Radio protocol regarding full stops on full stop only nights

[Ben Hallert]

Hi guys,

I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
goes at night' rule. On downwind, I made the following call (because I
am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
request full stop."

The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"

I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine. Was the
tower being jerky? Or was there a better call I could have made? I
knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.

I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
better call I can make, I'm all ears.

[[email protected]]

Ben Hallert wrote:
<snip>
> I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
> better call I can make, I'm all ears.

I think the tower was probably being a little jerky about it. I could
understand it if you'd asked for a touch an go, but apparently
mentioning that you want a full stop when that's all that is available
confused him.

Better call? Well, if both you and the tower know that a full stop
is imminent, don't mention it at all. Just tell him you're on downwind
and he should respond with a landing clearance.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Bob Gardner]

I agree with jgalban...why did you mention it?

Bob Gardner

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi guys,
>
> I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
> goes at night' rule. On downwind, I made the following call (because I
> am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
> request full stop."
>
> The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
> Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
> I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine. Was the
> tower being jerky? Or was there a better call I could have made? I
> knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
> the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.
>
> I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
> better call I can make, I'm all ears.
>

[Jose]

> On downwind, I made the following call (because I
> am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
> request full stop."
>
> The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
> Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
> Was the
> tower being jerky?


I doubt it. If in doubt, clarify. The tower may have been in doubt,
perhaps because they were used to "the option", it was a day
controller, or (ironically) the fact that you were explicit set of an
alarm bell in the controller's mind which prevented him (or her) from
processing what you actually said.

I would have just responded "roger, full stop" and let it go.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
> goes at night' rule.
>

Was it night at the time?


>
> On downwind, I made the following call (because I
> am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
> request full stop."
>
> The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
> Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
> I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine. Was the
> tower being jerky? Or was there a better call I could have made? I
> knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
> the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.
>
> I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
> better call I can make, I'm all ears.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Feb 2005 14:04:21 -0800, "Ben Hallert" >
wrote in . com>::

>I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
>goes at night' rule. On downwind, I made the following call (because I
>am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
>request full stop."
>
>The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
>Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
>I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine.

I would agree with him, if you had called the tower instead of ground
control.

>Was the tower being jerky?

Not really. They were just getting the word out in case you might be
unaware of the policy, IMO.

>Or was there a better call I could have made?

There was no reason to _request_ a full stop. You are the PIC; you
tell ATC what your intentions are.

I'd have said, "XXX tower, Cherokee 34 Sierra, full stop."

>I knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
>the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.

They may have thought your calling them "tower" and your use of
"request" meant you may not be aware of the full stop at night policy.

>I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
>done/would do in the same situation.

Why would you be worried? We pilots and ATC personnel all have the
same goal: safe operations. ATC isn't there to enforce regulations.

>Also, if there's a technically better call I can make, I'm all ears.

As a student, you did fine. If you want to sharpen your radio
technique a bit, and become more comfortable with ATC communications,
let me respectfully suggest Bob Gardener's book "Say Again, Please."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156027428X/qid=1107298618/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4174753-5727846?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Daniel L. Lieberman]

I agree with the other comments but perhaps you should have requested a
"Stop and Go". The controller may have had a brain fart and not realized
what you wanted.

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi guys,
>
> I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
> goes at night' rule. On downwind, I made the following call (because I
> am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
> request full stop."
>
> The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
> Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
> I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine. Was the
> tower being jerky? Or was there a better call I could have made? I
> knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
> the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.
>
> I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
> better call I can make, I'm all ears.
>
>

[Doug Carter]

Daniel L. Lieberman wrote:
> ... The controller may have had a brain fart ...

I keep hearing this term "brain fart." Is this a product of butt heads?

[Jay Somerset]

The proper request would have been for a "stop & go".

On 1 Feb 2005 14:04:21 -0800, "Ben Hallert" > wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
> goes at night' rule. On downwind, I made the following call (because I
> am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
> request full stop."
>
> The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
> Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
> I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine. Was the
> tower being jerky? Or was there a better call I could have made? I
> knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
> the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.
>
> I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
> better call I can make, I'm all ears.

--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
...
>
> The proper request would have been for a "stop & go".
>

What airport prohibits touch and goes but allows stop and goes?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jay Somerset > said:
>The proper request would have been for a "stop & go".

Why do you, like the controller, assume that he wanted to go again? He
asked for a full stop, perhaps that's what he wanted?

When I'm doing night currency, I'll fly to a nearby (just outside the
inner ring of the class C) uncontrolled field. The runway is pretty
short, so I'll do a full stop and taxi back each time. No worry about
rules against touch-and-go, and no worries about landing long and not
noticing the end of the runway approaching fast in the dark.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I'm fairly sure Linux exists principally because writing an operating system
probably seems like a good way to pass the <bignum> months of darkness in
Finland" - Rodger Donaldson

[Chris]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The proper request would have been for a "stop & go".
>>
>
> What airport prohibits touch and goes but allows stop and goes?

