Aborted landing.

TMetzinger said:
I think the Cessna was at greater fault here.

Which airplane had the right of way? Matt did. Who is responsible for clearing final before taking the runway? The Cessna. Who obviously didn't have their radios set properly? The Cessna, and we know this because Matt and company were successfully talking with others on the CTAF.

Matt and his captain made one judgement call that they wish they'd done differently - they waited too long to go-around. They executed all their procedures correctly.

The guys in the Cessna made a number of errors - radio not set correctly, and not checked (and caught). They didn't clear final before actually taking the runway.

I'm impressed by the way the after-incident was handled by Matt/Capt, and a little less by the Cessna guys if they showed up ****ed. Note the difference - Matt's crew immediately thought of what they themselves did wrong, while it SOUNDS like the Cessna guys believed they were without fault, at least at first. After it got sorted out, I think valuable lessons were learned by everyone, including us.

One additional takeaway - the system worked here in spite of multiple failures, which makes me happy.
Click to expand...

Think about the Cessna guys' argument, with no other evidence, "How DARE you nearly LAND ON TOP ME when I'm TAKING OFF!!!!???"

Bring that before a administrative hearing and see how far it flies. See how FARs it flies.

The only thing that would soften my take on it is I didn't consider the high wing blocking the view down final.
 
bbchien said:
When there is a wichita spam can at the hold short line, (i.e. not a taildragger of early vintage) who never acknowledges a transmission, I'm very, very edgy on short final. I have gone around simply because of the discourtesy of the other pilot. At the bottom of an instrument approach, to have the guy pull out when I have verified correct frequency, makes me want to go give him a noogie.

"Cessna 123 Holding short for traffic on final" does wonders for me....

I can just imagine these guys in the ADIZ...."hey, what are all those flashing lights..."
Click to expand...

That kind of bothered me with Teller's first post. "Never got a call..."

You wouldn't get a call from me on the taxiway if I wasn't going to move to the runway.

CFI Joe's take is that the CTAF is for broadcast, not for plane-to-plane. You only broadcast taking the runway for takeoff, rather than NOT taking the runway. I'd only announce holding short if I changed my mind after announcing departure - like I just spotted landing traffic, closer than I thought.

When the skydive planes on the intersecting runway announced a take off after I announced a takeoff on mine, :hairraise: I announced I'd hold on the runway. In that case, I guess I had no business using the airport during the skydive boogie. :no:

Joe doesn't even like, "clear of the active," etc. You don't announce taxiing, except for back taxi on the runway.

I have made unusual announcements like "Be advised there is a deer on the runway." "Touch and goes are prohibited."
 
Last edited:
I'm a little different Mike. If there is a plane turning base to final, or on final, as I'm approaching the runway environment, I will broadcast that I'm holding short. My opinion is that this allows the pilot on final to not worry about my intentions.
 
Teller1900 said:
We can't fault them for making the mistake, but as has been mentioned a couple times now...we do fault them (and they themselves) for not catching it.
Click to expand...

Not being perfect, that's all any of us can do: check ourselves constantly, so those little errors don't snowball.
 
kevin47881 said:
I'm a little different Mike. If there is a plane turning base to final, or on final, as I'm approaching the runway environment, I will broadcast that I'm holding short. My opinion is that this allows the pilot on final to not worry about my intentions.
Click to expand...
Me, too. "Tiger 22RL is holding for the Cessna turning final." I know I feel much better when I'm turning final and hear that from the plane at the hold short, so I do for others what I would have others do for me.

BTW, since the Cessna moved only 25 feet in the time it took the 1900 to lose 300 feet (see original post), the Cessna must have been just barely creeping. While I, like Matt and his Captain, would have been watching closely, I think I, like they, would not have gone around until the Cessna's spinner crossed the hold short line. In any event, I do not see how anyone can fault the 1900 crew for doing things the way they did, and they deserve to be commended for being spring-loaded to the go-around position early on in the approach.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
Think about the Cessna guys' argument, with no other evidence, "How DARE you nearly LAND ON TOP ME when I'm TAKING OFF!!!!???"

Bring that before a administrative hearing and see how far it flies. See how FARs it flies.

The only thing that would soften my take on it is I didn't consider the high wing blocking the view down final.
Click to expand...

After watching thousandands of other planes takeoff in front of us, I can't recall ANY* that pointed their noses towards a view to the final approach even a few degrees before or during crossing of the hold short line, regardless of what kind of can they were in and the type of meat it held! They line up perpendicular to the hold short and when they're ready to roll they take the shortest distance to the takeoff roll line.

