communications failure on short final

[jorgvaz]

Communications failure on final RWY 33L LEMD

I read in a recently safety reports, that a B767 during the final approach crossing 1000 feet, the tower did not response to their requests of landing clearance, so the captain assumed failure communications , with the runway in sight and clear of traffic he proceeded to land. After roll out he contact ground control and explained what happened.
Is this the right procedure?
Thanks for your opinions.:ok:

[411A]

Is this the right procedure?


Except in an emergency (with the aeroplane) it certainly is not.
IF communications cannot be established with the tower so that a landing clearance can be obtained, a go-around should be accomplished.

[777fly]

From the UK AIP, ENR 1.1.3 para 3.2.3.2:

An IFR flight experiencing communications failure in VMC shall:

When VMC can be maintained, the pilot should set transponder to A7600 and land at nearest suitable aerodrome. Pilots should take account of visual landing aids and keep watch for any instructions as may be issued by visual signals from the ground. Pilots should report arrival to the appropriate ATC unit as soon as possible

I would conclude that the 767 pilots did the correct thing

[Brian Abraham]

We had a very long thread on this very subject not too long ago. Perhaps some one with better search skills than I can find.

[LH2]

From the UK AIP

Er... 777. LEMD is in Spain. :rolleyes:

[Henry VIII]

ICAO Annex 2, Rule of the Air. (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%20II%20-%20Rules%20of%20the%20Air/Annex%202%20-%20Tenth%20Edition.pdf)
Ch. 3.6.5.2.1, pag. 3-8.

3.6.5.2
Communication failure. If a communication failure

precludes compliance with 3.6.5.1, the aircraft shall comply

with the voice communication failure procedures of Annex 10,

Volume II, and with such of the following procedures as are
appropriate. The aircraft shall attempt to establish communications
with the appropriate air traffic control unit using all other
available means. In addition, the aircraft, when forming part of
the aerodrome traffic at a controlled aerodrome, shall keep a
watch for such instructions as may be issued by visual signals.





3.6.5.2.1 If in visual meteorological conditions, the aircraft

shall:


a) continue to fly in visual meteorological conditions; land

at the nearest suitable aerodrome; and report its arrival

by the most expeditious means to the appropriate air
traffic control unit;






b) if considered advisable, complete an IFR flight in

accordance with 3.6.5.2.2.

[Right Way Up]

Good decision imho. As long as it was a genuine lost comms he made a sensible decision. Madrid is an interesting enough place when everything is going for you, never mind when comms are lost!

[Check Airman]

Lost comm procedures are vague because of the wide variety of possible scenarios. I don't think we can sit here and say the Captain was wrong without reading ALL the facts.

[justlooking_tks]

I think i would have done the same. Think of the implications involved in a missed approach, without comms, to ATC and other traffic at a very busy airport. this would be especially true baring in mind some airline's fuel policy.

I think if you are vectored and your intention was to land and ATC are expecting you to land, when the clearance is issued, then the only item missing is the landing clearance. Provided the runway is clear, then what is the problem?

[VinRouge]

Its the controllers runway, not yours, until they give it you. What would have been wrong with shooting the MAP (this was tower that was the problem, not radar) and taking up the hold?

[potkettleblack]

We had this discussion on a flight the other day during a check. Common consensus was we would land. You are VMC, runway is clear, you are stabilised for approach. Why risk going around, taking up the missed approach procedure to enter a hold and then come back for another go when you have no idea of what traffic is around you. You are assuming ATC will automatically click into "comms failure mode" and coordinate everyone to stay clear of you. What if they are a bit slow off the mark? Maybe their radar is off air and they don't see you squawking 7600. Maybe they are busy, maybe thats why they forgot to clear you to land. Maybe they lost their comms as well? Its safe and there is a runway ahead of you and you have presumably been sequenced correctly for spacing on the final approach. Hence use your captains discretion, get it on the deck and worry about filling in the paperwork later.

[Right Way Up]

ICAO has already been quoted:
If in visual meteorological conditions, the aircraft

shall:


a) continue to fly in visual meteorological conditions; land

at the nearest suitable aerodrome.

The Captain complied with this, making a sound practical decision.

