This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
I was practicing landings at ZZZ in a Cessna 172. It was a night flight where I was planning to do five total stop and goes.
ZZZ does what they call either a “racetrack” pattern or a “figure 8” pattern for their runways. That night, with the winds considered, led for Runways XX and XY to be in use.
After accepting their pattern, I executed my stop and goes alternating between both Runway XY and XX.
All was going well until I was on right downwind (right traffic) for Runway XX. (This would have been around my third landing). I had traffic behind me essentially following me (doing the same thing) and I had a CRJ off to the northeast inbound for Runway XY.
I was cleared to land for Runway XX by the time I was on right base. As I was entering final, ATC told the CRJ to slow down obviously because I was cleared to land for XX. (XY and XX are intersecting runways).
As I was on final, ATC called up and instructed me to make “little delay” on Runway XX of which I was cleared for. They then called up again and instructed me to do a low approach instead a little bit after. I was confused what they meant by this call, so I questioned them that they wanted me do something in relation to XY and XX, however their call up again was still confusing.
They instructed the traffic that was behind me who was on right downwind at the time to also do a low approach where they gave them more instructions in terms of altitude, etc. This confused me more.
As I was on short final, I interpreted a low approach to mean “to steepen your approach” and “land…ASAP.”
There was much happening in the background: ATC talking to everyone, me trying to configure my aircraft to land, and trying to interpret what they meant.
On short final though, they told me to do a low approach again and I repeated that I would. I failed to query them by asking them what they meant by a low approach exactly.
I continued the steep approach to a landing because that is what I had thought they wanted me to do. I landed trying to make little delay (from what I remember) before the landing markers for Runway XX and did my full stop.
I saw the CRJ then land on Runway XY about 2,000 feet from where I was and then was instructed to hold position.
Afterwards, ATC cleared me to takeoff Runway XX once again with no further problems noted. ATC never told me to contact a number nor mentioned anything of a pilot deviation. They were very accommodating and actually came back up to mention myself and the other traffic in the pattern and thank us for our cooperation because everything happened quickly and the CRJ came in a bit faster than we all had anticipated.
I kept questioning myself what they meant by “low approach” the rest of the flight.
When I got home that night, I looked up what a “low approach” meant and I was shocked, scared, and embarrassed.
I was not sure why I was unable to distinctively understand what they meant by low approach during that moment.
I contacted our Flight Operations and spoke to him around an hour about the occurrence. We began talking about the FAR/AIM in terms of definitions of “low approach” and he gave me recommendations on what to read in the FAR/AIM. We also went over what the NASA form was and why I should report one.
I now understand the meaning of the amended clearance and will begin furthering my search on other possible ATC phraseology, as well for basic knowledge we all should be very familiar with.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 1839346
As an instructor, I often request the low approach when teaching students cross-wind landings. Flying low over the entire runway length gives the student more time to see the effect of aileron and rudder inputs on the longitudinal axis and runway centerline placement.
When soloing a student pilot (remember: very low time and experience here), I tell them even if cleared to land and the landing approach or crosswind created and unstable situation that makes them nervous, to simply go around, and communicate when able, (remember: aviate, navigate, then communicate).
I also agree with Patrick, a low approach is certainly not a clearance to land and was confusing to the low time pilot. Also, may indicate some poor basic instruction? I make sure as Flyerco said the student or pilot should understand the meaning of “cleared for the options means”. One thing it does not mean is a delay on the runway after a stop and go to debrief the approach and landing. ATC does not want any significant delay other than maybe reposition the flaps for take off and go!
Iam at Waco airport cleared to taxi stop short of runway , had one on approach,seen coming in to run way, tower calls him to make turnoff when possible, the plane lands ,call comes but to tower (but sir I have not landed yet) you figure this out
Never heard of a low approach.However i am very familiar with the term make a low pass which i think is a better and safer term and easier and clearer to understand than low approach i have 700 hours in cessnas and pipers singles over 20 years in ireland and the uk
Never heard of a low approach.However i am very familiar with the term make a low pass which i think is a better term and easier and clearer to understand than low approach i have 700 hours in cessnas and pipers singles over 20 years in ireland and the uk
Wow hard to believe the OP didn’t know what a LA was. When I prep student pilots for their check ride oral one of my discussions is what does an option clearance from the tower mean. Flying XCs into towered airports with students we often get the LA clearance after previously cleared for the option.
