Should have asked for the option...

[photofly]

Everyone knows ATCOs use their discretion about what to report, and what not to. As soon as an ounce of discretion is available to be used by someone - either sanctioned by authority, or simply because people take a view on what's "not worth writing up" - the person exercising that discretion has inserted themselves in the decision making process and shares some of the responsibility for the outcome. It simply cannot be any other way.

[stabilizedapproach]

What do you think is a good alternative to documenting non-routine events then?

[ahramin]

What do you think is a good alternative to documenting non-routine events then?

It's not exactly rocket science:

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/

https://ngafid.org/

[photofly]

What do you think is a good alternative to documenting non-routine events then?

It’s not the system, it’s the culture, and how the system is used. Flying is a blame game, through and through. If you want honest reporting, you’re swimming against the tide, so you want to

• praise pilots (and FTUs) for fixing their mistakes
• keep the details of screwups anonymized (like they do for private operators)
• be concerned to spot patterns, and accept that one-off errors can be part of training

[Schooner69A]

Digits and RedandwhiteBaron: I could have declared an emergency or a PAN and that would have forestalled the "infraction", but it really wasn't either. I know they don't mind rolling the equipment, but no assistance was needed other than to not panic, fly and land the airplane, and have the other pilot make damn sure the door was locked for the next departure. I viewed it in the same context as losing indication from an EGT gauge or having to land flapless... Now, rough running engine or unexplained vibration or the like; different story.

PS Many years ago in Germany, when the aircraft and I returned to earth separated in time and space, I didn't declare an emergency either: shortly after the engine blew at 200' AGL, I simply let the world know that "Romeo Lead is ejecting"...

[Driving Comet]

Well today I committed my first deliberate violation.

After doing some dual airwork in relatively light winds and a nearly perfectly executed engine failure simulation, my instructor sent me out on my own, maybe 7 or 8 miles from the airport, and back for a few circuits. While I was out on my own, the winds picked up: I would estimate they nearly doubled. They also veered and created more crosswind. My intent was 4 landings.

The first landing was not great, I bounced high enough I had to add power to ease back down and had to (IMO) power up before touching down with the nose gear as I just couldn't quite nail it. The second landing was worse. Probably ⅔ of the way between centreline and the left edge (this is YTZ, so it's a pretty big runway and I was waaaaay left of centre), and couldn't keep it straight.

The second landing, I was cleared for a touch and go. After putting the aircraft on the ground, I reversed my decision and noped the departure, turning it into a full stop. It's not that I was afraid or overly stressed, but all available evidence told me that these conditions were beyond what I was capable of; the landing provided me with new evidence that changed the risk calculation. ATC was clearly pissed at me.

[edit]I should also add, the winds veered from W to NW - from 280 to 330 on runway 26. Anyone who's flown over Toronto's inner harbour in a gusty NW or North wind knows how choppy it can get.[/edit]

In hindsight, in those conditions, I should have asked for the option - I knew it was going to be a choppy approach. But also in hindsight, I'd make the same decision again in the same situation. So - while this was a clear violation, it's important to reflect on the decision at times and remind oneself that my ass comes before my license, and that the ultimate decision of what is safe and what is not is mine alone.

If anyone happens to know who was working the YTZ ground and tower frequency at around noon today, please forward my apologies to ATC.

I like these. Ask me another.

Didn't want to hijack that thread. Here's the question - You violate an ATC instruction without communicating your intentions because you believe it to be unsafe and time is of the essence. This is a perfect example; you're cleared for a touch and go, but you make a full stop. Maybe at the last second you heard the wheel bearings make a noise you've never heard, or maybe you suddenly realize there's a danger of wake turbulence you did not previously account for - say for example, caused by a NAV Canada jet testing the ILS system and flying all over the place (haha, that happened today too). Or maybe, as in my case, new evidence suggests you cannot safely land the aircraft again. Is that a failure?

I can guarantee he was more pissed about the surprise flight check than whatever you did bud.

