Narrative:

While on an ILS approach to runway 30 at lgb on an IFR clearance, I requested from the tower a touch-and-go and tower en route clearance to camarillo. No immediate response was received, as tower was busy talking to other aircraft. I assumed tower was working on my tower en route clearance. Eventually, tower responded to me with 'cleared to land.' tower immediately continued talking to other aircraft, so I was unable to clarify whether my requested touch-and-go was approved. I proceeded with the touch-and-go, mistakenly assuming that if the controller had not approved my request he would have specifically stated so. After the touch-and-go, tower stated that I had committed a pilot deviation. In retrospect, it is clear that 'cleared to land' meant only a full stop was authority/authorized, but tower could have easily prevented this situation by responding to my request for a touch-and-go with 'touch-and-go not authority/authorized' or 'full stop only' instead of just 'cleared to land.' supplemental information from acn 509588: this incident occurred during landing from an ILS at lgb. The aircraft was an IFR equipped C172S being operated on an instrument training flight (long instrument dual cross country). The private pilot instrument student was flying the aircraft under a hood from the left seat. I was in the right seat as instrument instructor, and assume ultimate responsibility as PIC for the flight. We had been vectored by approach control to localizer interception for the ILS runway 30, had been cleared for the approach, were established on the ILS, and had been turned over to lgb tower and established contact. Tower asked for our 'landing intentions.' the left seat pilot replied that we 'would like to request a touch-and-go and pick up a tower en route clearance to camarillo if possible.' the tower replied with a quick 'rog' (or some similar short utterance that was not directive) and started talking to other traffic. On short final, the tower came back to us very quickly with 'cleared to land' and immediately returned to xmissions with other traffic. Both pilots had some question, which we verbalized to each other, as to whether we were actually cleared for the touch-and-go we had requested, and what the status of our tower en route clearance was. We tried the remainder of the way down final to get a break in the tower's other xmissions to ask for clarification of the landing clearance, but were unable to get through or key the microphone without being stepped on. At that point, we were expecting to hear from tower with runway taxi-off instructions if in fact we were not cleared for the touch-and-go. We did not get any input from tower, and were at this point rolling along on an active runway and felt we needed to make a quick decision in the interest of safety. We made the decision that tower must have indeed been expecting a touch-and-go, and executed the maneuver. We continued to try to key the microphone and get a break in tower xmissions to other aircraft to talk to him. We became concerned when we could not contact tower for several mins after takeoff, along with being concerned about the status of our tower en route clearance, and elected to start a VFR southerly turn-out per local procedures. The tower finally called us, and asked our 'intentions.' we repeated our request to pick up a tower en route clearance to camarillo. The tower then informed us that a touch-and-go was not authority/authorized, that a 'pilot deviation is authority/authorized,' and instructed us to enter a normal left downwind for runway 30 and execute a full stop, which we did without incident. Upon landing, we were given taxi instructions to exit the runway and hold short of runway 25L, and directed to clearance delivery to pick up our tower en route clearance. The clearance and subsequent takeoff and handoff were uneventful, except for the request to contact tower by phone later that day at our convenience. Contributing factors to this deviation: 1) I had recent previous experience with picking up tower en route clrncs while on approach in the los angeles basin, and have successfully used this technique to expedite training at other busy airports such as vny. I would normally expect to hear from the tower something along the lines of either 'execute the touch-and-go while I work on your clearance' or 'unable, too busy, execute full stop,' in which case I knowthat I will have to taxi off and request the tower en route clearance from clearance delivery. 2) I had an uneasy feeling or 'red flag' in my mind that the landing clearance was not entirely understood. As stated, we did try to contact tower for clarification, but were unable. In retrospect, a more appropriate course of action without clarification would have been to do a full stop and taxi off. Under the letter of the FARS, the words 'cleared to land' imply a full stop unless otherwise stated. We allowed our previous unanswered touch-and-go request to erroneously influence our decision. 3) the quantity of radio xmissions and the inability to contact tower contributed to us not being able to straighten out the situation in a timely manner. 4) we were informed after the fact that touch-and-goes are currently not authority/authorized on runway 30. Again, this was our responsibility to find out. However, it would seem a quick 'touch-and-go disapproved, execute full stop' from the tower would have helped to prevent a deviation. The question of the tower en route clearance status was not as important and could have been resolved on the ground. Potential for runway incursion. I had kept track of the traffic cleared to land on the intersecting runway 25L, and had seen the last cleared aircraft pass by on the landing roll. In addition, we believe that we executed the touch-and-go prior to crossing runway 25L, so that no safety hazard occurred, although we are not 100% certain. However, this type of miscom and landing clearance deviation could potentially have led to a runway incursion situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR REQUEST, BUT DO NOT RECEIVE, TOUCH-AND-GO CLRNC FROM LGB BUT EXECUTE THE ACTION AND ARE CHALLENGED BY TWR.