Adding this to my “checklist” to make sure my trainees know what a LA is, and have them fly one at our untowered home airport.
As a relatively new pilot (190 hrs), I’d never before heard the term ‘low approach’ either.
Had a similar thing some time back on a touch-and-go approach – tower said “say intentions on the go” . Took 3 requests until it registered what he was asking for!
I’m ATC, both tower and approach control. It IS a bit unsettling that it seems the term “Low Approach” is not widely known. As ATC, we use that phraseology frequently enough to feel like it is something every pilot will know. It is instilled in us from day one that the “options” for pilots inbound to a runway are touch-and-go, stop-and-go, low approach, or full stop. When ATC gives the low approach clearance, we expect you to overfly the runway but not touch it. It also usually keeps the slow guys slightly faster over the runway, which is what I imagine the controller was going for in this situation. There are a variety of reasons a controller may choose the “low approach” option. For example, if you ever think you have a gear issue, you will likely be cleared for a low approach so the controller can take a look at your gear before you attempt to land. If there is a situation where there are personnel and equipment on a runway, you may get an altitude restricted low approach (N234, Runway XX, Cleared low approach at or above 500 ft), so we’re asking you to fly over the runway at or above a specific altitude to keep everyone safe. I encourage all pilots to get clarification on anything asked of them that they are unsure about. I’d rather answer your question than have to figure out why you didn’t comply with my instructions. I’ve had to plain-language how to IDENT, what I meant when i said “Say Position,” and how to type in a frequency that has fewer digits than a pilot’s radio (just add zeros at the end). Happy flying!!
Whether you.ve heard the term before or not it’s obviously not a clearance to land.
Very good point!
Every flght is a learning experience. No pilot is perfect as well as ATC. Take the information reported and learn from it. I have been learning for 50 years and 35000 hours.
I have never heard of low approach either. Not once. It’s always been clear to land or go around. None of the numerous instructors I’ve flown with have ever used the phrase in training before or after receiving my license nor have I heard ATC use it. I’m glad this was posted so that I am now aware of this alternative terminology. Maybe part of the country speaks in terms like this often but I can assure you, not all does, English dialects across the US alone are quite varied.
If ever I receive instructions from ATC that i don’t comprehend or are unclear, I ask for clarification.
Teach that to the beginner pilots.
Ex-military controller here (CAAF). I used to love giving fast movers a couple of closed traffic low approaches before their unrestricted climbs! For extra fun, on weekends with no other traffic, tell them a “speed waiver” was approved. Lol. They knew what it meant. You haven’t lived until you see an F14 (did I mention I was a controller a long time ago) do 500 knots in a downwind! Awesome!
Still surprised ATC didn’t just command a “go around”, a much clearer instruction to a low time or ‘rusty’ pilot.
This would’ve been the correct thing to do. While I’m concerned a pilot doesn’t know what a LA is, unless they ask for one, they shouldn’t be given one. Also the tower apparently never canceled clearance to land. The fact ATC didn’t have them phone in/notify FAA, tells me ATC know they screwed up.
This is my thought. I would have expected go hear an explicit “cancel landing clearance” or something, in addition to any other instruction. Perhaps that’s why the pilot didn’t get a Brasher.
Without any references to the pilot’s experience, what kind of pilot, student or otherwise, does not know what a low approach is? And, if he/she is a fresh solo qual, who ever signed them ought to be suspended untill they get their act together!!! Am I being too critical?
To be fair, I had never heard “low approach” until I was a 100 hour private pilot doing practice IAPs for my IR. But I do think it is common enough terminology that instructors should be making sure their students know what it is.
Will, you are being too critical. The only reason I know what LA means is because I flew CAP and we landed occasionally at military airports. Also, the local Navy base had a flying club of which I was a member; “cleared for the option” was either a touch and go or a low approach. If the approaching pilot *asked* for a low approach, it meant he was not planning to land (but he could). CAP pilots are technically not allowed to land at a military base unless there is a current mission or prior authorisation. Since there is too much involved in getting all that, a low approach was good enough.
