Aborted landing.

Teller1900

En-Route
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,644
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name

Display name:
I am a dad!
We gave everyone a bit of a scare coming back into the airport the other day with 13 passengers on board.

I was the pilot flying. 22 miles out, the CA made the first position report on the CTAF. No response. 16 miles out, another. Still no response. 11 and change, another report. No response. 9 miles out on the ILS we start configuring, got the freq change, and made another report. Yet again, no response. 7 DME, fully configured (except for flaps only at 17), another position report, and still no response. 6 DME we break out and start our circle (ILS is to 17, wx was 320@19G26 10mi 020b 024b 3o). We report breaking off the approach. No response. We report the approximate downwind, base and the turn to final (since it was a circle to land, it was more like an arc at about 4-5 DME). No response to any of those calls. I roll out on a three and a half mile final and we see a Skyhawk halfway between the runup pad and the hold-short line for runway 35 on Alpha. Normally we wouldn't think twice about it, but the day before, we got about 8 inches of snow, and braking action was Poor at best when we took off from here two hours before. The CA warns me to watch out in case he slides. Airport maintenance calls us on the CTAF and warns us that the braking action is still poor. We thank them, then verbally brief the missed approach/go around procedure...just in case; "In the event of a go-around it's 'go around, set max power, flaps 17; positive rate; gear up; Venr; flaps up...'" etc.

As the DME passes 3 miles we finish the before landing checklist. The CA makes another position report and asks the Skyhawk what his intentions are. We're both staring fairly intently at the 172 that is now less than 25 feet from the hold short and not slowing down. 2 miles, I start trimming aft to help with the flare, but the Skyhawk still hasn't slowed. "Tell me if any part of that plane crosses the hold short line, call the go-around and we're outta here." Airport maintenance announces that they're crossing runway 35-17 at Bravo, and they assure us that they'll be out of our way.

The RadAlt makes the 500 foot call out. We're fully configured and on the slope, but this other plane isn't slowing down. I start to roll in a bit of extra power and I see out of the corner of my eye the CA's hands are starting to move up to the controls. He makes a "Short final" announcement and asks the Skyhawk what his intentions are. Still no response.

A half a heartbeat after the 200 foot RadAlt alert the CA calls "Go Around!" I slam the power levers forward and haul back on the yoke to ten degrees nose up. The ITTs spike as the FCUs dump gas into the burner can and the engines start to whine as we climb away from the concrete below. We run the Missed Approach/Go Around profile, the climb and cruise checklists, then the decent checklist (again) as we re-enter the traffic pattern. As we turn cross wind, the CA looks over his shoulder to see the Skyhawk stopped on the numbers.

We enter the downwind with another position report...still no response from the Skyhawk that's still sitting on the numbers. I pull the power back and dirty up the aircraft as quickly as possible...this gives us a speed of 135kts on the downwind - borderline uncomfortably slow. Abeam the numbers we ask the 172 what his intentions are again. Still nothing. I stretch the downwind as long as I comfortably can with us both losing sight of the airport (I lose it over the CA's shoulder pretty quickly on the downwind until the wings are level on base, but as long as the CA has the visual it's pretty easy to fly the base and final turns on instruments alone).

Base and final turns...more position reports, more requests to know what the 172 is doing...more silence on the other side of the radio. We make S-turns across final at about 3 DME when we see the Skyhawk finally start to move...unfortunately he's making a U-Turn on the runway.

By the time we re intercept the centerline, the Skyhawk has cleared the runway on Alpha...the same taxiway he entered on.

We put the plane on the ground (I love landing on snow covered runways...it's hard to make a rough landing), got all the pax off, then sat down to debrief the situation. While we were going over all the would'a-should'a-could'as and talking about what we were going to write on the report to company and the FAA. While we're sitting in the plane talking, the station manager comes out and tells us that there's a couple guys that want to talk to us.

We walk inside to find an instrument student and his instructor from another airport, very ****ed off, and asking us why we almost landed on top of them unannounced, and how dare we blast into the pattern on a MVFR day without making any traffic calls. We discuss with them what they think happened, then asked them if they were monitoring the correct CTAF? Long story short, the CTAF here is 123.00, their radio was tuned to 123.02. They swear that must have happened during their taxi back in (they decided not to takeoff after getting a haircut from a phantom turbo-prop), we don't know for certain that it didn't, but we're pretty much certain we made traffic reports.