I teach it "kind of" as if one were entering a street, look both ways like any good driver does and also then of course up, turn the high wings' noses at least 45 degrees towards final either before stopping at the hold short or immediately upon making the first rolling move across it.

*Actually, I did see one highwing guy do a 360 before crossing the hold short, probably the safest of all.
 
Thanks for the write-up! I think you guys did everything right, including sorting out the situation on the ground in a constructive way.

There's an expectation of professionalism in aviation. You got to be able to count on that. There are way too many circumstances where, if you couldn't count on others doing the right thing, you'd get nothing done. To expect someone to look down final before taking the runway is very reasonable. I certainly wouldn't go around if I was turning final and saw someone holding short. I would pay attention to their actions, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are proficient users of the system.

The Cessna high wing thing is an excuse. It takes no time to turn a bit so that you can see final before taking the runway, and if you're looking down final, the vertical visibility is just fine.

-Felix
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
*Actually, I did see one highwing guy do a 360 before crossing the hold short, probably the safest of all.
Click to expand...
I've done that at non-towered airports when I had the space for a turn, someone was known to be in the pattern but not talking enough and I was still reluctant to trust my view of only base and final.

Even at PDK, a busy controlled field, I still slightly turn toward final. Tis the safest measure.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
After watching thousandands of other planes takeoff in front of us, I can't recall ANY* that pointed their noses towards a view to the final approach even a few degrees before or during crossing of the hold short line, regardless of what kind of can they were in and the type of meat it held! They line up perpendicular to the hold short and when they're ready to roll they take the shortest distance to the takeoff roll line.

I teach it "kind of" as if one were entering a street, look both ways like any good driver does and also then of course up, turn the high wings' noses at least 45 degrees towards final either before stopping at the hold short or immediately upon making the first rolling move across it.

*Actually, I did see one highwing guy do a 360 before crossing the hold short, probably the safest of all.
Click to expand...

In a low wing airplane with good visibility out the side, I don't need to turn the plane to see other airplanes on final, but if I'm holding off the left side of the runway I may turn a bit to check for someone making a very short approach. In a high wing (with the exception of a C177) I always try to turn towards the approach before moving onto the runway. Many times I do this as or slightly after crossing the hold short line, but before I actually stick my nose over the runway.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
*Actually, I did see one highwing guy do a 360 before crossing the hold short, probably the safest of all.
Click to expand...

Matthew's crew did good.

Heck, I've done 360's in LOW wings before taking the runway at uncontrolled fields... just to get a good view of the sky all around me before departure.... as someone else said, the "high wing" is no excuse... it's very easy in a C172 to take a look around; just angle yourself towards final... and leave room to plant one foot to the floor and do a quick 360 before rolling across the hold short line.

Can you log that 360 as a spin?
 
For my part, I think that the 172 was not paying enough attention to what they were doing in general. It's just almost impossible to be right all of the time though. Something called being "human" gets in the way. Along the same lines, perhaps I talk a little more than I need to on the radio, but I make sure of two things. First, I make sure everyone knows where I am, and second, I make sure everyone knows what I'm planning to do. I used to ask other people what they were going to do, but I found out that if I worry more about what I'm doing, and let other people worry about what they are doing, things go smoother. If there are other planes making approaches or even on occasion, if they are in the pattern, I might announce my intentions to take off before I cross the hold short line, and ask if it will interfere with their operations. This is especially true when aircraft are taking off and landing on intersecting runways.
 
Maxmosbey said:
For my part, I think that the 172 was not paying enough attention to what they were doing in general. It's just almost impossible to be right all of the time though. Something called being "human" gets in the way. Along the same lines, perhaps I talk a little more than I need to on the radio, but I make sure of two things. First, I make sure everyone knows where I am, and second, I make sure everyone knows what I'm planning to do. I used to ask other people what they were going to do, but I found out that if I worry more about what I'm doing, and let other people worry about what they are doing, things go smoother. If there are other planes making approaches or even on occasion, if they are in the pattern, I might announce my intentions to take off before I cross the hold short line, and ask if it will interfere with their operations. This is especially true when aircraft are taking off and landing on intersecting runways.
Click to expand...
Good ideas but in this case the Cessna was on the wrong frequency so even if he did and he may have, announced his take off intention no one on the correct frequency would have heard him.

