Embarrasing Flight

[David B. Cole]

Yesterday a coworker and I decided to fly out to Lancaster PA to their
pilot shop because he wanted to look at purchasing a transceiver. This
was our first time flying together, but we did do the ATOP course at
Continental as a team. We decided that we would rent a plane from my
FBO and that we would fly out IFR with me under the hood and him as
safety. This way he not only makes it out to the pilot shop, but he
could log the time as PIC that I'm under the hood, and also see how an
instrument flight is conducted.

Those of you who live in the Northeast know that the winds have been
gusting upwards of 30 kts the past few days, but yesterday morning
brought calm winds and great viz, with forecasts showing that the
strong winds would return by 11am. The trip out was smoother than we
expected. Before reaching Reading PA, we picked up the Lancaster ATIS,
which stated that the visual approach was in use at Lancaster. I asked
the Reading controller whether he could coordinate an instrument
approach with the Harrisburg controller, which he did.

Once we were handed off to the Harrisburg controller we were told to
expect the VOR/DME 26 approach. As we continued inbound to Lancaster I
realized that we were still at 4000' about 10 miles out. Then we were
switched over to the tower, at which point he made it clear that I was
cleared for the visual approach. When I told him that I was expecting
the VOR/DME approach he sent me back to the approach controller. When
I asked the approach controller he told me that I was almost on top of
the final approach course between the Initial and Final Approach Fixes
and that I was cleared for the approach. Problem was that I was never
cleared for the approach, I was only told to expect the approach. I
take full responsibility for not querying the controller earlier and
not staying ahead of the plane.

I was able to intercept the final approach course about a mile outside
the FAF, but still about 1000' about the minimum altitude. I was able
to get down, but in hindsight I should have followed my mind and
either flown the missed or asked for vectors back to the approach.
While we were about two miles out a plane on the runway departed and
we were cautioned to watch for wake turbulence, in addition to holding
short of Rwy 31. I was right on the VASI but because I was concerned
about the wake turbulence I pulled the power before making it over the
threshold, didn't flare enough, and bounced it in. I added power and
was able to smooth it out, but it certainly wasn't the kind of landing
you want when you're flying with anyone, especially with another pilot
who you see fairly often. The approach was stabilized and the power
settings I had were working, so I should have known better than to
pull the power that soon.

On the way back to CDW the winds had picked up considerably and it was
a turbulent ride most of the way back. However, the 30kt headwind on
the way out was now a 30kt tailwind, giving us a groundspeed of about
140kts on the way back. I prepared for and received the LOC 22 back at
CDW and despite the turbulence down below 2000', managed to keep the
localizer centered throughout the approach. Even received a compliment
from the other pilot, but that wasn't enough to make me feel better
about the trip out to Lancaster.

It had been a month since I had last flown instruments, but usually
even after that long of a layoff I can come back with only minimal
rust. This time I had gotten behind the plane and hadn't kept my
situational awareness high enough. My last trip to the same airport
was with another pilot and had terminated in a well-coordinated full
VOR approach with a course reversal, and a good landing. I guess I had
gotten too accustomed to controllers making the approaches seamless,
but then again this was a perfect VFR day with almost no one flying
approaches. This will certainly make me more aware of where I'm at and
will lead me to question the controller if something doesn't seem
right.

Dave

[Andrew Gideon]

David B. Cole wrote:

> I added power and
> was able to smooth it out, but it certainly wasn't the kind of landing
> you want when you're flying with anyone, especially with another pilot
> who you see fairly often.

Well, now I feel better about my landing at Linden with you in the right
seat.

- Andrew

[Nathan Young]

On 8 Nov 2004 09:56:25 -0800, (David B. Cole) wrote:

>Those of you who live in the Northeast know that the winds have been
>gusting upwards of 30 kts the past few days, but yesterday morning
>brought calm winds and great viz, with forecasts showing that the
>strong winds would return by 11am. The trip out was smoother than we
>expected. Before reaching Reading PA, we picked up the Lancaster ATIS,
>which stated that the visual approach was in use at Lancaster. I asked
>the Reading controller whether he could coordinate an instrument
>approach with the Harrisburg controller, which he did.
>
>Once we were handed off to the Harrisburg controller we were told to
>expect the VOR/DME 26 approach. As we continued inbound to Lancaster I
>realized that we were still at 4000' about 10 miles out. Then we were
>switched over to the tower, at which point he made it clear that I was
>cleared for the visual approach. When I told him that I was expecting
>the VOR/DME approach he sent me back to the approach controller.

