What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Overtaking by 80 knots please slow down

Pmerems

Well Known Member
Advertiser
The other day I was #2 landing on rwy 21 at Tucson. The main runway is under upgrades and the airliners are landing on rwy 21. Appoach asked me to keep my speed up as I approached the airport. When I switched to tower they told me I was #2 behind a Comanche on final. Then they told me to slow down because I was over taking the Comanche by 80 knots.

Honest officer, I wasn't going that fast......
 
Hurry up and wait......:D

Drives me mad at work when they do that.

Mind you when you enter what you thought was an empty pattern, downwind at 190kts and then spot the guy in the Cherokee turning base you realise what closing speed is... :rolleyes:
 
It is fun though...

I dropped into KSJT a few days ago for lunch, was dropping in from altitude with a good tailwind, showing 220 knots groundspeed and he had three students in the pattern - they all got vectored!
 
Well, I do hate to be a wet blanket, buuuuttttt....

It may be fun, but is it really a good idea? Aside from giving RV pilots another black eye for "hot dogging", if you have to make a bunch of other airplanes get moved out of your way, or you're blasting through the pattern at twice the speed of everybody else, is that the right thing to do?

IDK, maybe I'm taking this too seriously...
 
Well, I do hate to be a wet blanket, buuuuttttt....

It may be fun, but is it really a good idea? Aside from giving RV pilots another black eye for "hot dogging", if you have to make a bunch of other airplanes get moved out of your way, or you're blasting through the pattern at twice the speed of everybody else, is that the right thing to do?

IDK, maybe I'm taking this too seriously...

Going into TUS where anything from C152s, helicopters, commercial jets, private jets, and F16s are routinely landing/taking off, I don?t think it matters what approach/final speed the OP flies. Approach and tower can handle it.

I was at work a month ago going into JFK and had a 110 knot overtake on a 737. Tower gave me a heads up along with my landing clearance (while chuckling), but it was never an issue (I just closed an 8 mi gap to 4).

Plenty of mixed use fields exist with varying performance aircraft. Head should always be on a swivel, proper comms maintained and positions announced if untowered, situational awareness up. At least with an RV or other relatively fast prop plane, you can keep the speed up and drop it to flap speed relatively quickly if not descending, or keep the speed up longer if necessary, and can configure and semi-comfortably fly slow enough to land behind even very slow traffic. I think higher or varying traffic pattern speeds, depending on the type of airfield and it?s associated traffic, isn?t necessarily a safety issue unless it is outside the pilot?s comfort zone and/or ability to maintain situational awareness.
 
students in the pattern - they all got vectored!

That's ATC's call. Only they know the big picture. They could have asked you to slow down for sequencing. There may have been something else going on that you're not aware of.

Bevan
 
Well, I do hate to be a wet blanket, buuuuttttt...
I'm with you on this. The OP was keeping speed up at an airliner-type airport, which is certainly prudent in that environment (and requested by ATC.) Blasting into a GA-airport at cruise speed is another story and the kind of thing that gives RV pilots a bad name.

Unless told otherwise by ATC, I slow to 100 kts a couple miles from the airport- a good speed to mix in with most traffic. Also a good speed to slow down or speed up quickly if needed.
 
What burns my tailfeathers the most is when the tower asks you to keep the speed up so they can fit you in ahead of something, and then when they clear you to land and you slow down at the last minute, they say "oh, it's not going to work out, pull up and go around" so the commercial traffic can stay on schedule. Thanks, I really wanted to burn more gas getting into the circuit, and more again flying an additional full circuit so I can land.
 
Kinda makes me wonder if "unable" would be the appropriate response.
Kinda makes me wonder that too, when i'm sitting in an armchair and have time to think about it. But it's hard to break training that generally says thou shalt do what ATC tells you, when you're on short final.
 
As a former LA Center controller.. if I give you a clearance and you say unable I'll take your word for it, but you really shouldn't do it frivolously and need to be able to defend why you're unable. It's on the controller though to know the aircraft in their airspace and plan accordingly.
 
Approach sequence work done by the "airliner" and approach controller do not always translate well in Tower's final tweaks.

IF you can see on TIS/TCAS/ADSB-In, you'll have a better feeling for what can work and a better heads up for when it won't. It won't be a surprise nor will you have to actually see that jet behind you to know the interval shrank like a scared turtle.

"We" don't like it either, after reminding Apch and tower our min speed is 150+ after a 8 hour leg and going around for loss of separation.
 
