Accident avoided Cessna Skylane versus F-16 at KTOL on the way to KOSH

WannFly

WannFly

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
6,553
Location
KLZU
Display Name
Display name:
Priyo
video documents the whole thing. Good job on situational awareness. just an example to stay vigilant and not rely 100% on Tower / controller (note to self)



for all the impatient folks out there, Tower was too busy with a couple of F16s, had cleared the Skylane to land, the other F-16 was cleared to land on 25 and was not instructed to land and hold short. had Dr. Pilot not stopped (he had the whole runway to himself), this would have been ugly.
you can see the F-16 crossing the runway in front of him at 8:15 or so mark
 
2,300 not 2,500. Tower isn’t preoccupied with the F-16s. He’s providing ATC service “first come first served.” The priority afforded over practice approaches isn’t intended to mean that they’ll spin some IFR F-16s to make way for his IFR C182. The “crickets” were because tower was trying to listen to Sting’s transmission on UHF.

Having said that, yeah tower screwed up by not issuing the hold short. I assume he either thought he issued it, thought the 182 wouldn’t require a 6,000 ft runway, or they don’t have a LASHO directive. Personally, I would have informed tower that I needed full length.
 
Last edited:
Why Dr. Pilot was headed to TOL is a mystery even the Allfather might not be able to solve. Two other airports within ten minutes (TZD and DUH) with cheaper fuel and no F16s with runways plenty long for a Skylane. And of course KUSE about 15 minutes to the west with fuel a dollar a gallon cheaper than any of them.

I stopped at TOL on my way back from 6Y9, needed some options to deal with foul wx ahead. Didn't see any other traffic on landing, indeed I didn't see or hear another aircraft the whole time I was there. Next day I didn't see any either, except a young man with chiseled good looks and a lovely day in two in a rather spanky looking Cirrus. TOL is the quietest Charlie I've seen.
 
Velocity173 said:
2,300 not 2,500. Tower isn’t preoccupied with the F-16s. He’s providing ATC service “first come first served.” The priority afforded over practice approaches isn’t intended to mean that they’ll spin some IFR F-16s to make way for his IFR C182. The “crickets” were because tower was trying to listen to Sting’s transmission on UHF.

Having said that, yeah tower screwed up by not issuing the hold short. I assume he either thought he issued it, thought the 182 wouldn’t require a 6,000 ft runway, or they don’t have a LASHO directive. Personally, I would have informed tower that I needed full length.
Click to expand...

understood, but if I have been cleared to land, I expect that whole runway to be mine. I don't have to ask for long landing (I do ask if I want to exit on a specific taxiway, but that's out of courtesy and not a requirement)

and its my understanding that the F-16s were practicing the approaches
 
WannFly said:
understood, but if I have been cleared to land, I expect that whole runway to be mine. I don't have to ask for long landing (I do ask if I want to exit on a specific taxiway, but that's out of courtesy and not a requirement)

and its my understanding that the F-16s were practicing the approaches
Click to expand...

I expect the whole runway as well. As every pilot should unless a hold short is given.

Yeah, the F-16s were doing a TACAN / ILS followed by simulated engine outs (SFO). That doesn’t mean the priority afforded to the C182 means they must stop everything they’re doing and reply to the Dr.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
I expect the whole runway as well. As every pilot should unless a hold short is given.

Yeah, the F-16s were doing a TACAN followed by simulated engine outs (SFO). That doesn’t mean the priority afforded to the C182 means they must stop everything they’re doing and reply to the Dr.
Click to expand...

Not saying they should drop everything and answer to 182, they did clear another aircraft to land/ takeoff on a crossing runway that was he had cleared another aircraft to land.

The F16s in this situation should have been asked to go around even if the controller was not replying to 182
 
WannFly said:
Not saying they should drop everything and answer to 182, they did clear another aircraft to land/ takeoff on a crossing runway that was he had cleared another aircraft to land.

The F16s in this situation should have been asked to go around even if the controller was not replying to 182
Click to expand...

Ok, I was replying to the Dr’s statements. His comments show impatience because of his belief that the controller was “preoccupied” with the F-16s. They’re not preoccupied, the aircraft are making requests on UHF while the Dr believes he’s not getting appropriate attention. His being IFR has nothing to do with any sort of priority in getting ATC to answer him as he suggested. Tower will get back to him when they have time to get back to him.

Not saying tower didn’t screw up. It’s all on them. Just saying if I were going into a field with intersecting runways, didn’t plan on taking the first available and was going to cross the other runway, I’d inform tower of my intentions. Just a technique that would have maybe jarred the controller’s memory that he has two aircraft landing almost simultaneously and one doesn’t have a hold short instruction. Just like the Dr going to 2,500 vs 2,300, controllers aren’t perfect and it requires awareness on both sides to prevent an accident.
 