There is always the stop and taxi back option, not as convenient but ok for
currency.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The proper request would have been for a "stop & go".
>>
>
>What airport prohibits touch and goes but allows stop and goes?
>

What is the reasoning behind full-stop landings for night currency?
If one performs stop-and-goes (presumably adequate to meet the FAR
requirement), there is no more night taxi experience gained than with
touch-and-goes. Is it a safety issue? I must be overlooking
something.

[Sam O'Nella]

>> ... The controller may have had a brain fart ...
>
> I keep hearing this term "brain fart." Is this a product of butt
> heads?

Good question. It is a truly stupid phrase which has unfortunately seemed
to have really caught on lately.

[tony roberts]

Hi Ben

>just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation.

From Canada.
I would have contacted tower - not ground.
My downwind call would have stated left or right - i.e. downwind left -
it's a safety thing. You could be flying against upwind, thinking that
downwind is right when it is left, or vica versa - so it is a
situational awareness thing for you and the tower (In Canada it is SOP)

I would have called full stop, as you did.
I would have phoned tower once on the ground and asked them to explain
their response.
You couldn't, and didn't call touch & go.
But you could call stop and go,
or full stop,
or simulated go-around,
or low and over.

HTH

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article . com>,
"Ben Hallert" > wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
> goes at night' rule. On downwind, I made the following call (because I
> am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
> request full stop."
>
> The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
> Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
> I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine. Was the
> tower being jerky? Or was there a better call I could have made? I
> knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
> the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.
>
> I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
> better call I can make, I'm all ears.

[Ben Hallert]

Thanks! Actually, I did say 'tower', not 'ground', that was a mistype.
And I already bought Say Again, Please and am reading it.

[Dave Butler]

Ben Hallert wrote:
> Thanks! Actually, I did say 'tower', not 'ground', that was a mistype.
> And I already bought Say Again, Please and am reading it.

I would add to what the other responders have said that *in general* it is a bad
idea IMO to try to impute emotion or motivation based on an ATC transmission.
Don't worry about the controller's feelings. Just interpret the instruction
literally, request clarification if necessary, and exercise your pilot authority
accordingly.

Dave

[kage]

>
> I would add to what the other responders have said that *in general* it is
> a bad idea IMO to try to impute emotion or motivation based on an ATC
> transmission. Don't worry about the controller's feelings. Just interpret
> the instruction literally, request clarification if necessary, and
> exercise your pilot authority accordingly.
>
And remember, they are just government employees. Their level of competence
and flexibility never did recover from the strike.


Karl

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"kage" > wrote in message
...
>
> And remember, they are just government employees. Their level of
> competence and flexibility never did recover from the strike.
>

Actually, the best controllers never went on strike, it's just that
standards have declined markedly since then.

[Peter Duniho]

"kage" > wrote in message
...
> And remember, they are just government employees. Their level of
> competence and flexibility never did recover from the strike.

Having spent time in both government and private sector jobs, I can attest
that there are large numbers of incompetent people employed in both sectors.
Government employees are no more likely to be incompetent than
non-government employees.

Furthermore, having spent a fair amount of time dealing with ATC, I can
attest that there are numerous controllers who are both competent and
flexible, to a high degree.

Pete

[Gene Seibel]

I suspect that since you made a request, the tower assumed that you may
not have been aware that tocuh & gos were not an option, and wanted to
be sure it was clear.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Sam O'Nella]

kage wrote:
>> I would add to what the other responders have said that *in general*
>> it is a bad idea IMO to try to impute emotion or motivation based on
>> an ATC transmission. Don't worry about the controller's feelings.
>> Just interpret the instruction literally, request clarification if
>> necessary, and exercise your pilot authority accordingly.
>>
> And remember, they are just government employees. Their level of
> competence and flexibility never did recover from the strike.

Oh brother.

[Frederick Wilson]

Sam O'Nella wrote:
>>>... The controller may have had a brain fart ...
>>
>>I keep hearing this term "brain fart." Is this a product of butt
>>heads?
>
>
> Good question. It is a truly stupid phrase which has unfortunately seemed
> to have really caught on lately.
>
>
I'm not too sure about lately. I recall it being used in basic training
in 1989.

[Sam O'Nella]

>>>> ... The controller may have had a brain fart ...
>>>
>>> I keep hearing this term "brain fart." Is this a product of butt
>>> heads?
>>
>>
>> Good question. It is a truly stupid phrase which has unfortunately
>> seemed to have really caught on lately.
>>
>>
> I'm not too sure about lately. I recall it being used in basic
> training in 1989.

Wow - I never would have suspected a nonsensical phrase originated in the
military!