I for one would prefer not to go-around , go to the hold and then fly an approach with lost comms in the MAD TMA. Vectors to 18R are exciting enough. :O

[BizJetJock]

Vin Rouge
"Its the controllers runway, not yours, until they give it you."
I don't think so.
The fundamental principle of ATC clearances is that when you are unable to see and decide for yourself whether a particular runway or route is safe due to weather or speed/distance, then ATC tell you if it is "clear" for you. Legally the captain has the right and indeed responsibility to reject any clearance s/he thinks is unsafe, and in the case of being in VMC on approach to the runway with lost comms would be irresponsible not to land. I have been in this very situation and afterwards ATC contacted me and thanked me for doing the right thing.
Obviously in normal ops with working r/t one assumes that there is a good reason for their clearance unless you have reason to believe otherwise, but you shouldn't bury your head in the sand about who has the final responsibility.:=

[Spitoon]

On the original question I would say that it's hard to know whether the crew did the right thing in this particular case because we don't have enough information.

In my mind I'm wondering what made the crew assume that there was a comms equipment failure just because they did not receive a response? Were other aircraft in good communication with the TWR controller? Did the crew try to check that they could communicate with other stations on the freqency? Did they try a second box? Did they #7600 to indicate to the TWR that they would follow the RCF procedures (I don't know if LEMD TWR would see it but it's possible)? Did they look for light signals from the TWR (quaint I know but sometimes still happens)? Did they try and call GND when they assumed that comms with TWR were U/S? Did they keep calling for clearance or was it a once only request that didn't get an answer?

If there was no RCF but TWR simply couldn't reply at that moment for some reason, then I would suggest the crew actions were probably not correct. In normal operations the whole ATC system is based on permissive instructions, that is to say that you can do something is ATC says you can do it - the absence of permission means that you can't. It's built that way to be more robust and to fail-safe in most situations. If you take this proposition to its logical conclusion then you might as well do away with ATC because crews will do whatever they want if they don't hear the permission when they want it.

Just because the runway looks clear of traffic doesn't mean it is or it will continue to be. Landing when the runway looks clear but without the appropriate clearance involves/introduces risk into the operation. In a non-normal situation this increased risk may be deemed acceptable or preferable to the available alternatives...but not in normal ops.

So I would suggest that whether this was a good decision or not revolves around the reasons that RCF was assumed and we don't have enough information. Of course the crew had something in the order of a minute and a half to do all of the assessment, double-checking and decision making...and still had to fly the aircraft. In practice, landing is quite probably a reasonable action but I can equally see arguments against.

Maybe one possible alternative in the circumstances described - and I don't know whether it is feasible at LEMD - would be a go-around into a visual circuit. This will certainly get ATC's attention and will soon have them trying to call the aircraft which will help to establish whether there really is a comms failure, it gives a bit more time to assess the situation, try another box, maybe to call another agency and see if comms be established through another channel, maybe even see some light signals (OK, I know that one's a bit of a long shot) etc.

Just a few thoughts from the ATC perspective.

[None]

1) You are not a surprise pop-up arrival into the traffic pattern. Tower sees you on radar (and/or will shortly see you visually), and they have accepted you from approach.

2) There are no longer any intersecting runways at LEMD.

3) With respect to the well-thought-out narrative earlier, you have about 60 seconds to analyze the situation and take proper action.

[roljoe]

I totally agree with None,

at this point (1000 ft ) you just have a few seconds to decide what to do, atc is managing your landing with the accuracy of a swiss watch since a long time...so the right thing to do is to land..even without usual clearance to do so...when everything was checked by the crew for a safe landing....

going around and initiating a huge mess in such area like lemd, is not the best course of action...(what about torrejon, quatrovientos...traffic nearby ???)

Why initiate a new problem..when you have the possibility to "save the day" in the upcoming seconds ???

Without a clearance for approach, the situation was totally different...but in this precise case..I would have kissed the runway the same way..and afterwoods bla bla with atc...

[FCS Explorer]

why are you on approach/final/short final?

BECAUSE you want to LAND. so continue inbound an if no-one else taxis onto the rwy just put it down and taxi clear.

what else you gonna do? fly the standard missed, hold for 5 minutes, fly the standard approach....? possible, of course. sensibel?? dunno.

[merlinxx]

They did the right proc in comms failure a far as Int'l Regs are concerned, full stop!!!!!!!!! Bad grammer yes, correct procs, yes.

[timzsta]

Better to be down hear wishing you were up there then being up there wishing you were down here.