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.
The C172 in question and I had each other in sight and were communicating. We were on right base with apparent equal distance to final. Upon extending the landing gear in the Eclipse 500 I had an anti-skid system failure alert.
Not an emergency, however asked the other plane for priority to land with this problem. The other pilot said “no” to my priority request and stated, “You just think you should have priority because you are faster,” or words to that effect.
I then stated that I need to land immediately. I asked him to go around several times…another aircraft obliged and made a 360, but not the aircraft in question.
We made our turn to final while still communicating back and forth. I had him in sight and continued. The other aircraft flew over top of us but we both had each other in sight and were in constant communication.
Due to being a dark night, I saw the lights of the other aircraft but was not able to judge the distance.
I continually stressed that I needed to land immediately and was going to get to the airport first. The other pilot was belligerent and uncooperative throughout.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 1951796
Should the 172 pilot yielded? Of course. All these people saying this wasn’t an issue are wrong to tell you what you think is an issue. Good for you to learn, but you should never second guess declaring.
THAT SAID – If you were so worried then declare an emergency and land. “Priority” isn’t an official term. It causes confusion and has killed people.
Declaring an emergency doesn’t cost you anything, you thought your situation was unsafe so you have a responsibility to just declare.
For the Cirrus guy, you haven’t studied airplane systems apparently because you don’t know what anti skid is for. The system was designed to help pilots maintain control on contaminated runways, water, ice, snow, etc. keeping the tires from skidding believe it or not increases directional control on the landing rollout.
On dry runways with anti skid inop, if you stand on the brakes you can flat spot your tires so land normally with normal braking. Hence no emergency! I recommend getting some training on system operations because I’m betting there are other opportunities for you to learn about the plane you’re flying.
As for the 172 guy, your attitude sucks, you can’t fix stupid unfortunately!
Dick Gecko
From one CFI to another, and upon receiving the Wright Brothers Master Pilot award for 50 consecutive years for no accidents or incidents, you will not find a more courteous pilot. If I had been flying the 172 I would have offered to do a 360 and let the Eclipse go ahead. The Eclipse pilot over dramatized the situation by declaring he needed “priority handling”, when in fact there was no real emergency. Out of courtesy, I would have let him go ahead much like I did at the hold line when the jet behind me called and said I needed to give way to their departure. I went out of my way to accommodate the pilot when the pilot declared they needed to be number one for departure. If the jet had been at a towered controlled airport they would have had to wait their turn. When and where one gets their IFR clearance is irrelevant. At nontowered airports with a remote freq to ATC for IFR clearance and release, the standard communication from ATC after issuing the clearance is, “call when you are ready and number one for departure”. Granted a jet is pretty much ready as they leave the ramp. A piston can be as well. Jumping ahead of another aircraft is not about efficiency. Respecting the proper order of operation is only common professional courtesy. The 172 pilot had every right to decline the Eclipes pilot’s request under the circumstances.
Turn anti skid off… land normally. Be careful to ask for longer runway if several are available … relax young man… you get paid by the minute! On most clear dry days normal braking is plenty satisfactory… relax you’ll get an ulcer before normal retirement ….
I’m from the old school of flying, being polite and respectful. I fly out of an uncontrolled airport and on a busy weekend with several planes in the pattern a jet or war bird may have to wait a while for a break in traffic to take off. I’ll extend my down wind or go around to allow them to depart. They are usually most appreciative. They are burning a lot more gas then I am in my might C-150 and I guess i like flying too much.
That way I can save my rage for the drive home from the airport!
I only have time for a quick comment and I will summarize my opinion later. It appears that this situation magnifies everything that is wrong with this Country.
A anti-skid problem is no reason for a priority landing, if anything he should have stayed in the air to sort it out.
Then there is the chance the eclipse would foul the runway.
I know the eclipse, i helped build the first 200, they are slow junk built for people that think they are special.
I wouldn’t set foot in one.
OK, here is how some jet jockeys behave. After reading this then you decide who and how the 172 should have responded. I operate out of non towered airport. We have a remote freq on the field for IFR clearances and releases. I taxied out to the end of the runway one morning stopped, did my run up, called for my IFR clearance. During this time no other aircraft was behind me. Shortly after I got my clearance and was told to hold for release a jet came taxing down. They had evidently requested their clearance on the ramp and told the controller they were ready for takeoff when in fact they were not at the end of the runway. The jet pilot called me and told me he had been released and that I was blocking the runway. There was no where for me to turn around, so I taxied down the runway to the first intersection then turned back. I said right then and there I would never do that again for any jet. Not long after that encounter, I had taxied to the runway, gotten my clearance and was waiting for release when again another jet had gotten their clearance on the ramp and told the controller he was number one ready for takeoff when in fact he had just started to taxi to the runway. I called the controller and told him I was number one and the jet had just started to taxi to the runway and was no where near the end. The controller called the jet and cancelled his release. It’s perfectly OK to call for the clearance on the ramp but it’s NOT OK to tell the controller you are number one for takeoff when in fact you are not. Maybe the 172 had a similar encounter before.