Two things that may help for this situation in the future:
#1. Only ask for your approach with the controller that is
responsible for your destination. Granted this isn't always possible,
but it does help reduce confusion. For example, when approaching 3CK
(which is in the NW Chicago suburbs) from the South, I talk to 3
Chicago approach controllers (119.35 then 133.50 then 120.55). If I
enter a request with 19.35, they've long since lost that request by
the time I get to 20.55.

(you may have done this - it isn't clear from the posting).
#2. When making the request - make sure to tell the controller you
want the approach for practice or currency purposes. Otherwise if it
is VFR, or if winds favor another runway, or if they switch
controllers, etc... The approach facility will probably try to get
you back to a visual, especially if there is a handoff from approach
to approach before tower.

-Nathan

[Bob Clough]

I'm still a student pilot so can't add any value to the IFR discussions, but
I am curious about the concerns around wake turbulence from a departing
aircraft on the runway you are about to land on. I thought wake turbulence
could only happen when significant lift, ie enough lift to get the plane in
the air, is being generated. Therefore, as a landing aircraft, you wouldn't
experience wake turbulence from a departing aircraft until you roll down the
runway past the point of the other plane's rotation. By then you're solidly
on the ground. Right? So does a landing aircraft really have to worry
about wake turbulence from a departing aircraft?

Bob Clough


"David B. Cole" > wrote in message
m...
> Yesterday a coworker and I decided to fly out to Lancaster PA to their
> pilot shop because he wanted to look at purchasing a transceiver. This
> was our first time flying together, but we did do the ATOP course at
> Continental as a team. We decided that we would rent a plane from my
> FBO and that we would fly out IFR with me under the hood and him as
> safety. This way he not only makes it out to the pilot shop, but he
> could log the time as PIC that I'm under the hood, and also see how an
> instrument flight is conducted.
>
> Those of you who live in the Northeast know that the winds have been
> gusting upwards of 30 kts the past few days, but yesterday morning
> brought calm winds and great viz, with forecasts showing that the
> strong winds would return by 11am. The trip out was smoother than we
> expected. Before reaching Reading PA, we picked up the Lancaster ATIS,
> which stated that the visual approach was in use at Lancaster. I asked
> the Reading controller whether he could coordinate an instrument
> approach with the Harrisburg controller, which he did.
>
> Once we were handed off to the Harrisburg controller we were told to
> expect the VOR/DME 26 approach. As we continued inbound to Lancaster I
> realized that we were still at 4000' about 10 miles out. Then we were
> switched over to the tower, at which point he made it clear that I was
> cleared for the visual approach. When I told him that I was expecting
> the VOR/DME approach he sent me back to the approach controller. When
> I asked the approach controller he told me that I was almost on top of
> the final approach course between the Initial and Final Approach Fixes
> and that I was cleared for the approach. Problem was that I was never
> cleared for the approach, I was only told to expect the approach. I
> take full responsibility for not querying the controller earlier and
> not staying ahead of the plane.
>
> I was able to intercept the final approach course about a mile outside
> the FAF, but still about 1000' about the minimum altitude. I was able
> to get down, but in hindsight I should have followed my mind and
> either flown the missed or asked for vectors back to the approach.
> While we were about two miles out a plane on the runway departed and
> we were cautioned to watch for wake turbulence, in addition to holding
> short of Rwy 31. I was right on the VASI but because I was concerned
> about the wake turbulence I pulled the power before making it over the
> threshold, didn't flare enough, and bounced it in. I added power and
> was able to smooth it out, but it certainly wasn't the kind of landing
> you want when you're flying with anyone, especially with another pilot
> who you see fairly often. The approach was stabilized and the power
> settings I had were working, so I should have known better than to
> pull the power that soon.
>
> On the way back to CDW the winds had picked up considerably and it was
> a turbulent ride most of the way back. However, the 30kt headwind on
> the way out was now a 30kt tailwind, giving us a groundspeed of about
> 140kts on the way back. I prepared for and received the LOC 22 back at
> CDW and despite the turbulence down below 2000', managed to keep the
> localizer centered throughout the approach. Even received a compliment
> from the other pilot, but that wasn't enough to make me feel better
> about the trip out to Lancaster.
>
> It had been a month since I had last flown instruments, but usually
> even after that long of a layoff I can come back with only minimal
> rust. This time I had gotten behind the plane and hadn't kept my
> situational awareness high enough. My last trip to the same airport
> was with another pilot and had terminated in a well-coordinated full
> VOR approach with a course reversal, and a good landing. I guess I had
> gotten too accustomed to controllers making the approaches seamless,
> but then again this was a perfect VFR day with almost no one flying
> approaches. This will certainly make me more aware of where I'm at and
> will lead me to question the controller if something doesn't seem
> right.
>
> Dave

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Clough wrote:

> I'm still a student pilot so can't add any value to the IFR discussions, but
> I am curious about the concerns around wake turbulence from a departing
> aircraft on the runway you are about to land on. I thought wake turbulence
> could only happen when significant lift, ie enough lift to get the plane in
> the air, is being generated. Therefore, as a landing aircraft, you wouldn't
> experience wake turbulence from a departing aircraft until you roll down the
> runway past the point of the other plane's rotation. By then you're solidly
> on the ground. Right? So does a landing aircraft really have to worry
> about wake turbulence from a departing aircraft?


