[treborsnave]

Had an interesting moment on a recent flight with a new instructor. I'm about 30 hours in of which 8 has been solo, have done a few solo navs and a solo land away, all without too much drama.
In prep for QXC I wanted to fly one of the legs that I'd not seen yet, so booked in a flight with a club instructor who I'd not shared a cockpit with yet(usual inst. was away).
Anyway, idea was to land at first airfield then overfly the second on a QXC route. The full stop airfield has a hard runway, with 3 shorter grass strips to the SE. We were asked by the AFIS to use one of the grass runways, which the instructor queried, AFIS responds due to considerable crosswind on the hard. Runway then confirmed back to AFIS, check of aerodrome plate then perform overhead join. Overhead I note the runways and the active, then see an aircraft taxiing towards active runway, and a tractor mowing the grass area to the south of the runway in use. Turn onto what i think is final, instructor points out I'm aiming for the wrong runway (20 degrees off). Which I am. I'm far enough out here, no other circuit traffic, swing the nose round, get visual with active runway - on the centerline - see the numbers. All ok. Instructor repeats that I'm heading for the wrong runway, and asks me to change direction. I look up, check the number, flick to the compass, and they confirm the active. Check the plate, runway confirmed as correct. The aircraft that was taxiing has called holding at a point to the left of the runway threshold. Double check the numbers on the runway again. They match.
65kn, three stages of flap -300 feet. Instructor demands that I change change direction and land on the numbers over to the left (looking at the map later the numbers are for a runway that's almost 90degrees to the active). This would take me directly over the holding aircraft at low level and into an area where I have positively confirmed a tractor is operating (I still have visual with it), not to mention there's no confirmation a runway exists there. So i challenge the instructor to read the numbers on the runway ahead and confirm they match the runway in use. A slight pause, then confirmation that the runway is correct. 30 seconds later I perform a reasonably smooth landing. Instructor apologises, I apologise for lining up on the wrong runway in the first place. Rest of the flight goes to plan.

In retrospect, it was a tricky situation - from an evidence perspective, shortly after the initial correction I could see with 100% clarity that the runway numbers matched those in use. The suggested runway number couldn't be easily read (as they were at 90deg to our viewpoint). A look at the plate supported the visual situation, and the position of the aircraft holding (and it's holding point) supported the assessment ( although i do realise this aspect could be easily misrepresented from the air).
From the instructor's standpoint, they had already had to correct me and might therefore assume that my judgment is impaired.

This was the first time I'd experienced something of this nature in the cockpit, and I'm sure whilst there's differences in opinion, I don't think that landing was the right course of action, regardless of any evidence. I could have handed over control to the instructor and said "fine, you land where you like, your aircraft" but is that responsible if I have visual proof someone is about to land somewhere potentially dangerous that could put us both in danger?
I suspect the answer is "s**t happens, people make mistakes, call go around and clear it up at 1000 feet, not 200!" but would appreciate some guidance from those of greater experience.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay you've got the picture of the specific mistakes and how they were recovered from. In many ways, I think that you and the instructor handled this quite well. He pointed out an error, then made an error of his own. You were absolutely clear in your mind that you were being asked to do something unsafe, and presumably concerned that if you just handed over control the instructor would have done that unsafe thing.

Immediately the instructor recognised that you were right and he was wrong, he apologised and had you continue to land on the right runway. In other words you both worked well to ensure that you maintained a constructive working relationship that allowed the rest of the flight to be continued safely. In the airline world this would be referred to as good crew resource management.


However, I think that both of you did something fundamentally wrong. You allowed the aeroplane to get down to 300ft without the final approach being absolutely clearly defined and a clear path to landing being absolutely obvious. Under those circumstances as handling pilot you should have initiated a go-around, and if you hadn't, he should have either instructed you to, or taken over and done so himself - then sorted your lives out downwind. Once you have turned final, any ambiguity about subsequent actions and flightpath should lead to a go-around. Apart from anything else, late corrections lead to an unstable approach and, as likely as not, a crappy landing.

