Narrative:

I am an instrument rated private pilot with a little over 200 hours of flying experience and now training for my commercial rating. In 7/89, I was practicing touch-and-goes at eppley airfield. Communication with tower was very effective during my first few touch-and-goes. Tower instructions such as: 'please make a full stop', etc, were acknowledged and followed. Tower always gave me clearance for touch-and-goes during my downwind leg except for one time, and it was here where the problem arose. Either tower didn't understand my intentions or I didn't understand their clearance. (Clearance was given after requesting clearance to land, clearance I didn't have while turning to base.) I made a touch-and-go and tower came back yelling at me asking to turn immediately to the right and also said that I didn't have clearance for the touch-and-go, that I was supposed to make a full stop in the runway. I explained I had the clearance to land and that he never asked me for a full stop. Right after leaving crosswind, tower stated 'cleared for runway 32R'. So, I had to go back to tower and ask, 'cleared for touch-and-go or for a full stop?' I would like to point out that tower had one controller carrying out the duties of clearance delivery, ground, and tower. The same person in all three frequencys at the same time. After the incident, I was advised by a very good source that the clearance to land is a clearance to land the plane and then taxi away from the runway as instructed. I looked up the far and aim definitions of 'cleared to land' and found no information about how the landing is supposed to terminate. My understanding was that in a touch-and-go, you are still 'landing' the plane. So there it is, why I was asking for a clearance to land (while practicing touch-and goes). I feel that if these clrncs carry so much meaning, they should be clearly and fully defined in the far and/or aim. The reasons which led to this incident were, in my opinion: an overloaded controller and an uninformed pilot. Prevention of a recurrence lies in having landing clrncs clearly defined in the far and/or aim and by not allowing a single controller to carry out so many functions at one time. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states that he now understands the meaning of cleared to land versus a touch-and-go. Analyst reviewed respective parts of the aim with pilot and pilot will review them for his better perspective and interpretation of terms.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT CREATES A SEPARATION PROBLEM FOR TWR CTLR WHEN HE MAKES A TOUCH AND GO OUT OF A 'CLEARED TO LAND' CLRNC.

Narrative: I AM AN INSTRUMENT RATED PRIVATE PLT WITH A LITTLE OVER 200 HRS OF FLYING EXPERIENCE AND NOW TRAINING FOR MY COMMERCIAL RATING. IN 7/89, I WAS PRACTICING TOUCH-AND-GOES AT EPPLEY AIRFIELD. COM WITH TWR WAS VERY EFFECTIVE DURING MY FIRST FEW TOUCH-AND-GOES. TWR INSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS: 'PLEASE MAKE A FULL STOP', ETC, WERE ACKNOWLEDGED AND FOLLOWED. TWR ALWAYS GAVE ME CLRNC FOR TOUCH-AND-GOES DURING MY DOWNWIND LEG EXCEPT FOR ONE TIME, AND IT WAS HERE WHERE THE PROBLEM AROSE. EITHER TWR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND MY INTENTIONS OR I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THEIR CLRNC. (CLRNC WAS GIVEN AFTER REQUESTING CLRNC TO LAND, CLRNC I DIDN'T HAVE WHILE TURNING TO BASE.) I MADE A TOUCH-AND-GO AND TWR CAME BACK YELLING AT ME ASKING TO TURN IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT AND ALSO SAID THAT I DIDN'T HAVE CLRNC FOR THE TOUCH-AND-GO, THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE A FULL STOP IN THE RWY. I EXPLAINED I HAD THE CLRNC TO LAND AND THAT HE NEVER ASKED ME FOR A FULL STOP. RIGHT AFTER LEAVING XWIND, TWR STATED 'CLRED FOR RWY 32R'. SO, I HAD TO GO BACK TO TWR AND ASK, 'CLRED FOR TOUCH-AND-GO OR FOR A FULL STOP?' I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT TWR HAD ONE CTLR CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF CLRNC DELIVERY, GND, AND TWR. THE SAME PERSON IN ALL THREE FREQS AT THE SAME TIME. AFTER THE INCIDENT, I WAS ADVISED BY A VERY GOOD SOURCE THAT THE CLRNC TO LAND IS A CLRNC TO LAND THE PLANE AND THEN TAXI AWAY FROM THE RWY AS INSTRUCTED. I LOOKED UP THE FAR AND AIM DEFINITIONS OF 'CLRED TO LAND' AND FOUND NO INFO ABOUT HOW THE LNDG IS SUPPOSED TO TERMINATE. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IN A TOUCH-AND-GO, YOU ARE STILL 'LNDG' THE PLANE. SO THERE IT IS, WHY I WAS ASKING FOR A CLRNC TO LAND (WHILE PRACTICING TOUCH-AND GOES). I FEEL THAT IF THESE CLRNCS CARRY SO MUCH MEANING, THEY SHOULD BE CLEARLY AND FULLY DEFINED IN THE FAR AND/OR AIM. THE REASONS WHICH LED TO THIS INCIDENT WERE, IN MY OPINION: AN OVERLOADED CTLR AND AN UNINFORMED PLT. PREVENTION OF A RECURRENCE LIES IN HAVING LNDG CLRNCS CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE FAR AND/OR AIM AND BY NOT ALLOWING A SINGLE CTLR TO CARRY OUT SO MANY FUNCTIONS AT ONE TIME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER STATES THAT HE NOW UNDERSTANDS THE MEANING OF CLRED TO LAND VERSUS A TOUCH-AND-GO. ANALYST REVIEWED RESPECTIVE PARTS OF THE AIM WITH PLT AND PLT WILL REVIEW THEM FOR HIS BETTER PERSPECTIVE AND INTERP OF TERMS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.