What's this mean for us? We executed the go-around at a little less than 200 feet AGL, according to our RadAlt. The terrain slopes up drastically to the threshold of runway 35...meaning 200 on the RadAlt is closer to 50 above the runway. The RadAlt also doesn't take into account the landing gear, or any of the fuselage that is aft of the wings (which is significantly lower than the radalt's dome when we're in the flare), so at some point between when we put the power to the plane and when it decided to turn its 16,000lbs skyward parts of our airplane were probably within 30 feet or less vertically of parts of that airplane.

The big thing that we came up with that we did wrong...waiting until he crossed the hold short line before we went around. Our only concern was him sliding a few feet past the line, turns out he crossed it because he didn't see us or hear us...he didn't know there was a plane on final, let alone that short. He had cleared the final, but then, they said, they looked back down at their charts to review the DP and then powered straight out onto the runway without taking a second look for anyone on final. Turns out we were on our base leg when they had last looked outside, and they didn't know we were their until they felt our prop wash as we climbed out. We were both disappointed in our selves...we had questions all the way down about whether or not the landing would be successful. Just because we were on speed and on profile does not mean that we must continue the approach. We talked about the procedure for a go around, but did not decide to execute it until we were required to. While our company's book definition of a stabilized approach was met, in all honesty, it wasn't really met because there was a shadow of doubt for both of us as to whether or not we would actually be landing.

We filled our reports with the company's safety dept and with the feds. We talked to the FAA folks over in RKD when they ramped us the next day and they said they had heard about it and they're glad we filed such a detailed report (we delayed the next flight almost 10 minutes because we were talking to company and typing the report). So now we know for next time...when in doubt, don't just do s-turns to try to delay, just go around and try again later.
 
You could have told the Instrument CFI and instrument student that NORDO aircraft don't make radio calls and ask if that means they can just park on the runway when one is around.

Besides that, there's the stupid rule that landing aircraft have priority. There's no such thing as an emergency take off.

I hope the FAA gives them both a 709 ride.
 
Last edited:
Wow! Great write-up!

Sounds like some major pucker-factor. I wonder if the CFII and/or student got ramp checked the next day as you did. If there's ONE thing that I've learned from working with the glider guys -- you don't set a foot (or wheel) on the runway until you are ready to get OFF the runway vertically. The fact that they were taxiing onto the runway while briefing the DP is ridiculous!

Glad things worked out for the better. Sounds like you've got a 'lesson learned' to put in the books, and thanks to POA, all who read it can file it away as well. :)
 
A good lesson. You now know that expecting an airplane to hear any of your radio announcements is expecting way too much.
 
Last edited:
Matt, Thanks for the write up. Great lesson for us little guys... even if you're just a Beech 1900. :)

...when in doubt, don't just do s-turns to try to delay, just go around and try again later.
It goes well with something I've written about before... "What's the purpose of a landing?"

To go around, of course. Going around should always be the first option. Unless you're without power or committed by some other emergency, the landing can be made later... when it's safe to do so.
 
Matt--I hope I'm not too harsh--this is just my view:

You could have told the Instrument CFI and instrument student that NORDO aircraft don't make radio calls and ask if that means they can just park on the runway when one is around.
Sigh. They do not need to have a radio. You can't always see everything.

mikea said:
I hope the FAA gives them both a 709 ride.
Which airplane could have avoided this the entire time and knowingly flew their airplane towards the other one? The FAA should not be giving a 709 ride to the little guys.

I have flown a lot of Cessna 172 and I can tell you it's a ***** to see anything on final. I do all sorts of funny looking turns on the ramp before I take the runway but it would not surprise me to find out that I've made an airplane go around.

An airplane on final has the best view of the situation and is in the best position to throw in the power and come back around. I wouldn't assume any airplane--especially a high wing is going to see you.

See and Avoid

Remember those words. Because in the end--when the blood spills--the ones that saw the entire time were the ones that could have avoided. Right-of-Way means nothing when you're dead.
 
Last edited:
I hope the FAA gives them both a 709 ride.

If the Cessna fliers need a re-evaluation, so does Matt and his Captain. Mistakes seem to have been made by all. Matt seems to have done a nice job of evaluating the situation and walking away from it wiser for the wear. Hopefully the CFII and student can say the same. And the nice thing is, now all of us can take something away from this too.
 