Narrative: WHILE ON AN ILS APCH TO RWY 30 AT LGB ON AN IFR CLRNC, I REQUESTED FROM THE TWR A TOUCH-AND-GO AND TWR ENRTE CLRNC TO CAMARILLO. NO IMMEDIATE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED, AS TWR WAS BUSY TALKING TO OTHER ACFT. I ASSUMED TWR WAS WORKING ON MY TWR ENRTE CLRNC. EVENTUALLY, TWR RESPONDED TO ME WITH 'CLRED TO LAND.' TWR IMMEDIATELY CONTINUED TALKING TO OTHER ACFT, SO I WAS UNABLE TO CLARIFY WHETHER MY REQUESTED TOUCH-AND-GO WAS APPROVED. I PROCEEDED WITH THE TOUCH-AND-GO, MISTAKENLY ASSUMING THAT IF THE CTLR HAD NOT APPROVED MY REQUEST HE WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED SO. AFTER THE TOUCH-AND-GO, TWR STATED THAT I HAD COMMITTED A PLTDEV. IN RETROSPECT, IT IS CLR THAT 'CLRED TO LAND' MEANT ONLY A FULL STOP WAS AUTH, BUT TWR COULD HAVE EASILY PREVENTED THIS SIT BY RESPONDING TO MY REQUEST FOR A TOUCH-AND-GO WITH 'TOUCH-AND-GO NOT AUTH' OR 'FULL STOP ONLY' INSTEAD OF JUST 'CLRED TO LAND.' SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 509588: THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED DURING LNDG FROM AN ILS AT LGB. THE ACFT WAS AN IFR EQUIPPED C172S BEING OPERATED ON AN INST TRAINING FLT (LONG INST DUAL XCOUNTRY). THE PVT PLT INST STUDENT WAS FLYING THE ACFT UNDER A HOOD FROM THE L SEAT. I WAS IN THE R SEAT AS INST INSTRUCTOR, AND ASSUME ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY AS PIC FOR THE FLT. WE HAD BEEN VECTORED BY APCH CTL TO LOC INTERCEPTION FOR THE ILS RWY 30, HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE APCH, WERE ESTABLISHED ON THE ILS, AND HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO LGB TWR AND ESTABLISHED CONTACT. TWR ASKED FOR OUR 'LNDG INTENTIONS.' THE L SEAT PLT REPLIED THAT WE 'WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A TOUCH-AND-GO AND PICK UP A TWR ENRTE CLRNC TO CAMARILLO IF POSSIBLE.' THE TWR REPLIED WITH A QUICK 'ROG' (OR SOME SIMILAR SHORT UTTERANCE THAT WAS NOT DIRECTIVE) AND STARTED TALKING TO OTHER TFC. ON SHORT FINAL, THE TWR CAME BACK TO US VERY QUICKLY WITH 'CLRED TO LAND' AND IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO XMISSIONS WITH OTHER TFC. BOTH PLTS HAD SOME QUESTION, WHICH WE VERBALIZED TO EACH OTHER, AS TO WHETHER WE WERE ACTUALLY CLRED FOR THE TOUCH-AND-GO WE HAD REQUESTED, AND WHAT THE STATUS OF OUR TWR ENRTE CLRNC WAS. WE TRIED THE REMAINDER OF THE WAY DOWN FINAL TO GET A BREAK IN THE TWR'S OTHER XMISSIONS TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LNDG CLRNC, BUT WERE UNABLE TO GET THROUGH OR KEY THE MIKE WITHOUT BEING STEPPED ON. AT THAT POINT, WE WERE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM TWR WITH RWY TAXI-OFF INSTRUCTIONS IF IN FACT WE WERE NOT CLRED FOR THE TOUCH-AND-GO. WE DID NOT GET ANY INPUT FROM TWR, AND WERE AT THIS POINT ROLLING ALONG ON AN ACTIVE RWY AND FELT WE NEEDED TO MAKE A QUICK DECISION IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY. WE MADE THE DECISION THAT TWR MUST HAVE INDEED BEEN EXPECTING A TOUCH-AND-GO, AND EXECUTED THE MANEUVER. WE CONTINUED TO TRY TO KEY THE MIKE AND GET A BREAK IN TWR XMISSIONS TO OTHER ACFT TO TALK TO HIM. WE BECAME CONCERNED WHEN WE COULD NOT CONTACT TWR FOR SEVERAL MINS