Funny argument between tower and instructor

[Grum.Man]

A similar situation happened at my airport, two warnings. The tower told the pilot he was unable to allow him to stay in the pattern. His options were land, or leave the airspace. Guy wanted to make an issue if it, but the tower won that battle. Unsafe operations deemed by the tower was justification. But of course the controller didn’t get in a whole argument over the frequency. And this controller lost his leg to stand on when he allowed full stop taxi back, and then “because it’s you”.

So they could have rejected his landing clearance and directed him to leave the controlled airspace for unsafe piloting or not following ATC instructions? Sheesh if I was a controller I would have taken that route if I needed to emphasize my authority to make a point! haha

 

[Timbeck2]

Out of curiosity from the controllers here. Said he did what he should have done, issued the complaint and moved on. What would their next steps be if they continued to overshoot? Issue a PD and allow them to keep overshooting the runway? Change the sequencing as to not have another aircraft on approach to the other runway?

I would issue the caution. If that doesn’t work then tell them to either land or exit the airspace based on it being unsafe for other aircraft. If they have a problem with that I’d tell them that I’d be happy to discuss it over the phone after they land. I would not get into a urine match over the frequency and I would not change the pattern to accommodate their unsafe act.

 

[Racerx]

My new goal in aviation is to never make it on Youtube. Either from doing something incredibly dumb, something I post myself, or from something catastophic. I'd hope I can control 2 of those.

 

[Velocity173]

Out of curiosity from the controllers here. Said he did what he should have done, issued the complaint and moved on. What would their next steps be if they continued to overshoot? Issue a PD and allow them to keep overshooting the runway? Change the sequencing as to not have another aircraft on approach to the other runway?

I’d do similar to what Tim said. Issue a warning not to overshoot the runway. It happens again, issue the brasher for a PD. Happens again, we’re in Part 91.13 territory and I would inform him that he either needs to land or exit the airspace.

Based on the exchange, it never got to that point. He was told to land and taxi back because of “him” and not some sort of careless or reckless behavior. The pilot said they were 20 ft right of centerline but still over the runway. Even had the confidence to say check the radar tapes, which doubtful the resolution would detect that. Tower informed him that was still an overshoot. Well, what’s the standards of an overshoot? What’s the standard once that overshoot becomes a PD? All subjective.

 

[PastZTL]

"...because of frequency congestion," would have been my suggestion.

 

[Omalley1537]

The pilot always has the option to go around, cleared or not. ATC is not in command of the aircraft.

Oh, gotcha. Makes sense. I was thinking of a purposeful go-around in violation of the clearance. I hadn’t considered that he could go around under the guise of safety/aborted landing.

 

[Racerx]

Oh, gotcha. Makes sense. I was thinking of a purposeful go-around in violation of the clearance. I hadn’t considered that he could go around under the guise of safety/aborted landing.

And based on what we know of the cfi, I could totally see him doing repetitive go arounds until he needs fuel.

 

[Brad W]

almost unbelievable

 

[kath]

I recall hearing tapes of a Ground controller who instructed a pilot to taxi somewhere and shut down the engine, because he suspected the pilot was drunk. Turns out the pilot was drunk, and was arrested, and the controller won an award for the save. The controller didn't have to explain himself on the radio in the moment. (I think I heard this on Aviation NewsTalk or similar. Too lazy to look it up right now...)

He was told to land and taxi back because of “him” and not some sort of careless or reckless behavior.

Well, there was that looooong pause in between "because of" and "you", during which I imagine the controller was searching for the right words and just not finding them. Or perhaps finding words ("because you're becoming a potential safety hazard") but then deciding they would not be appropriate for the radio. If that were the case, it seem's he'd be justified in not clearing for the option.

 

[exncsurfer]

I recall hearing tapes of a Ground controller who instructed a pilot to taxi somewhere and shut down the engine, because he suspected the pilot was drunk. Turns out the pilot was drunk, and was arrested, and the controller won an award for the save. The controller didn't have to explain himself on the radio in the moment. (I think I heard this on Aviation NewsTalk or similar. Too lazy to look it up right now...)


Well, there was that looooong pause in between "because of" and "you", during which I imagine the controller was searching for the right words and just not finding them. Or perhaps finding words ("because you're becoming a potential safety hazard") but then deciding they would not be appropriate for the radio. If that were the case, it seem's he'd be justified in not clearing for the option.

I feel bad for the student, what was he/she learning? Hopefully they knew enough to be embarrassed by what their instructor was doing and seek out a new one.

 

[SnoFlyer]

Well, there was that looooong pause in between "because of" and "you", during which I imagine the controller was searching for the right words and just not finding them. Or perhaps finding words ("because you're becoming a potential safety hazard") but then deciding they would not be appropriate for the radio. If that were the case, it seem's he'd be justified in not clearing for the option.

I'm sensing it was "because I want to issue a PD and give you a number to call but I have to wait until you're on the ground" but definitely wasn't handled well.