G

[lobstaboy]

+1 for what Genghis says. Instructors do make mistakes sometimes and it can be quite hard working with a student who is well through the syllabus but who is new to you (student notes are often not as detailed as they could be).
Don't sweat it, and don't be reluctant to fly with this instructor again.

[Sooty25]

@treborsnave take some positives out of this episode, its good experience.

1. you successfully corrected the first incorrect approach when advised to
2. you recognised the instructor had made an error and was confident enough in you own ability to challenge him.
3. your skill level was sufficient to cope with it and complete the landing.

It is easy to just say "go around" and throw the approach away and often that would be the right thing to do,
but,
what if you'd been running out of daylight,
what if the weather was clamping down on you,
what if the airfield was closing in 5 minutes time.
In your case the approach was correct and you were in control.

In my view, the only thing you need to review is how you lined up on the wrong runway to start with and nothing else.

Keep going, you're nearly there!

[Crash one]

I agree with Gengis.
However Instructors sometimes, especially if they've never flown with you, tend to think the student is bound to be the one at fault, they usually are! This will create a delay until he realises it's not the case, then a further delay as he processes the fact that it may be him at fault.
Low level short final is not the best place to be making decisions like that, even when you know for certain that you are right. A difficult situation when the instructor is PIC.

[leiafee]

With 20-20 hindsite I agree a go around would have been the right thing and probably at the point of of identifying the innitial wrong runway error as opposed to trying to fix it at that stage.

But know you know how strong the temptation is to try and fix stuff rather than go around which is useful data!

[cockney steve]

Sight! dammit, hind SIGHT .....the site is what you would have viewed in hindsight.......but there again, you knew that anyway, -Freudian slip, perchance?

[treborsnave]

Thank you folks, insightful response - Genghis, I take your point on fully - that it's a situation we shouldn't have got into in the first place. I think it's clear, if no external pressures/timelines then an early go around is preferable if any confusion arises. And yes, I'll happily fly with the instructor again, they gave me some really useful tips and observations that will stay with me!

[matthew_w100]

300' on 3 degrees and 65 kts is almost a minute out. I would have thought you could afford to go a teensie bit closer before feeling obliged to go round because plans weren't clear. Assuming every thing else looked good.

[leiafee]

300' on 3 degrees and 65 kts is almost a minute out. I would have thought you could afford to go a teensie bit closer before feeling obliged to go round because plans weren't clear. Assuming every thing else looked good.

As a student? (Leaving aside the debate of whether an ab initio student would or should be learning a 3 degree glide path)

I can't agree - I certainly needed (still need!) to be dealing with just one problem at a time if possible and being at 300' and still not 100% certain I was visual with the right runway seems like it would be a definite go around.

I wouldn't do swap runwaysnow from that height I don't think. Last time I confused a runway I went right out of the circuit to 'sort my life out' as Genghis so descriptively puts it. Maybe I'm just a wimp!

[Sooty25]

it would probably be easier to envisage is we knew the airfield so we could look at a plate ourselves.

would @treborsnave like to identify the airfield in question?

[matthew_w100]

I wouldn't do swap runwaysnow from that height I don't think. Last time I confused a runway I went right out of the circuit to 'sort my life out' as Genghis so descriptively puts it.

Oh I wouldn't re-position from there! Just feel that I had a few seconds before I *needed* to go round during which the situation might resolve.

But on further thinking, I hadn't factored in the disagreement with the instructor which is a HUGE stressor, even if you're mates. I've not been in that situation in a plane but I have with a driving instructor. Horrible experience, and 300' is probably a bit close to the edge of the air to be working things out.

But hey - the OP obviously *did* work things out, so there *was* time!

[treborsnave]

it would probably be easier to envisage is we knew the airfield so we could look at a plate ourselves.

would @treborsnave like to identify the airfield in question?

Sywell
http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/layout.php

Runway in use was 23LH

[Sooty25]

that helps!

okay so is this right?

initial plan 21 hard
afis advise 23
you lined up on 21 grass
then changed to 23 approx 1nm out
instructor wrongly though you should be on 33
continued and landed 23

[treborsnave]

yep! That's it!