STOP and goes?

Rotor&Wing said:
Back many years ago we use to take an empty B727 out to Dade Collier in the everglades to do aircraft training. Most of the patterns were land and taxi back but half of them we did touch and goes, which can be exciting in a 727 to say the least.
Click to expand...
Heck, I did a touch and go at Oakland in a 777 last week. ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
91.119. If you're not 500 feet over him, you'd better have a real good excuse, like not recognizing he was there until you got so far below 500 feet that you couldn't get back up to 500 feet before you crossed over him, and in that case, you're probably admitting to following too closely in violation of 91.111 (creating a collision hazard). I've been over this one with the FAA over something that happened recently when someone pulled out on the runway in front of one of my students, so I know the FAA's position on this.
...
Click to expand...


I've done a go around over a landing plane on the runway WITH my CFI in the plane - talking me through it - when a oblivious guy kept cutting us off. We were in the pattern. He wasn't.

He landed ahead of me. I poured on full power and climbed away.

I'm sure I didn't have a full 500 feet over him.

I guess we're both in trouble.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
I've done a go around over a landing plane on the runway WITH my CFI in the plane - talking me through it - when a oblivious guy kept cutting us off. We were in the pattern. He wasn't.

He landed ahead of me. I poured on full power and climbed away.

I'm sure I didn't have a full 500 feet over him.

I guess we're both in trouble.
Click to expand...
Only if you could have cleared him by 500 but chose not to.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since you're not landing (you're going around), it's not "necessary for ... landing." You want to believe otherwise, go ahead, but I know from having dealt with them on this issue that the FAA will not buy that argument. Unless you were just about at the landing threshold when someone pulls out without warning, they are going to ask if you had ample warning that the other plane was on or entering the runway, and if so (which you did in the case under discussion), and if you continued your approach so you passed within 500 feet of the other aircraft when you could have avoided by that much or more, they will toast you.
Click to expand...
I am attempting to land, a plane has not cleared the runway, a go around in appropriate. One does not only initiate landing when the runway is all clear. It is quite common to be cleared for landing at a tower controlled airport with traffic still on the runway. It is also appropriate to initiate your landing approach all the way to short final at a pilot controlled airport with traffic still on the runway.


In this case the aircraft on the runway had indicate on the CTAF that they were about to take off as part of a stop and go. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for one to continue the approach in anticipation of that event.


91.119 does not apply, you were mistaken in bringing it up as being applicable to this situation.
 
A little slide step if there is no parallel runway away from the downwind side is also appropriate.
 
I'm with a previous poster. Just once, repay the favor.
 
smigaldi said:
In this case the aircraft on the runway had indicate on the CTAF that they were about to take off as part of a stop and go. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for one to continue the approach in anticipation of that event.

91.119 does not apply, you were mistaken in bringing it up as being applicable to this situation.
Click to expand...
You tell the FAA that. They told me otherwise.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Do you fly a 777?
Click to expand...
Not very well, but probably passable for my first try. :aureola:

The touch and go would have gone a little smoother if I had figured out the TOGA tabs and the autothrottle a little sooner. You can ask the FO how it went although I am not sure if she is reading this thread. One of the pax is a POA member too. ;)
 
About 2 years ago, there was a write-up in one of the aviation magazines about a pilot who got his license suspended for buzzing a plane on a go around. The situation was similar but not exactly the same as what is being debated in this thread.

A pilot/plane on the runway was taking an excessive amount of time to clear the runway, and a pilot on final became upset. The pilot on final went around and managed to get 'close' to the plane clearing the runway.

The right seat occupant in the 'clearing' plane was associated with the FAA, and the deal went to the FSDO.

Their accounts of the go-around varied dramatically, but of course, the FAA ended up side-ing with their own, and against the pilot doing the go-around/buzz, who received a suspension.
 
nyoung said:
About 2 years ago, there was a write-up in one of the aviation magazines about a pilot who got his license suspended for buzzing a plane on a go around. The situation was similar but not exactly the same as what is being debated in this thread.

A pilot/plane on the runway was taking an excessive amount of time to clear the runway, and a pilot on final became upset. The pilot on final went around and managed to get 'close' to the plane clearing the runway.

The right seat occupant in the 'clearing' plane was associated with the FAA, and the deal went to the FSDO.