If the Cessna fliers need a re-evaluation, so does Matt and his Captain. Mistakes seem to have been made by all. Matt seems to have done a nice job of evaluating the situation and walking away from it wiser for the wear. Hopefully the CFII and student can say the same. And the nice thing is, now all of us can take something away from this too.

Well said. I have respect for the way this was handled after the incident.
 
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.
 
Remember those words. Because in the end--when the blood spills--the ones that saw the entire time were the ones that could have avoided. Right-of-Way means nothing when you're dead.
But it means everything to keeping you alive. The rule is there for a reason.

So, now every time we see an aircraft approaching the hold short line, we must go around just in case they decide to bust it? That'll make things a bit more busy. Ya think that is why aircraft taking off have to give way to landing aircraft, because of that little conundrum? How many times do you look in an intersection before turning into it in your car? You should at least do that many when entering a runway, especially if you can't be bothered to know which radio frequency you are on.
 
But it means everything to keeping you alive. The rule is there for a reason.
Ok. I'll make sure to fly my final all the way into the airplane since that's what the rules say. Make sure to mark on my gravestone that I had the right-of-way.

So, now every time we see an aircraft approaching the hold short line, we must go around just in case they decide to bust it? That'll make things a bit more busy. Ya think that is why aircraft taking off have to give way to landing aircraft, because of that little conundrum? How many times do you look in an intersection before turning into it in your car? You should at least do that many when entering a runway, especially if you can't be bothered to know which radio frequency you are on.

When I see an aircraft approaching the hold short line I change my approach to position myself as to avoid a collision. This might mean landing 1,000 ft down the runway. Most of the time though--if I'm unsure--on comes the power. I'd rather not hit another airplane.

There is a huge difference between looking at an intersection in a car and trying to look for aircraft on final of all sizes, colors, and altitudes. I assure you I cannot spot every airplane. It's silly to think you can.

Argue the rules all you want. If you can see another airplane that is going to conflict I would advise you avoid that other airplane. To be damned who is technically right.

I have a feeling Matthew did just that. They avoided the other airplane. I'm not saying either pilot is right. I'm saying that this is a refresh to all of us that we cannot trust other airplanes to see us and we cannot trust the Federal Aviation Regulations to save our bacon.

For example--at Gastons I absolutely refuse to land with another airplane on the runway. It's a one way strip and playing chicken in airplanes just isn't very fun. If you roll out on final and there is another airplane taking off pointed at you..you go around. I'll leave the: "OMG!! I have the right-of-way!! That jerk!! This is my runway! I'm gonna land!" attitude to those that like being six feet under.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying either pilot is right. I'm saying that this is a refresh to all of us that we cannot trust other airplanes to see us and we cannot trust the Federal Aviation Regulations to save our bacon.
My only problem with this post and your previous one is: while you may not be saying either pilot is right, there is no doubt in my mind which one was wrong.
 
Thank you, Richard - that was my point exactly. Matt's crew did exactly what Jesse suggests - they took steps to avoid the collision. The near miss was the fault of the Cessna, the corrective action was taken by the "Mighty 1900".
 
My two cents: strip it down to the essentials for uncontrolled ops, and we see that both parties share the blame... radios aside, the relevant facts are that the Cessna didn't scan for landing (and thus priority) traffic (if there's anything on final, I'll see it, even in a 172... especially something as big as a 1900; you just have to look in the right place), and the 1900 crew did not abort the moment they realized "hey, we just don't know what this guy's gonna do...".
But the Cessna crew gets another demerit: skipping over the freq check before taxiing. Look at chart or AFD... now look at receiver... duh. Calling on a CTAF is not how you check to see if you have the right freq. Duh.

Which reminds me... my first thought after teller described not getting a response from a 172 they could see was "he's on the wrong freq...".

A familiar scenario... and I've made both mistakes (although not at such a critical moment). :D
 
Wow, I didn't mean to start a fight with my story :). I think you all make good points, though. You're absolutely right, Jesse, in this case we were in the best position to see what was going on and make a judgment call. I think we (obviously) made the right call...we just made it a little late. I don't think the high wing thing is a bullet-proof excuse, though. They admitted to us that the cleared the final approach corridor when they pulled out of the runup pad (taxiway heading aprox: 160, so it looks right down final), but then went heads down again approaching the hold short. Once they finished reviewing the DP, they just looked up and taxied out. Using the car/intersection analogy, I'd liken this to sitting at a red light. You see the cross light turn yellow, then red. You see your light turn green. You hit the gas and get t-boned by the guy trying to make it through the late yellow. Did you have the right of way? Damn right. Was he in the wrong for bending metal? Legally, yes. Truthfully...if you had checked left and right again before pulling into the intersection, you could have prevented the incident. Does this mean you sit at the light for an extra 20 seconds to make sure the intersection is clear over and over? No. But like Richard (Alaska) said, you check again and again none the less.