In the case of this writer, the exact words “with little delay” could be interpreted two ways probably more. I’ve been requested to for example cleared to land make s turns for delay or spacing. Cleared to land expect minimum time on runway. Also been asked to expedite to intersection xx and exit runway without delay. When doing night currency stop and go operations frequently “cleared to land. I’ll call the go” often with intersecting or parallel departures.
I learned to fly under the edge of a TCA (now class b)… (guess that dates me) and I think that helped me became a more diligent pilot and to expect the unexpected and participate in a busy environment that likely prepped me for interacting successfully with busy airspaces around Bravo and military bases.
Someone educate me. Couple of thousand hour PPL C177 owner having landed at a few hundred airports over 35 years and I’ve never heard of a figure eight pattern or alternating runways and some other minor points. I’d have to ask ATC for explanation if requested to say follow a 152 on runway xx doing racetrack to yy. Clearly asking is by far the best answer.
It’s a complicated world with rules and “personalities” out there. I’ve experienced MANY strange nonstandard or extremely rare procedures and phraseology that aren’t commonly used. Even some other ones aren’t normal and are letters of agreement or such and are even more fun for non local flyers.
I once had ATC “yell” at me for going around to avoid an unsafe operation (my opinion as MY landing clearance was never vocalized or acknowledged by me, but aircraft behind me was cleared) and ATC claimed going around created a conflict for another aircraft on another runway & frequency apparently causing potential loss of minimum separation.
The frequency was so busy there was no room to clarify landing clearance or declare go around without doubling with someone like everyone else. Is there always a right and wrong… Maybe not. Sometimes it’s a matter of selecting the least wrong safe or unusual when unable to obtain clarification.
Land without clearance or go around and overfly runway climbing out of 300 without tower receiving my transmission.
Q for ATC folks here… Obviously landing without clearance will have repercussions and exchange of phone numbers… What about an unexpected go around that crosses an intersecting runway departure path?
Should the go around take into account that runway or should it be runway heading to pattern altitude?
There is room for learning for everyone i would say.
I’m not sure there is an FAR for it but I use the policy of remaining 500 feet away (or above) from any aircraft or structure (like at runup) if I am not 100% cleared for whatever the request was.
I always thought of a low approach as defending to at or above missed approach point then climbing out relatively quickly afterwards. And thought of low-pass as decent to lowest legal altitude (careful here as INTENT to land may affect things a bit) overflying the runway a bit followed by a pilots discretion climb-out again respecting separation from obstacles.
Thanks for input. Sorry if too long or off topic a little. There are so many nuances in the regs and the way they are interpreted by region or airport.
Student pilot here, so please take with a grain of salt. That said: I would expect ATC to be prepared for a go around at any time. Deciding to go around and make another attempt at a safe landing is something that is always in a pilot’s toolkit and is done at the PIC’s discretion. The ability to do so is essential.
Well stated, Andy. You will do well.
While I was only a Center controller of 291/2 yes, this article makes me squirm. The tower instructions seem wholly inadequate as if indeed the Cessna pilot were to have made a low approach, this potentially puts his aircraft in a position of passing directly overhead of a landing a/c on an intersecting runway. There is absolutely no way assure that the CRJ will not need to abort his landing for unforeseen reasons potentially putting the two a/c in conflict.
Surely a tower controller is avaible to comment on this.
There are a lot of comments here trying to decipher what exactly happened here, whether one party or another was at fault, and whether things should have been done differently.
These are all interesting comments in their own way, but one thing I’d emphasize as an important learning point is the ability to immediately recognize when there’s something that you don’t understand, and act accordingly.
It’s obvious from the fact that he filled out an ASRS report that he knew something wasn’t right, but on the ground is too late. Pilots cannot let fear or ego get in the way of safety. When ATC tells me something that I don’t understand, or seems a bit “off”, I immediately ask for clarification.
My CFI 30 years ago never told me what the “IDENT” button was–the first time I heard the word was when an APP controller told me to “IDENT” on a solo XC. These things happen.
