Dawdling pilot= go around

[TMetzinger]

Did the tower issue instructions for you to go-around? I would have expected that.

There's no excuse for dawdling on a runway, but there are reasons for getting stuck there - flat tire, engine problem, etc - and they all should result in a call to the tower or CTAF.

If both airplanes were training flights, then I agree with Ron that the CFI's should be able to clear it up between themselves.

The amount of money you spend going around is not something to bring up, it just marks you as a jerk. And please don't try and correct someone else on the radio. I heard a King Air pilot chew out a local CFI the other day because the King Air was late switching to Unicom and didn't hear any of the calls the CFI made announcing his position on 45 and downwind. The King Air decided to break off their approach and chewed out the other airplane all the way around the pattern. Unfortunately the FAA was out there with me to discuss the airport layout for our upcoming airshow, so the inspector heard the whole thing. Once the King Air landed and taxied to the Corporate FBO, the inspector asked me to give him a ride over there. Last thing I saw was the inspector and the crew going to find a private place for a chat.

 

[gismo]

Did the tower issue instructions for you to go-around? I would have expected that.

Yes, although that came when I was very close to the threshold, maybe a few hundred feet out, and I was already powering up. I think the controller was really hoping the other plane would get moving in time (like I was). The go around call wasn't so tardy that it caused any kind of safety issue though but I did have to resist the temptation to buzz the other pilot.

The amount of money you spend going around is not something to bring up, it just marks you as a jerk.

Yep, I'm truly regretting that I mentioned that (here and to the pilot).

And please don't try and correct someone else on the radio. I heard a King Air pilot chew out a local CFI the other day because the King Air was late switching to Unicom and didn't hear any of the calls the CFI made announcing his position on 45 and downwind.

I had no conversations with the other pilot on the radio at any time. I was talking to him in my head though, mostly urging him to hurry up and get moving. I don't think I've ever attempted to "chew out" anyone on the radio although I do recall one time when I blurted out the snide remark "it's supposed to be left traffic for this runway" at an uncontrolled airport when someone was flying downwind on the opposite side and we were going to have a conflict on final. I've even managed to bite my tongue and not provide any "advice" to the third ATITAPA call from a pilot.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Lesson 1: This is an airplane, Don't sit on an active runway. Any questions?

Yes: Are you saying irrespective of the facts in a specific case, I should violate section 91.123(a) of the FARs where it states "When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC."?

Which regulation gives the time limit before a takeoff clearance is void?

 

[steingar]

I understand your point, but before releasing him for solo, the Student's instructor should have taught him that you never just sit on an active runway except when told "line up and wait."* You either go, or you clear -- no middle ground unless your airplane is unable to move.

*...or doing LAHSO, but Student Pilots aren't allowed to do LAHSO.

You can't teach someone to not get confused, distracted, disoriented, or anything else. No, it is not a good thing when anyone stops dead on an active runway, especially if there is traffic. But I would much rather have them stop dead on the runway than get going with active issues, since that could wind up making them dead for real. It is their six on the line, so they can take whatever time they need. Like I said, I can see them and go around. Good practice even. We must agree to disagree.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes: Are you saying irrespective of the facts in a specific case, I should violate section 91.123(a) of the FARs where it states "When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC."?

I don't think anyone's saying that, but if you receive a takeoff clearance and enter the runway without being certain of that clearance, you've already violated that rule. If you are certain you were cleared for takeoff, and you enter the runway, and then do not take off, you are deviating from the clearance you have already obtained and thus in violation of 91.123(a):

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.

Which regulation gives the time limit before a takeoff clearance is void?

There is no specific regulation on this point. However, absent an emergency or immediate communication to resolve a problem, prompt compliance with any ATC instruction or clearance is an accepted standard.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yes, although that came when I was very close to the threshold, maybe a few hundred feet out, and I was already powering up. I think the controller was really hoping the other plane would get moving in time (like I was). The go around call wasn't so tardy that it caused any kind of safety issue though but I did have to resist the temptation to buzz the other pilot.


Yep, I'm truly regretting that I mentioned that (here and to the pilot).


I had no conversations with the other pilot on the radio at any time. I was talking to him in my head though, mostly urging him to hurry up and get moving. I don't think I've ever attempted to "chew out" anyone on the radio although I do recall one time when I blurted out the snide remark "it's supposed to be left traffic for this runway" at an uncontrolled airport when someone was flying downwind on the opposite side and we were going to have a conflict on final. I've even managed to bite my tongue and not provide any "advice" to the third ATITAPA call from a pilot.

I figured as much - and would have been surprised otherwise. My comments about instructing on the radio weren't aimed at you personally.


