"Follow the aircraft on downwind"

pericynthion

pericynthion

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
463
Location
California
Display Name
Display name:
pericynthion
Scenario: small, busy, towered airport with a single short runway.

I enter the pattern according to instructions on a right downwind. There's some slow guy ahead of me on right downwind, and other traffic on left downwind. First I am asked to perform a left 360 for spacing from the guy ahead. OK. Then I am told of traffic on the left downwind (opposite side of the airfield), asked to report in sight, which I do. Told "Follow that aircraft, cleared to land #3".

I turn right 90 degrees, cross the field perpendicular to the runway, enter a left downwind, follow the aircraft in question, and land. Taxi, get fuel and passenger, call ground for departure and am asked to phone the tower.

As it turns out, the instruction "follow that aircraft" does not literally mean to follow that aircraft. Instead, I should have extended my right downwind until there was sufficient spacing for him to turn left base and land, then I should have turned right base and landed. The more you know!

I'm always ready to ask for clarification if an instruction is confusing, but in this case I thought it was pretty clear - and I was totally wrong about what it meant. There was no real safety hazard this time, but in other circumstances there could have been. Just thought I would throw this out there so maybe some other person doesn't get caught off guard.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Sounds like Palo Alto.
Click to expand...
Three points to Gryffindor.
kimberlyanne546 said:
What happens when you call the phone number?
Click to expand...
The nice man explains the miscommunication and you go away having learned something. No other follow-up.

I think perhaps clearer ATC phraseology would have been, "EZ 1234, extend right downwind, follow the Cessna on left downwind, cleared to land #3." But the freq was fairly congested.
 
Our responsibility to maintain spacing from other aircraft. The guy in the tower isn't going to eat it if two airplanes try and occupy the same space at the same time. Must be difficult mixing that hotrod up with all the spam cans.
 
It's pretty common for those kinds of instructions at my local class-D. I don't remember the exact phraseology used, but we do get instructions like that on a routine basis. The tower controllers expect us to turn base when the plane that is on final crosses our wingtip. That's probably what your tower controller was expecting you to do when he told you to follow him. It sounds like the controller wanted you to do that 360 to widen the gap enough that the plane in front of you would be #1, the plane on left d/w would be #2, and you would be #3.

A lot of times it's easy to lose track of the other planes that you are being asked to follow, so its not a big deal to ask the tower to "call my base" and let him tell you when he thinks it's OK for you to make your base turn (still, it's your responsibility to see and avoid).
 
I probably would have been confused too. Just a side note you might want to file an ASRS anyway. I know it sounds like nothing will come of this and that is great, but filing the report is free, easy and the FAA does like to know about these things.
 
This was a few months ago... of course I filed ASRS, I would never skip that step on my shutdown checklist ;)
 
LOL,the comedy that ambiguity can bring about. I bet there was some face palming in the tower over that. Eh, no harm, no foul, at least you crossed the runway perpendicular...
 
Reminds me of my cousin's t-ball game, the first base coach was yelling "go to third, go to third" as he rounded first. he pushed the D-> button and went direct from 1st to 3rd.
 
pericynthion said:
Scenario: small, busy, towered airport with a single short runway.

I enter the pattern according to instructions on a right downwind. There's some slow guy ahead of me on right downwind, and other traffic on left downwind. First I am asked to perform a left 360 for spacing from the guy ahead. OK. Then I am told of traffic on the left downwind (opposite side of the airfield), asked to report in sight, which I do. Told "Follow that aircraft, cleared to land #3".

I turn right 90 degrees, cross the field perpendicular to the runway, enter a left downwind, follow the aircraft in question, and land. Taxi, get fuel and passenger, call ground for departure and am asked to phone the tower.

As it turns out, the instruction "follow that aircraft" does not literally mean to follow that aircraft. Instead, I should have extended my right downwind until there was sufficient spacing for him to turn left base and land, then I should have turned right base and landed. The more you know!