Here's the thing with ATC - we're happy when things are predictable. When pilots do what we think they're going to do, we can make a safe plan A and plan B. When pilots do something we're not thinking they're going to do, things get spicy. If your plan ever changes, fly your airplane first, and then let us know asap, and a short reason doesn't hurt. In this case, as you roll out you can say "tower, ABC is going to make this a full stop, the winds are too strong". It's much better than "tower, ABC stopping" like was suggested. That way were not wondering if somethings broken (do we need an inspection before the next airplane?), or if your instructor just keeled over (do we need to call ARFF?), ect.

You're not the first to do it either... I've had a guy land long and decide to make it a full stop but he did nothing other than to slow to taxi speed right at echo and roll down to alfa without saying anything, and I had someone right behind him. Not good, but if I know whats going I make a new plan and move on.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If your plan ever changes, fly your airplane first, and then let us know asap, and a short reason doesn't hurt. In this case, as you roll out you can say "tower, ABC is going to make this a full stop, the winds are too strong". It's much better than "tower, ABC stopping" like was suggested. That way were not wondering if somethings broken (do we need an inspection before the next airplane?), or if your instructor just keeled over (do we need to call ARFF?), ect.

I had not considered that. I know you folks like things to be predictable, and this kind of thing means you need to make a new plan quickly, but I had not considered that you need to consider things like a surprise runway inspection.

I'll remember that. Thanks.

[ahramin]

In this case, as you roll out you can say "tower, ABC is going to make this a full stop, the winds are too strong". It's much better than "tower, ABC stopping" like was suggested. That way were not wondering if somethings broken (do we need an inspection before the next airplane?), or if your instructor just keeled over (do we need to call ARFF?), ect.

I'd better amplify because the above advice is not appropriate to the situation.

As pilots we all know

1. Aviate
2. Navigate
3. Communicate

It's a pretty clear order of priorities but in reality we need to be able to do all three at pretty much the same time. It's not like we aviate first and then stop aviating in order to do items two and three. The reason we have those priorities ingrained during training is that when you are unable to do all three and you need to do all three, that's the order you have to do them in.

Taking the example of this topic, if you are rolling along after touchdown on a touch and go and decide you need to bring the aircraft to a full stop, you first fly the plane and transition from rolling for a touch and go to stopping on the runway. You don't need to complete the maneuver before doing steps two and three, you just need to have everything under control to the point at which you have time and brainpower to do something else. There's no navigating to do initially, so we move on to communicate. At this point you are still in the middle of getting the aircraft slowed down and keeping it on the runway but getting out a simple radio call should hopefully be within your capabilities. If not don't worry about it but ideally in a situation like this you communicate sooner rather than later. When possible your initial call should follow standard phraseology if it exists. "Tower FABC Stopping".

Then you go back to aviate. Get back on centerline, keep the aircraft decelerating, maybe reconfigure the aircraft if desireable. Then navigate. How far down the runway are you? Do you have enough runway to stop? Which exit could you make? Then communicate. At this point it would be appropriate to amplify, use plain language, explain, use your communication skills.

The reasons for starting out with standard phraseology and only standard phraseology are manifold. First and most importantly, you want your message to be clear. Secondly you want your message to be passed as soon as possible. Thirdly you want your message to be concise when you are busy doing other things and leave the longer parts for when you have more time.

[photofly]

I'm fairly sure that after watching the landing as described, the ATCO knew exactly why the student decided to make it a full stop, and that's why he said no more about it Who knows: after the next one, a runway inspection for debris might have become a necessity.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I'd better amplify because the above advice is not appropriate to the situation.

As pilots we all know

1. Aviate
2. Navigate
3. Communicate

This is exactly what I feel I did. Navigation at that point was not a factor, aside from exiting at echo and not alpha - I flew the plane first, and only after that did I communicate my intentions.

