Cleared to Land?

[Mikehotel152]

So Tower tells you to continue with your approach and then the frequency gets very busy and as you cross the threshold they haven't cleared you to land. Do you:-

a) Go around regardless of having landed at the airport loads of times and irrespective of having an empty runway ahead of you, or

b) Flare as usual, hold her just above the stall a few feet off the deck until you can get a request to land in to Tower, or

c) Land regardless of not having clearance and vacate asap, hoping they just forgot to utter the clearance because of the congested frequency, or

d) Something else...

[BackPacker]

I had exactly this on my third or so solo flight. I went around from about 50 feet I guess. I wasn't proficient enough then to fly it to the deck and hold off until I got my clearance.

Words from the tower: "Cadet XXX, cleared to... Never mind, I see you're going around."

[betterfromabove]

Unless you've got an emergency or some other very good reason to be on the ground, Not "Cleared To Land" is....Not Cleared to Land.

Ask yourself the same question for a take-off & you'll see what I'm getting at.

Always best to clear up any confusion with ATC after having done something positive like a making a go-around, rather than bluthering into a potentially unknown situation on the ground.

Some very good debate on this on the "Go-Around from 50 feet?" thread.

;)

[betterfromabove]

Backpacker - saw your comment about holding off for a substantial time in that other thread.

Further to what one other poster commented, this also seems to me a bizarre solution to a late landing clearance.

Have been in similar situations before on very long runways with commercial traffic ahead & behind.

Why don't you either reduce to min app speed (if nothing fast behind) or ask to "land long" & fly a standard (...even fast) approach but aiming further down the park??

As you state, seems a pretty vulnerable place to be, especially in a gusty crosswind, in the flare, visibility restricted, low & slow above the tarmac...

Just thinking, would be even less clever in a taildragger...

[Chilli Monster]

a) and b) should be the only options you should be considering, b) only if you're happy with doing that, followed by a) when it's evident a landing clearance isn't going to happen OR you can't land safely from it anyway

Bear this in mind - if you're given a continue then do that and say nothing. There's nothing worse from an ATC perspective than trying to issue a landing clearance and the frequency is blocked. Now, bearing in mind one of the attributes of being an ATCO is prioritisation then no matter whet everyone else is saying the call that deserves priority is your landing clearance - so you should get that without you having to re-request it. Everyone else should then be dealt with after you.

And if that doesn't happen - then go-around, and call going around when you are able to get a word in.

DO NOT, under any circumstances, do c) - then the paperwork starts and it won't go well for you.

[BackPacker]

BFA, I am referring to a situation where a light aircraft in front of me is late to vacate, I'm in a light aircraft as well and I'm approaching my home field which has a 2.2 km runway. There is no such thing as "min app speed" in the light aircraft I fly. There is a reference speed but in most aircraft the flaps are so effective that I can slow down from the top of the white arc to stall speed in ten seconds or so. And at my field light aircraft are sequenced so close behind each other that reducing speed does not make a difference. Landing long does buy you some time and of course if you see the situation developing early enough, that's exactly what you do. But if the landing clearance is late in coming I might already be so low that "landing long", in the sense that you alter your approach path to an aiming point further down the runway, is no longer an option. Flaring and holding off with a bit of power on is.

I would not do this at an unfamiliar field. I would not do this in an unfamiliar aircraft. I would also not do this in a gusty crosswind. But as I said in one of my posts in that other thread: it's a game you're playing. ATC knows the callsigns of the aircraft based there and sometimes tries to push things. If you're comfortable with that game, you can play along and this is one of the tricks we use. Within limits of course: a go-around should always remain a possibility.

[moggiee]

Quite simply, unless you have landing clearance, you have to go-around.

A flypast at 2' is NOT an acceptable alternative.

[Final 3 Greens]

DO NOT, under any circumstances, do c) - then the paperwork starts and it won't go well for you.

Interesting comment - I guess "any circumstances" assuming a normal situation.

Please forgive the thread creep, but there might be a little interesting learning in thinking about abnormal circumstances.

Let's take one abnormal scenario that could develop late in the approach.

You smell burning and see a little smoke coming out from the panel. Something has shorted out in the radio kit and killed the radio, so you can't hear the clearance.

Do you go around with a potential fire or land?

This scenario is not so far fetched, I had it at about 50 knots on the take off roll and rejected.

I guess that there is going to be a lot of paperwork anyway, so you might as well land :O

[IO540]

That's right, the pilot in command always has the emergency option.

If there is something going wrong in the aircraft, an uncleared landing is a legal option.

