better pilot
Closed Runway Confusion
There are situations in which pilots must rely to a great
extent on controllers, and when controllers drop the ball,
the pilots can be left in a precarious position. Consider the
case that occurred on a Wednesday afternoon at Reading
Regional Airport in Pennsylvania in August 2008. Runway
18/36 was closed and had been closed for nearly four weeks
while a safety area was constructed near the approach
end of Runway 18. During the hours of closure (0700 to
1700 EDT Monday through Friday), lighted X’s were to be
required “at each end of the runway end over the numbers.”
While the automatic terminal information service (ATIS)
reportedly warned pilots of the runway closure, the lighted
Xs were not in place.
now. You can make a right turn around into final, Runway
18 cleared to land, hold short Runway 13, landing traffic,
3,000 feet available.” A couple of minutes later, the 172
landed safely.
It is unclear why the pilot, if he had checked notices
to airmen or listened to the ATIS, did not question the
controller’s instruction to land on what was a closed
runway. Unfortunately, there were no visual indications
that the runway was closed at the time.
As this incident highlights, controllers are human and
they can and do make mistakes. Pilots should always
perform the required preflight planning, and maintain
an awareness of all factors that could affect their flight.
While we often depend on controllers, we should always
question an instruction that appears unsafe or in
violation of regulations.
It seems the controllers suffered a lapse in situational
awareness and perhaps forgot that the runway was
technically closed. One aircraft was allowed to make a low
approach to the runway, which was against FAA regulations.
Ten minutes later, a Cessna 172 was approaching the
airport, and the pilot was advised to “enter a left downwind
for Runway 13 and to contact the tower controller.” The
pilot contacted the tower and reported on left downwind
for Runway 13. The controller responded, “Left traffic
Runway 13, pattern altitude 1,400, begin descent, report
mid-field downwind.”
Shortly thereafter, an inbound Cessna Citation was
given radar vectors for a visual approach to Runway 13.
Concerned that the Citation would overtake the 172, the
controller asked the 172 pilot if he could accept Runway
18 with the wind 130 degrees at 6 knots. According to the
report, the pilot responded, “Ah sure, if that is what you
would like us to do.” It is unclear whether the 172 pilot
realized that Runway 18 was closed, and neither he nor the
local controller made any mention of the closure. A few
minutes later, the local controller said, “Cessna 020, thank
you, you’re crossing over the [Runway 18] approach end
Simulation Turns Real
Control issues can sometimes arise during
flight instruction. Generally, the certificated
flight instructor (CFI) is considered the pilot in
command, and the student is logging the time as
pilot in command as they are the sole manipulator
of the controls. However, the ultimate authority
as to the safe operation of the flight clearly rests
with the instructor. The problem arises when the
instructor does not establish appropriate limits or
ground rules for training exercises and fails to react
promptly to a changing or worsening situation.
Consider the case of the instructor conducting
simulated engine failure training with a student
in a Piper PA- 38-112. The training was conducted
in mountainous terrain some 15 miles from the departure
airport, in Friant, California. It is unclear at what altitude
the simulation was initiated or what ground rules had been
established for completion of the training maneuvers.
Sadly, the situation was allowed to progress to a point
where it slipped out of control. According to the report,
the training was going well until the fourth simulated
engine failure. The aircraft descended to a height of 100
feet above the ground, and then the student added power
and pitched up for a climb. Unfortunately, the aircraft
was unable to climb as quickly as required and collided
with the terrain. Following the accident, the CFI reported
that it could have been prevented had the recovery been
initiated at a higher altitude.
Off the End
A similar situation occurred when an instructor was
providing mountain flying instruction to a private pilot in a
Cessna 172. The pilot was landing at an airport with a 2,088-
foot runway in Girdwood, Alaska, under the direction of the
instructor. It was a Sunday in late December, and the runway
was compacted snow and ice. As would be expected, the