It's a pretty clear order of priorities but in reality we need to be able to do all three at pretty much the same time. It's not like we aviate first and then stop aviating in order to do items two and three. The reason we have those priorities ingrained during training is that when you are unable to do all three and you need to do all three, that's the order you have to do them in.

Taking the example of this topic, if you are rolling along after touchdown on a touch and go and decide you need to bring the aircraft to a full stop, you first fly the plane and transition from rolling for a touch and go to stopping on the runway. You don't need to complete the maneuver before doing steps two and three, you just need to have everything under control to the point at which you have time and brainpower to do something else. There's no navigating to do initially, so we move on to communicate. At this point you are still in the middle of getting the aircraft slowed down and keeping it on the runway but getting out a simple radio call should hopefully be within your capabilities. If not don't worry about it but ideally in a situation like this you communicate sooner rather than later. When possible your initial call should follow standard phraseology if it exists. "Tower FABC Stopping".

Then you go back to aviate. Get back on centerline, keep the aircraft decelerating, maybe reconfigure the aircraft if desireable. Then navigate. How far down the runway are you? Do you have enough runway to stop? Which exit could you make? Then communicate. At this point it would be appropriate to amplify, use plain language, explain, use your communication skills.

You make it sound as if all this can be accomplished in the two seconds available to me where I decide whether to lift off or stop. The long and short is, not everything was under control, and that's why I called it. I am absolutely certain that everybody who has gone through initial flight training can relate. Don't get me wrong - I get your point. But the process you describe here is not achievable during that very brief period between touchdown and takeoff; it is (it was) very much more a "gut feeling" than a rational decision.

The reasons for starting out with standard phraseology and only standard phraseology are manifold. First and most importantly, you want your message to be clear. Secondly you want your message to be passed as soon as possible. Thirdly you want your message to be concise when you are busy doing other things and leave the longer parts for when you have more time.

Yeah, pretty much - which is why all I communicated was "This'll be a full stop for FABC". It was an unsettling landing and that was the limit of my mental capacity at that time. I wasn't even quite sure that I was able to speak clearly, and needed to make sure there was no misunderstanding, so I kept it simple and to the point.

Who knows: after the next one, a runway inspection for debris might have become a necessity.

I wouldn't count on it. I learn from, and I own my mistakes. Sometimes I even post about them on the Internet.

[ahramin]

RedAndWhiteBaron, you appear to have misread my post. I was referring to Driving Comet's advice to provide the reason for your decision while you are executing it.

This is exactly what I feel I did. Navigation at that point was not a factor, aside from exiting at echo and not alpha - I flew the plane first, and only after that did I communicate my intentions.

Exactly what you should have done.

You make it sound as if all this can be accomplished in the two seconds available to me where I decide whether to lift off or stop.

My point is that you make that decision, then you aviate, navigate, and communicate that decision. If everything is not under control, you keep aviating until it is. Once it is under control, then you can think about getting the other two done, including a quick call to tower. Not a detailed call while you are still in the process of executing your decision. A quick standard call.

Yeah, pretty much - which is why all I communicated was "This'll be a full stop for FABC". It was an unsettling landing and that was the limit of my mental capacity at that time.

Again, correct. It would have been better to use standard phraseology, but I'm guessing you didn't know what it was. Knowing that standard phraseology makes it much easier to communicate clearly when you don't have time to think through what you want to say. It's a valuable tool in your pilot toolbox. In any case, you did your best to communicate with what brainpower you had left which is perfect. That would not have been the time to be amplifying and explaining. Once you have everything under control, the aviating is going well, the navigating is figured out, then you amplify and explain. Communicate comes last.

You seem to think this event broke some sort of rule. I have never seen a rule in the CARs that requires a takeoff to be completed.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

You seem to think this event broke some sort of rule. I have never seen a rule in the CARs that requires a takeoff to be completed.

It very much broke a rule. I was cleared for a touch and go, and I made a full stop.

I was not cleared for a full stop. It was very much a violation. But I make no apologies for that decision aside from the grief that I caused ATC.