Only if you land past the point where the departing aircraft broke ground.

Matt

[Morgans]

"Bob Clough" > wrote in message
news:0FSjd.13$w.4@trnddc02...
> I'm still a student pilot so can't add any value to the IFR discussions,
but
> I am curious about the concerns around wake turbulence from a departing
> aircraft on the runway you are about to land on. I thought wake
turbulence
> could only happen when significant lift, ie enough lift to get the plane
in
> the air, is being generated. Therefore, as a landing aircraft, you
wouldn't
> experience wake turbulence from a departing aircraft until you roll down
the
> runway past the point of the other plane's rotation. By then you're
solidly
> on the ground. Right? So does a landing aircraft really have to worry
> about wake turbulence from a departing aircraft?
>
> Bob Clough

And that reason was why he was in too much of a hurry to get on the ground,
by chopping the power and forcing it down.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

[Bush]

91.3.

Have a great one!

Bush

On 8 Nov 2004 09:56:25 -0800, (David B. Cole) wrote:

>Yesterday a coworker and I decided to fly out to Lancaster PA to their
>pilot shop because he wanted to look at purchasing a transceiver. This
>was our first time flying together, but we did do the ATOP course at
>Continental as a team. We decided that we would rent a plane from my
>FBO and that we would fly out IFR with me under the hood and him as
>safety. This way he not only makes it out to the pilot shop, but he
>could log the time as PIC that I'm under the hood, and also see how an
>instrument flight is conducted.
>
>Those of you who live in the Northeast know that the winds have been
>gusting upwards of 30 kts the past few days, but yesterday morning
>brought calm winds and great viz, with forecasts showing that the
>strong winds would return by 11am. The trip out was smoother than we
>expected. Before reaching Reading PA, we picked up the Lancaster ATIS,
>which stated that the visual approach was in use at Lancaster. I asked
>the Reading controller whether he could coordinate an instrument
>approach with the Harrisburg controller, which he did.
>
>Once we were handed off to the Harrisburg controller we were told to
>expect the VOR/DME 26 approach. As we continued inbound to Lancaster I
>realized that we were still at 4000' about 10 miles out. Then we were
>switched over to the tower, at which point he made it clear that I was
>cleared for the visual approach. When I told him that I was expecting
>the VOR/DME approach he sent me back to the approach controller. When
>I asked the approach controller he told me that I was almost on top of
>the final approach course between the Initial and Final Approach Fixes
>and that I was cleared for the approach. Problem was that I was never
>cleared for the approach, I was only told to expect the approach. I
>take full responsibility for not querying the controller earlier and
>not staying ahead of the plane.
>
>I was able to intercept the final approach course about a mile outside
>the FAF, but still about 1000' about the minimum altitude. I was able
>to get down, but in hindsight I should have followed my mind and
>either flown the missed or asked for vectors back to the approach.
>While we were about two miles out a plane on the runway departed and
>we were cautioned to watch for wake turbulence, in addition to holding
>short of Rwy 31. I was right on the VASI but because I was concerned
>about the wake turbulence I pulled the power before making it over the
>threshold, didn't flare enough, and bounced it in. I added power and
>was able to smooth it out, but it certainly wasn't the kind of landing
>you want when you're flying with anyone, especially with another pilot
>who you see fairly often. The approach was stabilized and the power
>settings I had were working, so I should have known better than to
>pull the power that soon.
>
>On the way back to CDW the winds had picked up considerably and it was
>a turbulent ride most of the way back. However, the 30kt headwind on
>the way out was now a 30kt tailwind, giving us a groundspeed of about
>140kts on the way back. I prepared for and received the LOC 22 back at
>CDW and despite the turbulence down below 2000', managed to keep the
>localizer centered throughout the approach. Even received a compliment
>from the other pilot, but that wasn't enough to make me feel better
>about the trip out to Lancaster.
>
>It had been a month since I had last flown instruments, but usually
>even after that long of a layoff I can come back with only minimal
>rust. This time I had gotten behind the plane and hadn't kept my
>situational awareness high enough. My last trip to the same airport
>was with another pilot and had terminated in a well-coordinated full
>VOR approach with a course reversal, and a good landing. I guess I had
>gotten too accustomed to controllers making the approaches seamless,
>but then again this was a perfect VFR day with almost no one flying
>approaches. This will certainly make me more aware of where I'm at and
>will lead me to question the controller if something doesn't seem
>right.
>
>Dave

