ATC yelled at me today....

[A Squared]

again, as mentioned and the way I understand it, a visual approach is a straigh-in approach... if you're coming in from any other direction than from straight on (which the controllers usually vector you for anyway) then make a beeline towards a place that will within one turn, put you on final... anotherwords the shortest route to final approach if not already on the final leg, no 45 to a downwind, go to the airport and land (of course adivse CTAF that you're "x" direction from the airport inbound for a visual runway "x") but this is not standard pattern entry as you would if you were VFR... as I understand it

You understand incorrectly, a visual approach at a non-towered airport is absolutely * NOT* a clearence for a straight in approach. It's especially not a clearence to beeline to a final.

A visual approach is a clearence to proceed for a landing in accordance with the regulations. Now, I am not a "no straight in approach" nazi. I do them frequently, but only in accordance with the regulations.

If you think that a visual approach is approval to ignore traffic pattern regulations you have another think coming. I can show you more than one NTSB decision in which airline pilots were violated for doing exactly that, flying counter to the pattern when cleared for a visual.

"AIM 5-5-11. Visual Approach
a. Pilot.
3. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. After being cleared for a visual approach, proceed to the airport in a normal manner or follow the preceding aircraft. Remain clear of clouds while conducting a visual approach."


See the part in red above? You didn't uphold your responsibility to proceed to the airport in a "normal manner"

Right, a normal manner. What's a "normal manner" to join the pattern at a uncontrolled airport?

According to the AIM it's join the down wind on a 45, which is *exactly* what he did. If you're approaching from the opposite side, it is very "normal" to overfly and then do a descending turn to join on a 45 personally, I favor a midfield crosswind entry, but in this situation that would have required descending in the pattern. It is *not* "normal" (according to the AIM) to descend to pattern altitude in the pattern. There are pros and cons. However, for an absolute fact, he still has to comply with 91.127 which mandates turns in accordance with the pattern, whcih means making a legal straight-in (established 5 miles out, which was obviously not possible) or comply with the traffic pattern, which he was.

Unfortunately, I've had to write up more than one pilot who made a 360 to get down/slow down after being cleared for a slam-dunk visual approach at ORD. You just can't do that without advising ATC-- the 360 not only puts the aircraft in the face of the next aircraft in line, but can also cause the aircraft to lose separation with arrivals and/or departures using other runways. If a loss of separation occurs in such a circumstance, it's either a pilot deviation or an operational error-- and I've never seen one declared an operational error.

Ok, the key here is "at ORD", that's a whole different ball game, it's a towered airport with approach services. The AIM specifically addresses that. yes, if you make a 360 for altitude when straight in on a visual for RWY XXX at ORD you probably will cause a loss of seperation, and it will be the pilot's fault. I think what is leading you astray here is you are projecting your experience at ORD to a situation to which it is not applicable.

This wasn't ORD. It was a non-towered airport. Now, as far as I know (and maybe I'm missing something), it's going to be one-in one-out at that airport, If there was a following IFR aircraft it would either be seperated by altitude, or he would be cleared for visual with the traffic ahead in sight, maintain visual seperation.

So for all of you who think this guy was violating something, here's a question: what do *you* think he should have done? (other than cancel or advise ATC, which are good suggestions) Yes he shouldn't have been 5000' feet above the airport at cruise speed, but if anyone here claims they have *never* found themselves a little high and fast and a bit behind the airplane, I'm calling you a liar.


So there you are, 5000 feet *over* your airport. You're cleared for the visual. You're heading east, you're going to land 28. What do you do? how do you get to the runway, while complying with the regulations and the AIM recommedations. Specifically, (but not excusively) comply with 91.127 and the AIM recommendation to enter the pattern *at* traffic pattern altitude?

 

[PC800]

Thanks for making our fellow pilots' lives difficult, then ratting them out to the FED's for trying to make your bullsh1t clearance work. Its just not a pilots' philosophy to write up controllers; and most you guys can never own up to making a mistake. Cheers!!!