One critical element of aviation safety is that you don’t leave things to chance. You also don’t leave your safety to others. There’s nothing wrong with telling a controller “I have no idea what you’re asking me to do.” At a minimum, that will cause him to take action to get other aircraft away from you, and that alone can make the difference. The rest of it can be sorted out on the ground later.
The issue here wasn’t that he didn’t know what a low pass was. The issue is that when he had a doubt about what it was, he made an assumption rather than ask. That’s the critical learning point here.
Oops. This site apparently places newest comments on top, so Andrew’s comment is below. Another bit of new learning!
As I understand the AIM excerpt provided by Andrew Hesketh above, a “low approach” is a low altitude go-around; like a touch-and-go without the “touch.” I received my PPL in 1996 and have stayed current since; like the author of this ASRS report, I had not previously heard the term “low approach” used by ATC to mean a go-around. I have been instructed by ATC to “go around” and I have complied without difficulty. I’m not sure I’d have done as requested had ATC instead used the phrase “low approach.” I definitely learned something from this report, appreciate the writer of the ASRS report for filing it, and wonder why some commenters are responding so caustically to this very helpful item.
Being ATC and a Pilot, I’m failing to understand how you don’t understand”Low Approach”. You practiced them to get your license. If you’re a student, then your instructor should have understood. If you’re a student doing a solo flight, then you’ve practiced them. How does “Cleared Low Approach” confuse you? I’m confused about your confusion!
I don’t know of any instructor who specifically has students practice a “low approach”. As an instructor myself, I will mention what a low approach is before a student’s first solo cross country or solo to a towered airport. But I only do this because of knowing someone (student pilot of another instructor) who had the same confusion over what a low approach was and shared her story with me.
I may have a student fly down the entire length of the runway in ground effect to practice that feeling before landing if they’re struggling, but certainly not a low approach.
I’m currently in flight school for my private and throughout the 141 syllabus it does not mention anything about low approaches. Go arounds are extremely prevalent but I for one have not practiced low approaches
I never heard the term low approach until getting my instrument rating. It is a term I’ve personally only heard in reference to instrument approaches. As a student I was taught go-arounds.
Yes, it would have been nice if the writer had provided the definition of “low approach” but since they did not, here it is:
From the AIM
4−3−12. Low Approach
a. A low approach (sometimes referred to as a low pass) is the go−around maneuver following an approach. Instead of landing or making a touch−and− go, a pilot may wish to go around (low approach) in order to expedite a particular operation (a series of practice instrument approaches is an example of such an operation). Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the low approach should be made straight ahead, with no turns or climb made until the pilot has made a thorough visual check for other aircraft in the area.
b. When operating within a Class B, Class C, and Class D surface area, a pilot intending to make a low approach should contact the tower for approval. This request should be made prior to starting the final approach.
c. When operating to an airport, not within a Class B, Class C, and Class D surface area, a pilot intending to make a low approach should, prior to leaving the final approach fix inbound (nonprecision approach) or the outer marker or fix used in lieu of the outer marker inbound (precision approach), so advise the FSS, UNICOM, or make a broadcast as appropriate.
Thanks Dan for going political! Do people have all their comments have a political slant?
I looked it up, missed low approaches r up since Biden took office 🤣
So, what is a “Low Approach?”
And he probably votes for Biden and he shares the airspace with you.
@Dan: Please explain exactly why you enter a political discussion into a aviation forum geared towards learning (I.e. reviewing an ASRS Report). How is that additive to the discussion?
If you have a need for your political views to be heard, might I suggest a different forum than GA News?
Many of us just want to enjoy flying and aviation, and not be constantly bombarded with political aspects in everyday life. Thank you for the consideration of not posting politically motivated statements in the future.
Be well, fly safe.
Well let’s take out the nonsense of this post, and try and make it somewhat interesting. Lol If I’m in the pattern and cleared to land that’s the end of it. Now ATC can ask me for minimum time on the runway or LAHS of runway XY and i can accept or deny. But in this case i would say until i hear “cancel landing clearance…” I’m doing whatever i need to do to land safely. ATC would need to send someone around or we both land. This similar instance happened to me at KBDR. He let me land but asked me to roll through the intersection at high speed to let the jet land on the intersecting runway. I wish i had that on video, we were close. Lol
I got spatially disoriented halfway through this article and diverted back to the “Remote tower and controller training academy planned for KSEM” one instead.