Really, it's not even that... in hindsight, I should have realized that the winds were veering and picking up quite drastically -- and I didn't. I had plenty of radio chatter to pick up on what the winds were doing, and I missed it. I think that was my error on that flight moreso than the violation.

(they veered by 40 or 50 degrees and went from 10kts to 30, ish)

[ahramin]

Which CAR was broken?

If I'm cleared for takeoff and then decide not to takeoff, does that break a rule?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I honestly have no idea which rule I broke.

But I do know that a rejected takeoff is CADORS worthy, and what I did amounts to a rejected takeoff at the very least, even if you don't call it a "violation".

There must otherwise be some regulation regarding the obligation to follow ATC directives, but I again have no idea which one.

But I'll reiterate in brash terms: I felt that continuing was unsafe, and anyone who felt otherwise can pound sand, my license be damned.

[photofly]

Which CAR was broken?

If I'm cleared for takeoff and then decide not to takeoff, does that break a rule?

Yes, absolutely it breaks a rule - 602.31(1)(b). Once you accept a takeoff clearance you must follow it. The fine is up to $3,000, for individuals, and up to $15,000 for corporations. The OP was cleared for a touch and go, accepted the clearance, and didn't comply. It's as clear a violation as any.

There must otherwise be some regulation regarding the obligation to follow ATC directives, but I again have no idea which one.

It's also question 10.2 in the PSTAR exam question bank, and you've both passed the PSTAR exam, so you should both know the answer, or at least where to find it.

my license be damned.

You're a student pilot: you don't have one. But if you're the PIC of the aircraft then you're still liable to be fined or prosecuted and/or have your permit suspended for a violation.

[Schooner69A]

"Once you accept a takeoff clearance you must follow it."

That's not strictly correct... Under what conditions could you change your mind and what would you say...?

(;>0)

[photofly]

Per 602.31, ACAS, TAWS, and GPWS are the only lawful reasons do deviate from a clearance, once you have accepted it. "Changing your mind" isn't included. If you change your mind, you should get a new clearance. Obviously there are times when it's correct to break the regulations, as this student did.

[Driving Comet]

double post

[Driving Comet]

RedAndWhiteBaron, you appear to have misread my post. I was referring to Driving Comet's advice to provide the reason for your decision while you are executing it.

I didn't say to provide a reason while you're executing a difficult RTO, I said FLY YOUR AIRPLANE FIRST (quote my full paragraph next time), which means get things under control and then call ATC. In the situation OP is talking about I believe a student would be so task saturated until the plane is under control that any radio call should be avoided. Any benefit to ATC by saying "ABC stopping" is outweighed by the fact that a student pilot needs to be concentrating on keeping the plane on pavement. Also if you say you're "ABC stopping" I'm likely to reply with "ABC roger do you require assistance?" Don't invite me to start barking in your ear if you need to concentrate on other things.

It's not like a RTO in a jet, he's flying a light trainer where deceleration to taxi speed happens relatively quickly. Once the planes controlled, you're likely close to taxi speed and can then make the call I said. It all happens relatively fast.

And what photofly said about us probably seeing why he's rejecting is likely true, but I would warn pilots not to assume ATC knows the reasoning behind a decision. We have lots of controllers with 0 piloting experience. And even if I'm comfortable flying a 172, I know I don't know wtf is really happening in your PC12, or BE30 or DH8D.

Is there not some CAR that says any CARs can be broken to ensure flight safety?

Here's the thing with ATC - we're happy when things are predictable. When pilots do what we think they're going to do, we can make a safe plan A and plan B. When pilots do something we're not thinking they're going to do, things get spicy. If your plan ever changes, fly your airplane first, and then let us know asap, and a short reason doesn't hurt. In this case, as you roll out you can say "tower, ABC is going to make this a full stop, the winds are too strong". It's much better than "tower, ABC stopping" like was suggested. That way were not wondering if somethings broken (do we need an inspection before the next airplane?), or if your instructor just keeled over (do we need to call ARFF?), ect.

