you keeping me safe usually disarms them. Everybody has a bad day once in a while…

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sounds like the controller thought they issued a landing clearance earlier. They make mistakes, y'know.

 

[Velocity173]

Really poor phraseology. “Continue downwind” is an indefinite instruction. It would be like saying “fly heading 360, traffic to follow…” Doesn't mean you can bust off that vector to follow traffic. “Extend downwind I’ll call your base” is a more clear instruction.

Personally I wouldn’t have used either one. Just issue “Cessna345, follow the Pilatus (position).” Or “Cessna 345, runway xx, cleared to land number two following a Pilatus (position).”

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

Follow traffic in my opinion is good enough, you should hear the words clear to land though before touching ground. (If you didn’t, do a go-around if weather and fuel / airplane are non issue.

I would have followed traffic assuming I saw no conflicting traffic. In Delta or Charlie, I typically turn base when traffic I am following is abeam me on final. If not sure if I was supposed to follow (and turn to base) then a quick call to Tower (while I am turning) as: Nxxxx, Following traffic, #2 to land, turning base, expect landing clearance. Note that I specifically phrase this as advisory and not asking permission.

If no landing clearance than on short final call back to “verify” cleared to land. No explicit clearance than go-around.

You require a clearance to land. You do not require a clearance to turn base.

Sometimes I get the Tower saying “continue downwind, I will call base” which is appreciated as it is less ambiguous. Even then, I have been “Forgotten” at times so I might still have to check back if the downwind seems extreme for no apparent reason. I also like the “expect clearance” from the Tower as again it removes ambiguity although I may still have to check back on short final if I did not hear the clearance yet and be ready for a go-around if I do not get the clearance in time.

On the other side of things, I did get yelled at once by Tower in a Class D for turning downwind to base without explicit instruction. I was told downwind with no instruction to continue or wait for Tower to call the turn to base. Turned out it was their practice to always call the turn to base at this Delta. So Tower yelled at me and I learned about their practice.

 

[Velocity173]

Continue is simply meant to continue what you’re doing or to expect a clearance at a certain point. Issuing it for a downwind would make no sense unless they want you to depart the class D on a downwind departure. Either extend and call base or issue a clearance with an instruction to follow traffic.

Even the “report traffic in sight…” instruction is confusing. Not required in this case and it makes it sound like the OP is to report the traffic before being allowed to follow. This isn’t visual sep.

 

[Timbeck2]

Its clear the tower controller thought he had issued me a landing clearance when he had not.

It’s clear to me that when the controller looked for you on final that he/she was going to clear you to land. But you were still on the downwind 3 miles away and the traffic you were told to follow and that you told tower you had in sight, had landed and is almost off the runway.

 

[Timbeck2]

Why wow? Did I offend? There’s always two sides to a story. I’m playing devil’s advocate here for the controller and as a controller who has seen many, many times this and similar situations where pilots were told to do something, acknowledged the instructions and then didn’t do what they were told for some reason which was not conveyed to me.

Then the controller is the bad guy? On a forum full of pilots this would be a sympathetic haven but we also have a few here who are both. You mentioned a few times that the radio was congested, meaning the controller was busy. The controller was trying to make the pattern work. By not “following” the Pilatus and doing your own thing, you threw a monkey wrench into the whole plan.

This is only my opinion after reading what you wrote. I’m not here to offend anyone. I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Keep in mind that there is a difference between following another airplane on a visual approach when IFR and following another airplane in a VFR traffic pattern. The IFR visual approach requires that you have the aircraft to follow in sight before you’re cleared for the visual. A VFR traffic pattern doesn’t, although tower may point out traffic for you to base your turns off of.

Also, @Timbeck2 correct me if I’m wrong, “continue downwind” doesn’t mean the same thing as “continue downwind, I’ll call your base.”

 

[Timbeck2]

Also, @Timbeck2 correct me if I’m wrong, “continue downwind” doesn’t mean the same thing as “continue downwind, I’ll call your base.”

I can’t speak for every controller but to me, it does or should. If I tell someone to extend or continue their downwind, I’m taking pilots out of their normal pattern and I should either:

1. Tell them I’ll call their base
2. Ask them if they have traffic to follow in sight and if affirmative I’ll say “base approved following that traffic and clearance to land.

controllers are different everywhere. Some are skilled, some get extremely nervous when they have more than two or three aircraft and some are just crappy controllers. In my career, I’ve seen all types.

 

[Timbeck2]

A pilot is expected to automatically turn base without further instruction even if the "traffic in sight" call is not acknowleged?