Great bedtime story…..
Even with all the replies from the self appointed GOAT pilots, I’still not clear on just what a “ low approach” is…..?
It’s a go-around, essentially, just decided ahead of time, rather than as an aborted landing. You could request a low approach if, for example, you wanted to fly a practice instrument approach and its missed approach procedure.
All of you grammar NAZI’s missed the point. This pilot and others like him are out there flying with us. When landing at a towered airport you do not cede safety of flight to ATC, especially at a training airport, the flight crew is still 100% responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft.
If I am on approach and hear this kind of exchange between a presumed student and ATC and I am coming into the middle of this mess it is incumbent upon me as a crew member to get my aircraft out of there.
The author of this report may have made some mistakes and ATC may have made some mistakes. We don’t know exactly what took place. As a pilot I am responsible to understand what is going on at the airport and not blindly follow orders from ATC. It is obvious to me the incoming jet caused a lot of disruption and 2 aircraft may have been told to go around because of the jets arrival. One of the aircraft failed to understand to go around. That put the Jet in danger.
My take away is: At training airports or anytime I hear someone not fully understanding what to do as I am approaching I may offer to go around and get out of the way or just tell ATC it is not safe I am going to give it another try. Intersecting runways both in use make it more dangerous.
English is a difficult language to speak and understand, especially Southern and Texan. People who are here and English is a second language, they have difficulties understanding us. New York has trouble with my surfer dude, Texan drawl and I only speak English.
This is a warning, they are out there.
Dude:
“All of you grammar NAZI’s missed the point.”
An apostophe, really?
The NTSB shows this was a student pilot. The controller can’t give them a LAHSO.
This brings up this question: Student is cleared for a landing (stop and go), gets changed to low approach. Intersecting runways are stated. So (NTSB shows this is a Student) C172 changes from landing to low approach (one is not to touch the runway in this case). So now they are reconfiguring and adding power. The CJ has a problem and let’s say they are 135, and not 91. So SOP in this case is TOGA.
I wonder how close they will come to each other for a mid-air?
Me thinks the controller needed to cancel someones clearance to land and give instructions as to what to do next.
Reminds me of a report I read years ago about a pilot on final being instructed by tower to “go around” numerous times due to an aircraft having crashed on the runway ahead of him. He landed anyway, steered “around” the wreckage, and continued his touch-and-go. A good example of two-dimensional thinking, I suppose. Still shaking my head over that one.
I hope he flys better than he writes
I expect better from this publication, you waste my time!
You are so right or “correct” that is.
This report is actually a good example of when a pilot is uncertain of an ATC instruction (which can happen at any level), the pilot should “immediately request clarification from ATC”. 91.123.
dentally a waist of time reading this
And your reply is illiterate.
What does “dentally” mean?
“Waist” of time?? Your reply is a WASTE of time.
Thanks for writing an article that completely fails to inform the reader of any useful information. What a waste of everyone’s time.
Please don’t do this again.
So…what’s the takeaway? You want readers to read into the FARs?
I’m smelling a nothing burger.
Based solely on the last few comments about the pilot contacting his “Flight Operations” person, I suspect this was written up by a Student Pilot at a larger school. I also suspect there may have been a cultural language difference involved. The take-away isn’t necessarily for the general pilot community as much as for the instructing community. With what little was in the report, it sounds like these “low approach” instructions may occur more frequently at this field than others. If this was a student, this is just one more thing that hadn’t been discussed between student and instructor until after the event. It would have helped us understand the event if the pilot qualifications had been listed.
Exactly. Either a student pilot who had been in a quicky school and was signed off for solo without the important understanding of the English language and ATC speak.
The tower should have instructed the confused pilot to exit the pattern and report the business jet in sight. Then when I n sight reenter the pattern f o r the runway that would not have a wake turbulence problem .
THE TOWER NEEDS TO TALK TO THE FLIGHT SCHOOL.