Should have asked for the option...

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

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?

[digits_]

Is it still a touch and go if there is 48 hours between the touch and the go?

[photofly]

If the runway is very very long, and you move only forwards very very slowly, it is.

[Schooner69A]

You cannot be violated for turning an cleared "touch and go" into a full stop IF you had sufficient reason to do so. Years ago, a tentative violation was filed against me for executing an overshoot after being cleared four miles back for a full stop. The other pilot and I were calibrating a piece of cockpit equipment and on short final, couldn't remember if we had been cleared to land or not. As the only controller was busy castigating a flying club airplane on ground frequency, we couldn't get a word in edgewise, so we executed the miss.

Also tried to violate me for disregarding an ATC instruction: just after take-off and as the tower controller cleared us to contact departure, the door on the Baron popped open. Stayed with tower, told them we were joining downwind for a full stop. We were asked if we were declaring an emergency. Said "no". (If there's an emergency, all rules can be bent)

In response to the violation, I noted that an emergency, whether declared or not, still is an emergency. Violation was dropped.

[digits_]

Also tried to violate me for disregarding an ATC instruction: just after take-off and as the tower controller cleared us to contact departure, the door on the Baron popped open. Stayed with tower, told them we were joining downwind for a full stop. We were asked if we were declaring an emergency. Said "no". (If there's an emergency, all rules can be bent)

In response to the violation, I noted that an emergency, whether declared or not, still is an emergency. Violation was dropped.

Curious, why did you not declare an emergency?

It's one thing people want to not raise a fuss and keep problems to themselves, but if you intentionally disregard ATC instructions because you deem it necessary, why not make it official and declare an emergency?

[CpnCrunch]

Generally when something like that happens it's best to apologise and make a quick explanation. I wouldn't worry about it, I've done worse (busting YVR Harbour's airspace, as I didn't realise I was so close to it...luckily I was listening on the frequency, and quickly apologised).

Anyway, sounds like you made some good decisions, and you just need some more practice with crosswinds. Pick a day with a good crosswind and go up with the instructor.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Also tried to violate me for disregarding an ATC instruction: just after take-off and as the tower controller cleared us to contact departure, the door on the Baron popped open. Stayed with tower, told them we were joining downwind for a full stop. We were asked if we were declaring an emergency. Said "no". (If there's an emergency, all rules can be bent)

In response to the violation, I noted that an emergency, whether declared or not, still is an emergency. Violation was dropped.

Curious, why did you not declare an emergency?

It's one thing people want to not raise a fuss and keep problems to themselves, but if you intentionally disregard ATC instructions because you deem it necessary, why not make it official and declare an emergency?

Or, why not declare a pan pan, and mention "assistance not required"?

[photofly]

If you really want to incur the wrath of an ATCO, make them fill out paperwork. Especially needless paperwork. A pan pan call would do it, for sure.

[digits_]

If they go through the trouble of writing Schooner69A up, I don't think they mind paperwork.

[photofly]

It’s more a reflection of how they feel about schooner69A.

[Kaykay]

If you really want to incur the wrath of an ATCO, make them fill out paperwork. Especially needless paperwork. A pan pan call would do it, for sure.

That’s a dangerous assertion. Useless and garbage remarks like this are why some people, especially students or inexperienced pilots are afraid to declare pan pan or mayday in legitimate circumstances. What ATC has to do behind the scenes is not a pilot’s problem.

[photofly]

Been flying long?





I don’t think a pan pan call, from a student pilot, while rolling out on the runway, after an unsettling landing, so that the ATCO won’t raise a CADORS for a full stop instead of a cleared touch and go if you decide to exit the runway, is an appropriate course of action. I don’t think tHe OP does, either. You might disagree.

I think “Tower, student pilot, I’d like to make this a full stop, please” would probably be better.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

To be specific - I didn't ask. It was a unilateral decision.

[photofly]

Of course. And even if you ask for. and are cleared for a touch and go, a full stop for safety related reasons is always your prerogative. It’s your ass in the plane, not theirs.

[ahramin]

Well lets think about this. What is a touch and go? It's a landing which is followed immediately by a takeoff without coming to a full stop. So if you complete the landing, and then you are rolling along and decide not to complete the takeoff, what is it? It's a rejected takeoff. Are you allowed to reject a takeoff? Is there standard phraseology for this event?

"Tower GABC stopping"

That's all you have to say and then no one can get annoyed with you (except photofly).

[Kaykay]

@photofly Yes, and long enough to know that if you aren’t the pic in that situation, you don’t decide what sort of communication is necessary.