I had a similar situation with a King Air at W Houston. Was at the old short line when th King Air came up behind me and told ATC that I was in his way. He too had lied about being number one to the runway. His clearance was canceled and I was cleared to depart. Monitored the frequency westbound, and that King Air sat on the ramp for a good 20 minutes before heading westbound as well. Guess the controller was worried about wake turbulence for me 🙂
Kelly,
Most professional pilots will have their clearances arranged as early as possible and final checks complete long prior to arriving at the hold short. There’s no expectation in any context to assume a stationary aircraft ahead on the taxiway or earlier at the hold short is ready to go. In the absence of other knowledge (ground/tower), controllers can only reference the order in which they received their clearances.
If another aircraft is ready and yours is not, if another aircraft is cleared and yours is not, it’s on you and your procedures that these situations are happening.
I’ve flown professionally in everything from single engine pistons to fighters and multiple types in between. I fly recreationally and am also a CFI. What you are describing isn’t jet jock arrogance, it’s professional efficiency that many pilots just don’t understand.
That being said, unless the anti-skid issue of our Eclipse friend was caused by some sort of leak or critical system failure, the dude can wait.
RE: “If another aircraft is ready and yours is not, if another aircraft is cleared and yours is not, it’s on you and your procedures that these situations are happening.”
Say what? ATC would always know who’s where and always issues clearance in absolute correct timing? – Not. Big airports have multiple sectors with coordination being near impossible for timing. The “lineup” is frequently mixed up. How long you been flying, or even listening to radio traffic?
Who you trying to kid about ATC infallibility? And knowing what you’re doing doesn’t mean you know what any other aircraft on the ramp somewhere is doing or contemplating.
A brake or landing gear problem is not a problem until the plane comes in contact with the ground.
It seems, since the anti-skid defect wouldn’t cause any problems until the eclipse was actually on the ground, that the sensible thing to do would have been to get the other planes in the pattern on the ground first, just in case there was some sort of runway excursion when the eclipse landed.
The actual problem has been addressed here many times before: straight-in traffic bullying their way to the runway, at the expense of pattern traffic.
Regardless of your take on this event, is reporting this the purpose of the NASA form? I thought its purpose was to self report and fess up to a potential violation, including your intended corrective action (s).
As an air traffic controller, if both aircraft are equidistant, as stated, or even close to equidistant, the jet goes first, no questions asked or request for priority needed. The jet going 1st will delay the C172 far less than the other way around. If non-towered, if both a/c see each other there’s not even need for a 360. The 172 can stay above & only a slight sidestep is needed. The jet going 2nd requires a much greater flight path & therefore greater risk from more time airborne.
Some fault to both perhaps but seemingly much greater ego on the part of the 172 pilot. Flying with a big ego is a definite safety risk.
Real emergencies are declared formally
to eliminate any misunderstandings or judgment.
lots of comments. I would add, in a jet when you have a caution/warning.\, the procedure is: maintain AC control, if dual pilots, “i have the radios, flight controls, reference the QRH, (POH) for the relevant waning/failure.” If single pilot, Aviate, (go around), Navigate, (remain in the pattern for another circuit), Communicate, ( “have an issue, going around, remaining in the pattern” or “departing the pattern” direction, altitude) . Basic procedures and airmanship. three words, Safety, Safety, Procedural safety.
Declare an EMERGENCY if you feel you need priority landing. Also, if you think the loss of anti skid will impair the landing, you should delay the landing and look at the QRH to verify you are safe to land. The other pilot sounds like a prick….LOL
I was not involved in the incident. Been similar ones. It is a bit more complicated as I fly a 777. Upon approach to DCA over pat similar single eng was in our airspace. I could not get a reply as to why from atc even after u followed up.
There’s more to this story . I was one of the pilots involved
The eclipse pilot need priority for what reason? Anti-skid failure is a non event on large turbo jet aircraft, it’s disturbing that the Eclipse pilot was creating an issue in the pattern with the failure. The Eclipse should have diverted to a tower airport and coordinated at longer approach if that was what was required for safe operation of the aircraft. The statement “ I continually stated I need to land immediately “ shows a lack of system knowledge and professionalism on the pilots part.
Now I know jack all about flying but the pilot repeatedly stating that they needed priority without stating WHY they needed priority seems like an issue. Maybe because they knew thier reason wasn’t enough to warrant needing priority.
