ATC instruction to follow the traffic

jspilot

jspilot

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
1,346
Display Name
Display name:
jspilot
The other day I was talking with approach control being sequenced to land at KISP which is a class c. I was given a heading to fly that kind of paralleled the arrival path of a 737 that was inbound. I was told to report the 737 in sight which I did. I was then told to follow that 737 in to the airport and to contact the tower. So I deviated from my assigned heading to maneuver myself to follow the 737 and called the tower. Upon call up I said, "Long Island tower Cessna...... Inbound to land maneuvering to follow the 737." I was then told" well you're gonna have to continue to maneuver because I have another Cessna already following that 737. Continue your left hand turn and join for a left base."

So my question is, should I have just kept flying my assigned heading or was I right to follow the 737 in? Also, I've flown out of KISP for 3 years now and the controllers are great both the tower and aproach guys. It seems like they maye made a mistake in coordination or just have unclear directions. Usually they say" contact the tower and advise them that you have the traffic in sight."- in similiar situations. Just curious what others think could have happened. It was totally no big deal at all but it has stuck with me as a strange situation.
 
Staying on the assigned heading will never get you to the airport. At some point you have to break off to follow the 737. As far as another Cessna, without exact distances and type aircraft it's hard to tell if ATC made a mistake and forgot about you. Possibly your maneuvering created such a gap that they could throw another aircraft in front of you???
 
Sounds more like the controller tried to sequence you and someone else showed up and messed up his plan. No biggie.

Once you were given the "follow" request and had the 737 in sight, you no longer needed to remain on the assigned heading.
 
denverpilot said:
Sounds more like the controller tried to sequence you and someone else showed up and messed up his plan. No biggie.

Once you were given the "follow" request and had the 737 in sight, you no longer needed to remain on the assigned heading.
Click to expand...

That's exactly I what I thought happened. It did seem though that the tower had guys in the pattern it was working in between me and the 737. Totally not a big deal and happens frequently but the sequence of events just seemed off.
 
Just this past Saturday, I was told by KISP tower to continue downwind...no big deal, lots of traffic, so I continue to fly downwind for about 3 more miles without hearing from tower to turn base. I contacted the tower saying "546AZ downwind" twice before I was given permission to turn base. Do you think they forgot about me? Or was it just that busy?
 
jspilot said:
So my question is, should I have just kept flying my assigned heading or was I right to follow the 737 in?
Click to expand...
You were right, and the controllers screwed up. If they wanted you to follow the Cessna behind that 737, they should have told you that in the first place. If you're really concerned, file a NASA ASRS report and contact the Tower Chief to look into that controller error before they erase the tapes.
 
96gs917 said:
Just this past Saturday, I was told by KISP tower to continue downwind...no big deal, lots of traffic, so I continue to fly downwind for about 3 more miles without hearing from tower to turn base. I contacted the tower saying "546AZ downwind" twice before I was given permission to turn base. Do you think they forgot about me? Or was it just that busy?
Click to expand...

Depends. When they finally did approve your base, where was the traffic? Any heavy / 757s departing the crossing runway? If there was no traffic around then they forgot about you.
 
Last edited:
I've gone 3-4 miles downwind before finally asking for a base turn. Nowadays I do it earlier. The tower can forget things sometimes.
 
Palo Alto tower: Cessna 10H, continue downwind, I'll call your base.

Me, a few minutes later: Palo Alto tower, Cessna 10H, I'm just about into the Moffett Delta.

Tower: Oh, trust me, I'm talking to them, they know what's going on.

It was my first time into PAO - a bit of a zoo.
 
Ron Levy said:
You were right, and the controllers screwed up. If they wanted you to follow the Cessna behind that 737, they should have told you that in the first place. If you're really concerned, file a NASA ASRS report and contact the Tower Chief to look into that controller error before they erase the tapes.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned at all honestly. No phone number to call no problem in my book. I know the approach controller just took over the position from another guy as the voice changed on the radio. I would assume either he did not get the full information or it was just no big deal. Often times at KISP you squawk standby in the pattern. I imagine that it is possible the other Cessna was just in the pattern.
 