Yes. In your situation you were told to follow the Pilatus. The controller most likely heard you call the Pilatus in sight but was either too busy to acknowledge you or didn’t think it warranted a response. I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
See my response above.

 

[dbahn]

"Traffic to follow, report in sight" seems like an invite to a wise-crack answer. "Traffic won't ever be in sight if he's following me."

 

[Timbeck2]

I have been on both sides of this issue. As a trainee controller back in 1993, I extended a Citation 550 for traffic to follow on final and told the citation I would call their base. I forgot about the citation because I was too focused on his traffic to follow exiting the runway. My monitor told the citation to turn base and cleared him to land. I tried to convince my monitor that I hadn’t forgot about the citation. But I did.

I never made that mistake again.

As a pilot, I was landing at Falcon Field in Mesa Arizona and was told to extend my downwind and the controller would call my base. I ended up over the orange groves out of their airspace when I reminded the controller I was there. They told me to turn base and cleared me to land. They forgot about me too.
It happens.

 

[midlifeflyer]

00:23:05 Tower: "(my callsign) Do you have traffic to follow to turn your base?"
00:23:10 Me: "Pilatus in sight, (callsign)"

This would have been my trigger to turn base while maintain comfortable separation with the Pilatus.

I'm focusing on this dialog but it's really about its context (aka situational awareness). The communications as a whole are telling me Tower is sequencing me behind the Pilatus. I don't hear the "continue downwind" as meaning the same thing as "extend your downwind; I'll call your base," but as part of the sequencing. Once I report it in sight, the pattern returns to me for normal maneuvering on base and final, just waiting for a landing clearance. Based on the communications, there's no reason at that point for an extended downwind. The most reasonable action is to turn base.

Question back to you.

Leave out the snarky comment that makes it clear they were expecting a base turn. And forget for the moment the idea that there was some rule in effect forcing you to continue downwind. Based on everything else, in retrospect, do you

1. still think extending downwind well beyond that necessary to separate you from the Pilatus made the most sense; or
2. think turning base made more sense but were concerned about being wrong

?

With rare exceptions. ATC instructions at a towered airport are based on reason. There are going to be situations where we are not sure what to do. That's what needing to clarify is al about. Clarification doesn't take much. In this situation, it would have taken no more than:

00:23:05 Tower: "(my callsign) Do you have traffic to follow to turn your base?"
00:23:10 Me: "Pilatus in sight, (callsign). Turning base behind the Pilatus."

Even the opposite would be ok. In either case, it gives ATC the opportunity to correct you.

 

[Timbeck2]

Yes, and this is a training tower.

Sigh

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

EVERY tower is a training tower.

New controllers don’t just show up and start working. I say new as it refers to new to the area or new to air traffic control. If a mistake was made you should hear another voice correcting the error.

Also and I can’t stress this enough…STOP worrying about your ADS-B input while in the pattern. Controllers want you looking outside the aircraft in order to see and avoid. You are VFR. V stands for visual.

The “alarms” you hear in the tower are collision avoidance alarms and are there to warn controllers to do something to avoid two or more aircraft from pranging into one another. Unfortunately it goes off when it “thinks” something is going to happen. It doesn’t know the controller has already taken steps to avoid a situation.
If you ever saw the movie Pushing Tin, you see other controllers leaving their own scopes to see what is happening on Billy Bob’s scope. This never happens. Controllers hate that movie.

 

[Daleandee]

Also and I can’t stress this enough…STOP worrying about your ADS-B input while in the pattern. Controllers want you looking outside the aircraft in order to see and avoid. You are VFR. V stands for visual.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not worried about ADS-B guys. If I was I would never fly in the airspace. I could Visually see more traffic on final.

It was the second voice that called the go-around earlier on the frequency at 14:55. Then back to the first voice for the rest. Relieved a minute or two after I landed. I linked to the tape earlier but I guess that's not allowed.

I'm surprised. I link to URLs al the time. I just picked something at random from LiveATC

 

[Shawn]

Some pilots mistakenly think that you need a landing clearance or even instructions to turn final or even base...heck, you can cross the threshold without a landing clearance, just can't touch down. "Follow" was the instruction in this case..

As others said...misstep was not turning base once you had traffic in sight...if ever concerned make the call and advise "123 turning Base" but you don't need to ask or wait for tower to call base in your case prior to the instruction being amend to "continue downwind"

 

[Timbeck2]

If you weren’t worried about ADS-B you wouldn’t have spent a lot of time explaining what you could see or make a statement that it was too congested to make out anything. Eyes outside my brother, eyes outside.