Actually, I agree with Dr. Pilot, even if I think he went to the wrong airport. If you're cleared to land you're cleared to land on the whole runway. I landed TOL once before, to go to a relative's funeral. I used up the whole runway, not because I don't know how to land short, but because the FBO was all the way at the other end. If an airplane appeared on a crossing runway in the middle of my landing I'd dress down the tower pretty fierce, and if they didn't kowtow hard I might get the FSDO involved. That's seriously bad juju.

If the F16's need the runway that bad the Skylane can make little circles in the sky while they do so. ATC will claim there was no lack of separation, but that didn't have to be.
 
Velocity173 said:
Ok, I was replying to the Dr’s statements. His comments show impatience because of his belief that the controller was “preoccupied” with the F-16s. They’re not preoccupied, the aircraft are making requests on UHF while the Dr believes he’s not getting appropriate attention. His being IFR has nothing to do with any sort of priority in getting ATC to answer him as he suggested. Tower will get back to him when they have time to get back to him.

Not saying tower didn’t screw up. It’s all on them. Just saying if I were going into a field with intersecting runways, didn’t plan on taking the first available and was going to cross the other runway, I’d inform tower of my intentions. Just a technique that would have maybe jarred the controller’s memory that he has two aircraft landing almost simultaneously and one doesn’t have a hold short instruction. Just like the Dr going to 2,500 vs 2,300, controllers aren’t perfect and it requires awareness on both sides to prevent an accident.
Click to expand...

agreed, I don't expect towers undivided attention either and I am sure they have plenty things to do as well, and yes, I would also inform tower which taxiway I want to take and its usually the first one
 
WannFly said:
does FSDO have any authority over ATC? don't know, hence asking.. for a friend of course :d
Click to expand...
Don't really know, but I would seek to involve someone who does. Says me those guys messed up and imperiled both you and your boy needlessly.
 
I know the AIM is not regulatory, but section 4-3-20 Exiting the Runway After Landing, states:

“The following procedures must be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.

a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. ”

Wouldn't this have applied in this situation? The 182 pilot should have cleared the runway well before the runway intersection, right?
 
Bs4304 said:
I know the AIM is not regulatory, but section 4-3-20 Exiting the Runway After Landing, states:

“The following procedures must be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.

a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. ”

Wouldn't this have applied in this situation? The 182 pilot should have cleared the runway well before the runway intersection, right?
Click to expand...

Well the first part of not being regulatory is the answer. The controller doesn’t issue a landing clearance in hopes the aircraft turns off before the intersection. They issue it either by allowing you to have the whole runway or restricting you with a hold short.

Now, as I said above, if I can’t make or don’t want the first available, as a technique I let tower know before landing. Even at a tower conducting LASHO, in the AIM it says to let tower know you need the whole runway BEFORE the clearance is issued. That sort of recommendation goes a long way in preventing runway incursions.
 
Last edited:
I’m beginning to wonder if TOL is even authorized LAHSO. I’m not seeing it in the remarks of the AFD.
 
Doc is right, if he had to go around the pooch might have been screwed. He should file a Nasa report.
 
Velocity173 said:
2,300 not 2,500. Tower isn’t preoccupied with the F-16s. He’s providing ATC service “first come first served.” The priority afforded over practice approaches isn’t intended to mean that they’ll spin some IFR F-16s to make way for his IFR C182. The “crickets” were because tower was trying to listen to Sting’s transmission on UHF.

Having said that, yeah tower screwed up by not issuing the hold short. I assume he either thought he issued it, thought the 182 wouldn’t require a 6,000 ft runway, or they don’t have a LASHO directive. Personally, I would have informed tower that I needed full length.
Click to expand...

 
From my read of the situation, it looks like tower lost SA on the 182 landing clearance. Whatever expectation tower may or may have not had of a 182 turning off early on a 5600 foot runway based on capability could indeed be reasonable, but tower pooched it nonetheless by not issuing the LAHSO or being more proactive in issuing turnoff instructions ahead of the Vipers' consecutive requests.

It does appear tower was busy on UHF, the 182 was just not aware of that comm. I'll never fault civil participants for not having SA on comms on Uniform. Prevalence of Split-comms is one of two reasons P-fields ought to be approached with extra care by non-local/familiar folks to said field. Presence of Non-civilian pattern procedures is the other one.

As to USAF operations, we generally cannot accept LAHSO; we can only passively participate (eg. the 182 can be given the LAHSO and we can still land on the crossing runway, but not the other way around).