I don't think anyone deserves certificate action because of this. They knew they screwed up. I think their being ****ed off, as Tim was talking about, was more of a self defense mechanism than a legitimate belief that they were in the right and we somehow screwed up. I think they were afraid of what we were going to do (kick their ass, or call the feds on them) so that was their initial instinct. Once we got to talking, we told them what was going to go in our report, what we saw from our seats, we got their side of the story...we actually went out to their airplane to look at the charts with them, that's how we saw that they were on the wrong frequency. I think they expected us to be the stereotypical "******* airline pilots with a god complex." And I'll admit, we were swearing at them quite a bit as we went around (thankfully we can't replay the CVR or else the stereotype might have proved right), but it wasn't personal toward them. We're just glad it worked as well as it did, and I think the fact that we got to sit down and talk helped a lot in terms of seeing where each of the four of us messed up and what we're going to do differently.

I like the point that Richard raises, though...we can't make a go around every time we see a plane near the hold short line. So when is enough enough? At Boston, we can just juice it a little and land long if they don't bust the line. At AUG/LEB/RKD/BHB/etc...5000 feet or less...that's not a lot of room for landing long when you weigh 15,000lbs and touch down at 120kts - less so now with a contaminated runway. These things have wonderfully deep reverse, but that'll only do so much. So...Monday morning quarter-backing...when do you make the go/no go decision? Should we have gone around sooner since they weren't talking, or were we OK to continue down the slope until they broke the plain?
 
Which reminds me... my first thought after teller described not getting a response from a 172 they could see was "he's on the wrong freq...".

A familiar scenario... and I've made both mistakes (although not at such a critical moment). :D

We questioned ourselves quite a few times for the same reason. After flying the same route day in and day out up and down the coast, we have an absurd number of freqs. memorized (we can fly the whole day without looking at a chart and always having the next freq in the radio before approach/center assigns it) so we both checked the radio a few times in the pattern. The only reason we were fairly comfortable on our end is that a) we had talked to airport mx and b) the lights turned on. 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.
 
I still maintain that the 1900 aborted when they realized that the Cessna was not going to hold short of the runway, which was the right thing to do. Many's the time I've had to hold off on that decision with a NORDO airplane doing what the cessna did - taxiing up while I was on final. The minute they didn't stop, I went around. Right up to the moment the Cessna crossed the line, it was possible that they were going to hold short.
 
Perhaps in one of your numerous calls you should have said "any traffic in the area please advise" then this all could have been avoided. ;)

Flame me for it if you will, but I still say that on the first call-up or two...old habits, I suppose :dunno::D:goofy:
 
Flame me for it if you will, but I still say that on the first call-up or two...old habits, I suppose :dunno::D:goofy:
OOOH you're going to hell for sure now.


More on topic, it's been my experience that this sort of episode generates the highest amount of post-incident discussion, with lots of passion and strong opinions all the way around. That's a good thing, as it exercises everyone's brains, and keeps us from getting mindlessly set in our ways. It's one thing to know that one is right. It's another, and better, thing to know that one is right because one constantly tests his beliefs and continues to find them valid.
 
the lights turned on.

Something to add to my bag of tricks (thanks, matt). If I see someone taxiing out in front of me and I haven't made contact with them, maybe I'll try playing with the lights on them. HIGH to low to HIGH to low a few times. Of course, this won't work on a bright sunny day, but on a low-vis, MVFR type of day, if they noticed the runway lights switching around and they tried to correct it and couldn't do it, maybe they would realize they were on the wrong freq.
 