You're not accountable for any of the thoughts you have but do not voice - or else we'd all be in very big trouble.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't think anyone's saying that, but if you receive a takeoff clearance and enter the runway without being certain of that clearance, you've already violated that rule. If you are certain you were cleared for takeoff, and you enter the runway, and then do not take off, you are deviating from the clearance you have already obtained and thus in violation of 91.123(a):

BINGO!

Well said, Ron.

 

[somorris]

Baron pilots are notorious cheapskates. Getting ten bucks out of those guys is harder than thumping a fart out of a dead man.

Couldn't help but laugh out loud, Wayne. Hadn't heard that one before!

 

[steingar]

I think a pilot on the ground not knowing what the heck he or she is doing constitutes an emergency. If it doesn't already, it probably will once they get airborne. The only difference is in bent metal and damaged tissue.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think a pilot on the ground not knowing what the heck he or she is doing constitutes an emergency. If it doesn't already, it probably will once they get airborne.

...and that gets back to the instructor who signed this student off for solo. I learned a lot about that 33 years ago with the ESL (maybe even ETL) Student Pilot I mentioned above. I'm now considerably more cautious about soloing someone whose English language skills may be subject to fracture under pressure.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

...and that gets back to the instructor who signed this student off for solo. I learned a lot about that 33 years ago with the ESL (maybe even ETL) Student Pilot I mentioned above. I'm now considerably more cautious about soloing someone whose English language skills may be subject to fracture under pressure.

Ain't that the truth. I learned a lot from my ESL student - And by ESL I don't mean English as a Second Language, I mean English as a Sixth Language.

I actually switched the GPS to do its vocalizations in French at one point, since that was only about his third language.

 

[gprellwitz]

Ain't that the truth. I learned a lot from my ESL student - And by ESL I don't mean English as a Second Language, I mean English as a Sixth Language.

I actually switched the GPS to do its vocalizations in French at one point, since that was only about his third language.

And that helps bring home the point that these ESL students are by no means (necessarily) unintelligent. It's just an application of the law of primacy!

 

[Air_Ogre]

Yes: Are you saying irrespective of the facts in a specific case, I should violate section 91.123(a) of the FARs where it states "When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC."?

Ron said it best. If he didn't understand the controller why did he cross the threshold? He had no business trying to get clarification in the middle of an active runway.

 

[gismo]

Couldn't help but laugh out loud, Wayne. Hadn't heard that one before!

I got the cheapskate Baron pilot part but I thought that burps and farts were common issuances from newly dead folks (no personal experience with that though).

 

[somorris]

but I thought that burps and farts were common issuances from newly dead folks (no personal experience with that though).

Hadn't thought of that particular thing, but Wayne is from Texas and I hear they eat a lot of chili down there. However, he may have been talking about somebody who had been dead for awhile. Never know about Wayne.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Ron said it best. If he didn't understand the controller why did he cross the threshold? He had no business trying to get clarification in the middle of an active runway.

Didn't the OP say that the student on the runway was advised by the controller subsequent to entering the runway that traffic was imminent.

There may have been a reason that he wasn't hurrying to takeoff in the first place. Then when the follow up instructions came, they confused him with the subsequent too long delay on the runway while he tried to sort out what was expected of him.

Isn't it true that once the controller cleared him to take off and he hasn't done so, subsequent communication is an amendment to that clearance?

 

[roncachamp]

Yes: Are you saying irrespective of the facts in a specific case, I should violate section 91.123(a) of the FARs where it states "When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC."?

But the pilot in this case did violate that section. Without fully understanding his takeoff clearance, which he received before he was on the runway, he taxied onto the runway and sat there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Didn't the OP say that the student on the runway was advised by the controller subsequent to entering the runway that traffic was imminent.

There may have been a reason that he wasn't hurrying to takeoff in the first place. Then when the follow up instructions came, they confused him with the subsequent too long delay on the runway while he tried to sort out what was expected of him.

Isn't it true that once the controller cleared him to take off and he hasn't done so, subsequent communication is an amendment to that clearance?

It might have been, but clearly he didn't understand it, and as it turned out, it wasn't. Either way, per the Merrell case, absent some reasonable excuse, the pilot is reponsible to understand what has been said the first time it is said. In any event, nobody allowed to fly solo should be ignorant of the necessity once cleared for takeoff and across the hold short line to either roll or clear the runway.

 

[Air_Ogre]

Didn't the OP say that the student on the runway was advised by the controller subsequent to entering the runway that traffic was imminent.

There may have been a reason that he wasn't hurrying to takeoff in the first place. Then when the follow up instructions came, they confused him with the subsequent too long delay on the runway while he tried to sort out what was expected of him.

Isn't it true that once the controller cleared him to take off and he hasn't done so, subsequent communication is an amendment to that clearance?