On a lighter note, Good God, what's with Jr.'s despondence? Food, shelter, clothing and free airplane rides, TF you gotta be morose about? That would irritate the s$t outta me. You wanna come to OSH or not? I'd smack the headset off the back of their head and tell him you're driving home, see if that livens ya up! :D :rofl:
 
WannFly said:
video documents the whole thing. Good job on situational awareness. just an example to stay vigilant and not rely 100% on Tower / controller (note to self)





for all the impatient folks out there, Tower was too busy with a couple of F16s, had cleared the Skylane to land, the other F-16 was cleared to land on 25 and was not instructed to land and hold short. had Dr. Pilot not stopped (he had the whole runway to himself), this would have been ugly.
you can see the F-16 crossing the runway in front of him at 8:15 or so mark
Click to expand...

Except when issued a landing clearance, the pilot is expected to turn onto the first available taxiway and not taxi down the runway waiting for taxi instructions. He taxied past November 2 and Delta.



4-3-20 Exiting the Runway After Landing

The following procedures must be followed after

landing and reaching taxi speed.

a.Exit the runway without delay at the first

available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by

ATC. Pilots must not exit the landing runway onto

another runway unless authorized by ATC. At

airports with an operating control tower, pilots should

not stop or reverse course on the runway without first

obtaining ATC approval
 
Last edited:
I am going to be blunt on this. Anybody who lands on a long runway and considers it to be his personal taxiway is being plain inconsiderate of all the other users of the airport.

I have been on final behind such, and did a go around because it was illegal to land on the runway behind him, even though there was plenty between my expected touch down and his then present position.

I was happy that the controller made him back taxi to the nearest taxiway, and comply with the normal taxi rules.
At large airports, I always turn off at the first taxiway after slowing to about 10 k, or faster if diagonal. The only exception is when I advise intending to land long, and float to the FBO at the far end of the runway.

Yes, the controller should have issued a Land And Hold Short to the CESSNA. Not the F16. The Cessna had no need for more than 2000 feet.

The controller should not expect the Cessna to be an arrogant hog, who believes that any thing he can claim legal right to use, he will use completely.

On the other side of the attitude, I was taxiing behind a large jet, well back, as suggested by the tower, the Captain asked if I was willing to depart one taxiway short of the whole runway, and I responded, affirmative, he suggested that the tower give me the next taxiway for departure, saving me from waiting for his turbulence to subside, and the vortex's drift away. The tower offered, I accepted, at the 9000 foot point of the runway, and was gone before he straightened up on the runway end.

That is the kind of pilots that are a pleasure to share an airport with. I suspect that the jet behind me was also appreciative, as he would have had the wait while I waited.........It just occurred that perhaps the Captain behind me was the one who asked about the taxiway short departure.....no difference, the pilots were making everybody's day better, not worse.
 
What is first available? Is it the one you slam on the brakes for, skidding to a stop or is it the next taxiway after you roll out? He was still working on mixture and throttle when he rolled past the taxiway at a pretty good speed.

It relevant only because the controller obviously expected him to hold short without requiring it. That’s the issue here and it’s been dealt with.
 
bflynn said:
What is first available? Is it the one you slam on the brakes for, skidding to a stop or is it the next taxiway after you roll out? He was still working on mixture and throttle when he rolled past the taxiway at a pretty good speed.

It relevant only because the controller obviously expected him to hold short without requiring it. That’s the issue here and it’s been dealt with.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn’t expect him to make N2 but D taxiway appears to be over 4,000 ft down the runway. He could have easily turned off on D but chose to go by. I think his intentions all along were to keep going thru the intersection vs getting off on the first available. It’s obvious he’s slowed down and paused hoping to cross. Not to make excuses for the controller but had he taken D taxiway, the incursion never would have happened.
 
It’s still on PIC to be situationally aware. Personally that’s the kind of video that makes me think “spoiled pilot with an entitled attitude.” If I want to eat up the whole runway at a towered airport I try to ask if a long landing is approved. Half the time at home base the tower actually gives it to our crew without us requesting it.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well I wouldn’t expect him to make N2 but D taxiway appears to be over 4,000 ft down the runway. He could have easily turned off on D but chose to go by. I think his intentions all along were to keep going thru the intersection vs getting off on the first available. It’s obvious he’s slowed down and paused hoping to cross. Not to make excuses for the controller but had he taken D taxiway, the incursion never would have happened.
Click to expand...

Yup. Pilot could have saved his bacon by getting off the runway in accordance with 4-3-20. Make that ‘should’ have. Controller still effed up though. He ‘forgot’ about the Skylane for a bit. Lost SA as @hindsight2020 put it in post #19. I wonder how far back they listened to tapes and if the Approach Controller got a little talkin to about missing the bad readback.
 
Oh, the humanity! Rolling out at a scalding 9 knots, when suddenly, within a scant 1,000 feet or so. . .could have been a tragedy if two pilots and a tower controller had been struck blind on a VFR day. I vote for "minor procedure error by tower", with near zero probabilty for a true bad outcome. . .
 
bflynn said:
What is first available? Is it the one you slam on the brakes for, skidding to a stop or is it the next taxiway after you roll out? He was still working on mixture and throttle when he rolled past the taxiway at a pretty good speed.