They knew they screwed up. I think their being ****ed off, as Tim was talking about, was more of a self defense mechanism than a legitimate belief that they were in the right and we somehow screwed up. I think they were afraid of what we were going to do (kick their ass, or call the feds on them) so that was their initial instinct.
That reminded me of a similar situation where a CRJ started rolling on a crossing runway when we were landing. I think they misunderstood our radio calls and thought we were landing on the same runway on which they were taking off so they expedited their takeoff. We were on final to 30 and they were rolling on 17 (with a tailwind for whatever reason). I was the PF and went around from probably 1000 feet so there was no real issue. The PNF said, "Lifeguard 123 is going around, do you know you cut us off?" They didn't say anything on the radio to us at the time but as we were taxiing in they came back on CTAF and apologized, sort of. "Lifeguard at XYZ we're sorry we cut you off, if we did, but we're not sure that we did." I think they were terrified we would report them. They wanted to apologize without admitting anything. I had to do a company safety report but I wouldn't think of contacting the FAA. No harm, no foul.
 
An airplane on final has the best view of the situation and is in the best position to throw in the power and come back around. I wouldn't assume any airplane--especially a high wing is going to see you.
So it is your position that any time an aircraft is approaching the hold short line, an aircraft on final should go around? I don't think that's the way we want the world to work, and I know it's not the way the FAA wants it to work. Matt and his Captain did it absolutely by the book, and deserve to be commended. I know they're kicking themselves over waiting until the 172 crossed the line before going around, and maybe that's the right thing to do for air carriers which are legally bound to provide "the highest degree of safety humanly possible," but I'll bet 99 out of 100 airline crews would have done it just the same, and neither their companies nor the FAA would fault them for it.
 
So it is your position that any time an aircraft is approaching the hold short line, an aircraft on final should go around? I don't think that's the way we want the world to work, and I know it's not the way the FAA wants it to work. Matt and his Captain did it absolutely by the book, and deserve to be commended. I know they're kicking themselves over waiting until the 172 crossed the line before going around, and maybe that's the right thing to do for air carriers which are legally bound to provide "the highest degree of safety humanly possible," but I'll bet 99 out of 100 airline crews would have done it just the same, and neither their companies nor the FAA would fault them for it.
How did you go from a statement about who has the best view to one in which an aircraft on final goes around if someone pulls up to the hold short line?

I am pretty sure you are trying to make something out of a simple statement.

I agree with Jesse, it is USUALLY easier for the plane on final to have the best view of the touch down area. It is hard for Cessna High wings at the hold short line to have vertical visibility, hence his earlier statement, that I also agree with, of having to move into all kinds of aircraft positions and head positions to get a view.
 
How did you go from a statement about who has the best view to one in which an aircraft on final goes around if someone pulls up to the hold short line?

I am pretty sure you are trying to make something out of a simple statement.
Like this one?

Jesse said:
...but it would not surprise me to find out that I've made an airplane go around.

Well, if you did, you abrogated your responsibility. I fly a high wing Cessna almost exclusively and I don't pass the hold short line until I've maneuvered my head and my airplane every direction I can to make sure nothing is on final, regardless if they are a Beech 1900 with landing and anti-collision lights on, or a nordo ultralight painted ski blue. Controlled field? Same thing. And heck, I'm not even a CFII :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Matt, thanks for sharing your story!

We gave everyone a bit of a scare coming back into the airport the other day with 13 passengers on board.

Total newbie question here, in this situation are you expected to say something to the passengers, and if so, what did you say?
 
Matt, thanks for sharing your story!



Total newbie question here, in this situation are you expected to say something to the passengers, and if so, what did you say?
You made me think of an interesting story.

I once was flying commercial into my home field (at the time), KPGA, on a twin turboprop 121 shuttle. We were on short final on a visual approach to 33 at night when suddenly the pilot flying executes an abrupt go-around. Problem was he executed the wrong pattern (33 is a right-hand pattern) resulting in a very loud left turn circle over the town of Page to set up for another landing attempt, barely missing (IMHO) some obstacles and resulting in several 911 calls from residents who thought they heard an impending crash.

Anywho, the crew never said anything to the three of us on board, all of whom were very aware that something strange had happened. Never did find out why they went around but I mentioned to the FO as I walked by the cockpit "Hey 33 is right hand turns" before I walked down the stairs, and I saw two Page PD cars racing with lights on to the small terminal as I was leaving ;)
 
Like this one?

jesse said:
...but it would not surprise me to find out that I've made an airplane go around.

Well, if you did, you abrogated your responsibility. I fly a high wing Cessna almost exclusively and I don't pass the hold short line until I've maneuvered my head and my airplane every direction I can to make sure nothing is on final, regardless if they are a Beech 1900 with landing and anti-collision lights on, or a nordo ultralight painted ski blue. Controlled field? Same thing. And heck, I'm not even a CFII :rolleyes:

Wow. You should be a news reporter. You misquote me and then jump me for not looking when I said right before that how much I do look?