[Mikehotel152]

I think I would go-around (a) at most airfields because I don't think option (c) can ever be a sensible course of action even if you can get away with it. But holding off (b) at a big airfield where the ATC are clearly swamped by RT and you have plenty of runway to land on is a reasonable option IMHO (especially when that's what the instructor acting as PIC in the other seat is telling you to do).

[Chilli Monster]

Interesting comment - I guess "any circumstances" assuming a normal situation.

It does - for the purposes of saving or preserving life the action necessary to do that takes precedence.

[DFC]

Quite simply, unless you have landing clearance, you have to go-around.

A flypast at 2' is NOT an acceptable alternative.

Agree 100%

The reason for not being cleared to land could be that a vehicle is about to cross the runway at speed..........just as you are making your low pass.

Regards,

DFC

[betterfromabove]

Backpacker - Seems the original post has already been well answered by other people, but I'm still intrigued by this "long hold off in the flare with power" manouevre.

I realise your wish to defend your technique, but that seems like a long list of exceptions you've got there(!)

When you've got that many, there are some questions which come to mind:

- What happens if an unexpected gust suddenly "grabs" you while down there in the hold-off? You're sitting there quite a while by the sounds of things.
- What speed do you have on the ASI while all this is going on? If you are truly holding off & need power then you are behind the drag curve, in which case you're doing "min app speed" & you're nose-high & sinking without a good dose of power. Otherwise, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but you are not really holding off.
- Have you tried going around from this position? Does it feel secure? Nose high with moderate power doesn't sound like a good starting point if you ask me?!? Have you watched how much height you're losing?
- Ever asked a pax in the back how the manoueuvre feels?!?

Listen, I'm not an instructor, but not sure this is a technique that maybe you should be advocating to be used widely. I stand to be corrected.

And I still can't see this being at all a good idea in a taildragger, whether aiming to 3-point or wheeling it on.

Any instructors like to comment?

Yours
BFA

[Chilli Monster]

The reason for not being cleared to land could be that a vehicle is about to cross the runway at speed..........just as you are making your low pass.

And there you show your lack of understanding. You wouldn't have been given the instruction to "continue". "Go-around not below height 400ft" would have already been given on final.

If given "continue" it means the runway is occupied / has been allocated to someone else, but that is the only thing that is preventing you landing and we're waiting for the runway to become vacated - and expect it to be so by the time you reach the touch down zone, OR, in the case of UK ops, a "Land After" can be issued.

There will be no vehicles driving in front of you after that point (not intentionally anyway).

[Squeegee Longtail]

I had this situation many, many times during training (solos) and after, and have seen/heard many others.
There is an answer (d) that is used out there, which is to transmit over other traffic a request for landing clearance. Being closer to the tower than others (normally) the transmission can be recieved by ATC who then respond.
I don't condone and didn't resort to this, normally choosing the extended flare option, but understood the frustration in others.

[BackPacker]

- What happens if an unexpected gust suddenly "grabs" you while down there in the hold-off? You're sitting there quite a while by the sounds of things.

You do just as you do in the flare in a crosswind landing. Dip your wing towards the gust and keep the aircraft straight with the rudder. But you would not want to do this in gusty conditions.

- What speed do you have on the ASI while all this is going on? If you are truly holding off & need power then you are behind the drag curve, in which case you're doing "min app speed" & you're nose-high & sinking without a good dose of power. Otherwise, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but you are not really holding off.

Any powered approach (at least in small aircraft) when using the manufacturers numbers is behind the drag curve, especially the flare. Nothing special there. With flaps deployed, the nose is not all that high. And since you're in ground effect, the power required is less than you'd think. Still, I guess you need about 1800 rpm or so to float along. (For reference, cruise is 2350, max is 2700 rpm) Speed would be just above stall speed, as with any flare.


- Have you tried going around from this position? Does it feel secure? Nose high with moderate power doesn't sound like a good starting point if you ask me?!? Have you watched how much height you're losing?

At that altitude you can't lose much height or you land... :-) Otherwise the go-around is just applying full power, waiting for a speed increase, then climb away slowly. Raising the flaps depends on the aircraft involved - I probably would not do this in an aircraft that can't increase speed or climb away with full flaps.

- Ever asked a pax in the back how the manoueuvre feels?!?

Well, it feels like a touch and go, without the touch. Remember the attitude before the go-around is just a plain landing attitude with an extended flare. And after the go-around you're essentially in the same situation as just after rotation in a normal take-off.

Listen, I'm not an instructor, but not sure this is a technique that maybe you should be advocating to be used widely. I stand to be corrected.