I believe the controller's initial words to the other plane included a mention of a Baron turning base to final and he made two or three more calls to the pilot asking for "no delay"

Just reading the original post it seems like the only amendment the tower was making was to say "No Delay"... which they wouldn't do unless the pilot was taking too long to begin with. If the student pilot had complied with the original clearance there wouldn't have been a subsequent communication to get confused over.

 

[gismo]

Didn't the OP say that the student on the runway was advised by the controller subsequent to entering the runway that traffic was imminent.

There may have been a reason that he wasn't hurrying to takeoff in the first place. Then when the follow up instructions came, they confused him with the subsequent too long delay on the runway while he tried to sort out what was expected of him.

The student pilot was pretty emphatic that the entire cause of his delays was the "confusing" transmissions from the tower. I think it's clear that he was hesitant to perform the takeoff because he was unsure of what the tower was trying to tell him.

Isn't it true that once the controller cleared him to take off and he hasn't done so, subsequent communication is an amendment to that clearance?

Maybe, maybe not. Generally any amendment to a non-radar takeoff clearance would be either a cancellation of the takeoff clearance, a change in the pattern ("Make right traffic now") or a course restriction (e.g. "fly runway heading, I'll call the right turn"). What this controller was transmitting was all intended to get the pilot moving faster but unfortunately it had the opposite effect. I can see how an inexperienced pilot could stumble over that although the meaning of "without delay" which I believe was spoken at least twice should have been pretty clear.

 

[gismo]

Just reading the original post it seems like the only amendment the tower was making was to say "No Delay"... which they wouldn't do unless the pilot was taking too long to begin with. If the student pilot had complied with the original clearance there wouldn't have been a subsequent communication to get confused over.

The memory of the specific transmissions is fading fast but I suspect that the first call after the original takeoff clearance included both the "no delay" and something about the Baron. A newbie pilot might not recognize "Baron" as anything with a specific meaning to him.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Wasn't there a thread a short time ago where someone said his CFI would sit on the runway for several minutes before taking off?

 

[poadeleted20]

The student pilot was pretty emphatic that the entire cause of his delays was the "confusing" transmissions from the tower. I think it's clear that he was hesitant to perform the takeoff because he was unsure of what the tower was trying to tell him.

I think that's clear. However, he should have been taught that once cleared for takeoff, unless clearly told to hold his position, he must either roll or clear the runway. Thus, I see this as an instructional failure.

That said, it should serve as a warning to the rest of us to be prepared for the unexpected. While this confusion should not have happened, there are any number of reasons why an airplane might get onto the runway and then stop where it is, and if you're on final, you will need to go around. Also, even if Tower hasn't commanded a go-around, if you feel safety is being compromised, you should do as Lance did and make your own go-around, side-stepping and making sure you stay clear of the other plane.

 

[Air_Ogre]

The memory of the specific transmissions is fading fast but I suspect that the first call after the original takeoff clearance included both the "no delay" and something about the Baron. A newbie pilot might not recognize "Baron" as anything with a specific meaning to him.

I had a lot of trouble with radio communications when I was new, tons of new terminology and people talking fast over I sometimes not-so-clear connection. The pilot has my sympathy on that regard.

IMO the problem wasn't that he didn't understand but his reaction. If he wasn't certain what he should do when he crossed the threshold he should have never gone. If you'd been complaining that he hesitated short of the runway I wouldn't have said anything.

 

[gprellwitz]

That said, it should serve as a warning to the rest of us to be prepared for the unexpected. While this confusion should not have happened, there are any number of reasons why an airplane might get onto the runway and then stop where it is, and if you're on final, you will need to go around. Also, even if Tower hasn't commanded a go-around, if you feel safety is being compromised, you should do as Lance did and make your own go-around, side-stepping and making sure you stay clear of the other plane.

Yup, we had a steering problem last month that left us stranded on the runway of a non towered airport until we could be towed clear. Luckily we were still able to communicate with other traffic, but we still wanted off ASAP.

 

[Henning]

Just reading the original post it seems like the only amendment the tower was making was to say "No Delay"... which they wouldn't do unless the pilot was taking too long to begin with. If the student pilot had complied with the original clearance there wouldn't have been a subsequent communication to get confused over.

I've often received "No Delay" with my original T/O clearance as in "04Y MD11 2 mile final clear for takeoff no delays"

 

[Air_Ogre]

I've often received "No Delay" with my original T/O clearance as in "04Y MD11 2 mile final clear for takeoff no delays"

Maybe I should have chosen my words better. Was trying to say tower wouldn't have made the second or possible third radio call if he hadn't been slow; I've heard "Clear for takeoff no delays" many times.