You quoted:
jesse said:
...but it would not surprise me to find out that I've made an airplane go around.

What I said was:
jesse said:
I do all sorts of funny looking turns on the ramp before I take the runway but it would not surprise me to find out that I've made an airplane go around.

I look more than most. But I am willing to admit that there is potential for me to miss an airplane. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. The day one accepts their imperfection and the imperfections of others is the day they become a better pilot.
 
Flame me for it if you will, but I still say that on the first call-up or two...old habits, I suppose :dunno::D:goofy:

Matt I was 110% behind you until this little admission.

Seriously though, I do agree with your analysis Matt, the only possible "mistake" I saw on your part was getting so low before going around. I see no reason why you should consider aborting just because a plane is sitting at the hold short and not communicating, but once he started moving across that line it was time for a new plan. Then again without being there myself I can't say that I would have started the go around sooner. For one thing the hold short line might have been rather obscured for both pilots with the snow and all. And contrary to Jesse's mention of landing beyond the Cessna, I firmly believe that the abort was the only option at any point in this approach once it was decided that the Cessna was going to be in the way. Not only would landing long risk an overrun especially with the contamination, but I don't think it would be legal or safe to land beyond the Cessna for several reasons.

I also believe that the Skyhawk pilots screwed up big time in more than one way. First there was the mistake on the frequency selection, by itself not a big deal and something that most pilots have probably done at least once. The bad stuff started when they pulled onto the runway without looking up the final. I try to take a hard look in both directions even when cleared for takeoff at a controlled airport in IMC. Odds are nobody is there but planes have been known to land without talking to tower, and the controllers occasionally make mistakes too. Then to sit on the runway long enough for the jet to make a full circuit was inexcusable. Surely they knew the jet would be returning for another attempt and that they would be in the way. I'd be surprised if Matt could have flown the pattern from the initial abort to final in less than 5 minutes and even one minute is way too long to sit on a runway at an uncontrolled airport IMO. I can understand why they decided not to depart, as shaken as they probably were they could easily have been too distracted to fly safely. I wouldn't be surprised if they deliberately blocked the runway because they were angry at Matt's crew for coming so close and felt like returning some abuse and if that were true I think the CFI and the instrument student deserve some quality 709 time.

Bottom line, Matt may have made a slight error of judgement with the delay, The two pilots in the Cessna made a simple mistake, compounded that with a careless lack of any attempt to visually clear the approach before crossing the hold short, then delivered the coup d' grace by recklessly blocking the only viable runway needed by an arriving airliner that they had already forced to go around once. Had those pilots (and I fear I may be using that term a bit too loosely) commited a similar chain of mistake/carelessness/recklessness in the air, we might be reading about another smoking hole in the ground as this reads rather similar to a chain of events leading to an accident.
 
Matt, thanks for sharing your story!



Total newbie question here, in this situation are you expected to say something to the passengers, and if so, what did you say?

There are only a few cabin PA announcements that are expressly required, and technically they're all covered by our auto-briefer system. The company suggests (strongly) that we make other announcements as conditions warrant, and this would be one of those situations. A go-around is scary for us, and downright terrifying for the folks in the back seat who can't see forward very well, aren't familiar with aviation, and are generally scared of "such a tiny plane with those bizarre props on them," so any time we miss an approach we're asked to make an announcement as soon as our work load permits.

Most of the time cabin announcements are done by the CA, and when they're done by the FO it's usually when the CA tells him what to say. In this case, he said something along the lines of "Folks sorry about the bumps, we had to break off the approach but we're coming right back around for another one, so we'll have you on the ground in just a couple minutes. Please make sure your seat belts are fastened, carry-ons are stowed, and tray tables are locked; we're sorry about the delay."

Relatively short, simple, and without saying too much about what just happened.
 
Well, if you did, you abrogated your responsibility. I fly a high wing Cessna almost exclusively and I don't pass the hold short line until I've maneuvered my head and my airplane every direction I can to make sure nothing is on final, regardless if they are a Beech 1900 with landing and anti-collision lights on, or a nordo ultralight painted ski blue. Controlled field? Same thing. And heck, I'm not even a CFII :rolleyes:
We operate the same way. Generally, we depart on 20R at PDK. We always hold short with the nose point a bit left allowing us a view of short final and enough down the runway for rollout. The general rule is 20R is closed to all traffic from the point a light jet is about a three-mile final until one has departed out by two miles. Approaches to 20R is an obvious hold.