Of course if the Cessna was on the correct frequency he may been laughing too hard to stop his role past the hold short line when heard a pro-pilot say 'any traffic in the area please advise"

Sorry I could not help myself ;););):D:D:D:D:D
 
smigaldi said:
Good ideas but in this case the Cessna was on the wrong frequency so even if he did and he may have, announced his take off intention no one on the correct frequency would have heard him.

Of course if the Cessna was on the correct frequency he may been laughing too hard to stop his role past the hold short line when heard a pro-pilot say 'any traffic in the area please advise"

Sorry I could not help myself ;););):D:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...

You're right, that is why I say that the pilot of the 172 was not paying attention to what he was doing. The rest was to show how that would never happen to me. :D:D:D:D
 
Of course if you really want to have some fun with the guys on final when holding short...

"Cherokee is holding short for all three planes on final." :D
 
Teller1900 said:
Alright, ya know what!!!!!


Even one of the CAs says it, and I'm pretty sure he was Wilbur's flight instructor so hush up! :rofl::rofl::yes::goofy:
Click to expand...
Just cause a senior CA says it does not make it right. You can show him that documents and procedures do get updated and for good reasons too. I am sure he would appreciate, you as an FO, showing him in the AIM where he can read that the phrase should never be used. Showing him could really help your career! ;););););););):D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
Teller1900 said:
Alright, ya know what!!!!!


Even one of the CAs says it, and I'm pretty sure he was Wilbur's flight instructor so hush up! :rofl::rofl::yes::goofy:
Click to expand...
Actually, that phrase only came into use in the last ten years, and the first folks I heard using it routinely were ExecJet/NetJets. It certainly wasn't in use when I was learning to fly in the late 60's or instructing in the late 70's.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, that phrase only came into use in the last ten years, and the first folks I heard using it routinely were ExecJet/NetJets. It certainly wasn't in use when I was learning to fly in the late 60's or instructing in the late 70's.
Click to expand...

Rick Durden said it came about after the PATCO strike/purge when many formerly-towered airports became uncontrolled due to the controller shortage.

It DID come from the pro pilots.
 
I may have bowed out of the other thread on ATIAPA, but not this one.

Stop picking on Matt.

~ Christopher
 
jwriteclub said:
I may have bowed out of the other thread on ATIAPA, but not this one.

Stop picking on Matt.

~ Christopher
Click to expand...

Haha, thanks Chris! I guess I don't really think of it as being picked on so much as "loved harshly."

For the record, I heard six different aircraft use ATIAPA today at three different airports. Even today's CA used it.:dunno::D
 
Teller1900 said:
Haha, thanks Chris! I guess I don't really think of it as being picked on so much as "loved harshly."

For the record, I heard six different aircraft use ATIAPA today at three different airports. Even today's CA used it.:dunno::D
Click to expand...

you just need to work on that captain ***** slap move. all the cool FO's do it, like John Wayne
 
What's the dynamic like in a multi-crew cockpit.

If the FO is uncomfortable with the approach can he initiate a go around? Or does the CA need to do so?

~ Christopher
 
jwriteclub said:
What's the dynamic like in a multi-crew cockpit.

If the FO is uncomfortable with the approach can he initiate a go around? Or does the CA need to do so?

~ Christopher
Click to expand...

I can only speak for how things are in my company and with the captains I fly with, but generally the CA won't second guess the FO if he says he's not stabilized or he doesn't feel comfortable and wants to try again. Of course, if it's someplace like Boston or La Guardia where a go around can seriously mess up a lot of planes, they may just take the controls and finish the approach themselves, so long as it's from a recoverable point. Generally that would only happen in VMC, though...if it's IMC and either pilot doesn't feel good about the approach, the other guy will always back him up in the decision to break off the approach and try again; neither of us want to push an unstabilized approach until we're at 200 AGL and HAVE to go around or hit something. All of the CAs I've ever flown with or jumpseated with are really good about monitoring the situation, seeing if the FO is getting behind the plane, then helping talk them through whatever they're missing. A few times I've had CAs offer to a)take the approach if I don't feel comfortable or, when I say I want it, b)remind that there's no shame in a missed approach if things get questionable.

Now if the CA is flying pilot and the FO isn't comfortable, you have to handle it with a little tact. Perhaps ask "why are we a dot above the glideslope?" Maybe he felt some wake turbulence that you just thought was a few bumps and is going to hold it high for a little while to let the wake pass. Maybe he really is just drifting high and a go-around is called for. Basically just ask, or point out what you think is amiss, and the CA will always be happy to explain what he's doing. These guys know the airplanes and can make them do some pretty incredible things, so you just have to sit back, hold on, and ask questions once your feeble FO brain has processed what has happened :).

