 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A TB20 pilot on a training flight with a safety pilot is accused by tower of performing a touch and go when only cleared for a low approach. Pilot claims the landing was authority/authorized under the 'option' clause that was heard on final to runway 32 at sts, ca.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 596878 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200310 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : sts.airport |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 800 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : sts.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Rallye 180T/180T-D/180TS |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | landing : touch and go |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 8 flight time total : 835 flight time type : 281 |
| ASRS Report | 596878 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | observation : passenger other personnel other |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | incursion : landing without clearance incursion : runway non adherence : clearance other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | faa : assigned or threatened penalties faa : reviewed incident with flight crew other |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Environmental Factor Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Narrative:
I was on the ILS runway 32 approach to sts. Both the safety pilot and I heard the sts tower controller state 'cleared for the option.' we didn't expect this, since there was a small tailwind, and runways 14 and 19 were in use, and we remarked on this fact to each other. I also read back 'cleared for the option' to the controller. I continued the approach to minimums, came out from under the hood, and did a touch and go. On the climb out the controller rebuked us for doing the touch and go rather than a low approach. I told him that both of us in the cockpit heard him say 'cleared for the option.' he responded 'negative!' I then responded 'listen to the tape.' he xferred us to ZOA who later relayed a message to us to call the sts tower after landing. The controller is threatening to report a pilot deviation, but to my knowledge has not yet listened to the tape. Radio reception was good in the airplane. While the incident is a minor communication problem that did not result in a dangerous situation, the ensuing 'argument' was unfortunate and distraction me during the climb out from the touch and go. Both the controller's remarks and my own, inflamed the situation, which did more to compromise safety than the miscom.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A TB20 PLT ON A TRAINING FLT WITH A SAFETY PLT IS ACCUSED BY TWR OF PERFORMING A TOUCH AND GO WHEN ONLY CLRED FOR A LOW APCH. PLT CLAIMS THE LNDG WAS AUTH UNDER THE 'OPTION' CLAUSE THAT WAS HEARD ON FINAL TO RWY 32 AT STS, CA.
Narrative: I WAS ON THE ILS RWY 32 APCH TO STS. BOTH THE SAFETY PLT AND I HEARD THE STS TWR CTLR STATE 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION.' WE DIDN'T EXPECT THIS, SINCE THERE WAS A SMALL TAILWIND, AND RWYS 14 AND 19 WERE IN USE, AND WE REMARKED ON THIS FACT TO EACH OTHER. I ALSO READ BACK 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION' TO THE CTLR. I CONTINUED THE APCH TO MINIMUMS, CAME OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD, AND DID A TOUCH AND GO. ON THE CLBOUT THE CTLR REBUKED US FOR DOING THE TOUCH AND GO RATHER THAN A LOW APCH. I TOLD HIM THAT BOTH OF US IN THE COCKPIT HEARD HIM SAY 'CLRED FOR THE OPTION.' HE RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE!' I THEN RESPONDED 'LISTEN TO THE TAPE.' HE XFERRED US TO ZOA WHO LATER RELAYED A MESSAGE TO US TO CALL THE STS TWR AFTER LNDG. THE CTLR IS THREATENING TO RPT A PLTDEV, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS NOT YET LISTENED TO THE TAPE. RADIO RECEPTION WAS GOOD IN THE AIRPLANE. WHILE THE INCIDENT IS A MINOR COM PROB THAT DID NOT RESULT IN A DANGEROUS SIT, THE ENSUING 'ARGUMENT' WAS UNFORTUNATE AND DISTR ME DURING THE CLBOUT FROM THE TOUCH AND GO. BOTH THE CTLR'S REMARKS AND MY OWN, INFLAMED THE SIT, WHICH DID MORE TO COMPROMISE SAFETY THAN THE MISCOM.
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.