A tower-induced go-round

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.


What was your position at the time?



Incredulous, I slowed as much as possible, and watched as the 172 (who
was several hundred feet above us) struggled to lose enough altitude
to land safely. We were both bucking a 30 knot gusty headwind, which
-- although it allowed me to slow waaaay down -- did nothing but make
the poor, hapless Skyhawk keep flying, and flying, and flying....

Eventually he put it in a steep slip, and managed to touch down about
25% down the runway -- at which point he nearly stopped! Instead of
the tower telling the guy to land long and exit immediately -- the
runway is 6000 feet long -- the controller remained silent, as I
ground my way down final at minimum approach speed, way behind the
power curve, with a ground speed of maybe 50 knots.


He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's
3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that
won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far
out were you when he touched down?



Having landed at OSH and SNF a few times, I knew I was spaced just
fine -- IF the 172 would only get off the danged runway.
Unfortunately, he was in no hurry to do so, and the controller
blithely told me to "go around" in his most bored "controller voice"
-- as if he does this all day long.


If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make
it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's
unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you?



Having just endured 20 minutes of fairly severe clear-air turbulence
during our descent from 7500 feet, I was *not* amused -- but bit my
tongue as I dutifully went around.

The guys in the FBO were all talking about it when we walked in.
Apparently the 172 pilot was a student (in which case he did a damned
good job getting that thing down), and the controller was...well, no
one would say what the controller was. However, I'm pretty sure we
know why he's been assigned to the deadest control tower in the
Midwest.


It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to
say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it.
The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced
pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less
capable people in the near future.

Today we experienced a new first, when the tower controller at
Jefferson City, Missouri decided to cut a Cessa 172 in front of me on
a short right base, *after* clearing me to land on Rwy 30.

What was your position at the time?

Hard to say (I wasn't looking at my GPS). I'd say a mile out, maybe
two?

He doesn't necessarily have to exit the runway before you land. If he's
3000 feet or more from the threshold when you cross it's fine, but that
won't happen if he touches down 1500 feet from it and then stops. How far
out were you when he touched down?

Probably 1/2 mile.

If you had adequate spacing behind the 172 the controller's decision to make
it number one does not sound too bad. The problem seems to be the 172's
unexpected stop. Was there additional traffic behind you?

There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, but the controller
should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
neither.

It may very well have been poor technique on the controller's part, hard to
say from just your description. If it was you better just get used to it.
The FAA determination to accelerate controller retirements and the reduced
pay scale for new hires will cause control towers to be staffed by less
capable people in the near future.

I doubt it, but we'll see.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

Hard to say (I wasn't looking at my GPS). I'd say a mile out, maybe
two?


What did you do before GPS? You were approaching a 6000' runway. Were you
one runway-length out, or were you two runway-lengths out?



Probably 1/2 mile.


Sounds like plenty of room to me.



There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, ...


If you believed the basic problem was the 172's unexpected stop why was your
ire directed solely at the controller?



but the controller
should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
neither.


Why should he have done either? You said the 172 touched down 1500' from
the threshold, he DID land long. You said the unexpected stop was the
problem, there'd have been plenty of room if not for that. The AIM tells
pilots, "At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop
or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval." Why
should the controller have expected the 172 to act contrary to that?



I doubt it, but we'll see.


You think people will choose to be control tower operators when they can
make more money doing something else?

There was a 182 that had just called in, so he was 5+ miles out. I
agree the 172 stopping was the basic problem, ...

If you believed the basic problem was the 172's unexpected stop why was your
ire directed solely at the controller?

Because I'm not going to blame a student for stopping short. Hell, he
probably didn't even know I was behind him, if he was nervous.

Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)

but the controller
should have instructed him to land long or keep rolling. He did
neither.

Why should he have done either?

Because it would have easily fixed the mess the controller caused.
Stretching out his roll-out would have made everything mesh
effortlessly. Instead, the controller kept mum, and caused a runway
conflict.

You think people will choose to be control tower operators when they can
make more money doing something else?

Yes -- for many of the same reasons that I choose to run a little
aviation themed hotel next to an airport, even though I could be
making exponentially more money doing something else.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Because I'm not going to blame a student for stopping short. Hell, he
probably didn't even know I was behind him, if he was nervous.


How did you know you were following a student? Why do you hold the
controller responsible for the student's actions?



Face it, the controller should have had the 172 follow me in. He
misjudged the spacing. (He didn't have a GPS either... :-)


But you've already admitted spacing was fine, the problem was the 172s
unexpected stop on the runway. Do you believe the controller applied the
brakes?



Because it would have easily fixed the mess the controller caused.
Stretching out his roll-out would have made everything mesh
effortlessly. Instead, the controller kept mum, and caused a runway
conflict.


Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?



Yes -- for many of the same reasons that I choose to run a little
aviation themed hotel next to an airport, even though I could be
making exponentially more money doing something else.


What are the reasons? What could you be doing that would earn exponentially
more money?

Good God, you sound just like The Albatross...

"PLONK"

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?

Jeebus, Steven. I give up.

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

See ya!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mar 21, 7:12 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the problem was
caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was inadequate regardless
what the 172 did after touchdown. Which is it? If the spacing was
inadequate, what are your revised distance estimates?

Jeebus, Steven. I give up.

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

See ya!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I personally believe that he is not a real controller. With a thought
process that is so confrontational as his it would seem he supervisor
would request a mental exam to assure the flying public is not put in
danger. This could turn out to be a MX controller... Scary
thought. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Your story keeps changing. Either the spacing was fine and the
problem was caused by the 172's unexpected stop or the spacing was
inadequate regardless what the 172 did after touchdown. [...]

While in the past I have appreciated your views and expertise as a
controller, and the unique viewpoint you often represent, you have
outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

Thing is, Jay, he has a point. Many a time you've posted stories
about something odd happening during a flight. When your aspects of
judgement ended up being questioned, you consistently deflected
criticism. That's only natural, but sometimes saying "I should have
done that differently!" would be healthy.

- FChE

On 21 Mar 2007 06:12:22 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

you have outlived your usefulness to me in this thread.

You mean he has exposed your muddled thinking, and caused you to doubt
your own analysis of the incident?