AFTER TKOF, ALONG WITH BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATUS OF OUR TWR ENRTE CLRNC, AND ELECTED TO START A VFR SOUTHERLY TURN-OUT PER LCL PROCS. THE TWR FINALLY CALLED US, AND ASKED OUR 'INTENTIONS.' WE REPEATED OUR REQUEST TO PICK UP A TWR ENRTE CLRNC TO CAMARILLO. THE TWR THEN INFORMED US THAT A TOUCH-AND-GO WAS NOT AUTH, THAT A 'PLTDEV IS AUTH,' AND INSTRUCTED US TO ENTER A NORMAL L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 30 AND EXECUTE A FULL STOP, WHICH WE DID WITHOUT INCIDENT. UPON LNDG, WE WERE GIVEN TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO EXIT THE RWY AND HOLD SHORT OF RWY 25L, AND DIRECTED TO CLRNC DELIVERY TO PICK UP OUR TWR ENRTE CLRNC. THE CLRNC AND SUBSEQUENT TKOF AND HDOF WERE UNEVENTFUL, EXCEPT FOR THE REQUEST TO CONTACT TWR BY PHONE LATER THAT DAY AT OUR CONVENIENCE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS DEV: 1) I HAD RECENT PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH PICKING UP TWR ENRTE CLRNCS WHILE ON APCH IN THE LOS ANGELES BASIN, AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY USED THIS TECHNIQUE TO EXPEDITE TRAINING AT OTHER BUSY ARPTS SUCH AS VNY. I WOULD NORMALLY EXPECT TO HEAR FROM THE TWR SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF EITHER 'EXECUTE THE TOUCH-AND-GO WHILE I WORK ON YOUR CLRNC' OR 'UNABLE, TOO BUSY, EXECUTE FULL STOP,' IN WHICH CASE I KNOWTHAT I WILL HAVE TO TAXI OFF AND REQUEST THE TWR ENRTE CLRNC FROM CLRNC DELIVERY. 2) I HAD AN UNEASY FEELING OR 'RED FLAG' IN MY MIND THAT THE LNDG CLRNC WAS NOT ENTIRELY UNDERSTOOD. AS STATED, WE DID TRY TO CONTACT TWR FOR CLARIFICATION, BUT WERE UNABLE. IN RETROSPECT, A MORE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION WITHOUT CLARIFICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO DO A FULL STOP AND TAXI OFF. UNDER THE LETTER OF THE FARS, THE WORDS 'CLRED TO LAND' IMPLY A FULL STOP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. WE ALLOWED OUR PREVIOUS UNANSWERED TOUCH-AND-GO REQUEST TO ERRONEOUSLY INFLUENCE OUR DECISION. 3) THE QUANTITY OF RADIO XMISSIONS AND THE INABILITY TO CONTACT TWR CONTRIBUTED TO US NOT BEING ABLE TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE SIT IN A TIMELY MANNER. 4) WE WERE INFORMED AFTER THE FACT THAT TOUCH-AND-GOES ARE CURRENTLY NOT AUTH ON RWY 30. AGAIN, THIS WAS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIND OUT. HOWEVER, IT WOULD SEEM A QUICK 'TOUCH-AND-GO DISAPPROVED, EXECUTE FULL STOP' FROM THE TWR WOULD HAVE HELPED TO PREVENT A DEV. THE QUESTION OF THE TWR ENRTE CLRNC STATUS WAS NOT AS IMPORTANT AND COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED ON THE GND. POTENTIAL FOR RWY INCURSION. I HAD KEPT TRACK OF THE TFC CLRED TO LAND ON THE INTERSECTING RWY 25L, AND HAD SEEN THE LAST CLRED ACFT PASS BY ON THE LNDG ROLL. IN ADDITION, WE BELIEVE THAT WE EXECUTED THE TOUCH-AND-GO PRIOR TO XING RWY 25L, SO THAT NO SAFETY HAZARD OCCURRED, ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT 100% CERTAIN. HOWEVER, THIS TYPE OF MISCOM AND LNDG CLRNC DEV COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE LED TO A RWY INCURSION SIT.

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.