A little off topic, but the other evening I was doing my last night landings at BOI. I contacted Big Sky Approach telling them what I wanted to do. I was given a heading and I was not following it close enough for ATC. Without scolding me, I was given a new heading and a few minutes later, I found I was right over KNAM - where I had taken off from! He then vectored me back to BOI and let me do the landings I needed to do. When I looked out and saw he had sent me back to the start point, it made me laugh and tell him - thanks for the instruction!
 
Our field is controlled and has a lot of training traffic mixed in with everything up to private jet traffic. I think the controllers actually appreciate the RV traffic here because they are very capable following slow, or expedite, what ever is needed to make the circuit traffic work.
Sometimes I think they use us to break the bordom too. A couple times on slow days, unprompted, I have received "XXXX CLEARED FOR APPROACH EXERCISE, TURN CROSSWIND MID FIELD", OK, ah, advance the throttle, continue approach with an overshoot 2G pull up in front of the tower, rather aggressive climb, roll to crosswind (because have to keep it midfield). I don't even consider the extra fuel burnt :) when following instructions. Once on calling in on Downwind after this, the controller asked if I needed to repeat the exercise.
 
What burns my tailfeathers the most is when the tower asks you to keep the speed up so they can fit you in ahead of something, and then when they clear you to land and you slow down at the last minute, they say "oh, it's not going to work out, pull up and go around" so the commercial traffic can stay on schedule. Thanks, I really wanted to burn more gas getting into the circuit, and more again flying an additional full circuit so I can land.

look at the other side, if im the one behind you i will be burning over 8000 lbs/hr on the go around.

bob
 
look at the other side, if im the one behind you i will be burning over 8000 lbs/hr on the go around.

bob

That isn't my fault. Airliner or GA or military are (should be) all equal. I highly doubt many controllers are out to get anyone, sometimes stuff happens.

ATC: "Airliner 123 make a left 360 for traffic separation. GA aircraft cleared to land."
Airliner: "uh ATC, that 360 will cost my company $1500 in fuel."
ATC: "Airliner make a $1500 left 360 for traffic separation."
 
The way I see it is the airliners have previously scheduled an arrival time. Even if they are a bit early or late, they were scheduled. If you file a flight plan and are coming in at your scheduled time, I can understand the thoughts of being "equal", but we don't live in the dream world. Making one person happy who can easily do a go around over the safety and cost of an airliner doing a go around is just not going to happen.

I do understand that the percentage of costs paid to the FAA are by the airliners are much higher than that paid by GA. I am thankful we even get the change to fly into the towered airports. Maybe after a long flight and already behind schedule I would have a different opinion, but for me it is just another few minutes I get to fly!
 
The way I see it is the airliners have previously scheduled an arrival time. Even if they are a bit early or late, they were scheduled. If you file a flight plan and are coming in at your scheduled time, I can understand the thoughts of being "equal", but we don't live in the dream world. Making one person happy who can easily do a go around over the safety and cost of an airliner doing a go around is just not going to happen.

I do understand that the percentage of costs paid to the FAA are by the airliners are much higher than that paid by GA. I am thankful we even get the change to fly into the towered airports. Maybe after a long flight and already behind schedule I would have a different opinion, but for me it is just another few minutes I get to fly!

Actually, the airlines do not pay any taxes. There is a tax on passengers, which is readily seen on almost every ticket.
GA does pay fuel taxes.

Tim
 
Actually, the airlines do not pay any taxes. There is a tax on passengers, which is readily seen on almost every ticket.
GA does pay fuel taxes.

Tim

You are right. They do pay a bit more fuel tax than I do. Where any of that goes is a whole different discussion that DR does not want here! Ha!
 
look at the other side, if im the one behind you i will be burning over 8000 lbs/hr on the go around.
Then don't delay... :) You're flying a company jet that has a revenue stream to cover its hourly rate... I don't. Any complaints, take them up with ATC for their poor planning.
 
The way I see it is the airliners have previously scheduled an arrival time. Even if they are a bit early or late, they were scheduled.
To be clear - I have nothing against trying to keep scheduled flights on-time, and agree ATC should do everything possible to make that happen. However:
It shouldn't be done at the expense of GA. Lately, there have been a number of incidents at local airports where ATC has tried to shoehorn in GA flights too closely, usually by getting the GA pilot to do something non-standard to start with, and then at the last minute telling the GA pilot to get out of the way for the commercial traffic behind.
 
