This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
I was in a Cessna 172P with a certificated pilot on a familiarization flight.
We had departed the Wilmington airport and had been maneuvering in the Carolina Beach practice area.
I asked my student to call in to Approach and request to come back in for some pattern work. We had been in the traffic pattern for two touch and goes and were instructed to fly left traffic for Runway 6.
On the downwind, I called Tower and let them know I intended to do a go around/low approach for this next pass, Tower acknowledged my call.
There was a Cirrus flying an instrument approach on short final and a regional jet an unknown distance out talking to the Tower as well.
After the Cirrus passed by us, the Tower cleared us to turn base for Runway 6. My student configured for the descent and began his base turn.
As we continued on our base leg, the Tower called for us to “cross final and join the right downwind for Runway 6.”
My student and I were confused by the call and asked for clarification. After some back and forth, my student and I realized that the Controller wanted us to make a right turn and fly an extended right downwind for Runway 6.
He made a climbing right turn, with flaps in, causing us to slow down quickly. I instructed him to lower the nose, add power, and retract his flaps so that we would stop our descent and get back to a more suitable altitude for an extended downwind.
Upon joining the extended downwind for Runway 6, the Controller told us to follow the regional jet passing off to our left. I looked over to make visual contact and noticed that we appeared below the regional jet we were to follow.
At this time I had concerns about wake turbulence so I advised my student to climb to get above the regional jet’s path before turning a right base for Runway 6. The student corrected our altitude and began a base turn. We turned final for Runway 6 and the regional jet had landed and was clearing the runway.
At this time we were about a mile to a mile and a half final, still intending on the go around/low approach that we had advised the Tower we intended to practice. The Tower cleared a second regional jet for takeoff, right in front of us. My student and I discussed the proximity and worried, again, about wake turbulence.
We always teach our students that wake turbulence is caused by an aircraft that is producing lift and to “stay in the bowl” to avoid a larger aircraft’s wake. In an attempt to stay clear of the departing regional jet’s path, we requested a full stop landing and were approved.
The jet began its roll uncomfortably close, and I debated a go-around but worried the side step would put us in an even more dangerous position, so we slowed the aircraft down as much as we could to buy ourselves time and try to get to the runway threshold for Runway 6.
The last 20 to 25 feet over the runway we experienced incredible turbulence and had difficulty controlling the aircraft, effectively wrestling it onto the runway. We both realized that we were so close that we flew into the residual jet blast from the departing regional jet that had been cleared while we were short final.
Primary Problem: Procedure
ACN: 1931572
Sounds like it turned out to be a good learning experience, nothing bent and no injuries. Thanks for sharing
A lot of criticism here, can’t we all just get along?
I’m called confused. If you were on on left base for RY 6 and were instructed to not turn final but continue through and turn right downwind to follow a CRJ on final for RY 6 shouldn’t the traffic to follow been off to the right of you and not the left? Tower messed up here. They should have given you a short approach to a low approach only and slowed down the CRJ behind you. If that wasn’t going to work tower could have sent you around with a left or right turn back to the downwind to follow the CRJ.
Lots of people being Sunday morning quarterbacks. Unless you are in the cockpit it is hard to give an opinion that means anything especially from a 100 hour pilot.
Agree that if there was concern on the part of both pilots regarding wake turbulence, that either one could have made a decision to tell the controller and avoid the problem. Depending upon what other traffic there was in it near the pattern at the time, perhaps even a 360 on final to gain some time. But more likely, just tell the controller “unable” and reject the approach.
I’d be very leery of “really slowing down on final” to buy time as in a 172 on final, you should already be going slow enough that losing too many more knots would put you in an undesirable position.
I admit to being a little confused about being in left traffic, turning base, then turning right onto an extended right downwind, and being told to follow another aircraft on final to your LEFT. Either I’m reading it wrong or just plain need another cup of coffee….
Simple….advise ATC you were making a 180 back into downwind before there was an issue.
Good job.
That whole thing is on the controller. They should never have run a tight play after already failing their other tight play. Bad call on their part. Especially since you told them you’d be low approach, they can still get the other RJ out pretty easily. Good job staying professional, but you can still call the tower and ask them what they were thinking and give them your feedback of how the situation played out.
The pilot in command is responsible for every soul in the plane. When he sees an unsafe situation, it within his authority and his duty to abort and go around without anybody’s permission.
Sounds like you did everything you could to avoid the situation. Thus, please note these are just comments and not criticisms. I’m a CFII/MEI and ATP with 16 years airline experience.
My first flight instructor once told me, if you think you should go around, you already should be going around. Now, I know the temptation to continue and am guilty of doing it myself. But I’m highlighting the point that your initial thought of GA was a correct one. The side step would easily have put you outside the departing RJs wake for the initial phase. Once putting some space between you and the earth, you can always request a midfield right crosswind from the tower to avoid the wake of the RJ which clearly will out climb you.
Additionally, and more importantly, you should not have to ‘wrestle’ the airplane onto the ground. Even at 1 foot above the ground, you can go around. If it’s unstable, go away! Again, I understand the temptation. We’re pilots. We fly anything under any conditions….otherwise we suck, right?
This is a reminder that discretion is the better part of valor.
As to the wake turbulence, it can be a beast, even for airliners. Years ago, in an RJ at 7,000 behind a 757 seven miles away, I got rolled 45 degrees instantly! It happens.
Obviously you were in the toughest of spots with regard to WT avoidance because you were likely slightly above the landing RJs Glide path but then needing to touch down just past the aim point in order to avoid getting mixed up in the departing RJs wake as he rotates. So long as you’re on speed, in a cirrus, this should not be too difficult. However, it’s possible that the landing RJ didn’t exactly stop flying at the aim point and actually floated to say 1500 or 2000 feet down the runway.
Most airline ops specs demand a go around for an airliner not touching down within the touchdown zone, so it’s always safe to assume that if you’re landing behind an airliner, you should not get WT toward the end of that zone. In this case if you had aimed for the end of the TD zone, you’d be getting close to where the departing RJ would be rotating. So it makes it trickier to plan.
Bottomline, lesson learned…go around!
“ if you think you should go around, you already should be going around “
That’s a pretty good one. I learned to fly at San Carlos, about 7 nm down 101 from KSFO. SQL is parallel to the freeway. There is almost always a cross wind. The dike keeping the bay … at bay is quite close to the end of the runway on approach on 30. It creates a nice burble, just for fun. Here’s another possible gem, I learned there.
Every approach is a go around until proven otherwise.
Bent metal confirms you suck, FAAFO. Going around means nothing.
The instructor failed. The tower guy … knew what he was doing.
I see a few problems here. The controller was not considering wake turbulence at all for this Cessna. The second problem is the CFI and/or the pilot being instructed, needed to tell the tower that they needed to go around for wake avoidance. I expect they both will remember this for the future, it only takes once and you don’t want to do it again.
Also, the search system couldn’t find this report when I tried to access it to get more information.
“ The controller was not considering wake turbulence at all for this Cessna. “
You argue incompetence. I don’t. We both concurr they won’t forget. And that is why I pass on the incompetence angle. Lets just say I have seen something like this once or twice. Bottom line, be careful out there.
Poor baby. One of you is the PIC but can’t tell by your story. It’s seems your aware of wake turbulence but not aware of PIC responsibilities. I suggest you review the AIM.