 

[dmccormack]

I can't see any reason why an airplane taxied into position for takeoff would sit there unless a water buffalo stepped in front, the engine died, or a huge sinkhole appeared directly in front.

Most times I'm rolling from hold line to centerline and then smoothly applying power.

 

[AuntPeggy]

My flight instructor wants me to takeoff with foggles on, so when I'm ready for takeoff, call tower and ask to pause on the runway for a moment while I don them. I get a "line up and wait" before the "cleared for takeoff."

 

[dmccormack]

I can think of a couple of reasons...

- to better see cells on my radar prior to launching (w/permission, of course).
- performance #s on my plane are based on a standing takeoff, not a rolling takeoff.
- verification of full power, under certain conditions.

Quite likely not applicable to what occurred in the OP, but it can/does happen.

1. If you're threading the needle that fine....well, ok
2. What short field runway are you on?
3. You can't do that rolling?

 

[dmccormack]

My flight instructor wants me to takeoff with foggles on, so when I'm ready for takeoff, call tower and ask to pause on the runway for a moment while I don them. I get a "line up and wait" before the "cleared for takeoff."

As a student the instructor would taxi the airplane into position. When I practice I'll as the Safety pilot to do the same.

 

[Henning]

My flight instructor wants me to takeoff with foggles on, so when I'm ready for takeoff, call tower and ask to pause on the runway for a moment while I don them. I get a "line up and wait" before the "cleared for takeoff."

I used to have mine on and slip them up a bit then when I was close to lined up my II would reach over and pop them down, all this was with >1/2 throttle and feeding.

 

[poadeleted20]

My flight instructor wants me to takeoff with foggles on,

Why in the world would your flight instructor want you to do that?

 

[poadeleted20]

I can think of a couple of reasons...

- to better see cells on my radar prior to launching (w/permission, of course).

...but not at a nontowered airport with other traffic landing, I'd hope.

- performance #s on my plane are based on a standing takeoff, not a rolling takeoff.
- verification of full power, under certain conditions.

Those take only a few seconds, not the time it takes to get from midfield downwind to reaching the threshold.

 

[COFlyBoy]

Why in the world would your flight instructor want you to do that?

For some reason the "instrument takeoff" shows up in the instrument training syllabi. My instructor wasn't exactly clear on what the benefit of the procedure is.

I did my instrument takeoff 2 weeks ago. So far that is the most scared I have ever been in an airplane. I kept it on the asphalt....barely. It doesn't show up in the PTS, which is what caused me to ask why on earth we'd want to attempt it.

 

[Henning]

For some reason the "instrument takeoff" shows up in the instrument training syllabi. My instructor wasn't exactly clear on what the benefit of the procedure is.

I did my instrument takeoff 2 weeks ago. So far that is the most scared I have ever been in an airplane. I kept it on the asphalt....barely. It doesn't show up in the PTS, which is what caused me to ask why on earth we'd want to attempt it.

Because legally, a part 91 flight can make a 0/0 takeoff. After a few goes of it (foggles on T/O) it actually becomes not too unreasonable, especially on a large runway. I don't do 0/0 takeoffs anymore.

 

[COFlyBoy]

Because legally, a part 91 flight can make a 0/0 takeoff. After a few goes of it (foggles on T/O) it actually becomes not too unreasonable, especially on a large runway. I don't do 0/0 takeoffs anymore.

My instructor kinda pitched it as a skill building activity.

Legally we could takeoff 0/0. Logically it would be about the stupidest thing a pilot could do. Another one of those cases where you would only attempt it if you were being pursued by cannibalistic locals.

 

[N801BH]

Yes, although that came when I was very close to ). The go around call wasn't so tardy that it caused any kind of safety issue though but I did have to resist the temptation to buzz the other pilot.


I know it is not legal, or safe, but .............................

That one 'buzz' job would have stayed with the delaying pilot for the rest of his life. He would think twice before pulling out and stopping over the rest of his career.

 

[gismo]

...but not at a nontowered airport with other traffic landing, I'd hope.

Besides, at most airports it's possible to point the nose in the same direction as the runway for a radar image without getting on the runway.

 

[gismo]

Because legally, a part 91 flight can make a 0/0 takeoff. After a few goes of it (foggles on T/O) it actually becomes not too unreasonable, especially on a large runway. I don't do 0/0 takeoffs anymore.

A true 0/0 takeoff (real not simulated) is an accident waiting to happen. If the DG happens to start precessing madly while you're rolling you will be mowing runway lights by the time you realize something's wrong. Or if the AI rolls over shortly after breaking ground you will be dead. And that's in a single. Lose an engine in a twin on or near the ground with no forward visibility and you're just as dead. I'm not opposed to a foggles takeoff but the CFII should make it clear (mine didn't) that this is a skill builder not preparation for the "real thing".