... getting the GA pilot to do something non-standard...
Like doing a 360 while on a 2 mile final? Tower "made" me do that once and I went up and bitched about it afterwords. They explained that there was IFR traffic overtaking me and they would have had to make him fly the missed approach had they not gotten me out of the way. I explained to them that in my Lancair, maneuvering in the landing configuration can be dangerous - lots of LOC fatalities have happened by getting too slow in the pattern. I guess I should have told them "unable", but I hate to do that.
 
Like doing a 360 while on a 2 mile final? Tower "made" me do that once and I went up and bitched about it afterwords. They explained that there was IFR traffic overtaking me and they would have had to make him fly the missed approach had they not gotten me out of the way. I explained to them that in my Lancair, maneuvering in the landing configuration can be dangerous - lots of LOC fatalities have happened by getting too slow in the pattern. I guess I should have told them "unable", but I hate to do that.
I have an issue with this kind of mindset.

Please don't take this as a dig at you personally as this is merely my personal opinion, but using the phrase UNABLE indicates that you physically cannot, or it would be hazardous to, comply with the issued clearance. If a pilot has trouble maneuvering in the landing configuration in normal operations, irrespective of the type of aircraft, this alone is not grounds to refuse a clearance. So long as the aircraft and pilot are ops-normal, (and the instruction won't take you into a CB, for example) there should be little to no reason to ever refuse a clearance.

The same can be said for a low-altitude go-around. IIRC most, if not all, type-certificated aircraft are certified to be able to climb in the landing configuration for the nominated runway (remember those P-charts where you had to reduce landing weight to make the climb gradient?).
 
Last edited:
Please don't take this as a dig at you personally as this is merely my personal opinion, but using the phrase UNABLE indicates that you physically cannot, or it would be hazardous to, comply with the issued clearance.
No offense taken, and I agree with you. Tower's request was more annoying than hazardous because I have an AoA which I count on to alert me if I get too slow. His request required me to apply full power, retract the gear and flaps at the appropriate speeds, and initiate a climbing turn. Not only that, but his request was a violation of FAR ? 91.113 (g) "Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight..."

Asheville is a training facility, so I try to cut the new controllers some slack (most of the time). I have yet to use the "U-word", but I have called them afterwords and bitched a couple of times.
 
I do like thread drift....

Unable may mean you physically cannot comply.

Unable may mean you are not willing to accept the instruction.

Unable may mean that to comply would be uneconomical.

Unable may mean that to comply may compromise flight safety.

Unable may mean you are just not having a good day and want to continue in a prompt manner in order to safely conclude a flight.

ATC is a two way agreement. Neither side can see the other's point of view sometimes and it is up to us as the service receiver to sometimes explain to the service provider, why their instruction may not be appropriate.

The above occasions are mainly in my work environment. I may refuse an oceanic clearance and have done on several occasions because it is uneconomical, I don't have the fuel (despite carrying extra) or several other reasons. Oh, and I have carried a lot of ATC folk on fam flights over the years so that we can help each other to understand and cooperate. I also liaised for our pilots to attend their radar training facility to experience being a controller for 30 minutes. Yea - I know - direct center fix, no speed control.....:rolleyes:

In private flying, I have, for example refused a request to hold outside controlled airspace because the controller had a single movement inbound. Instead, I climbed and went over his airspace which allowed me to continue and him to bring his traffic in. Both parties were happy.

Sadly, we had an occasion this week at our home base where a late missed approach and orbit in a Cirrus resulted in a low level departure, spin and crash. This reinforces Mr Cod's valid input that a late missed may not be the safest course of action and would be a fine example of a polite refusal scenario.
 
I love thread drift, too, and this is something I'm passionate about so I would like to respectfully disagree with KRviator's take, i.e. "there should be little to no reason to ever refuse a clearance." As an instructor pilot in the USAF, I've seen many, many instances of pilots getting themselves into unsafe situations out of an irrational desire to fulfill the expectations of an ATC controller, flight lead, SOF, or other authority figure. While you shouldn't be refusing a clearance for trivial reasons, there are plenty of situations where pilots should politely ask for something different, or if time is short just say "unable" and continue to aviate/navigate/communicate (in that priority). There is a pilot in COMMAND for a reason. The ATC controller is there to help you and help the system work, but he is not in command of the aircraft. Pilots would all do well to remember that, and not be afraid to exercise that authority from time to time.