You don't know me, and you obviously are clueless as to the way these things work. Allow me to enlighten you:

1. If there's a documented loss of separation (hard to hide in the situation at hand), there is no choice as to whether to write up an appropriate report.

2. I, as controller or supervisor, don't decide who's at fault-- I simply write a report that says what airplane A did, what airplane B did, and what the controller did. Others, far above my pay grade, research the incident and make the determinations as to who was responsible for what. I've seen controllers cited as "contributing factors" for dumping an airplane fast and high, but in my experience, the pilot always takes the brunt of it in these situations-- because he's the one that could have said "unable" to the clueless controller who put him in that position, and didn't.

3. I've a well deserved reputation for bending over backwards for pilots (to af fault, in the eyes of many controllers and managers). For every pilot mistake that I was forced to document, I've buried at least 100, and undoubtably saved some careers in the process.

So, don't lecture me about making pilot's lives difficult-- I've been a pilot for almost 40 years, and they have no better friend on the other side of the mic. But when a pilot does something as stupid as making an unannounced 360 while on approach to O'Hare, then swishes an air carrier or two in the process, he creates a scenario where someone is going to be held accountable. I've never been afraid to own up to my mistakes, and paid the price when I made them-- sometimes it's necessary for pilots to do the same. If you can't deal with that, you're in the wrong profession.

 

[PC800]

I think what is leading you astray here is you are projecting your experience at ORD to a situation to which it is not applicable.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that analysis.

I worked approach control for all the satellite airports in the Chicago airspace for many years, and while the likelihood of a loss of separation in those situations is obviously less, the potential is still there. For instance, there are several airports southwest of Chicago in fairly close proximity to each other (in the vicinity of the Joliet VOR)-- and if an airplane that I ass-um-ed was going to go direct to one of them was to make a surprise 360, it could easily impact (pun intended <g>) an aircraft going to one of the others.

As to what the pilot should have done, it's pretty simple: what would he have done if the controller had given him an impossible crossing restriction, or a speed restriction too fast or too slow, or a clearance he couldn't fly because he wasn't suitably equipped? He'd say, "Unable", and seek alternate instructions.

You, and several others, have agreed that the pilot probably should have told the controller about the 360. That's just not strong enough-- telling the controller about such an unusual maneuver is mandatory, whether it's at O'Hare or Podunk International. Getting "yelled at" by the controller is the least of the consequences a pilot should expect if he doesn't.

 

[Say Again Over]

Thanks for making our fellow pilots' lives difficult by Agenda

If your destination is ORD and you pull that crap, you shouldn't have a pilot's license, my 2 cents.

 

[A Squared]

For instance, there are several airports southwest of Chicago in fairly close proximity to each other (in the vicinity of the Joliet VOR)-- and if an airplane that I ass-um-ed was going to go direct to one of them was to make a surprise 360, it could easily impact (pun intended <g>) an aircraft going to one of the others.

Right, I agree that if you had an airplane that you assumed would be proceeding direct to an airport say 12-15 miles away, and he was suddenly doing something other than going in that direction, I'd agree that would cause problems, and it would be the pilot's fault.

That's not the situation though, according to what we've been told, the plane was *over* the airport, not proceeding to it. It was *in* the traffic pattern. (although a little higher than it should have been) How close do you vector transient aircraft to others within the traffic pattern of an uncontrolled airport?

Assuming he was over the airport, and assuming he really did have a 260 knot groundspeed (unlikely, it was probably quite a bit less) a standard rate turn would take him 2.8 miles from the airport. Let's say a downwind is 1 nm out So this 360 (or really 315) turn would put him maybe 2 miles outside the downwind of leg of the pattern. So that raises the question in my mind, are you vectoring aircraft to within 2 nm of the traffic pattern of an airport where you've just cleared an aircraft for a visual approach?

Again, unless I'm missing something (and I may be) a non-towered airport is one-in, one-out. and you've already got one in. It would seem from my perspective that if the controller vectors another airplane into the airspace *immediately* (less then 3 nm radius) surrounding a non-controlled airport where an IFR aircraft is manuvering to land, without seperating by altitude, it's really the controller who has caused the problem here.

