My FO and I were talking recently about ATC and such and I related a story that happened about 20 years ago. I did something many will find outrageous and wrong. I still can't believe I said it but I did. Here is what happened. Please read the story before you vote.

My FO and I were having a landing contest in our EMB-110. We had six legs that day so we both had ample opportunity to make a squeaker. On short final, landing in SMF, the tower gave PSA a "cleared for immediate" clearance. I was pretty close (not too close for safety) and did not feel like landing in a bunch of 727 jet wash so I keyed the mic and said, "PSA hold short." They acknowledged and held short. The tower was not amused.

"Who said that?" asked the tower. I replied that I thought he was too close and did not want to eat up all his jet wash. Fortunetaly for me, PSA came on immediatey and agreed saying, "Yeah, it looked too close for us too." That is probably why I never heard anything about the incident. (I made a good landing but don't remember the result of the days contest)

OK, so looking back, I don't think that situation was dire enough to justified me "controlling" the PSA jet. On the other hand, the landing aircraft "owns" the airspace right? What do you think?

Does the landing aircraft own the runway? Is there any justification to the landing aircraft keying the mic and stoping another aircraft from taking the runway?

If you answer, "sometimes" please give a situation where a pilot is justified to speak up on the radio and countermand ATC

BTW It just occurred to me that this post should probably be in the Hanger talk section. I put it here because I was thinking about my regional days and forgot to change forum sections. Admin, can you change it?

 

i don't think you should have been trying to do ATC's job. no doubt the "correct" thing would have been to tell tower you would be going around because the takeoff clearance looked too close for you. maybe the guy would have cancelled PSA's clearance for you rather than you doing it for him. sounds like it all worked out, but it isn't something i personally would get into the habit of.

i consider that i "own" my aircraft when i am flying it, not that i own the runway when i am landing. to a point (ie: far enough out before landing), if i have the ability to change the outcome of a particular situation for the better, then i will.

 

I think you were wrong to do it the way you did it. You could have said "We'll be going around if you put PSA in front of us". Or, in an extreme example where you think the controller screwed up by accident. "Westair is going around".

But to actually act as a controller in the manner you did? With all due respect, I think it's wrong and probably the only reason you didn't get violated was the controller didn't want to explain his end of the story or get himself involved in the red tape.

The landing aircraft doesn't "own" the runway. The local controller owns it and the 7110.65 spells out normal procedure and seperation. I guess it boils down to a disagreement between the local controller and the PIC. The PIC will always win this battle, for safety sake, but it has to be done properly and with the proper "protocol".

About the only time I'd key the mike would be if I was holding short and saw, clearly, and beyond the shadow of a doubt, an arrival gonna land ontop of one holding on the runway. Or, one landing gear up. Something like that.

Why do you think this should be in hangar talk? I think it's fine where it is. I got half a notion to move it to general.

This is great stuff to talk about, though. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

It is my understanding that the right away rules state that an airplane on the runway has the right away over a landing aircraft. If i had my FAR with me i would give the part number.

You are only responsible for your aircraft's safety not everyone elses. I must agree with the other's in stating that you should have just gone around if you thought landing would have compromised the safety of your aircraft.

 

Once when I was young, I landed in a Navajo right behind a 744. Dumb. Very dumb. I got tossed like a paper hat. All I can remember is ten seconds of terror and then the runway. Now, those engines are quite spread out, I doubt you'd have the same effect on a mostly centerline 727. As far as procedure, I'd say you were right, but did it wrong way, regardless of what any FAR says. I don't know where SMF is, other that I bet it's in CA somewhere, but not too major of an airport. I don't see at a smaller field why you would have to be so rushed to get someone out if it ended up 'looking close' to both aircraft.

 

SMF is Sacramento. It is a fairly busy airport even 20 years ago. You're right, however, it was not so busy as to cause a rush to get the PSA airborne.

 

I agree with the folks that say you are not supposed to control the traffic for ATC. My answer to this is to just go-around. Few yrs ago I called marker inbound and heard a 747 being given clearance for T/O. When I came out of the clouds at about 1100' there that same 747 just lining up.ATC was not amused, however I was 100% in the right.This did increase their work load but should I chance a wingtip scrap on a 757 just cause they want to get one more A/C out.

 

I'd vote no to over-riding the tower during normal operations. A go-around is the regulatory solution to this problem, since only convenience, not safety would have been compromised.

Maybe if you had flamed one out on short final, it would have been justified because a SE go-around would be inherently less safe.

 

I voted option #3 since we all do whatever we need to for safety's sake, but since you say that you were not too close for safety it seems you just wanted the chance to roll it on, you were wrong. Even if safety was an issue a go-around is your way out, not making a transmission that the other aircraft would interpret as an ATC instruction.

 

i believe this to be incorrect. FAR 91.113

Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. 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.

the only stipulation it gives is about an airplane after landing, not an airplane that is going to depart.


you have the right of way at all times while landing. people on the surface can stop, hold short or get out of the way. giving out instructions might be a little to much and a go around might have been more appropriate. like you said though i think the other guys agreeing with you about it being to close is what saved you a little grief. although it would have been real easy to say that you did it because you thought there was a safety of flight issue. and who can really argue with that..