[digits_]

Per 602.31, ACAS, TAWS, and GPWS are the only lawful reasons do deviate from a clearance, once you have accepted it. "Changing your mind" isn't included. If you change your mind, you should get a new clearance. Obviously there are times when it's correct to break the regulations, as this student did.

You are assuming that rejecting a take off is not following a takeoff clearance. A clearance to land is also a clearance to go around, likewise a takeoff clearance could also allow you to reject.

Although I do admit I'm not sure where the legal details of this could be confirmed.

[photofly]

Is there not some CAR that says any CARs can be broken to ensure flight safety?

No. The defence of necessity is available, though. Per the Aviation Policy Enforcement Manual:

In certain cases where a contravention can be proven or is admitted, the alleged offender may be able to raise a defence based on necessity, due diligence, or officially induced error. Where the defence of necessity is established, the alleged offender cannot be found to have contravened the law because the contravention was necessary to avoid an immediate greater danger (in particular, death or injury).

[TT1900]

You did absolutely nothing wrong by stopping. You can reject a take-off at any time; as soon as you were wheels down you were on a takeoff clearance. Honestly sounds like sound decision making to me.

Talk when you can. There is a reason ATC sits in a tall tower where they can watch the situation. What if you elected to stop because you had an electrical failure short final? They are there to help you. You may wreck their plans and they may get frustrated, but they are professionals. 99% of the time a quick phone call to explain decisions on both sides clears the air if required. Doesn’t mean there won’t be a CADOR’s, but don’t worry too much about those.

If I were to focus on one thing it would be the landings. In my experience if you bounce hard enough to need to add power it’s a go-around, precluding other confounding issues. If you’re not lined up the way you want to be, same thing. Never be afraid to go-around. Unless you’re out of gas, but that’s an entirely separate conversation.

[photofly]

You are assuming that rejecting a take off is not following a takeoff clearance. A clearance to land is also a clearance to go around, likewise a takeoff clearance could also allow you to reject.

I don't think a clearance for a touch-and-go can with impunity be interpreted as a clearance to land and then voluntarily change your mind about taking off again. ATC couldn't sequence traffic right if a touch-and-go could become a full-stop landing every time at the pilot's discretion. Rejected takeoffs are understood to happen, but because of an external issue and not on a pilot whim. I think rejected takeoffs, if chased to their fullest conclusion, would need a defence of necessity, as described above.

[Flightgame]

First of all, I respect you for taking the correct decision to stop. And there is nothing wrong with doing it. All that you have to do is tell tower that you have to make it a full stop. It's not a violation by any means.

I'm assuming you may have taxied off without telling tower that you are making a full stop. That might be the reason why they got irritated. But again, given the circumstances, I dont blame you.

Now being a flight instructor, im forced to dissect what happened.

practice more crosswinds with your instructor, and nail it. I see that students don't look much at the airspeed when they go solo. (Have done that mistake myself on my solo days. So no saint here. Lol) . Also, being really pro active on the rudder to keep your nose where it have to be really helps. Especially as you flare. Students forget that. And the plane goes all squiggly.


And in the end, any landing you walk away is a good landing right? cheers.

[ahramin]

Is there not some CAR that says any CARs can be broken to ensure flight safety?

No. The defence of necessity is available, though. Per the Aviation Policy Enforcement Manual:

In certain cases where a contravention can be proven or is admitted, the alleged offender may be able to raise a defence based on necessity, due diligence, or officially induced error. Where the defence of necessity is established, the alleged offender cannot be found to have contravened the law because the contravention was necessary to avoid an immediate greater danger (in particular, death or injury).

Well I learned something today. Went through the CARs and can't find anything to contradict this. The only place in the CARs that specifically allows you to deviate from an atc clearance is for collision avoidance via ACAS RA or GPWS alert. Thanks photofly.