[David B. Cole]

Andrew,

Well, maybe if I had been flying with you yesterday I wouldn't have
felt so bad. :-) Given the wind we had the day you and I went up that
landing wasn't something that would make me think less of you. In
fact I flew with another pilot from Mac Dan a few months back and we
were landing on Rwy 4 with a very gusty wind. His landing was similar
to the one you had in Linden, but I know he is a very good pilot so I
didn't think anything about it. I would fly with him again as quickly
as I would fly with you.

Dave


Andrew Gideon > wrote in message e.com>...
> David B. Cole wrote:
>
> > I added power and
> > was able to smooth it out, but it certainly wasn't the kind of landing
> > you want when you're flying with anyone, especially with another pilot
> > who you see fairly often.
>
> Well, now I feel better about my landing at Linden with you in the right
> seat.
>
> - Andrew

[CV]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Clough wrote:
>> on the ground. Right? So does a landing aircraft really have to worry
>> about wake turbulence from a departing aircraft?
> Only if you land past the point where the departing aircraft broke ground.

But couldn't the turbulent air be blown back towards the beginning of the
runway by a strong headwind, perhaps even beyond the threshold ?
CV

[Andrew Gideon]

David B. Cole wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Well, maybe if I had been flying with you yesterday I wouldn't have
> felt so bad. :-) Given the wind we had the day you and I went up that
> landing wasn't something that would make me think less of you. In
> fact I flew with another pilot from Mac Dan a few months back and we
> were landing on Rwy 4 with a very gusty wind. His landing was similar
> to the one you had in Linden, but I know he is a very good pilot so I
> didn't think anything about it. I would fly with him again as quickly
> as I would fly with you.

That's true. It was something like 2G4 that day at Linden, right? A real
howler.

[Okay, maybe a little more than that.]

BTW, here's an interesting point: When you set down, how far were you from
where the wake turbulance was still twirling? 1000'? 10'? I'd not worry
too much about getting down *now* in that scenario; think of it as a
short-field landing.

- Andrew

[John Galban]

"Bob Clough" > wrote in message news:<0FSjd.13$w.4@trnddc02>...
<snip>
> I thought wake turbulence
> could only happen when significant lift, ie enough lift to get the plane in
> the air, is being generated. Therefore, as a landing aircraft, you wouldn't
> experience wake turbulence from a departing aircraft until you roll down the
> runway past the point of the other plane's rotation. By then you're solidly
> on the ground. Right? So does a landing aircraft really have to worry
> about wake turbulence from a departing aircraft?

The vortices generated by lift in the departing aircraft aren't the
only form of wake turbulence. When I was based at a class B, I had
numerous problems flying through the churned air generated by the
engines of a departing jet (DC-9s and 727s were the worst). If
spacing is tight behind a departing jet, it would not be unusual to
experience some pitch and roll excursions in the flare.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John R. Copeland]

"John Galban" > wrote in message =
om...
>=20
> The vortices generated by lift in the departing aircraft aren't the
> only form of wake turbulence. When I was based at a class B, I had
> numerous problems flying through the churned air generated by the
> engines of a departing jet (DC-9s and 727s were the worst). If
> spacing is tight behind a departing jet, it would not be unusual to
> experience some pitch and roll excursions in the flare.
>=20
> John Galban=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Heck, I used to get some exciting moments in my Cessna 120
on *taxiways* behind TWA Super Constellations.
(Yes, I am that old, really.)
---JRC---

[Matt Whiting]

CV wrote:

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Bob Clough wrote:
>>
>>> on the ground. Right? So does a landing aircraft really have to worry
>>> about wake turbulence from a departing aircraft?
>>
>> Only if you land past the point where the departing aircraft broke
>> ground.
>
>
> But couldn't the turbulent air be blown back towards the beginning of the
> runway by a strong headwind, perhaps even beyond the threshold ?
> CV
>

I suppose that is theoretically possible, but most airplanes large
enoguh to cause serious wake turbulence probably don't lift off until
4,000 feet down the runway. With a wind strong enough to push that back
to the approach end in any reasonable time, the turbulence from the wind
woudl likely break up the vortices to the point where they wouldn't be a
big factor.

I never say never, but I think this is a very remote possibility.


Matt