96gs917 said:
Just this past Saturday, I was told by KISP tower to continue downwind...no big deal, lots of traffic, so I continue to fly downwind for about 3 more miles without hearing from tower to turn base. I contacted the tower saying "546AZ downwind" twice before I was given permission to turn base. Do you think they forgot about me? Or was it just that busy?
Click to expand...

That sounds more like Republic. Oh the times I've flown to the Mall before being told to turn base...
 
Aviatrix said:
That sounds more like Republic. Oh the times I've flown to the Mall before being told to turn base...
Click to expand...
I usually get the extended downwind heading south which I've almost made it to the outer shoreline before they called my base :dunno:
 
ateamer said:
Palo Alto tower: Cessna 10H, continue downwind, I'll call your base.

Me, a few minutes later: Palo Alto tower, Cessna 10H, I'm just about into the Moffett Delta.

Tower: Oh, trust me, I'm talking to them, they know what's going on.

It was my first time into PAO - a bit of a zoo.
Click to expand...

You're not the first one to do that....

My longest extension was to Hangar 1, which is well inside Moffett's pattern. Extensions to the Amphitheater are routine on a nice weekend.

To the OP, each instruction supersedes the last. When ATC tells you to follow traffic, you no longer have an assigned heading. When ATC tells you to continue your pattern, you're no longer following traffic. And they clearly screwed up. Sounds like they confused you with amother Cessna.
 
It happens.

Last week, Little Rock Approach forgot to hand me off to tower. It took several "still with you" calls for them to remember.
 
jspilot said:
I'm not concerned at all honestly. No phone number to call no problem in my book. I know the approach controller just took over the position from another guy as the voice changed on the radio. I would assume either he did not get the full information or it was just no big deal. Often times at KISP you squawk standby in the pattern. I imagine that it is possible the other Cessna was just in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Just remember that the ASRS program is intended to be for safety improvements primarily, so it's worth reporting it if you consider it a safety-of-flight issue that should be rectified.

Don't hold off reporting simply because you don't think you're in trouble.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Just remember that the ASRS program is intended to be for safety improvements primarily, so it's worth reporting it if you consider it a safety-of-flight issue that should be rectified.

Don't hold off reporting simply because you don't think you're in trouble.
Click to expand...

Agreed

I have filed several reports after various ATC events. Most of the problems I've seen start with botched handoffs.
 
From my VFR tower days, this sort of situation is pretty common. Chicago approach would set the arrival sequence for IFR inbounds (and VFRs on flight following), but we could change that sequence as much as we wanted, including "inserting" a guy in our pattern between two inbounds if there was room on final. There was no requirement for us in the tower to tell C90 what we were doing, since at that point it's our airspace. Hopefully the controller would have given you a more specific instruction: "You're now number three following a Skyhawk 12 o'clock and 1 mile. Make one S-turn for spacing."

When in doubt, don't hesitate to ask the controller to point out the new traffic to you and/or clarify what they want you to do at that point on final.
 
Does filing ASRS report provide a conclusion or feedback on exactly what happened?

I ask, because, flying into a Class C I was surprised to get a "Cleared to land runway XX" when I was about ~400' higher than I'd have liked to be given my position in relation to runway XX. Up to that point I had been vectored and given altitudes to fly by ATC. Since it was a long runway I still landed and made the middle turn off but it was a bit odd and I was left wondering if I had missed something the controller said prior.

dukeblue219 said:
Just remember that the ASRS program is intended to be for safety improvements primarily, so it's worth reporting it if you consider it a safety-of-flight issue that should be rectified.

Don't hold off reporting simply because you don't think you're in trouble.
Click to expand...
 
Flying into HSV last week I was cleared to land when I was about five miles out at 3,000. It was a clear day and I had the airport in sight and was taliking to tower.
 
One thing that wasn't obvious to me is that "follow" does not necessarily mean literally follow. I was on right downwind at PAO, aircraft B was on left downwind (+ a bunch of other traffic). I was instructed "Follow [Aircraft B], cleared to land #2". I turned to cross midfield in order to follow behind aircraft B, and was given an earful. I was supposed to remain in a right pattern and merely extend my downwind as needed so that I timed the arrival to be safely behind aircraft B.
 