Their accounts of the go-around varied dramatically, but of course, the FAA ended up side-ing with their own, and against the pilot doing the go-around/buzz, who received a suspension.
Click to expand...
That's consistent with what those five inspectors at two FSDO's told me, and close enough to the originally posted scenario.
 
I wouldn't lower yourself to his level and play tricks on him. Just go around properly, then land when it's safe. Then report him to the FSDO. Stopping on the runway for extended periods of time is unsafe; yes, the airport is unconctrolled, but I bet that still doesn't give me the authority to shut down the airport for the day by parking my airplane on the runway. As a CFI, he'll be held to a higher standard.

I'd also document every single occurrence of this and submit a complaint every single time. CC airport management and his school if he's associated with one.

-Felix
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
The touch and go would have gone a little smoother if I had figured out the TOGA tabs and the autothrottle a little sooner. You can ask the FO how it went although I am not sure if she is reading this thread. One of the pax is a POA member too. ;)
Click to expand...
Hm, one can't imagine who that would be :D I've been told to start flaring a little bit after the 20' call out from the radalt....don't know why we remember stuff like that. :confused:

-Felix
 
Ron Levy said:
That's consistent with what those five inspectors at two FSDO's told me, and close enough to the originally posted scenario.
Click to expand...
The key seems to be intent to land. SInce in this situation there is an honest attempt to land and the abort happens because the airplane that claimed it was doing a stop and go delayed it take off run the go around was necessary and 91.119 would not apply.

The board seemed to accept that a pass down the runway would be excused if it were “necessary for takeoff or landing,” but the board cited one of its earlier decisions holding that the “landing exceptions do not apply where no landing is intended or possible due to the aircraft configuration.”
Click to expand...
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2008/pc0804.html

A side step to keep the aircraft on the runway in sight is also the safe thing to do.
 
I'm a little late to this party, as far as the OP goes...but I did/do Stop and Goes rather often. Either for night currency (since my normally flying takeoffs are usually too early) and for spacing if I'm gaining on the traffic in front, as it's an easy adjustment.

That said, I'm usually in the stopped mode for about 1 to 10 seconds. (This is in a simple plane.) I can't imagine just sitting there...I'd be too worried about someone landing on me, ignoring the lack of courtesy part.

I did once send a Citation around doing a S&G (for about 1/2 second) that I had been tower cleared for. Felt bad about that one...
 
smigaldi said:
The key seems to be intent to land. SInce in this situation there is an honest attempt to land and the abort happens because the airplane that claimed it was doing a stop and go delayed it take off run the go around was necessary and 91.119 would not apply.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that. However, the issue here is not intent to land, but continuing an approach when there is a plane on the runway in front of you. As explained to me by the FAA, you must not continue past the point that if the plane in front doesn't move, separation will be compromised even if you have right of way. IOW, you're not allowed to bet on the "go."
 
sba55 said:
I wouldn't lower yourself to his level and play tricks on him. Just go around properly, then land when it's safe. Then report him to the FSDO. Stopping on the runway for extended periods of time is unsafe; yes, the airport is unconctrolled, but I bet that still doesn't give me the authority to shut down the airport for the day by parking my airplane on the runway. As a CFI, he'll be held to a higher standard.

I'd also document every single occurrence of this and submit a complaint every single time. CC airport management and his school if he's associated with one.

-Felix
Click to expand...
Good point here. While you might not want to call the FSDO, a NASA ASRS form might be in order.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Report him for what? :frown2:
Click to expand...

If a person habitually sits on non-towered runways for 2-3 minutes at a time, maybe 91.13 would apply. The FAA has made that stick in many situations that were otherwise within the letter of the law.

If it's not habitual, then I would say don't worry about it.
 
Dean said:
Next time he does this, park your butt in the middle of the runway after he takes off. When he says something to you, tell him it is "your runway" until you are done with it and to do a go around.
Click to expand...


That is funny and I would love to do that but again it would be a hazard.

I understand now that stop and goes are done but again just to clean up the plane and go on your way, it should only take a few seconds. This Instructor was parked there taking his sweet time probably talking to his student. Not only was he inconsiderate and a hazard to me but he is also teaching his students bad habits.

