GA1367 - Student asked to orbit on base-leg

Initial Report

The controller decided to give a right base to a twin despite two training aircraft in the standard left-hand circuit, the student on left-base in the approach configuration was instructed to orbit. He should have been told to go-around. This is exactly the scenario that led to a fatal accident at Southend G-BABB. That led to changes in the CAP 493, the wording is “instructions shall not be issued” no leeway.

CHIRP Comment

This report raises some serious issues with how students are treated by controllers but, unfortunately, we’ve had no further response from the reporter to our requests for clarification. Because the reporter did not mention the airfield or the type of control being exercised at the time (ATCO, FISO, A/G?), not knowing the full circumstances qualifies any comments that we might make, and so all we can offer are some general thoughts below that may be worthy of note, especially with students in the circuit.

Notwithstanding the overriding premise that students shouldn’t really be asked to orbit in the circuit, if it was an ATCO doing so then they have a responsibility to ‘achieve the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic’ and they can issue information and instructions to achieve this. It is simply not possible for us to comment on whether a go-around or an orbit was the most appropriate option because we don’t know the circumstances. If it was a FISO or A/G airfield then that would be a different matter, and it would be up to the pilots to ensure safe integration, but the reporter says ‘the controller’ and so it should probably be assumed it was an ATCO.

CAP 493 Section 2: Ch 1 Para 19A says that ‘…instructions shall not be issued to aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land…’ but this is generally assumed to apply to aircraft on Final. In the situation described, the student was on base-leg and so there may have been few other options for the controller than to ask the student to orbit. We simply do not know the circumstances of the incident, what else was going on, and what the airspace construct was.

All that being said, and notwithstanding instructions from the controller, there was a certain responsibility on the joining twin’s pilot to satisfy SERA.3225(b) and ‘conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation’ and so they ought to have given consideration to the student. If, for whatever reason, the controller had sequenced them, cleared them to join right-base, and they were below the student, then SERA.3210(c)(4)(i) says that ‘When two or more heavier-than-air aircraft are approaching an aerodrome or an operating site for the purpose of landing, aircraft at the higher level shall give way to aircraft at the lower level, but the latter shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is in the final stages of an approach to land…’. So it’s not completely clear cut.

The reporter says that the student was ‘instructed’ to orbit. CAP413 Paras 2.34 and 11.5 refer to controllers having to make due allowance for the limited experience and ability of student pilots, and any pilot can refuse a request or instruction by saying ‘unable’ if they feel they cannot comply. Whether a student would feel confident enough to do so is a moot point though because they’re likely to interpret an ‘ask’ as an instruction anyway. But pilots should remember that they always have the option of telling ATC that they are ‘unable’ if they feel that they cannot comply with an instruction.

Dirty Dozen Human Factors

The following ‘Dirty Dozen’ Human Factors elements were a key part of the CHIRP discussions about this report and are intended to provide food for thought when considering aspects that might be pertinent in similar circumstances.