I returned from a flight once to find my hangar taxiway blocked by a plane facing the opposite way, engine idling with a pilot who was head down fiddling with his avionics; oblivious to what was going on around him. It was a full 5 minutes before he finally looked up and realized that he wasn’t the only person on the planet. It’s the only time I wished that I had one of those trucker air horns installed in my plane.

 

[luvflyin]

No problem! It's a healthy debate, I think. I will be the first to admit I'm a crap pilot, and probably an a-hole!

So your position is, if the pilot recieves the following instructions:

"Continue Downwind"

Followed by:

"Report traffic in sight to(and?) follow"

A pilot is expected to automatically turn base without further instruction even if the "traffic in sight" call is not acknowleged?

If that's the correct answer, great, lesson learned as the forum implies. I was not trying to "do my own thing". For all I knew there were more inbounds further out on final, if I was not able to identify the traffic in time perhaps they were going to modify my sequence and that's why they requested the "report traffic in sight" call? I was trying to follow their intended instructions and not cut anyone off on final. I guess I was wrong! I thought maybe the controller thinking he had issued me the landing clearance when they had not had something to do with the confusion, but apparently it was unrelated.

"...
"Report traffic in sight to(and?) follow"
A pilot is expected to automatically turn base without further instruction even if the "traffic in sight" call is not acknowleged?..."

Going with "and" which you said is what it was, no, you don't wait for the acknowledgment of your 'in sight' call. You comply with the instruction. This holds true in many other situations. You could wait for a break on the frequency and pipe in with a 'pilatus in sight and I'm following' but you don't need to wait for his acknowledgment of your acknowledgment to execute the instruction.

 

[Velocity173]

The “continue downwind” is nothing more than extraneous fluff and not standard phraseology. Just issue the traffic to follow with the clearance. It’s that simple.

Second, the “report traffic in sight” is also a useless transmission. This isn’t a situation to have pilot acknowledgment “in sight.” That’s required for visual sep, not a VFR vs VFR / IFR in a class D. Issue the traffic in the clearance and it’s up to the pilot to determine their spacing.

By issuing an instruction to continue on a downwind because of traffic that they’re supposed to be following, it creates confusion as to, we’ll do I continue on my downwind and they’ll tell me when to turn base, or turn base when I see the traffic? It’s no different than being on a vector and being told “traffic to follow is a PIlatus at your 2 o’clock and 3 miles.” Unless you’re specifically told to follow them, you better stay on the vector.

 

[Ed Haywood]

If you are not sure, ASK. There is never harm in clarifying. That is always better than guessing.

And the controller was foolish to react negatively to you confirming clearance to land. Would he rather you guess?

 

[PaulS]

I would not have turned base with that instruction. Your instruction was to continue downwind. Generally when asked to look for traffic it will be something like this. “ you’ll be following a Pilatus who is on a 2 mile final, report in sight”. When I get him I’ll get a response “ follow that traffic, cleared to land or just follow that traffic”. If I don’t hear that I don’t turn.

Controllers do mess up, I try to give them a break and not get confrontational with them because usually they give me slack when I mess up. The cleared to land thing, I would have just read back the cleared to land part and said thank you. Not worth the energy to get ****ed at them, just get what you need and move on unless it’s life threatening.

 

[kaiser]

It’s been said but I’ll pile on. To me, “traffic to follow…” is like an “expect” call, whereas “continue downwind” is an instruction, and the most recent instruction at that.

I probably do the same exact thing you do in this scenario. Sometimes I think busy Deltas are tougher to fly in than Charlie’s.

 

[luvflyin]

If you are not sure, ASK. There is never harm in clarifying. That is always better than guessing.

And the controller was foolish to react negatively to you confirming clearance to land. Would he rather you guess?

Yup. But you don’t always get an answer to the question right away. So whadda ya do when your question isn’t answered right away? Just keep flying straight ahead until it’s answered?

 

[dbahn]

Yup. But you don’t always get an answer to the question right away. So whadda ya do when your question isn’t answered right away? Just keep flying straight ahead until it’s answered?

I think so in the midst of confusion or ambiguity after an instruction to "continue downwind". What's the worst that can happen? You get so far away that they amend your landing sequence, or you cut in front of someone on final because of the misunderstanding on the part of one or all of three people (one controller and at least two pilots)?

