INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT IN A C182 HAVE DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING REQUEST FOR TOUCH AND GO LNDGS AT IWA.

Date: 2002-03 · Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG · Phase: landing

Anomalies: deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|other-training

Synopsis

INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT IN A C182 HAVE DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING REQUEST FOR TOUCH AND GO LNDGS AT IWA.

Narrative

MY STUDENT RPTED IN TO WILLIAMS GATEWAY TWR (IWA) APPROX 8 MI OUT; REQUESTING TOUCH AND GO LNDGS. WE WERE TOLD TO RPT AT 4 MI FOR RWY 30C. WE RPTED AT 4 MI FOR TOUCH AND GO LNDGS AND WERE CLRED TO LAND. WE REQUESTED TOUCH AND GO LNDGS 2 MORE TIMES BUT THE CTLR DID NOT ANSWER. WE MADE A FULL STOP LNDG AND AS WE WERE ROLLING OUT REQUESTED AN IMMEDIATE TKOF TO STAY IN THE PATTERN FOR TOUCH AND GO LNDGS. THE RWY AT IWA IS 10200 FT LONG AND WE HAD 7000 FT REMAINING. THE SUPVR CAME ON THE AIR AND REQUESTED THAT WE CLR THE RWY. IWA DOES NOT HAVE MANY TXWYS AND THE NEAREST EXIT WAS 2000 FT DOWN THE RWY. WE REPEATED OUR TKOF REQUEST; WHICH WAS GRANTED. AS WE FLEW DOWNWIND TO CONTINUE OUR TOUCH AND GO LNDGS; THE SUPVR REQUESTED THAT WE CALL THE TWR WHEN WE LANDED BECAUSE OF A POSSIBLE FLT VIOLATION. HE WAS VERY UPSET. WHEN WE LANDED AT OUR HOME BASE WE CALLED THE SUPVR. HE IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZED FOR HIS GRUFF DEMEANOR AND WE WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROB. HE MADE NO MENTION OF A FLT VIOLATION IN OUR CONVERSATION. THE CTLR ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE HAD BEEN SUPERVISING A TRAINEE CTLR AND THAT IS WHY HE CAME ON THE AIR. I BELIEVE THIS WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. HOW COULD WE HAVE PREVENTED THIS PROB? I BELIEVE THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR US TO DO A GAR AND GET ESTABLISHED IN THE LNDG PATTERN.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.