I'm always ready to ask for clarification if an instruction is confusing, but in this case I thought it was pretty clear - and I was totally wrong about what it meant. There was no real safety hazard this time, but in other circumstances there could have been. Just thought I would throw this out there so maybe some other person doesn't get caught off guard.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, they never told you to leave the right hand pattern and go to the left hand pattern. They are usually quite anal about not crossing the centerline (or extended centerline) of the active runway when you are in the pattern. They would have been very explicit about switching traffic patterns if that were their intention.

Sometimes I get "extend your downwind" for opposite pattern traffic and sometimes I don't. If you don't have the traffic in sight, they will often call your base turn when it's clear.
 
Ya, you goofed. No biggie. You were seeing and avoiding the whole time and aware of other traffic. Glad you did not get in trouble.
 
This airport, to me, is difficult. I used to always say I wanted to hire a CFI if I ever flew to / from there. Now I know a pilot based there and the more I fly with him the more I get "used to" everything. I still would consult him before I flew in though. They have a different TPA for right vs left of runway, noise rules about staying above TPA until you cross 101 freeway, and lots of other rules I've forgotten about. Not to mention all those Bravo's and Charlie's nearby.

This is why I heart my airport so much. Middle of NOWHERE in terms of AIRSPACE.
 
LOL, that's a new one to me... I'm not sure what I'd do, either. It would have made a lot more sense if they'd just said "you are #3 after that aircraft." Hard to say who's assumption was more unfounded, his or yours, but I'll bet that next time you'll ask, and/or that controller will be more specific. :D
 
Sac Arrow said:
Sometimes I get "extend your downwind" for opposite pattern traffic and sometimes I don't. If you don't have the traffic in sight, they will often call your base turn when it's clear.
Click to expand...


That's what I'm used to hearing, or just, "Extend down wind, Ill call your base."; another is "clear to land #3 behind". I can't recall ever being asked to follow in a scenario like that. Kinda funny, it probably isn't the standard phraseology in the controllers manual either.
 
Henning said:
That's what I'm used to hearing, or just, "Extend down wind, Ill call your base."; another is "clear to land #3 behind". I can't recall ever being asked to follow in a scenario like that. Kinda funny, it probably isn't the standard phraseology in the controllers manual either.
Click to expand...

That's what I've usually heard at my local Class D (Easton MD, KESN). They usually call base. I've definitely been told, "Follow the Skyhawk on downwind, cleared to land runway 4," but not with two aircraft on opposite downwinds. Then again, they have neighbors they like to keep happy, so they're careful about their patterns.
 
steingar said:
Our responsibility to maintain spacing from other aircraft. The guy in the tower isn't going to eat it if two airplanes try and occupy the same space at the same time. Must be difficult mixing that hotrod up with all the spam cans.
Click to expand...

Yeppers. :D
 
I'm glad nothing bad happened. honestly, I would have interpreted the instruction the same as the OP.
 
I'd like one of the controllers to chime in whether this is an 'approved' phraseology for the situation. It really seems to me there were 2 rather minor errors that combined to make everyone chuckle.
 
Henning said:
I'd like one of the controllers to chime in whether this is an 'approved' phraseology for the situation. It really seems to me there were 2 rather minor errors that combined to make everyone chuckle.
Click to expand...

The book sayeth:

PHRASEOLOGY-
FOLLOW (description and location of traffic)

So it all depends on what the controller inserts between parentheses.
 
Seems to me that the lesson here is to think about the situation and clarify any ATC instruction you don't understand.

In this instance the thinking part would include if/why/when a controller has ever wanted a plane to make such a maneuver. If no good answer quickly comes to mind, ask the nice man/lady what they want you to do.
 
I am taking away that it *IS* possible to over think things. But thats just me...YMMV.
 
You are exempted from any activity that involves thinking. Just come over and sit by me and we can blank-stare together.

Kelvin said:
I am taking away that it *IS* possible to over think things. But thats just me...YMMV.
Click to expand...
 
In October I decided to lay off the sauce for a while, thinking that I could get 4 months before the annual golf trip. No particular reason, other than I thought weight control would be easier. Found the golf trip was no less fun without booze, so have continued with the plan. Might resume tomorrow, might be sometime later, might be never. At this point there's no pressure either way and I don't miss it.