The point is, we cock the airplane to look up final and be aware of approaching aircraft. It's not impossible I'm being released for takeoff and there's an aircraft still on final the controller has lost track of. I'll follow the controller's instructions... AFTER I've covered my butt with my own eyesight.
 
And contrary to Jesse's mention of landing beyond the Cessna, I firmly believe that the abort was the only option at any point in this approach once it was decided that the Cessna was going to be in the way.

Lance, I completely agree with that, I didn't say that is what Matt should have done. I was responding to AlaskaPilot with what I would do since he asked what I would do. The airplanes I fly only need about 800 ft to safely land.

My response was more directed towards the 709 ride for the Cessna pilots. I was also trying to point out that this situation could occur with NORDO airplanes. The assumption that the radio will always be present needs to be removed from pilot's brains.

My grandpa and dad always went around and around with the corporate jet pilots of Hormel Foods. They crop dusted out of the same airplort and were always NORDO. It's not exactly easy to spot a small white jet on final from a Stearman. There were countless incidents like this. The close rate of these faster airplanes makes NORDO operations a little on the "guessing" side.
 
Last edited:
Jesse, don't take my posts as jumping on you with both feet, just a light tap. Your original post which I believe you've edited now indicated to me your opinion that Matt and the 1900 crew were as responsible for the situation as that CFII and the student PIC, which stuck in my craw. As you've edited your position, I will edit mine, and admit we are both saying the same thing now. My only point in this is that saying "see and avoid" is all well and good, but the rules are (usually) there for a reason, and when someone does a half-assed job of following them as the Cessna pilots did in this story it is poor form to expect the other pilots to bail you out - although of course that is necessarily what we do. Matt should never have been put in the position of being nervous, or to decide whether a go-around is necessary, much less have to actually do one, and if a 709 ride is what is needed to make sure that CFI pulls his head out of his arse next time, then I say give it to him. Isn't runway incursions a special emphasis area? Wouldn't be the first or last 709 ride in history.
 
JYour original post which I believe you've edited now indicated to me your opinion that Matt and the 1900 crew were as responsible for the situation as that CFII and the student PIC, which stuck in my craw.
My last edit was at 6:25. Your first post was at 6:49. I did not edit anything after this heated up.

As you've edited your position, I will edit mine, and admit we are both saying the same thing now. My only point in this is that saying "see and avoid" is all well and good, but the rules are (usually) there for a reason, and when someone does a half-assed job of following them as the Cessna pilots did in this story it is poor form to expect the other pilots to bail you out - although of course that is necessarily what we do.
We have been saying the same thing more or less the entire time. All I've been saying is rules are nice and all but I don't put any faith in them.

Perhaps it's the motorcycle rider in me. After having people blow through stop lights at me, merge me off the interstate, and not stopping at stop-lights forcing me to zip between two cars before I get smoked..I tend to put absolutely zero trust in people doing what they are supposed to.
 
The point is, we cock the airplane to look up final and be aware of approaching aircraft.

I was also taught to point my aircraft toward approaching aircraft at the hold short line. One other thing I do at any taxi intersection and prior to entering runway is after my visual check I verbally say "clear right and clear left"
 
Last edited:
I was also taught to point my aircraft toward approaching aircraft at the hold short line. One other thing I do at any taxi intersection and prior to entering runway is after my visual check I verbally say "clear right and clear left"

We do the same thing. Before crossing a road or taxiway and before making a turn off of runway heading on departure the CA says "Clear left" and the FO responds "Clear right" (of course, only if it's actually clear). Before crossing a runway (active or not) our profile is: CA "Clear left," FO "Clear right, cleared across" (or cleared PnH, or cleared to go, etc). My ab-initio instructor beat the same thing into my head: "Clear right, clear ahead, clear left" before doing anything. I always felt kinda dumb talking to myself like that or reading checklists, but it makes a lot more sense now with the whole CRM thing.
 
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..."
 
Last edited:
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..."

We were in a Wichita spam can, though (it says so on the back of the plane) and for that matter, I guess that would make me Wichita spam :yes::goofy::rofl: ...ICT is my home town!
 
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