Ron Levy said:
You were right, and the controllers screwed up. If they wanted you to follow the Cessna behind that 737, they should have told you that in the first place. If you're really concerned, file a NASA ASRS report and contact the Tower Chief to look into that controller error before they erase the tapes.
Click to expand...

Agree with Ron.

All of my flying for the private and IR, was done in a Class B. You do what they tell you. If they come up with a surprise, they didn't tell you about it's on them.
 
cgrab said:
Flying into HSV last week I was cleared to land when I was about five miles out at 3,000. It was a clear day and I had the airport in sight and was taliking to tower.
Click to expand...

I was cleared to land at HTS one time while about five miles to the northwest. "Cleared to land, Runway 30." My buddy riding with me, new to the area, started laughing. The joys of low traffic areas!
 
pericynthion said:
One thing that wasn't obvious to me is that "follow" does not necessarily mean literally follow. I was on right downwind at PAO, aircraft B was on left downwind (+ a bunch of other traffic). I was instructed "Follow [Aircraft B], cleared to land #2". I turned to cross midfield in order to follow behind aircraft B, and was given an earful. I was supposed to remain in a right pattern and merely extend my downwind as needed so that I timed the arrival to be safely behind aircraft B.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what it means. PAO will occasionally have you cross to the opposite pattern. For that case, the instruction is "cross midfield enter right traffic" (I've only ever heard this when approaching from cityside).

Betcha never make THAT mistake again.
 
pericynthion said:
One thing that wasn't obvious to me is that "follow" does not necessarily mean literally follow. I was on right downwind at PAO, aircraft B was on left downwind (+ a bunch of other traffic). I was instructed "Follow [Aircraft B], cleared to land #2". I turned to cross midfield in order to follow behind aircraft B, and was given an earful. I was supposed to remain in a right pattern and merely extend my downwind as needed so that I timed the arrival to be safely behind aircraft B.
Click to expand...

I think that was poor phraseology on ATCs part.
 
dans2992 said:
I think that was poor phraseology on ATCs part.
Click to expand...

No. I can't imagine that someone should interpret that to mean cross over midfield to get behind the traffic in question, in that situation unless specifically instructed by ATC.
 
I am often asked to crossover midfield when changing runways at a "parallel runway" airport.

Not that PAO fits this description, but at the very least it's ambiguous.
 
dans2992 said:
I think that was poor phraseology on ATCs part.
Click to expand...

The phraseology sounds fine. No explicit instructions to pass over the field and enter the other traffic pattern. Probably got something like "N345, runway 27, cleared to land number two following a Bonanza on a right downwind."
 
Okay well that phraseology makes sense, but it's not what the OP said.
 
Velocity173 said:
The phraseology sounds fine. No explicit instructions to pass over the field and enter the other traffic pattern. Probably got something like "N345, runway 27, cleared to land number two following a Bonanza on a right downwind."
Click to expand...

That's pretty close to what I've heard from PAO Tower.

Something a lot of folks overlook is that PAO often trains new tower controllers, and mistakes do happen. They are only human.

I've had a number of obvious mistakes from local Class D towers. Like being told to turn base after landing.
 
MAKG1 said:
That's pretty close to what I've heard from PAO Tower.

Something a lot of folks overlook is that PAO often trains new tower controllers, and mistakes do happen. They are only human.

I've had a number of obvious mistakes from local Class D towers. Like being told to turn base after landing.
Click to expand...

Yeah mistakes do happen. I've even complained about the quality of ATC these days but we still have the best ATC system in the world. Having flown around most of Europe , Middle East and done ATC in Korea and Thailand, there aren't too many that can hold a candle to what we have. People get spoiled flying GA in the U.S.

Just looking at that PAO on Airnav. Interesting setup there. Looks like a cool place to fly around.
 
dans2992 said:
I am often asked to crossover midfield when changing runways at a "parallel runway" airport.

Not that PAO fits this description, but at the very least it's ambiguous.
Click to expand...

The fact that you are often asked to cross over midfield (as often happens when approaching San Carlos from the west, for example) would imply to me that when you don't receive that instruction, they're not expecting you to do it.

In 23 years of flying out of Palo Alto Airport, I've never heard anyone misinterpret their instruction to follow traffic on the opposite downwind, and this is the first time I've heard of someone doing so. However, I don't have any objection to your suggested rewording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top