It relevant only because the controller obviously expected him to hold short without requiring it. That’s the issue here and it’s been dealt with.
Click to expand...

Seriously, working on the mixture? That is not even an after landing checklist item. Get off the runway first, then complete the after landing checklist and adjust the mixture if you desire.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
Oh, the humanity! Rolling out at a scalding 9 knots, when suddenly, within a scant 1,000 feet or so. . .could have been a tragedy if two pilots and a tower controller had been struck blind on a VFR day. I vote for "minor procedure error by tower", with near zero probabilty for a true bad outcome. . .
Click to expand...

You can bet the facility QA people won’t look at it as being minor. The controller didn’t ensure runway separation and violated procedures. Didn’t even issue a traffic call to Doc on the F-16 landing. While it all worked out, if Doc had kept rolling that would’ve been ugly.
 
At every controlled airport I've landed so far the controller tells me where to exit, if they don't say, I ask. You don't assume which taxiway to exit because most controlled airports have more than your airplane operating there and sometimes taxiways are occupied. This controller screwed up, fortunately Doc didn't screw up too and taxi to the end of the runway.

I landed a few days ago at a controlled airport, the guy behind me was too close and there was a jet behind him ( I was flying an instrument approach at 100knots, the jet was on an instrument approach, the buy behind me was vfr) so the controller asked me to land long and exit 3/4 down a 7,000 foot runway, no big deal, everybody got down without going around. Everybody did what they were supposed to do.
 
I agree November was too soon but Delta should have been where he exited lacking any further direction from ATC. Imagining myself right there, I would have thought that with jets landing on crossing runways the tower is going to want me to exit expeditiously and if I wanted to go the far end of 34 I would have made sure I coordinated that well in advance (again w/ the F-16s in mind). Blame to share on this one IMO.
 
I'm perplexed by his repeated statement that "he had the whole runway." He only had it if he needed it for landing. Once you are able, you're expected to turn off at the next taxiway (AIM 4-3-20). You'd certainly raise the ire of the controllers at most busy airports if you taxi to the end without authorization.

If you need to go to the end, it's incumbent on you to ask (or ask to land long).

Controllers are allowed to issue landing clearances based on the anticipation of separation.
 
This isn’t about the pilot not complying with a non regulatory (4-3-20) practice. This is about a controller not complying with MANDATORY intersecting runway procedures.

Before the F-16 (black aircraft) crossed the threshold of 25, the 182 has to be in one of three positions. 1) he has to be clear of 34 on one of the taxiways prior to the intersection. 2) has completed landing roll and will hold short of 25. Without a hold short instruction there’s nothing to ensue that. Not even a traffic call was given to let the Dr know it might not be wise to cross 25. 3) The 182 has crossed runway 25 intersection. No way that’s gonna happen in this scenario. It was pretty much going to be a tie.

The control exhibited was based on assumption and not hands on instructions. The controller probably assumed since 90 % of his light GA traffic turns off on D taxiway, this guy will also. Separation can be anticipated but you can’t leave it chance and when you realize it’s not going to work, swift action (F-16 go around) needs to take place.

138BEDF4-D34F-4022-9BBA-C0B76184A4D3.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Every time I've flown into a controlled airport the controller has told me which taxiway turnoff they want me to exit on. If I'm being honest, I'd always been under the impression that I had to get clearance anywhere on a controlled field except the non-movement(ramp) areas. So cleared to land gives me the whole runway, then I need permission to turn off onto a taxiway, etc.

The AIM may say turn off on the first available taxiway but I don't think that's how pilots are being trained or how things are being done in practice. At least not in my, admittedly limited, experience.
 
I agree the controller messed up, I was just disagreeing with the statement that he was free to taxi all he wanted on the runway when he should exit as soon as practical.
Again, you try that crap at a major airport and you'll raise the ire of the local controller.
 
flyingron said:
I agree the controller messed up, I was just disagreeing with the statement that he was free to taxi all he wanted on the runway when he should exit as soon as practical.
Again, you try that crap at a major airport and you'll raise the ire of the local controller.
Click to expand...

there is a problem with exiting on the first available taxiway , ground may have cleared someone to that taxiway and they may have just started / half way through the taxiway. every towered airport i have landed in, controller always asked me to take certain taxiway depending on my speed. sometimes they hear unable if i am too close and i have to burn my brake pads to do so. at times at Fargo they dont, i land and tell them which taxiway i intend on taking (which is usually the first one, and at times i hear negative, take echo or whatever they want me to take ), then they can say yes , no whatever. this has been my experience visiting most towered fields in midwest.
 
There is no problem. Exiting the first available taxiway and then stopping once clear of the hold line is what is EXPECTED. I've never encountered an airport where this is NOT the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top