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.
Aircraft X (Cessna 400) was cleared for visual, with calls out from 7 sm, 5 sm, 3 sm, and upon entering left downwind for Runway 34.
Aircraft Y (Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172) was in the traffic pattern and announcement at midfield with no visual, but on ForeFlight on the merge. Aircraft X diverted to the southwest and extended downwind, base, and two mile final. Aircraft Y was still on the runway on one-mile final, which necessitated a go-around.
Extended downwind, base, and two-mile final with Aircraft Y now on runway announcing “touch and go” with no movement.
On one mile final, Aircraft Y still not on the go.
Aircraft X advised that touch and go was to go, not to stop.
Aircraft X diverted to the right overflying right taxiway.
Aircraft Y elected to takeoff with both aircraft abeam the numbers, Aircraft Y at 3,800 and Aircraft X at 4,000 — safe separation. Aircraft Y left crosswind; Aircraft X extended departure, extended downwind, base, and two-mile final with landing.
Aircraft Y student pilot confronted Aircraft X pilot after landing, indicating that Aircraft X did not own the airport and was not authorized to instruct other aircraft, with Aircraft X responding that a touch and go is precisely that, not a stop — and asked what could both pilots learn from the situation.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 1930628
I think the main problem is that the 172 announced a touch and go but actually did a stop and go.
The lesson here: announce what you will do and do what you announce on the radio at non towered airports.
The way the narrative is written is a bit confusing, so I won’t comment on the specifics. But suffice it to say, unless it’s a towered airport and ATC is instructing you to line up and wait, it’s not wise to spend any longer than necessary on a runway. If you call touch and go but later, for whatever reason, decide to make it a full stop and are not at a towered airport and cleared for the option, it’s best to vacate the runway and taxi back for departure. In this way, anyone in the pattern behind you can land, regardless of whether they have a radio or not!
Stopping on a runway without an emergency and not cleared for the option, is not recommended.
Looks to me as if both pilots need some “lessons” in being polite with and considerate of other pilots. The way it was written, it’s a little hard to follow, but it appears that the student was in the 172 and stopped on the runway for an unnecessarily long time, while the “heavy iron” was on a visual approach—but was that an actual “visual approach” from an IFR flight plan or just coming in VFR is not completely clear. I can’t tell who is the reporting pilot, the student or the 400 pilot. But both are wrong.
A stop and go definitely allows the pilot to stop on the runway—but not for an extraordinarily long period of time. So the student was wrong to do so. It’s also very unsafe to ever stop for any long period on an active runway.
The 400 pilot did not have the right of way. Being cleared for any approach, visual or otherwise, doesn’t give him any priority over VFR traffic. Assuming he was cleared for a visual approach by ATC, he is still required to meld into the existing traffic. If the runway is blocked, he has no authority to tell the blocking pilot to move out of the way. So he was wrong to do so.
There was a time when aviation was a collegial endeavor, and I hope this report is not an indicator of a trend toward “me first”, “my way or the highway” nastiness. We’ve all met people in aviation who are like both of these pilots, but we should strive not to be like them.
The active runway is just that: active, not static, not a parking spot… with rare emergency exceptions.
After run-up and clearing-turns on taxiway, use comm to declare intentions and advise traffic… and be-advised by traffic… and then final assess your aircraft and the runway/traffic conditions… then take the positive active and proceed to take-off. A slight delay after full stop on the active is not unacceptable… getting head straight… then be decisive. GO.
Pretty rude to just sit there, particularly since the 172 had already extended his pattern for the 400. The beauty of VFR regs & pilot training philosophy is the “living” nature of the VFR traffic pattern, expanding and contracting to accommodate & cooperate. But that requires everybody to participate in keeping the circulation moving.
but frankly I’m more concerned by the 400 pilot’s actions when the 172 went missed. Since the 400 had already balled up traffic, I would have waited to takeoff until I had eyes on the 172 above me going around, just to ensure he’d sidestepped to the right & there was no danger of a midair.
You have the aircraft swapped. The 172 was the student pilot already in the pattern/on the runway and who did the stop/touch and go. The 400 is the one who had to go around twice (if I read this right).
Original poster is obviously very confused about aviation.
What a great story. There are some instructors I know who should read this article.
???? Cleared for a visual and then no further involvement from ATC? Doesn’t sound quite right.
Could have been a non-towered airport.
Aircraft Y knowing that another aircraft was on base or final and choose to come to a full stop on the active runway?
Yikes!! His pilots license needs to be suspended.