 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A PA28 pilot on a currency check with a flight instructor had been flying multiple touch and goes. They then landed to a complete stop without notifying tower resulting in a falcon jet going around.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 580521 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200304 |
| Day | Wed |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : bed.airport |
| State Reference | MA |
| Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : bed.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | PA-28 Cherokee/Archer II/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | landing : roll |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : bed.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : corporate |
| Make Model Name | Dassault-Breguet Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach landing : go around |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot instruction : trainee |
| Qualification | pilot : private pilot : instrument |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 2 flight time total : 400 flight time type : 350 |
| ASRS Report | 580521 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : instructor oversight : pic |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | incursion : runway non adherence : clearance |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : executed go around none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Narrative:
Was flying (as PIC) with instructor completing visual portion of proficiency check. Entered pattern and performed 3 lndgs and takeoffs (all runway 5). On final landing was sequenced in front of falcon on long visual straight-in approach. We did approach normally and landed. This was planned to be full-stop and a simulated soft-field landing. Although cleared to land, neither instructor or I clarified that this would be a full-stop. When slowing and approaching turnoff, local control queried our intentions and we confirmed full-stop. Since this prolonged our time on the runway, the falcon had to do a go around. Had we done a touch and go, the falcon would have been able to land normally. While safety was not seriously compromised, we should have communicated more clearly with local control about our intention to do a full-stop. Contributing factors were a lack of recent experience coupled with execution of an unusual procedure and too much attention to the instructional aspect of the situation. Focus on clear communication as a priority and extra attention to ATC's need to understand intentions in highly congested areas are important. This reinforces the need to avoid having instructional issues draw too much focus away from primary flight duties.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A PA28 PLT ON A CURRENCY CHK WITH A FLT INSTRUCTOR HAD BEEN FLYING MULTIPLE TOUCH AND GOES. THEY THEN LANDED TO A COMPLETE STOP WITHOUT NOTIFYING TWR RESULTING IN A FALCON JET GOING AROUND.
Narrative: WAS FLYING (AS PIC) WITH INSTRUCTOR COMPLETING VISUAL PORTION OF PROFICIENCY CHK. ENTERED PATTERN AND PERFORMED 3 LNDGS AND TKOFS (ALL RWY 5). ON FINAL LNDG WAS SEQUENCED IN FRONT OF FALCON ON LONG VISUAL STRAIGHT-IN APCH. WE DID APCH NORMALLY AND LANDED. THIS WAS PLANNED TO BE FULL-STOP AND A SIMULATED SOFT-FIELD LNDG. ALTHOUGH CLRED TO LAND, NEITHER INSTRUCTOR OR I CLARIFIED THAT THIS WOULD BE A FULL-STOP. WHEN SLOWING AND APCHING TURNOFF, LCL CTL QUERIED OUR INTENTIONS AND WE CONFIRMED FULL-STOP. SINCE THIS PROLONGED OUR TIME ON THE RWY, THE FALCON HAD TO DO A GAR. HAD WE DONE A TOUCH AND GO, THE FALCON WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LAND NORMALLY. WHILE SAFETY WAS NOT SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED, WE SHOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED MORE CLRLY WITH LCL CTL ABOUT OUR INTENTION TO DO A FULL-STOP. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE A LACK OF RECENT EXPERIENCE COUPLED WITH EXECUTION OF AN UNUSUAL PROC AND TOO MUCH ATTN TO THE INSTRUCTIONAL ASPECT OF THE SIT. FOCUS ON CLR COM AS A PRIORITY AND EXTRA ATTN TO ATC'S NEED TO UNDERSTAND INTENTIONS IN HIGHLY CONGESTED AREAS ARE IMPORTANT. THIS REINFORCES THE NEED TO AVOID HAVING INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES DRAW TOO MUCH FOCUS AWAY FROM PRIMARY FLT DUTIES.
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.