I have talked to the owner of the school and he agreed that the Instructor was taking to long on his Stop and goes if it was longer then 30 seconds he said that is to long.

Maybe after talking to him and to the school he got the idea that what he is doing is wrong and it will not continue.

I will take my video camera with me to the airport and if I see him continuing to do this I will get it on film and share it here.

It has been helpful to read about what to avoid on a go around, I never had to do one yet but with this guy I can see it happening.
 
Ron Levy said:
You keep saying that. However, the issue here is not intent to land, but continuing an approach when there is a plane on the runway in front of you. As explained to me by the FAA, you must not continue past the point that if the plane in front doesn't move, separation will be compromised even if you have right of way. IOW, you're not allowed to bet on the "go."
Click to expand...
The plane has said he is going, you are not betting, you are taking the pilot of that plane at his word. Now things can change. The pilot could be having problems getting going and while well intentioned he does not go and remains on the runway. Or he could just be a jerk and decide to park while still maintaining that he is going to go. All you have is his word what he is going to do and in both cases it is that his departure is imminent. Therefore it is entirely reasonable that the pilot intending to land would continue his approach until a point that it is clear that the he cannot land and must go around. In no way is there anyway that, as you say, 91.119 would be invoked and result in a violation.
 
smigaldi said:
The plane has said he is going, you are not betting, you are taking the pilot of that plane at his word. Now things can change. The pilot could be having problems getting going and while well intentioned he does not go and remains on the runway. Or he could just be a jerk and decide to park while still maintaining that he is going to go. All you have is his word what he is going to do and in both cases it is that his departure is imminent. Therefore it is entirely reasonable that the pilot intending to land would continue his approach until a point that it is clear that the he cannot land and must go around. In no way is there anyway that, as you say, 91.119 would be invoked and result in a violation.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
smigaldi said:
The plane has said he is going, you are not betting, you are taking the pilot of that plane at his word. Now things can change. The pilot could be having problems getting going and while well intentioned he does not go and remains on the runway. Or he could just be a jerk and decide to park while still maintaining that he is going to go. All you have is his word what he is going to do and in both cases it is that his departure is imminent. Therefore it is entirely reasonable that the pilot intending to land would continue his approach until a point that it is clear that the he cannot land and must go around. In no way is there anyway that, as you say, 91.119 would be invoked and result in a violation.
Click to expand...

Scott Here's your original post

Hmmm I agree with Peggy, he is being a jerk. A low pass down the runway as part of your go around, while he is parked there, just off of his wing may cure him of this practice. or at least get students to stop wanting to fly with him.


You can argue all day long about thinking he was going to go and there for 119 does not apply but you started out by advocating a buzz job. Own up and move on.
 
smigaldi said:
The plane has said he is going, you are not betting, you are taking the pilot of that plane at his word. Now things can change. The pilot could be having problems getting going and while well intentioned he does not go and remains on the runway. Or he could just be a jerk and decide to park while still maintaining that he is going to go. All you have is his word what he is going to do and in both cases it is that his departure is imminent. Therefore it is entirely reasonable that the pilot intending to land would continue his approach until a point that it is clear that the he cannot land and must go around. In no way is there anyway that, as you say, 91.119 would be invoked and result in a violation.
Click to expand...

That was what I was going on, was his word and I continued my landing course.

In the Gyro I have many options and can continue till I felt I was compromised in my landing which is pretty close because I can land with in 50 feet.

But if I was in the Cherokee I would have decided long before that to do a go around and I would have guessed I was still up a few hundred feet and would have passed on his right. I would have said something also when turning finale and still seeing him just setting there and would have said MOVE! or PLEASE EXPEDITE IMMEDIATELY YOU HAVE A LANDING AIRCRAFT BEHIND YOU! And again he probably would have known that since I would have been using my radio in the pattern. That is no excuse to why he was still just setting there, he did know I was in the pattern with him, where I was should not matter.

In my Gyro I did not use my radio in the pattern I monitor traffic and general don't use it because I am hard to understand because of all the rushing air around my mic. We have lots of ultralight traffic at my airport that do not use radios so that is common. The flight school owner asked if I used my radio and I told him I don't have too. He agreed and acknowledged there is lots of traffic at this airport that do not use radios.