[Andrew Sarangan]

Full stop landings are the norm. Touch & goes are exceptions and require
permission. It is like requesting a non-LAHSO landing. You probably
confused the tower controller with the request.




"Ben Hallert" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Hi guys,
>
> I was doing closed traffic at an unnamed airport with a 'No touch &
> goes at night' rule. On downwind, I made the following call (because I
> am aware of the rule) "XXX ground, Cherokee 1234 Sierra on downwind,
> request full stop."
>
> The tower responds back "Touch and goes are prohibited at night!
> Cherokee 1234 Sierra, cleared for full stop ONLY!"
>
> I had my instructor with me, and he said my call was fine. Was the
> tower being jerky? Or was there a better call I could have made? I
> knew about the rule, that's why I explicitly asked for full stop, but
> the tower acted like I had just soiled myself in public.
>
> I'm not too worried, just curious to hear what other people have
> done/would do in the same situation. Also, if there's a technically
> better call I can make, I'm all ears.
>

[Jay Beckman]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
> Full stop landings are the norm. Touch & goes are exceptions and require
> permission. It is like requesting a non-LAHSO landing. You probably
> confused the tower controller with the request.
>

The tower at my home airport (Class D) almost always asks my intentions if I
don't declare something specific on initial contact.

In fact, I can't remember an instance when they haven't asked.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> What is the reasoning behind full-stop landings for night currency?
> If one performs stop-and-goes (presumably adequate to meet the FAR
> requirement), there is no more night taxi experience gained than with
> touch-and-goes. Is it a safety issue?

I've always assumed so (though I have no direct evidence). I imagine that
the FAA doesn't want to encourage pilots who lack recent night experience to
rush through a night-time touch-and-go, so they refuse to count
touch-and-goes toward the night-currency requirement. A stop and go does
give you more of a chance to verify that the flaps are retracted and that
the plane is otherwise configured for takeoff, and that you have enough
remaining runway length (although the full stop does use up some extra
length).

--Gary

[Bob Moore]

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote
>> What is the reasoning behind full-stop landings for night currency?

It's to keep the smart-asses from doing three bounces down
the runway in one pass and calling them takeoffs and landings,
and never leaving the confines of the runway enviroment.
One day, I did 15 "takeoffs and landings" in one pass down
a 6,000' runway in my MiniMax with not a single turn. :-)

Bob Moore

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote
>>> What is the reasoning behind full-stop landings for night currency?
>
> It's to keep the smart-asses from doing three bounces down
> the runway in one pass and calling them takeoffs and landings,
> and never leaving the confines of the runway enviroment.

Then why are full stops required to meet the night-currency requirement, but
not the day-currency requirement?

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote
>>> What is the reasoning behind full-stop landings for night currency?
>
> It's to keep the smart-asses from doing three bounces down
> the runway in one pass and calling them takeoffs and landings,
> and never leaving the confines of the runway enviroment.
> One day, I did 15 "takeoffs and landings" in one pass down
> a 6,000' runway in my MiniMax with not a single turn. :-)
>

Why is that okay for day currency?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:38:17 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote in >::

>It's to keep the smart-asses from doing three bounces down
>the runway in one pass and calling them takeoffs and landings,
>and never leaving the confines of the runway enviroment.

Ah. Of course. That has got to be the reason.

And Gary's answer explains the reasoning why stop-and-goes wouldn't be
the safest way of practicing night operations.

Thanks.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:48:39 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>::

>"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
>>
>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote
>>>> What is the reasoning behind full-stop landings for night currency?
>>
>> It's to keep the smart-asses from doing three bounces down
>> the runway in one pass and calling them takeoffs and landings,
>> and never leaving the confines of the runway enviroment.
>
>Then why are full stops required to meet the night-currency requirement, but
>not the day-currency requirement?
>
>--Gary
>


Ummmm.... Good point.

[Andrew Sarangan]

It must be a heavy training environment. At most airports people land
because they want to make a full stop, not because they want to do a touch
& go.


"Jay Beckman" > wrote in
news:wpYNd.29698$Yu.5977@fed1read01:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> 1...
>> Full stop landings are the norm. Touch & goes are exceptions and
>> require permission. It is like requesting a non-LAHSO landing. You
>> probably confused the tower controller with the request.
>>
>
> The tower at my home airport (Class D) almost always asks my
> intentions if I don't declare something specific on initial contact.
>
> In fact, I can't remember an instance when they haven't asked.
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> It must be a heavy training environment. At most airports people land

> because they want to make a full stop, not because they want to do a
touch
> & go.
>

You guessed it! KCHD is a very busy training airport with parallel
runways. They prefer to keep T&G traffic on the south runway, while
full stop and takeoff ops go on the north side. I always add "full
stop" or "touch and go" to my initial call at that airport.

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