My respectful point to snopercod would be - you had every right to refuse to fly a maneuver that you felt was unsafe. After the fact, I think it is unfair to take issue with the controller. As the pilot in command, once you accepted the clearance, you own it and the consequences are yours to bear. This is the two-edged knife of being a PIC.

Just to be clear, that was not intended to be personal in any way, just pointing out the individual posts for context. These are great debates and hangar discussions that all pilots have, or at least should have.
 
...there are plenty of situations where pilots should politely ask for something different...
I think that's the key, and that's what ATC recommended when I spoke to them after another "situation". My airport is in a shallow valley with 6,000' mountains about 5 miles on either side. I have approached the airport several time when they give me a vector "for sequencing" to parallel the runway, only 7 miles abeam. This last time, I had flown for 3.6 hours and was tired and just wanted to get home. I had made a nice, smooth descent from 11,500' down to 4,000' in preparation for landing when they gave me one of those vectors directly into the tall mountains. So I had to climb back up to 6,000' to clear the peaks (by 500'), and got the **** beat out of me by the moderate turbulence up there. If my engine had quit, I would have been screwed, and it all seemed so unnecessary.

They did that to me once before and the turbulence was so bad up there that stuff was floating around the cockpit and my headset was knocked out of place. I even have video of that one: https://www.dropbox.com/s/p6zcfhmrh3irdk2/2017-03-09 TURBULENCE.mp4?dl=0

It's my sense that the controllers - sitting there watching their flat screens - don't have an understanding of the increased danger of flying low over mountains. If I had been on an IFR flight plan, I would have been WAY below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.

After this most recent experience, I called them and politely explained about the mountains and turbulence. The controller I spoke with told me to just ask to stay close in and they'll try to accommodate my request. So next time, I'll just say something like, "I'd rather not fly up over those mountains, could I do some 360s instead?"
 
hard to watch

Hard to watch. I am hoping I would have done something different if I was on board, like fly away and reenter airspace; push that reset button to calm everything down.

I have been in a similar situation before with an IFR instructor trying to get into long beach. He stress me out and got me in over my head. Quickly told him, "no I am not going to do that approach, lets make it simpler for my first time."
 
Last edited:
I would like to revise my opinion on airliners having the priority after watching that video. That was total BS. I would probably accept one go around or change, then it becomes unable. Those controllers were the problem. I think they forget that all of us GA pilots are not always as experienced as the airliners.

That is as said, heartbreaking. It is hard to get over seeing that.
 
I would like to revise my opinion on airliners having the priority after watching that video. That was total BS. I would probably accept one go around or change, then it becomes unable. Those controllers were the problem. I think they forget that all of us GA pilots are not always as experienced as the airliners.

That is as said, heartbreaking. It is hard to get over seeing that.

Did we watch the same video? Was asked to,but didn?t, keep her speed up. Go around #1. Sent around to 35, botched pattern, too high, go around #2. Then stalled and spun the plane. How is any of this the controller?s fault?
I agree, it?s sad.
 
Did we watch the same video? Was asked to,but didn?t, keep her speed up. Go around #1. Sent around to 35, botched pattern, too high, go around #2. Then stalled and spun the plane. How is any of this the controller?s fault?
I agree, it?s sad.

Maybe we watched the same video but didnt see things the same. I looked at her green ground tracking marks and saw several circles she was told to do. It looked like at least 3-4 full circle turns. I believe I heard him tell her to turn towards the airport, but told her the wrong direction. That could have been a delay in how her position was shown but still confusing. As a very low time pilot, it was all very confusing to me. At any time, he could have had the jets or even the King Air do a 360 and the woman would be alive. I understand as the pilot, she lost control but the confusing instructions from the controller did not help.
 
That was a difficult 6 or 7 minutes to watch, because you knew what the outcome was, it just got steadily worse as the pressure increased on the pilot.

A poster above asked if we watched the same video - we did, but here is where we get into the world of Human Factors, CRM, whatever it is currently called.

It highlights what has been said earlier and shows that what may be going on in the tower is not necessarily reflected in what is happening in the aeroplane.

We have 1 pilot doing her best and up to 3 different voices of controllers, quite frankly overloading her.

I am not sure what her experience level was, but that is a classic case where a polite - no, I am not doing that, move me away, tell me when I can make an uninterrupted approach is called for.

It should be taught, there should be liaison visits to towers at local or provincial airports as part of post training coaching - most towers will gladly arrange.