The pan pan I made reference to is for the situation of the popped open door in flight. Sometimes that’s a big deal to people.

A CADORS is likely in the op situation regardless because they’re rejecting a takeoff after having landed. That’s their right as the pilot at any time, what reports ATC wants to file is part of their own procedures. Is it something the op can be violated for? Absolutely not, they rejected a takeoff because they felt unsafe to continue, they have that right.

[photofly]

That's all you have to say and then no one can get annoyed with you (except photofly).

I'm much amused that you think I'm annoyed by what the OP did. from what I hear, it was a great decision. It's definitely a novel approach to view it as a rejected takeoff.

A CADORS is likely in the op situation

Unfortunately, in the flight training world, a CADORS is definitely a black mark against the FTU. FTU's are judged on how many or how few they have. You might not see it like that, and I wish it were different, but that's the outlook of TC. I doubt this will be reported as one, though.

[Kaykay]

Depends what unit it is, but I can think of a few where it most certainly would be.

I know what you’re getting at regarding CADORS and flight schools. But FTUs are also judged by what they instill in their students. Teaching students to think of ATC as the big bad CADORS issuing boogeyman and teaching people to be afraid of declaring urgency or emergency if they feel they need to is not good either.

[photofly]

I didn't create the system. When students are forced to write Chinese communist party style self-criticism, I'm sorry - I mean "reports" - by Transport Canada inspectors as a result of CADORS entries - and CFIs to invent "corrective action plans" as a result of very minor transgressions - then I am not the one teaching them to think of ATC as the big bad CADORS issuing boogeyman, and I am not the one creating the incentives not to raise paperwork.

[Kaykay]

Might be time for a chat with your PI if that’s the culture where you are. Unless you’re exaggerating. The FTUs I’ve been at in the past, we always had really productive relationships with TC.

You didn’t pick a fight you shouldn’t have did you?

[photofly]

It's the culture everywhere. Just look on here for comments about FTU's: "Go and look at all the CADORS if you want to know what they're really like".

If you feed genuine safety issues into what has become a system for pubic shaming of FTUs then you cannot be surprised if people are motivated to avoid appearing in it. The threshold for me declaring an emergency or a pan pan is, necessarily, that the benefits have to outweigh the shit I am going to collect from the entire world knowing about what I did wrong.

[Kaykay]

My experience has been different than yours I suppose. I don’t entirely agree, but I do understand where you’re coming from. Agree to disagree as they say.

[CpnCrunch]

It's the culture everywhere. Just look on here for comments about FTU's: "Go and look at all the CADORS if you want to know what they're really like".

If you feed genuine safety issues into what has become a system for pubic shaming of FTUs then you cannot be surprised if people are motivated to avoid appearing in it. The threshold for me declaring an emergency or a pan pan is, necessarily, that the benefits have to outweigh the shit I am going to collect from the entire world knowing about what I did wrong.

People are smart enough to be able to look at the CADORs and see which ones are due to screw-ups, which which aren't. I noticed that the SATC 172 that ran out of fuel had quite a few CADORs for busting various ATC instructions. Interestingly the CADOR for the fuel exhaustion at Olds-Didsbury just said that they landed short of the runway, with no mention of fuel.

I just checked all the planes I've flown and didn't see any CADORS, other than a few from a previous owner. I guess my two screwups didn't merit write-ups, or perhaps my apologies worked.

Things like "the pilot contacted Saskatoon Terminal and advised that he was VFR on top of cloud and needed assistance in locating a hole to descend below cloud" aren't necessarily screw-ups, and it's better to get written up than make a hole in the ground.

[photofly]

Yep, it's definitely better to get written up than make a hole in the ground.

[stabilizedapproach]

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?

When I did my flight training, I was taught to aviate, navigate then communicate. In this case because there is no real navigating, I'd expect communicating to happen pretty soon after you made the decision to abort. No doubt you made the right choice based on the situation you described. No reason to push past what you considered was safe.

ATS units should technically be writing up all non-routine events or aviation occurrence reports for anything out of the ordinary... mayday/pan calls, not following ATC instructions, rejected takeoffs... anything that is not routine aviation stuff. I think it says in CARs somewhere that we are obligated to do so, but most things are honestly not worthy of writing up. Some places are more generous with how many write-ups they do, much more than others. What happens after we press send is entirely up to TC but we mostly document the significant stuff in case something happens down the line and someone invariably asks why we didn't file a report. TC ultimately determines what is a CADOR and what isn't, not ATC.