Unless I am misunderstanding the scenario, the only way a conflict could have occured was if the controller vectored another aircraft *through* the traffic pattern area (or very close to it) at an altitude *below* the altitude the original poster was at when he received his approach clearence. (again, we're not talking about a turn he executed when he *should* have been proceeding directly to the airport, we''re talking about a turn when he's already over the airport, a turn whic probably doesn't take him farther than 3 miles from the airport.

So you really haven't answered my question, what should he have done, at 5000', over the airport?

You said he should have replied "unable". OK....... "unable" what? What are you expecting him to do? I know it wasn't you, but put yourself there in the controller's position. The guy's at 5000' over his destination airport, you clear him for the visual, what do you expect him to do? (I mean other than say "unable", advise you of unusual manuvers, or other communications things.) Physically, what path would you expect him to fly the airplane along fom 5000' over the airport to the runway? That's not a rhetorical question, I seriously would like to know, what are your expectations in that situation?

That's just not strong enough-- telling the controller about such an unusual maneuver is mandatory, whether it's at O'Hare or Podunk International. Getting "yelled at" by the controller is the least of the consequences a pilot should expect if he doesn't.

OK, what is "unusual" to you? As I mentioned before, the AIM recommended procedures at a non-towered airport are 1.) joining the downwind on a 45. 2) not descending to pattern altitude in the pattern. The FAA's flight training handbook also contains these same recommendations. Now, if you are over the airport, above TPA, there is one way and one way only to follow these recommendations, and that is manuuver and descend outside the downwind to join it at a 45, at TPA. Now, that's not to say that some pilots wouldn't hop over onto the downwind and descend in the pattern. that may be, but without question they are not following the FAAs recomendations. The guy who does a 360 to descend and join on a 45 *is* following the FAA's recommendations.

Now, my point is this, if your expectations as a controller are that a pilot will disregard the FAA's recomendations, and if you formulate your seperation strategey so that seperation will be lost if the pilot does exactly what the FAA reccomends, perhaps the problem is not with the pilot.

 

[81Horse]

Okay, I've read this whole thread.

dhc8fo, I'm still not clear on how it is that you started out 13 minutes from the airport, but didn't get a visual approach clearance until you were overhead at 5000'? Didn't you report your home field in sight until you were on top of it?

When you operate your aircraft in an unpredictable manner -- for instance, going to the practice area and doing turns about a point while executing a visual approach -- you can expect to be "yelled at." For all you know, there was IFR traffic trying to maintain visual separation on you. Your flightpath is not supposed to be a guessing game.

I'm a former controller myself; I'd have yelled at you, too. And before that, I probably would have been tapping my foot, waiting on you to farkin' CANCEL.

 

[A Squared]

Okay, I've read this whole thread.

dhc8fo, I'm still not clear on how it is that you started out 13 minutes from the airport, but didn't get a visual approach clearance until you were overhead at 5000'? Didn't you report your home field in sight until you were on top of it?

When you operate your aircraft in an unpredictable manner -- for instance, going to the practice area and doing turns about a point while executing a visual approach -- you can expect to be "yelled at." For all you know, there was IFR traffic trying to maintain visual separation on you. Your flightpath is not supposed to be a guessing game.

I'm a former controller myself; I'd have yelled at you, too. And before that, I probably would have been tapping my foot, waiting on you to farkin' CANCEL.

OK, I'll extend the same question to you. How he arrived at 5000' over the airport before getting cleared for a visual is another issue, and he probably bears a certain amount of responsibility.......but, *given* that he was cleared for the approach at 5000' over the airport, what do you think the "predicatable" thing to do is? Disregard the FAA's recommendations, or follow them, and perform a *very* common procedure?

 

[81Horse]

... but, *given* that he was cleared for the approach at 5000' over the airport, what do you think the "predicatable" thing to do is? ...