The time to clarify what happened with the tower is on the ground, IMHO.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think so in the midst of confusion or ambiguity after an instruction to "continue downwind". What's the worst that can happen? You get so far away that they amend your landing sequence, or you cut in front of someone on final because of the misunderstanding on the part of one or all of three people (one controller and at least two pilots)?

The time to clarify what happened with the tower is on the ground, IMHO.

Agreed. And calling tower for a conversation after landing would have been a good educational experience.

 

[luvflyin]

I think so in the midst of confusion or ambiguity after an instruction to "continue downwind". What's the worst that can happen? You get so far away that they amend your landing sequence, or you cut in front of someone on final because of the misunderstanding on the part of one or all of three people (one controller and at least two pilots)?

The time to clarify what happened with the tower is on the ground, IMHO.

I had made that post about what the OP had said about not turning and following when told to do so and the Tower had said report the traffic in sight. He said it in a way that he thought he shouldn’t do it until Tower acknowledged the in sight report. But replying with that in mind to post #27 was wrong of me. That post was about the pilot not being sure if he was to follow or not. Yes, you should clarify in that situation.

 

[TommyG]

These are times I feel lucky I trained and fly out of a busy chaotic Class d, under a class b, and right next to a C.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

If no landing clearance than on short final call back to “verify” cleared to land. No explicit clearance than go-around.

This. I was on final at KCWA. No landing clearance. I called, "Tower, Bonanza 85 Tango, verify cleared to land." No answer. Then short final, I call, "Tower, 85 Tango, confirm cleared to land." No answer. I initiate the go-around, call "going around" and as I am climbing to pattern altitude, the controller says, "85 Tango, sorry, I was on the phone with Minneapolis and he wouldn't shut up."

I told him no problem, we need to practice go-arounds, too.

 

[Lance F]

My beef. Night, cleared for the visual IFR approach. I’m on downwind and tower says I’m following a Cherokee on final, advise in sight. Well in the haze and with city background lights I never saw him and continued on downwind. The controller in an exasperated voice tells me the Cherokee is over the numbers and I need to turn base. I didn’t see him. What was I supposed to do?

 

[eman1200]

My beef. Night, cleared for the visual IFR approach. I’m on downwind and tower says I’m following a Cherokee on final, advise in sight. Well in the haze and with city background lights I never saw him and continued on downwind. The controller in an exasperated voice tells me the Cherokee is over the numbers and I need to turn base. I didn’t see him. What was I supposed to do?

“No joy on the traffic on final”. Not sure how that’s different IFR or VFR.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My beef. Night, cleared for the visual IFR approach. I’m on downwind and tower says I’m following a Cherokee on final, advise in sight. Well in the haze and with city background lights I never saw him and continued on downwind. The controller in an exasperated voice tells me the Cherokee is over the numbers and I need to turn base. I didn’t see him. What was I supposed to do?

Did you at some point get that funny feeling and say to yourself, "gee, I'm getting pretty far. If they were on final when they were called out to me they must be past me"? That's the point to say what @eman1200 said.

That's true of any traffic call. At some point after, "looking," someone needs to say something. You might be thinking, "it's their job." Maybe. But it's yours too. Pilot and ATC is a partnership.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Well, probably best to not use "No joy," which is military jargon. Better to say, "Negative contact." I think that is also better than "looking."

And when you see the traffic, please don't say "tally" which is more military jargon. Would you tell ATC your altitude is "Angels seven, cherubs five?'

 

[Pinecone]

Never quite figured out why I was OK for me to use those terms in the A-10, but not in the same week flying a GA aircraft?

The military adopted those to ensure that they were not misunderstood. Looking &R%&($ contact could be you see them or don't see them.

I actually used them for many years, and never had a controller say different. But I don't recall EVER using Angels for altitude. But did do the XX point X call. Again, not proper from AIM, but controllers seem to understand.

 

[Lance F]

“No joy on the traffic on final”. Not sure how that’s different IFR or VFR.

Yes of course I said negative contact. And I wasn’t about to fly a 20 mile downwind. What I didn’t like was the controller acting upset with me that I didn’t see the traffic.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yes of course I said negative contact. And I wasn’t about to fly a 20 mile downwind. What I didn’t like was the controller acting upset with me that I didn’t see the traffic.

So? Apparently, neither of you were perfect that day. Ignore controllers who are upset with you for trifles. If a particular controller's or facility's general attitude is bad, it worth doing something. Otherwise just chalk it up to another human being having a bad day and having to deal with, as you put it, "mega traffic."