C172 was cleared to land, pilots expected a touch-and-go. Attempts to clarify their status with the ...

Attributes
ACN	344993
Time
Date	199608
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : fwa
State Reference	IN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : fwa
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 23 flight time total : 320 flight time type : 48
ASRS Report	344993
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 1300 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	345150
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other anomaly other
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We were on an IFR training flight, IFR flight plan to fwa. Approach control asked how we wished to terminate the runway 23 back course approach. I said that we wanted to touch-and-go and return northbound to kalamazoo. Approach said ok. Shortly they handed us off to tower. In the process of the approach, I requested tower to call out the chkpoints as we passed them on the approach. They did this. I completed the approach and touched down on runway 23 and began to configure the airplane for takeoff when my flight instructor said he thought we were cleared for full stop. So he attempted to clarify clearance with fwa tower and asked them if we were cleared for touch-and-go or full stop. I kept the airplane speed up as we continued rolling down the runway waiting for tower's response. Approximately 15 seconds passed, he then asked them again if we were cleared for touch-and-go or full stop. Another 10-15 seconds passed, still no response. I continued to keep the airplane rolling at a fairly high speed. Tower still did not respond, so I added full power and rotated for takeoff. My thought at this point was that approach had been notified of our intentions and that for us to do a full stop if tower anticipated a touch-and-go could potentially cause a following aircraft, if there had been any, to possibly land on us and that the potential problems of a touch-and-go if tower anticipated a full stop are only those of a go around and that tower anticipates the possibility of a go around every time an airplane is cleared to land. As we began our climb, at about 20 ft AGL, tower finally responded and said 'I cleared you to land.' I apologized for the mix- up. Tower gave us a heading and handed us off to approach/departure and we returned to kalamazoo VFR. I believe that when accepting clrncs for landing, in the future I will ask 'is nxxxx cleared for full stop?' or 'is nxxx cleared for touch- and-go?' rather than accepting a 'cleared to land.' I will also not believe that because approach control has been advised of your intentions that it means they will notify tower even when operating on an IFR flight plan as described above.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 WAS CLRED TO LAND, PLTS EXPECTED A TOUCH-AND-GO. ATTEMPTS TO CLARIFY THEIR STATUS WITH THE TWR DURING LNDG ROLL WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. THEY IMPROPERLY MADE TOUCH-AND- GO.

Narrative: WE WERE ON AN IFR TRAINING FLT, IFR FLT PLAN TO FWA. APCH CTL ASKED HOW WE WISHED TO TERMINATE THE RWY 23 BACK COURSE APCH. I SAID THAT WE WANTED TO TOUCH-AND-GO AND RETURN NBOUND TO KALAMAZOO. APCH SAID OK. SHORTLY THEY HANDED US OFF TO TWR. IN THE PROCESS OF THE APCH, I REQUESTED TWR TO CALL OUT THE CHKPOINTS AS WE PASSED THEM ON THE APCH. THEY DID THIS. I COMPLETED THE APCH AND TOUCHED DOWN ON RWY 23 AND BEGAN TO CONFIGURE THE AIRPLANE FOR TKOF WHEN MY FLT INSTRUCTOR SAID HE THOUGHT WE WERE CLRED FOR FULL STOP. SO HE ATTEMPTED TO CLARIFY CLRNC WITH FWA TWR AND ASKED THEM IF WE WERE CLRED FOR TOUCH-AND-GO OR FULL STOP. I KEPT THE AIRPLANE SPD UP AS WE CONTINUED ROLLING DOWN THE RWY WAITING FOR TWR'S RESPONSE. APPROX 15 SECONDS PASSED, HE THEN ASKED THEM AGAIN IF WE WERE CLRED FOR TOUCH-AND-GO OR FULL STOP. ANOTHER 10-15 SECONDS PASSED, STILL NO RESPONSE. I CONTINUED TO KEEP THE AIRPLANE ROLLING AT A FAIRLY HIGH SPD. TWR STILL DID NOT RESPOND, SO I ADDED FULL PWR AND ROTATED FOR TKOF. MY THOUGHT AT THIS POINT WAS THAT APCH HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF OUR INTENTIONS AND THAT FOR US TO DO A FULL STOP IF TWR ANTICIPATED A TOUCH-AND-GO COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE A FOLLOWING ACFT, IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY, TO POSSIBLY LAND ON US AND THAT THE POTENTIAL PROBS OF A TOUCH-AND-GO IF TWR ANTICIPATED A FULL STOP ARE ONLY THOSE OF A GAR AND THAT TWR ANTICIPATES THE POSSIBILITY OF A GAR EVERY TIME AN AIRPLANE IS CLRED TO LAND. AS WE BEGAN OUR CLB, AT ABOUT 20 FT AGL, TWR FINALLY RESPONDED AND SAID 'I CLRED YOU TO LAND.' I APOLOGIZED FOR THE MIX- UP. TWR GAVE US A HDG AND HANDED US OFF TO APCH/DEP AND WE RETURNED TO KALAMAZOO VFR. I BELIEVE THAT WHEN ACCEPTING CLRNCS FOR LNDG, IN THE FUTURE I WILL ASK 'IS NXXXX CLRED FOR FULL STOP?' OR 'IS NXXX CLRED FOR TOUCH- AND-GO?' RATHER THAN ACCEPTING A 'CLRED TO LAND.' I WILL ALSO NOT BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE APCH CTL HAS BEEN ADVISED OF YOUR INTENTIONS THAT IT MEANS THEY WILL NOTIFY TWR EVEN WHEN OPERATING ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

C172 was cleared to land, pilots expected a touch-and-go. Attempts to clarify their status with the tower during landing roll were unsuccessful. They improperly made touch-and- go.