Eclipse pilot states he had an anti-skid system failure alert and it is not an emergency. What would have been an emergency is, if upon landing first, the brake system did malfunction and the aircraft becomes disabled on the runway, at night, with two aircraft wanting to land and perhaps with not enough fuel to get to an alternate airport?
Looks like the Eclips driver would have been wise to stay out of the pattern at a higher altitude and review POH procedures re: anti skid inop. Not a big deal on a clear, dry runway.
The 172 driver?? Unfortunately, seems to be an increase of that type in the air.
Occasional ego conflicts at non-towered airports are to be expected these days. Unfortunately in our “me-oriented” society, there are too many pilots who bring their “me-orientation” to the airport as well. When I started flying more than 50 years ago, I was impressed with the overt politeness I consistently heard on the radio. But in the last few years, there has been more and more popping and sputtering from ego-driven pilots who think they’re the only ones in the sky.
That’s what I see in this report—two pilots who are me-oriented and not willing to give in. It’s a little like the driver who can’t resist passing the car ahead, although it’s only going one mph slower than he is, and takes an unnecessary chance to get ahead, only to be stopped at the same stop light half a mile down the road. Silly.
Eclipse pilot: “AITA?”
Aviation community: “Why yes, yes you are!”
Yeah well that’s why I prefer flying to driving – most of the morons are down on the ground.
*Most* of the morons . . .
172 driver – chip on shoulder?
Eclipse driver – not familiar enough with the aircraft to be comfortable and wants to be on the ground NOW because “something” ain’t right?
Poorly handled on both ends. (If the report is even accurate – he said, she said, the truth is somewhere in between, or might be in orbit around Pluto. Also sounds like there might be some “previous history” here.)
Note to self – buy a spray can of Demerol and place in flight bag.
Fly safe.
Best Regards
M/M
There is more going on in a jet then a 172. The fact that the Eclipse pilot asked for priority should be enough. He may have been single pilot and had his hands full and the 172 was
saying “NO” was wrong!
He should get the jerk of the year award!
I would lay a bet he is the same jerk that call 5 mile finals at busy non-towered airports…..expecting everyone to get out of his way!!!
I fully agree with CF.
It’s nighttime and there are 3 aircraft maneuvering at or near the airport. You stated that you had trouble judging distance so why increase the risk of a collision? How does an ant-skid light facilitate the need to land immediately anyway? As CF stated, wouldn’t it have been more prudent to leave the pattern and do some troubleshooting before landing? It seems to me you were using this non-emergency as an excuse to land ahead of other traffic.
FAR 91.113 states: “When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.”
There’s not enough information here to tell who was lower, and therefore had right of way.
On the other had, if I were flying a single engine piston aircraft, I would give way to a jet if asked. Simple courtesy.
I can certainly see both sides of this one. Slower planes are often blown out of the pattern by the speedsters. If you’re on a shoestring flying budget scratching up a few $$ for a $150/hr rental, that gets pretty irksome. And often times the speedsters think they have a right of way to the runway because they are faster and their machine costs more per minute. That’s no more so than the Corvette revving it’s engine while sitting behind a Prius at a stop light.
While an anti-skid warning may have made the jet jockey feel like he would rather be on the ground than in the air, it’s actually no reason to expedite the landing. Reasons for priority landing are 1. Engine failure/power loss, 2. Fuel Emergency, 3. Flight control issue, or 4. Passenger/Pilot Emergency. A possible anti-lock brake issue doesn’t really qualify. As previously mentioned, spending a bit more time in the air may have given the Eclipse pilot more time to evaluate and possibly address his potential issue.
It would have been nice for the Cessna pilot to have yielded, but the reality is that it was an inappropriate request from the Eclipse pilot, and the Cessna pilot declined. Why file an ASRS report other than to whine? It make both pilots look like they belong on a California Freeway to exercise their road rage rather than in the air.
If you really need to land immediately, declaring an emergency seems like the way to go and might have gotten the deired response.
Unless the Eclipse was low on fuel, being in a hurry to land with a gear/anti-skid problem had the potential to create more problems. Often, these issues are resolved by recycling the gear, but I’m not familiar with the Eclipse systems. The very last thing I would have chosen to do in this situation is to hurry, then get into a confrontation with another aircraft while trying to run after landing scenarios through my head. As a previous commenter said, sounds like two big egos here, perhaps with a prior history.
Unless the Eclipse pilot declared an emergency, right-of-way rules still apply, and a larger,, faster aircraft does not have priority in the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport. The Eclipse didn’t have a problem that required an immediate landing, the pilot had a potential issue stopping. Plenty of options here- go burn down fuel to reduce landing weight and distance, divert to a longer runway, etc. Yeah, the 172 pilot did not need to be a jerk about it. Conflict on the radios in the pattern is very unprofessional in any case. I fly a similar-sized light jet, and always try to work myself into the local traffic at non-towered fields as mandated by FAR 92.126b and 127; and follow the recommendations of AC 91-66b. Both pilots could benefit from some enhanced ADM training, in my opinion.