But again the Instuctor said he does this all the time so it was not the lack of me not using my radio. I think his a jerk plain and simple like most of you saying.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
I've heard of it, I haven't ever done one. I've heard of it at larger airports with a control tower and a long runway. I understand from my instructor (and the instructors here will correct me if I remembered wrong) that it seems to be done if they want to give the student a chance to "clean up" the plane (flaps up, carb heat, etc) before flying off again- usually only a few seconds.

If we had to do anything that needed time, we would clear the runway.
Click to expand...

Hi Jack..they are also commonly used to practice short field landings on a hard surface runway.eg ("lets pretend from the threshhold of the runway to the 1000ft markers is a Walmart parking lot that you have to land in") Actually coming to a prompt controlled stop can be something to practice in a plane.
 
Tina,
I had missed that his telling you that he didn't have to move occurred afterwards on the ground. While I still think that it was a jerky response (maybe he was feeling a little defensive?), it's not quite as jerky as if you had spoken to him via radio while on short final and he told you to go pound sand.

He may not have known that there was another plane with him in the pattern when he sat there so long. On the other hand, given the amount of NORDO ultralight traffic you're talking about there, he certainly had reason to presume that it could be there and should have vacated the runway as soon as practicable.
 
smigaldi said:
The plane has said he is going, you are not betting, you are taking the pilot of that plane at his word. Now things can change. The pilot could be having problems getting going and while well intentioned he does not go and remains on the runway. Or he could just be a jerk and decide to park while still maintaining that he is going to go. All you have is his word what he is going to do and in both cases it is that his departure is imminent. Therefore it is entirely reasonable that the pilot intending to land would continue his approach until a point that it is clear that the he cannot land and must go around. In no way is there anyway that, as you say, 91.119 would be invoked and result in a violation.
Click to expand...

I sort of see this through foggles with regard to FAR 91.119. Being 500 feet or less to a person place or thing etc. cant happen except when necessary to land. So is it necessary to land when your only 500 feet away from a static aircraft? even with the assumption that it will takeoff? remember what happens when you assume...
 
Last edited:
taters said:
Hi Jack..they are also commonly used to practice short field landings on a hard surface runway.eg ("lets pretend from the threshhold of the runway to the 1000ft markers is a Walmart parking lot that you have to land in") Actually coming to a prompt controlled stop can be something to practice in a plane.
Click to expand...

Another good use of stop & goes. The runways I generally used were too short to go after full stopping (or I thought they were after my landing). We did the exercise you mentioned except it was a stop and taxi around so we could go again.
 
I was there with Tina when this happened. I was watching her fly her gyro and she was doing some touch and goes. The other aircraft entered into the pattern with her. after he made a touch and go on the next landing he stopped in the runway. At first I thought that he would go again in a few seconds, he did not. Many people probably think that Tina is exaggerating when she says 2 to 3 minuets, It was closer to 4. I at first after he sat in the runway thought that he was having some problem. So why not clear the runway? I then spent another minute wondering what he was doing. after another minute Tina had now gone from Base to final and he was still in the runway. I then got into the airplane, turned on the radios, put on a headset, and told the pilot that he should not park in the runway and that there was other traffic waiting on him. He replied that he had the active and could stop as long as he wanted. He then did this three more times, maybe only for a minute or two, but still to long. He was also flying excessive long patterns to the point where you would think he was doing a straight out and people were turning inside his upwind leg. I later learned that he was a instructor and had a student. Now when I was a student if I did something like sit in a runway for 1 minute my instructor would have hit me in the back of the head with his clipboard. There is no reason to be locking up a active runway. The fact that he is teaching a student such bad habits will probably cause the student to go somewhere else and get a violation. I checked the FAR's and AIM's and found some rules that I thought applied. When confronted about this the instructor was arrogant, rude, and just did not care if he was disrupting other traffic. I was so mad that I did call the FSDO, because I did not think that he was operating in a safe manner. I spoke with a couple of different people and the consensus was that while he was not violating any rule exactly, he was operating in a rude and unsafe manner. I don't know what the FSDO did, but I was told that he would look into it.
I have never in all my years of flying all over the country seen anything like this. That along with the instructors arrogant attitude really made me believe that he was a hazard. The fact that he is teaching students such poor habits is what really set me off and that is why I called the FSDO. I don't like to rat anyone out to the feds. But after trying to reason with the guy there was no choice. People pay allot of money to get training and they deserve to be taught in a proper and safe manner. Even if this is accepted behavior at this airport the student will be somewhere else where it will not. I was fortunate to have a great instructor and wish that everyone could be get the best training they pay for. We should all operate with caution and courtesy to all pilots and people around the airport. We depend on instructors for this. My instructor always said "I love flying and want everybody to love it as much as I do." That is how I was taught and I value the lesson.
 