You'd best not pull the John Wayne method of suggesting a go-around unless you either have some really big stones or just hate your job (and probably the shape of your nose).
 
Last edited:
Okay, Cap'n Ron, story time: Who is/was "Sad Dan" Roman, and what's the story behind the name?;)

Also, FO=First Officer; but what's CA? (my brain is not processing right now):dunno:

Y'all bundle up, now, y'hear?
 
Sheesh, you mean there are guys who don't know every character that John Wayne played?

Dan Roman was the Duke's part in The High and the Mighty. Roman was the pelican FO.

(I can hear it now: who is the Duke?)
 
The Duke: Beech Aircraft?

~ Christopher

N.B. Even I know who the Duke is, and I'm only in my 20s.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Sheesh, you mean there are guys who don't know every character that John Wayne played?

Dan Roman was the Duke's part in The High and the Mighty. Roman was the pelican FO.
Click to expand...
"Sad Dan the Whistler," they called him, in the fabulous novel by Ernest K. Gann (who also wrote the screenplay for the movie). Dan Roman was an old pelican of a pilot employed as a co-pilot on a Trans-Pacific airline flying DC-4's Hawaii to SFO, and known for whistling tunelessly while he flew (hence "The Whistler"). Roman was the sole survivor of a crash in South America -- a flight on which his wife and son were passengers and he was captain. After that fatal flight, he went into a deep depression (hence "Sad Dan") and was considered washed up. He got the co-pilot job out of sympathy from the chief pilot, an old friend, who took pity on him, and hired him even though he'd be retired long before he had enough seniority to make captain with that airline. The captain on the flight in the movie (played by a young Robert Stack) was decades younger and tens of thousands of hours less experienced, and when the captain starts to go to pieces during the emergency, Roman smacks him one to shake him out of it.

So, anyone sitting in my right seat with Dan Roman's 30,000 hours and 40 years of flying is authorized to smack me one if I start to lose it in the cockpit, but not some 23-year-old, 600-hour TT regional co-pilot -- s/he will have to come up with a more diplomatic way to communicate.

BTW, this 1954 movie, buried for decades, was recently released on DVD, and should be required viewing for any CRM course.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
"Sad Dan the Whistler," they called him, in the fabulous novel by Ernest K. Gann (who also wrote the screenplay for the movie). Dan Roman was an old pelican of a pilot employed as a co-pilot on a Trans-Pacific airline flying DC-4's Hawaii to SFO, and known for whistling tunelessly while he flew (hence "The Whistler"). Roman was the sole survivor of a crash in South America -- a flight on which his wife and son were passengers and he was captain. After that fatal flight, he went into a deep depression (hence "Sad Dan") and was considered washed up. He got the co-pilot job out of sympathy from the chief pilot, an old friend, who took pity on him, and hired him even though he'd be retired long before he had enough seniority to make captain with that airline. The captain on the flight in the movie (played by a young Robert Stack) was decades younger and tens of thousands of hours less experienced, and when the captain starts to go to pieces during the emergency, Roman smacks him one to shake him out of it.

So, anyone sitting in my right seat with Dan Roman's 30,000 hours and 40 years of flying is authorized to smack me one if I start to lose it in the cockpit, but not some 23-year-old, 600-hour TT regional co-pilot -- s/he will have to come up with a more diplomatic way to communicate.

BTW, this 1954 movie, buried for decades, was recently released on DVD, and should be required viewing for any CRM course.
Click to expand...

The High and the Mighty. I believe that John Wayne played Dan Roman in that movie.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
So, anyone sitting in my right seat with Dan Roman's 30,000 hours and 40 years of flying is authorized to smack me one if I start to lose it in the cockpit, but not some 23-year-old, 600-hour TT regional co-pilot -- s/he will have to come up with a more diplomatic way to communicate.
Click to expand...

I'm a 23 year old, (almost) 900TT regional co-pilot, can I smack you one?:rofl:

BTW, this 1954 movie, buried for decades, was recently released on DVD, and should be required viewing for any CRM course.
Click to expand...


They played it in our ground school for the airline. From what I hear (and saw during CPT), I'm pretty sure a couple of the guys came close to reenacting it in the sim.
 
They show it every once in a while on cable channel AMC. I had it recorded on my DVR for a while, but deleted it so I could have more room for Dog Fights.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top