I wonder how the conversation played out after landing?
I think when the eclipse pilot stayed “we were right base to final” the we meant the eclipse. I heard first hand from the eclipse pilot and he says he was right base to final while the 172 was in a left downwind. The RW is right traffic as well.
The Two most dangerous thinks in aviation are a doctor with a Bonaza and a pilot with a screwdiver. Been in aviation for fifty years. John Adams.
Seems like there was a lack of communication all around. If the Eclipse pilot simply started that they needed priority, but were behind and higher than me on final, I’d be inclined to tell them no as well. If they included that they needed priority due to a mechanical issue, that’d be a whole different story.
I’m inclined to agree with the comment that an anti-skid failure is not a problem that requires haste to the runway, and probably would benefit from just the opposite. The last thing I’d want to do in a jet with a potential stopping problem is rush to the landing. Running the checklist, reading the reminders in checklist about braking technique, and getting the adjusted landing distance takes time. Short of a cabin fire, abnormals in a jet should be run slowly and deliberately.
Allowing others to land ahead of me in case I foul the runway is next level thinking. Hope I have that level of awareness should I find myself in a similar situation
Agree with CF for every point. This doesn’t sound like the first time this has happened to the Skyhawk.
Seems like there may actually be two problematic egos here. Based on the information available, one could easily conclude that the 172 pilot needs to relax and work on being more courteous. However, given that an anti-skid failure should have, in no way, affected the Eclipse’s capacity for continued flight, I wonder why the Eclipse didn’t go around.
If nothing else, this might have given the Eclipse pilot time to run checklists, evaluate the situation, and . Plus, if this was indeed an actual failure, it seems plausible that something could go wrong on the roll-out that might leave the runway unusable and, so, leave the other aircraft without a runway to land on. That being the case, wouldn’t the courteous thing have been for the Eclipse to go around and fully evaluate the situation while giving the other aircraft in the pattern (apparently ahead of it) time to land and clear the runway?
Also, perhaps I missed something in training, but I never got the impression that being faster than another aircraft granted automatic right-of-way in the pattern. By the Eclipse pilot’s own description, the two aircraft were both “on right base with apparent equal distance to final”. Yet, the Eclipse pilot states they “had him (the 172) in sight”. This doesn’t sound plausible to me. I’m betting the Eclipse was actually above the Cessna (flying a higher pattern) and *behind* it. If that were the case, it seems the Eclipse pilot felt entitled to both overtake the Cessna late in the pattern, and then descend and land in front of the Cessna in order to land, with the only justification that they had received a caution/warning light that was “not an emergency”.
In my mind, that does hint at a level of arrogance on the part of the Eclipse pilot, and I’m wondering if the 172 pilot might have already been acquainted with that arrogance, which might have contributed to their reaction AND possibly could have contributed to the Eclipse pilot feeling the urge to file this report.
Bottom line, I’m thinking there is more to the story here, or at least another side to it. But, in any case, there may be an opportunity for learning on the part of all involved.
Nothing more risky than a pilot with an ego problem. When a fellow pilot ask for help you comply if possible.
Sounds like another case of some has more airplane than skill. Faster/complex aircraft higher altitude and longer pattern. Sounds like the Eclipse just busted into the pattern to fast and not controlling his aircraft. He said he was in com with 172..no excuse. Except for a Anti skid..if he was managing he airspeed to fit into his pattern instead of making everyone else fit into his poor piloting skills
Not to complicate the issue, but not knowing the Eclipse I suggest we need more information before dismissing the pilot’s earnest to get on the ground. While I expect this not to be the case, the F-18 anti-skid system refers to the brakes on the ground, but it refers to the control augmentation system (auto pilot) in flight. Both systems use the same circuit breaker. Just saying that I need more information to condemn one or the other.
To me both pilots were stupid. And that’s final.
Amen
Agreed! If help is requested, just give it without question. That’s not the time to judge if it’s completely appropriate. Some pilots may just get overly cautious at the first sign of a problem and he may have just wanted to get the plane on the ground asap. It’s kinda equivalent to a person driving on the freeway in the fast lane in a Honda Civic. The Honda is going the speed limit and a Corvette comes up in the same lane obviously wanting to go faster. The Honda won’t move out of the way because he has the right-of-way and he’s going the speed limit. So what? If someone else wants to go faster and they’re breaking the speed limit, just move over and let them go. No need to “show them” that you don’t have to move. Now we have “Air Rage?” Lol