ADORS Number: 2008O1659
Reporting Region: Ontario
Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type: Incident
Occurrence Date: 2008/08/03
Occurrence Time: 0000 Z
Day Or Night: day-time
Fatalities: 0 Injuries: 0
Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYQA Aerodrome Name: Muskoka Occurrence Location: Muskoka (CYQA)
Event Information Conflict - potential Other operational incident Overshoot/missed approach Pilot/public complaint
Make: CESSNA Model: 172F
Year Built: 1964
Owner: SIERRA FOX INC
Make: CESSNA Model: T182T
Owner: THE S. E. JOHNSTON MACHINERY SALES CO. LIMITED
Country of Registration: UNITED STATES
Make: LEARJET Model: 60
User Name: Satens, Terrence
Date: 2008/08/05
Further Action Required: No
Narrative: Between 1901 and 1947, Cessna 172F aircraft started and continued to conduct circuits to runway 18 Muskoka Airport (CYQA). At approximately 1910 a Cessna T182T aircraft joined the circuit also for continuous circuits. YYZ ACC advised Timmins of a LearJet 60 landing YQA at 1926. The Learjet 60 first called Timmins at 10 south of the Muskoka airport. Circuit traffic was passed as well as the active runway being 18. Learjet elected to use runway 36 as this was the last ATC clearance given, RNAV 36. Learjet 60 next reported IGSIM, 5 miles final and just prior to that report, FSS had obtained position reports from the two circuit traffic aircraft that both indicated they were downwind and DF bearings confirmed this and actually confirmed they were both south of the DF site downwind. It was at this point with Learjet 60 just inside 5 miles final and not even a minute after the position report from circuit traffic, Cessna 172F advised “short final runway 18”. FSS immediately provided updates to get the traffic to change their course of action. Neither aircraft wanted to give up on landing into one another and only after FSS stated “somebody is going to have to give way” did the Cessna 172F elect to overshoot runway 18 and rejoin the circuit. LearJet 60 landed, backtracked and cleared the runway with no further incident, Cessna 172F continued to conduct circuits for another 20 minutes without further incident and Cessna T182T left the circuit for his destination. Approximately 2 hours later the pilot of the Cessna T182T aircraft phoned YTS FSS with his name and phone number advising that the Cessna 172F had intentionally cut his circuit short to get in the way of the landing aircraft and refused to give way to make a point. FSS had suspected based on position report information and the sudden report on final that this was the case, but due to the fact FSS are not on site at Muskoka visual confirmation was unavailable. Pilot of Cessna T182T says he will make whatever statements or reports to pursue this matter as Cessna 172F did have a student on board when this incident occurred.
Wrong! The Lear was given a ATC clearance which they accepted. They could be a host of reasons that the Lear stayed under IFR rules and not enter the VFR traffic pattern. The 172 was VFR, and fully aware of the presence of the Lear conducting the instrument approach. All the 172 had to do, and should’ve done, was extend his downwind. That’s basic airmanship! The Lear did not break any rules…it was following a clearance. There was no reason for the 172 to turn it into a pissing match.
Actually you are wrong. An IFR clearance does not trump a VFR clearance, at least it doesn’t hear in Canada. If there is traffic (no less than 2 aircraft) in the circuit for the other end of the runway and the conditions are nowhere near IFR minimums than there is no excuse. Also, the clearance is for the approach procedure, not the landing procedure. There is no damn reason why that Lear couldn’t commence circling once they reached minimums, getting to which is the objective of the IFR approach…not the actual touchdown. My argument is not about the Cessna cutting it in (poor airmanship as well), it’s about the Lear going against the established traffic pattern being flown by multiple aircraft.
The 172 had no clearance period. And he was in contact with the same controlling agency as the Lear.
There could be several reasons for the Lear’s crew to decline a circle (other than the “I’m bigger than you are” reason)…of which you, nor I have any way of knowing which one for sure. But there are very legitimate reasons for not conducting a circling manuever in turbo-jet aircraft. Namely, the Lear 60 has very high Vref speeds. And a circle manuever must be flown at speeds that are nearly three times faster than 172/182 pattern speeds. So now the circle pattern must be flown much wider, making it difficult to maintain visual contact with other traffic, obstacles, etc., in a demanding, high workload, flight regime. It’s a safety issue…and the straight-in with the full declaration of intentions was the safest plan. So the approach by the Lear crew was not about ego, unlike the 172 pilot’s action. Unless you’ve flown an airplane like the Lear 60, you wouldn’t understand or have any respect for what it takes to safely operate one in an airport traffic/terminal area.
Agreed, that clear communication and cooperation between the Lear and the 172 could’ve avoided this incident. But it wasn’t necessary for the 172 to arbitrarily force the issue, as indicated by the 182 pilot’s voluntary testament to the 172’s “intentional action”…
the pilot of the Cessna T182T aircraft phoned YTS FSS with his name and phone number advising that the Cessna 172F had intentionally cut his circuit short to get in the way of the landing aircraft and refused to give way to make a point.
Technically the Lear did not have a clearnce **to land **either because there was no tower at the aerodrome. There is a big difference between cleared to land from a tower and cleared for the approach by an IFR unit…they are not the same. I have experience on both the air traffic controller and a pilot side of the microphone so I’m not pulling this information out of me arse.