QUOTE=Kelvin;867381]Noted.[/QUOTE]
 
wabower said:
In October I decided to lay off the sauce for a while, thinking that I could get 4 months before the annual golf trip. No particular reason, other than I thought weight control would be easier. Found the golf trip was no less fun without booze, so have continued with the plan. Might resume tomorrow, might be sometime later, might be never. At this point there's no pressure either way and I don't miss it.

QUOTE=Kelvin;867381]Noted.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

In that case, when I show up In Dallas...where are we eating?
 
Dunno. All the near-by restaurants closed when I gave up the hootch.



In that case, when I show up In Dallas...where are we eating?[/QUOTE]
 
roncachamp said:
The book sayeth:

PHRASEOLOGY-
FOLLOW (description and location of traffic)

So it all depends on what the controller inserts between parentheses.
Click to expand...
But do you think the word "follow" was even necessary here? Sure, the OP's landing would follow the other pilot's, but I've never heard of any context where "follow" means "arrive after" as opposed to "go the same way".
:dunno:
 
That instruction is sort of like telling somebody, "Walk this way..."
 
rottydaddy said:
But do you think the word "follow" was even necessary here? Sure, the OP's landing would follow the other pilot's, but I've never heard of any context where "follow" means "arrive after" as opposed to "go the same way".
:dunno:
Click to expand...


:confused: "69SA do you have the Aerostar at 10 O'clock on base?" "Contact traffic 9SA" "9SA Clear to land #2 following the Aerostar."
 
Henning said:
:confused: "69SA do you have the Aerostar at 10 O'clock on base?" "Contact traffic 9SA" "9SA Clear to land #2 following the Aerostar."
Click to expand...
Phrased this way, I'd understand. The OP had the traffic on downwind, not base and he was previously asked to menuver to create spacing. I'd hope I'd ask for clarification if it happened to me but I understand his thinking.
 
When there is a left and right traffic pattern going on with a tower providing sequencing then crossing the field is not a normal procedure. I would have stayed right traffic and followed the guy in the left pattern.

If I were to ever think the tower wanted me to depart one side and join the other I'd expect to hear those instructions given very plainly. For what it's worth, the OP didn't seem very vague to me.
 
Captain said:
When there is a left and right traffic pattern going on with a tower providing sequencing then crossing the field is not a normal procedure. I would have stayed right traffic and followed the guy in the left pattern.

If I were to ever think the tower wanted me to depart one side and join the other I'd expect to hear those instructions given very plainly. For what it's worth, the OP didn't seem very vague to me.
Click to expand...
The OP probably had this meaning of the word in mind:
to go, proceed, or come after
Click to expand...
and that's what he did.

Yeah- the instruction does sound odd given the circumstances, and that's why I'd hope I'd have the presence of mind to ask for clarification.
 
No need. Tower said to 'follow' the guy. To me that means don't land before him...it doesn't mean to alter any previous instructions and 'right traffic' was a previous instruction. I don't have any problem with anybody clarifying any ATC instruction, but to me, in this instance, the instructions given by the OP are adequate.
 
Captain said:
No need. Tower said to 'follow' the guy. To me that means don't land before him...it doesn't mean to alter any previous instructions and 'right traffic' was a previous instruction. I don't have any problem with anybody clarifying any ATC instruction, but to me, in this instance, the instructions given by the OP are adequate.
Click to expand...
Sure, to you. They weren't for me, and they weren't to the OP. You seem to be down on someone suggesting a clarification?!
 
Captain said:
No need. Tower said to 'follow' the guy. To me that means don't land before him...it doesn't mean to alter any previous instructions and 'right traffic' was a previous instruction. I don't have any problem with anybody clarifying any ATC instruction, but to me, in this instance, the instructions given by the OP are adequate.
Click to expand...

Nope, I do not.
 
Captain said:
No need. Tower said to 'follow' the guy. To me that means don't land before him...it doesn't mean to alter any previous instructions and 'right traffic' was a previous instruction. I don't have any problem with anybody clarifying any ATC instruction, but to me, in this instance, the instructions given by the OP are adequate.
Click to expand...
I know I don't have as high a post count as many, but I did read that in your earlier post.
Captain said:
Nope, I do not.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top