The Flugleiter suggests to the number one on short final to go-around because a number two behind (which has number one in sight) is too close?? Strange world…
boscomantico wrote:
The Flugleiter suggests to the number one on short final to go-around because a number two behind (which has number one in sight) is too close?? Strange world…
Yes, but it didn’t hurt anybody. Trying to make sense of the Flugleiter decision, he and the FI seemed to know each other well (he used the FI’s first name and “Du”) and maybe he – rightly – thought the #1’s suggestion of a go around was more sensible than the #2’s suggestion of a 360 at that point. 
Patrick wrote:
finally the Flugleiter asked the aicraft ahead to go aroundIs the Flugleiter really supposed to do things like that? They’re not ATC.
Trying to make sense of the Flugleiter decision,
Does the Flugleiter have the right to make “decisions” for the pilots?
Alex wrote:
The 360 wasn’t really an option. Being a right-hand pattern I only could do a left 360, getting me straight into the noise abatement area (and possibly an angry speech from the “Flugleiter”).
Safety of flight is more important than noise abatement. If you collided it would make a lot more noise.
Useful reminder about heavy braking.
Are you allowed to “land after” in Germany?
With faster traffic following me to a 5,000 ft runway, I would extend in low ground effect (which is nice stick & rudder practice) and touch after the mid point near a convenient exit. Then the Bonanza would have all the tarmac it needed to land behind, if authorised.
Apparently the average Bo needs less than 900 ft ground roll if the driver takes his hands out of his pockets.
Or maybe “land after” would give the oberguppenflugleiter conniptions, so with a student, at night, and if you hadn’t briefed flight in low ground effect, I really don’t think you can criticise yourself for doing as you did.
Is the Flugleiter really supposed to do things like that? They’re not ATC.
Does the Flugleiter have the right to make “decisions” for the pilots?
Airborne,
According to German airlaw, the Flugleiter does not give any instructions.
With one exception: “in case of imminent danger” (loosely speaking).
“Imminent danger” is of course hugely open to interpretation. Hence, some Flugleiters tend to the one extreme and play “ATC” most of the time, while on the other extreme, others don’t really pay attention to the traffic at all. Most are reasonable and somewhere in the middle between these extremes.
Anyway, due to this legislation, over the decades, a culture has developed in Germany where many pilots are very obedient to the Flugleiter and almost can’t do without. This has been a “safety topic” for years round here, as you can immagine.
By the way, this is not totally unique to Germany. Particularly in the UK, I have seen AFISOs play ATC just the same, despite the UK airlaw not having such “in case of immiment danger” clause in its airlaw, I believe.
Anyway, in the case above, it sounds like it was more suggestion than an instruction, which of course makes it all even more fuzzy.
boscomantico wrote:
Anyway, in the case above, it sounds like it was more suggestion than an instruction, which of course makes it all even more fuzzy.
Yes – and the crew ahead obviously did the right thing to follow that suggestion, rather than making a fuzz about it on short final.
There are many kinds of “Flugleiter”. Luckily all whom I got to know so far where nice and sensible people, giving good suggestions and never trying to play ATC (which they legally cannot do, as boscomantico said).
Personally I think it would be better safety wise if German pilots behaved more autonomous and independent as pilots do elsewhere (e.g. US) and not rely on the Flugleiter too much. Then again, having a great Flugleiter at my home base (Copi) is something I’m glad about.
As for the original topic, with my very limited experience, I still think the safest practice would be to follow air law. The number one plane lands first and has all the runway to himself, as necessary. It seems much safer for the second plane to just do a go-around.
I had a somewhat similar situation in my unplanned diversion: There were several planes in the circuit, I was number two after a helicopter who quickly got off the runway. I didn’t know the taxiway layout and assumed there way no taxiway at the end of the runway, so I announced a backtrack after missing what I thought was the last runway exit. The Flugleiter told me to just go straight ahead, but another plane behind me was already landing. He vacated the runway on an earlier exit, but it was still dangerous to have two planes on the runway at the same time. The number 3 plane should have done a go-around instead.
Great discussion folks, thanks!
I will use this as a practical case during class at our club. I think it shows pretty well how a seemingly small incident (“We just hit the brakes a bit too hard…”) is more complex after some analysis where things start to go wrong way before touchdown, and that there were many more options available than committing to vacate.
@europaxs: Do you have your Europa based in EDLE as well? I honestly have never seen one, and I’m on the field every weekend.