Sweet jeebuz, are you saying that a Lear wouldn’t complete a simple cuircling procedure to the other end of the runway? This is a basic skill of IFR flight and we used to have 737-200s doing this at the airport I was posted to (complete with large mountains as well) and if they can’t do that then god help us all.
I’m sorry but I don’t buy our argument about the aircraft speeds being a factor either. Hypothetically even if all three aircraft were using the same runway direction then speed would be just as much of a factor and it would still be up to the Lear crew not to run down the two slower Cessnas. Since all were on the same frequency then the controlling unit would have notified the Lear of the slower traffic and once established in VMC (conditions were obviously VFR) would have been responsible for their own traffic separation.
Also you’re saying the safest plan was to land in the opposite direction of the established traffic pattern? Dude, wtf?
I already made it clear that this argument has nothing to do with the yahoo 172 pilot’s irresponsible actions but you can keep going back to that if you like. However, even if the 172 had flown a normal circuit there still would have been an opposite direction conflict in the runway environment…which is the focus of my posts.
The argument that the two cessnas in the pattern creates an “established traffic pattern” that no other aircraft can deviate from is crap. Suppose the two cessnas were intentionally practicing crosswind landings (not in this particular case obviously). Would every other traffic entering the pattern be forced to do a crosswind landing as well?
I’ve been on both sides of the issues, the guy in the 152 puttering around the pattern and the faster traffic doing the straight-in. I’m sure that regardless of who’s “right” and who’s “wrong” this all could’ve been handled without further issue with simple common courtesy.
Some MET info for the time would be informative, But it was obviously VFR with light winds. IMHO both the Lear and the Cessna could have safely given way.
My last comment, look it up in the Canadian Air Regs and the TC AIM. The rules say that if aircraft in the circuit for the other ind of the runway, it makes the Lear in the wrong.
Discretion can be and probably should have been exercised here by all the pilots coordinating who lands where and when but rules is rules in case something should go wrong.
Aviation Canada posted on AvCanada Forum, lots of lively responses, including 2 more CANDORS on the same Cessna 172.
CYQA Muskoka Airport
Muskoka is Canada’s premier cottage area, with multi-million dollar cottage ‘estates’. I lived in the area for 3 years, and it is very common destination for corporate traffic during the summer months.
Only once, did I see a jet, a Lear 24 fly overhead and join the circuit. Jet traffic always do straight in approaches, and the Cessna 172 which is based at YQA would have been well aware of that fact.
From the Transport Canada AIM - 9.13 IFR Procedures at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome in Uncontrolled Airspace
Pilots operating aircraft under IFR into an uncontrolled aerodrome in uncontrolled airspace when the weather conditions at the aerodrome could permit VFR circuit operations are expected to approach and land on the active runway that may be established by the aircraft operating in the VFR circuit. Pilots operating aircraft under IFR at an uncontrolled aerodrome in uncontrolled airspace do not establish any priority over aircraft operating under VFR at that aerodrome. Should it be necessary for the IFR aircraft to approach to, land, or take off on a runway contrary to the established VFR operation, it is expected that appropriate communications between the pilots, or pilots and the air-to-ground facility, will be effected in order to ensure that there is no conflict of traffic.
While it may be “expected” to land on the established circuit runway…it is NOT mandatory. And only the PIC of the Lear gets to choose what approach to the airport he conducts…not ATC, not the VFR aircraft in the circuit, and not Linecrew. The Lear crew may not have done what is “expected”…but they didn’t do anything “wrong” by proceeding straight-in.
And…I think we are all in agreement here that sufficient communication of intentions were established.
Now after my 1000th post…I’m going to go and fly. And when I get to my destination, I think I’ll go and cut somebody off in the pattern just to cause a safety hazard and prove a point! Because it’s all about me…
I made it 1 hour throttle to bottle… Power levers - Cut off. @ 03:21Z. Pulled into the garage @ 04:19Z… Truck ignition off @ 04:20Z…Straight to man fridge in the garage…Miller Chill opened and tipped @ 04:21Z
Over Otai Mtn., straight in approach Rwy 26R KSDM…no one else in pattern to cut off…
Muat have scared them away with my funny looking airplane, huh wazz?..
Oh…now don’t go “hatin” just because you weren’t as right as you thought you were, and that that are other ways of doing things that are still within the guise of the procedures and regs.
Can’t we just all get along?..
And when you can fly a Lear 60 in a pattern with airplanes that are 3 times slower without running them over and/or conceding some space…then come and talk to us. The rules just don’t work for all airplanes all of the time, and at the same time…Mr. Super Controller Pilot.
There could be several reasons for the Lear’s crew to decline a circle (other than the “I’m bigger than you are” reason)…of which you, nor I have any way of knowing which one for sure. But there are very legitimate reasons for not conducting a circling manuever in turbo-jet aircraft. Namely, the Lear 60 has very high Vref speeds. And a circle manuever must be flown at speeds that are nearly three times faster than 172/182 pattern speeds. So now the circle pattern must be flown much wider, making it difficult to maintain visual contact with other traffic, obstacles, etc., in a demanding, high workload, flight regime. It’s a safety issue…and the straight-in with the full declaration of intentions was the safest plan. So the approach by the Lear crew was not about ego, unlike the 172 pilot’s action. Unless you’ve flown an airplane like the Lear 60, you wouldn’t understand or have any respect for what it takes to safely operate one in an airport traffic/terminal area.