Did he say the type aircraft? Not that it matters to the controller, absent the pilot saying he needed to maneuver away from the field for descent. I would have expected him to fly upwind, break left or right (as appropriate for the airport), and fly a wide descending downwind -- that is, a more or less normal pattern; a little token attempt to make a 45 entry, okay -- but a 360? Unpredicted.

Yes, yes -- I know you're supposed to enter a downwind on a 45. But you're going to take controllers by surprise if you fly very far away from the airport while on a visual approach -- during which, presumably, you should have the airport in sight.

This happens to be, IMO, one of many little gray areas between the literal requirements of the FARs/AIM, and normal, real-world procedure. In such little gray areas arise many misunderstandings. Obviously, unannounced (and unanticipated by ATC) 360s are not common practice, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

He should have said something to the approach controller -- and I bet next time he will.

Or he could have cancelled.

 

[PC800]

Unless I am misunderstanding the scenario, the only way a conflict could have occured was if the controller vectored another aircraft *through* the traffic pattern area (or very close to it) at an altitude *below* the altitude the original poster was at when he received his approach clearence.

It depends on how wide the 360 is, but I think you are misunderstanding the scenario. In the original post, it said, "...and I hear the guy yelling at me that I am flying away from the airport."

Put yourself in the controller's seat: he sees the aircraft target suddenly, and (to him) inexplicably, turn 90 degrees or more away from the airport. He has no way of knowing that what he is observing is the beginning of a 360 that the pilot has determined is necessary to lose altitude. All he knows is that the airplane is turning away from the airport, instead of entering the pattern as expected.

At the time he made that observation, he had no idea how far the airplane was going to go in the wrong direction, so his concern was quite justified. As far as the controller knew, the pilot could have even misidentifed the airport and be headed somewhere else entirely, which could certainly put him in conflict with other traffic.

The guy's at 5000' over his destination airport, you clear him for the visual, what do you expect him to do?

Personally, I wouldn't have put the pilot in that position-- but I'm guessing that the controller that did was expecting a rapid descent, and a long/wide upwind or downwind. Many controllers aren't pilots and have no clue as to what the capabilities of the airplane may be-- and even if they do, many pilots fly the same airplanes quite differently. BTW, your emphasis on controller expectation vs. FAA recommendations are misplaced-- sad to say, many controllers don't know (and don't care) what those FAA recommendations are.

If I'd been the pilot, I'd have said, "Cleared for the visual, I'm going to need to make a 360 to get down..." or (more likely) "Cancel IFR." IMHO, other than search-and-rescue, there's no good reason to hang on to an IFR clearance after being cleared for the visual and switched over to CTAF.

OK, what is "unusual" to you?

Depends-- but I certainly think that an unexpected turn of 90 degrees or more away from the airport of intended landing makes the grade!


I think we're making a far bigger deal out of this than it needs to be. It's a bad idea to make an unexpected 360 after being cleared for a visual approach-- on that, we (almost) all agree. I doubt that any readers of this thread ever do such a thing again, so my work here is done. <G>

 

[A Squared]

BTW, your emphasis on controller expectation vs. FAA recommendations are misplaced-- sad to say, many controllers don't know (and don't care) what those FAA recommendations are.

I realize that, and that was part of the point I was making

If I'd been the pilot, I'd have said, "Cleared for the visual, I'm going to need to make a 360 to get down..." or (more likely) "Cancel IFR." IMHO, other than search-and-rescue, there's no good reason to hang on to an IFR clearance after being cleared for the visual and switched over to CTAF.

I think we agree on that. Personally, I'd have ditched the clearence as soon as I was sure I could continue to the airport under VFR.

I think we're making a far bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.

Probably, but this all came about because the controller in question made (apparently) a far bigger deal of sonething he wasn't expecting. (but wasn't quite the egregious infraction he made it out to be) Anyway, I jumped into the discussion initially to respond to the person who claimed that a visual was a clerence to fly straight to final and turn in without regard to the AIM and regulations, the rest was more of a minor point. The horse is probably dead by now.