I have sent that link to our safety department at work to consider as a submission for next years safety training day. It is as pertinent to big stuff as well as small stuff. We had a crew make 3 approaches into Las Vegas a few years ago, bust their approach count (2 and you divert - period) because ATC were hassling them into a quartering tailwind visual in an A330 which just doesn't handle like a 320 or 737.
 
Too real

That young lady sounded like my daughter. She was following all those crazy instructions and changes and repeating everything just like she was taught. I could almost feel myself get flustered and when she was too high I almost knew it before it happened as if it was inevitable. I am convinced that she did a better job following their commandments including "keep it tight" better than me. The video at the end left me speechless.

I wanted to post something that was noteworthy and valued added after watching the video but I confess that everything I came up with was full of emotion and emptines. So, I called my daughter and told her that it was her responsibility and only her responsibility to safely operate that machine and the controllers are there only to assist .......... and never be afraid to tell them "unable", no matter how unconvenient the situation is for everyone.
 
Unless you are comfortable with the winds, length and even the taxiing once on the ground, unable, divert or insist on a pattern position that will allow a normal final approach on/about 300'/nm.

The problem in busy airspace is tower and approach have conflicting priorities if any aircraft are in a visual pattern. They in practice own conflicting chunks of the airspace the plane in the pattern needs.

You can ask tower to tell you what piece of sky they can delay you in while the ask the approach controllers to build you a suitable gap. This may take 20 minutes at a busy field with aircraft that have been flowed in and speed controlled for their last 200 plus miles already.

There is an old adage that after 2 tries, it is a good time to divert and reset your normal habit patterns and flow.
 
Our field is controlled and has a lot of training traffic mixed in with everything up to private jet traffic. I think the controllers actually appreciate the RV traffic here because they are very capable following slow, or expedite, what ever is needed to make the circuit traffic work.
Sometimes I think they use us to break the bordom too. A couple times on slow days, unprompted, I have received "XXXX CLEARED FOR APPROACH EXERCISE, TURN CROSSWIND MID FIELD", OK, ah, advance the throttle, continue approach with an overshoot 2G pull up in front of the tower, rather aggressive climb, roll to crosswind (because have to keep it midfield). I don't even consider the extra fuel burnt :) when following instructions. Once on calling in on Downwind after this, the controller asked if I needed to repeat the exercise.

That's awesome!
 
I think that's the key, and that's what ATC recommended when I spoke to them after another "situation". My airport is in a shallow valley with 6,000' mountains about 5 miles on either side. I have approached the airport several time when they give me a vector "for sequencing" to parallel the runway, only 7 miles abeam. This last time, I had flown for 3.6 hours and was tired and just wanted to get home. I had made a nice, smooth descent from 11,500' down to 4,000' in preparation for landing when they gave me one of those vectors directly into the tall mountains. So I had to climb back up to 6,000' to clear the peaks (by 500'), and got the **** beat out of me by the moderate turbulence up there. If my engine had quit, I would have been screwed, and it all seemed so unnecessary.

Just reread this whole thread.
Same type of thing happens to me at AVL. On a few occations I have told them unable immediately but can comply when closer to field (past the mountains and into the flat valley).

The tower trainees get overwhelmed every once in a while and can turn your short $100 hamburger hop into a legal cross county :D On the whole, the controllers a good folks. I think I have met all of them and have a friendly conversational relationship with most.
(Repeated crack of dawn Monday flights will do that)

Since the thread was about pattern speed.....

I was commuting home one Friday. Listening to AVL approach before calling in and I hear what I think are a couple of IFR training flights in abysmally slow trainers outbound to the IAFs. So I make contact at about 20 miles (radio xmit limit due to terrain). RV is at warp 7 in high speed cruise decent with the intent of trying to get to the field before the trainees are cleared.
At about 4 miles while approaching a perfect base, they say "turn to 90 deg right for spacing". My response was "GAH!" They immediately came back and said if I keep it a 1/2 mile final I was cleared to land. Did it.

While this turned out in my favor, I well know that it was unprofessional on my part and I'm not proud of it. I was not intending to imply "unable". It was a knee jerk due to losing my gambit. The work with AVL ATC has been two way and a good relationship. I always try to stay alert and sometimes offer actions early (to benefit both) that they frequently accept and thank me for afterwards.
 
Last edited:
serious stuff

One of my students ended up in the side of an apartment building in New York City. You may have read about him, since he had a New York Yankee with him. Theory is, they tried to keep a controller happy. It cost them... and surviving wives and children dearly.
 
Back
Top