Narrative:

I had been cleared to land behind a light experimental (a rans S-7) that was clearing the runway after a short ground roll. The tower controller transmitted an unexpected 'go around.' I initiated a go around, and picked up the microphone to acknowledge, but could not do so before tower repeated the instruction with unnecessary urgency. The rans was now past the taxiway hold line, turning onto the parallel taxiway. I assured tower that I could go around, and advised that the runway appeared to be clear. No reply. I flew past the experimental's exit point, and asked 'do you still want me to go around?' after a short delay, tower cleared me to land. I acknowledged, and did so. (I still had about 7000 ft of runway.) ground control requested a call. I complied. He was quite agitated, and asserted that 'go around' was a command that required absolute compliance, that controllers carry that designation because they are in control, and threatened NTSB action. There wasn't much opportunity for a useful discussion. I don't think he understood that I was 'on the go' when requesting a confirmation of tower's view of the situation. I believe that some phase of controller training was in progress, that the ground controller was the shift supervisor, and that the trainee and supervisor both lost track of the experimental when he left the runway. Their expectation must have been that he would not use that exit, and probably were convinced that he was in my way. I could see that was not the case, and assumed there might be another problem. I felt that the easiest communication was to let them know the runway appeared to be clear for me. When I received my second clearance to land, I was convinced that they had found the rans on the taxiway and now agreed with me that the runway was, and had been, clear. I never refused to comply, but did want an affirmation of their need for a go around before continuing on that path. My spacing on the S-7 was about normal. There was some closure as he slowed and left the runway. I was fully aware that if he didn't use that taxiway he would still be on the runway, and would probably not have proper separation for my landing, but it was fully apparent that he was clearing before tower's first call. I am dismayed that this event created controller concern, and am disturbed with the supervisor's attitude. I intend to avoid a recurrence of this scenario by adding a mi or two to my traffic pattern separation at this airport in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTING PLT OF AN SEL SMA QUESTIONED THE TWR CTLR'S GAR INSTRUCTIONS DURING LNDG APCH DUE TO OBSERVING THE PREVIOUS LNDG RANS S-7 (AMATEUR BUILT) HAD ALREADY CLRED THE RWY. HOWEVER, THE TWR CTLR BELIEVED THAT THE RPTR HAD NOT RESPONDED AT ONCE TO THE GAR AND THREATENED LEGAL ACTION.

Narrative: I HAD BEEN CLRED TO LAND BEHIND A LIGHT EXPERIMENTAL (A RANS S-7) THAT WAS CLRING THE RWY AFTER A SHORT GND ROLL. THE TWR CTLR XMITTED AN UNEXPECTED 'GAR.' I INITIATED A GAR, AND PICKED UP THE MIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, BUT COULD NOT DO SO BEFORE TWR REPEATED THE INSTRUCTION WITH UNNECESSARY URGENCY. THE RANS WAS NOW PAST THE TXWY HOLD LINE, TURNING ONTO THE PARALLEL TXWY. I ASSURED TWR THAT I COULD GO AROUND, AND ADVISED THAT THE RWY APPEARED TO BE CLR. NO REPLY. I FLEW PAST THE EXPERIMENTAL'S EXIT POINT, AND ASKED 'DO YOU STILL WANT ME TO GO AROUND?' AFTER A SHORT DELAY, TWR CLRED ME TO LAND. I ACKNOWLEDGED, AND DID SO. (I STILL HAD ABOUT 7000 FT OF RWY.) GND CTL REQUESTED A CALL. I COMPLIED. HE WAS QUITE AGITATED, AND ASSERTED THAT 'GAR' WAS A COMMAND THAT REQUIRED ABSOLUTE COMPLIANCE, THAT CTLRS CARRY THAT DESIGNATION BECAUSE THEY ARE IN CTL, AND THREATENED NTSB ACTION. THERE WASN'T MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR A USEFUL DISCUSSION. I DON'T THINK HE UNDERSTOOD THAT I WAS 'ON THE GO' WHEN REQUESTING A CONFIRMATION OF TWR'S VIEW OF THE SIT. I BELIEVE THAT SOME PHASE OF CTLR TRAINING WAS IN PROGRESS, THAT THE GND CTLR WAS THE SHIFT SUPVR, AND THAT THE TRAINEE AND SUPVR BOTH LOST TRACK OF THE EXPERIMENTAL WHEN HE LEFT THE RWY. THEIR EXPECTATION MUST HAVE BEEN THAT HE WOULD NOT USE THAT EXIT, AND PROBABLY WERE CONVINCED THAT HE WAS IN MY WAY. I COULD SEE THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, AND ASSUMED THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER PROB. I FELT THAT THE EASIEST COM WAS TO LET THEM KNOW THE RWY APPEARED TO BE CLR FOR ME. WHEN I RECEIVED MY SECOND CLRNC TO LAND, I WAS CONVINCED THAT THEY HAD FOUND THE RANS ON THE TXWY AND NOW AGREED WITH ME THAT THE RWY WAS, AND HAD BEEN, CLR. I NEVER REFUSED TO COMPLY, BUT DID WANT AN AFFIRMATION OF THEIR NEED FOR A GAR BEFORE CONTINUING ON THAT PATH. MY SPACING ON THE S-7 WAS ABOUT NORMAL. THERE WAS SOME CLOSURE AS HE SLOWED AND LEFT THE RWY. I WAS FULLY AWARE THAT IF HE DIDN'T USE THAT TXWY HE WOULD STILL BE ON THE RWY, AND WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE PROPER SEPARATION FOR MY LNDG, BUT IT WAS FULLY APPARENT THAT HE WAS CLRING BEFORE TWR'S FIRST CALL. I AM DISMAYED THAT THIS EVENT CREATED CTLR CONCERN, AND AM DISTURBED WITH THE SUPVR'S ATTITUDE. I INTEND TO AVOID A RECURRENCE OF THIS SCENARIO BY ADDING A MI OR TWO TO MY TFC PATTERN SEPARATION AT THIS ARPT IN THE FUTURE.

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.