gincledon said:
I was there with Tina when this happened. I was watching her fly her gyro and she was doing some touch and goes. The other aircraft entered into the pattern with her. after he made a touch and go on the next landing he stopped in the runway. At first I thought that he would go again in a few seconds, he did not. Many people probably think that Tina is exaggerating when she says 2 to 3 minuets, It was closer to 4. I at first after he sat in the runway thought that he was having some problem. So why not clear the runway? I then spent another minute wondering what he was doing. after another minute Tina had now gone from Base to final and he was still in the runway. I then got into the airplane, turned on the radios, put on a headset, and told the pilot that he should not park in the runway and that there was other traffic waiting on him. He replied that he had the active and could stop as long as he wanted. He then did this three more times, maybe only for a minute or two, but still to long. He was also flying excessive long patterns to the point where you would think he was doing a straight out and people were turning inside his upwind leg. I later learned that he was a instructor and had a student. Now when I was a student if I did something like sit in a runway for 1 minute my instructor would have hit me in the back of the head with his clipboard. There is no reason to be locking up a active runway. The fact that he is teaching a student such bad habits will probably cause the student to go somewhere else and get a violation. I checked the FAR's and AIM's and found some rules that I thought applied. When confronted about this the instructor was arrogant, rude, and just did not care if he was disrupting other traffic. I was so mad that I did call the FSDO, because I did not think that he was operating in a safe manner. I spoke with a couple of different people and the consensus was that while he was not violating any rule exactly, he was operating in a rude and unsafe manner. I don't know what the FSDO did, but I was told that he would look into it.
I have never in all my years of flying all over the country seen anything like this. That along with the instructors arrogant attitude really made me believe that he was a hazard. The fact that he is teaching students such poor habits is what really set me off and that is why I called the FSDO. I don't like to rat anyone out to the feds. But after trying to reason with the guy there was no choice. People pay allot of money to get training and they deserve to be taught in a proper and safe manner. Even if this is accepted behavior at this airport the student will be somewhere else where it will not. I was fortunate to have a great instructor and wish that everyone could be get the best training they pay for. We should all operate with caution and courtesy to all pilots and people around the airport. We depend on instructors for this. My instructor always said "I love flying and want everybody to love it as much as I do." That is how I was taught and I value the lesson.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the additional info. Given that he was acting like this when he knew there were others in the pattern, I'm back to my original entirely negative assessment of him. Rude, boorish, unsafe, arrogant, and an example of what we should strive to avoid being.

By the way, welcome to PoA!
 
Ron Levy said:
When you get someone from the FAA to say that in writing, let me know, so I can show it to the five inspectors at two different FSDO's who said otherwise.
Click to expand...

When you can show some actual documentation from your "meeting" with the FAA and can post it I might believe you. If this was indeed "5 inspectors at two different FSDO's" there would have to be something in writing.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
When you can show some actual documentation from your "meeting" with the FAA and can post it I might believe you.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don't care whether you believe me or not. If you feel like acting on your belief, only your ticket will be at risk. As for what others choose to do, that is their choice based on what's been said here. I hope they will choose not to continue an approach to the point that the failure of a plane ahead of them to clear the runway will result in compromise of legal separation per 91.111 and/or 91.119 during an ensuing go-around.
If this was indeed "5 inspectors at two different FSDO's" there would have to be something in writing.
Click to expand...
Had they put it in writing, there would have been an enforcement action, and that would not have been good for my student. We agreed to let it be a learning experience, and that ended the matter.
 
Tina said:
I talked to the Instructor later about this matter and he said...when he has the runway its his till he is done with it.
Click to expand...

I think I just found the answer to this claim:

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations...

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach... [emphasis added]
Click to expand...

So the guy was operating on the surface, and he was making no attempt to make way for the aircraft on final. Looks to me like he violated the right of way rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top