I'm not advocating every student uses this in every situation. All I'm advocating is that if you're experienced enough in the aircraft and with the field involved, if the field is long enough and conditions are right, and your landing clearance is not forthcoming due to traffic ahead vacating late, then this might be a way to delay your go around decision.

And I'm not an instructor but I think if an instructor would do this hold-off-in-the-flare followed by a go-around with a student a few times during flight training, then that would greatly increase the students skill in manipulating the aircraft at low level.

And I still can't see this being at all a good idea in a taildragger, whether aiming to 3-point or wheeling it on.

I don't have taildragger experience and I don't know how well they can climb away once they're in their three-point attitude. But obviously you should not paint yourself in a corner with this - you should always have the ability (read engine power vs. drag) to actually do a go-around if needed.

[IO540]

It does - for the purposes of saving or preserving life the action necessary to do that takes precedence

which is almost everything in flying that might lead to a cessation of flight, since the unplanned cessation of flight is invariably fatal

[Piper.Classique]

I don't have taildragger experience and I don't know how well they can climb away once they're in their three-point attitude.Well, it depends on the taildragger. If you really must use that term. Conventional gear aircraft have, just like nosedraggers, different power/weight ratios. Some will climb from three point, some won't. I prefer not to climb on the back of the drag curve, personally. Though if you were doing this in a tailwheel aircraft you would probably not be doing it in a three point attitude but rather tail high as if for a wheel landing. So you would be in the take-off attitude anyway.
Personally, I would reckon to go around, rather than faff around, but to each their own. Try tugging at Lasham one day, with five tugs, two winches, lots of gliders and NO ATC. Find your bit of grass and weave around the landed gliders, crews going out to fetch them, and try not to drag your fifty metres of rope over a glider. Not to mention the glider pilots screaming for a launch.......They just hate it when you go for fuel:hmm:, never mind going around!

[DFC]

There will be no vehicles driving in front of you after that point (not intentionally anyway).

The ATCO is unable to get in on the R/T to pass a clearance.

Who other than the ATCO knows if the first words are going to be;

Go-arround

or

Cleared to land.

In the absence of the latter, I would do the former as with no ATCO input it is the one which assures safety.

Regards,

DFC

[effortless]

And then the bu**er charges you a touch and go!:E

[airman13]

my answer is ''go around'' , otherwise you will write a big report .....let somebody else to write it!

[stickandrudderman]

The general assumption here as a result of the OP's use of the word "Tower", is that landing is at the direction of ATC.
BUT, what if that assumption is wrong and the airfiled only has a/g?

[Andy_RR]

BUT, what if that assumption is wrong and the airfiled only has a/g?

...because there's no point in waiting for a landing clearance if it is only a/g, since you won't be getting one.

[Leezyjet]

Had exactly this happen today for the first time at the Pilot fly-in at Duxford.

Already done 1 g/a and on 2nd approach, the bi-plane ahead didn't vacate very quickly despite being told to, continued approach, saw it vacate, (both tar and grass) runway clear but radio blocked with people cutting over each other, not waiting before a response was given to previous caller and causing the afis guy to become a little confused as to who was where.

By the time we got the call in for exrememly short final, we had held off half way down the runway and passed the bi-plane that had vacated and had a clear runway ahead but before he could reply to us due to other people cutting in on the radio, we had already landed, so he just told us to vacate left and park.

Possibly not the right thing to do, but the circuit was extremely busy and didn't think going around again would help the situation by just adding another a/c back into it when there was no reason for us not to land aside from a busy radio -and no cars were about to cross in front of us before anyone pipes up, I could see that clearly wasn't going to happen otherwise I wouldn't have landed.

- awaits incoming flack !!.

:hmm:

[Blues&twos]

there was no reason for us not to land aside from a busy radio

And no landing clearance?

[dublinpilot]

And no landing clearance?

A landing clearance from an AFIS? I think the phrase you are looking for is "Land at your discretion" ;)

[Leezyjet]

A landing clearance from an AFIS? I think the phrase you are looking for is "Land at your discretion"

Exactly which is what I did. I waited until I had passed the previous a/c that had vacated, and both runway's (treated as one at Duxford) were clear and so landed.

What would have been the point in going back into an over crowded circuit with a clear runway ahead ? Even the AFIS guy realised that - he just told us to vacate and where to park as soon as he could.

As pilots we are expected to make decisions - personally I think in the circumstances I made the right one (and so did my fellow pilot passenger - and other fellow pilots who had landed about 5 mins before) although I'm sure others on here will disagree.

:)

[tmmorris]

Good question, actually (Chilli?) -

You are working an AFIS, you report final, and there is no reply. Are you allowed to land? After all, 'Land at your discretion' is not a clearance.

My understanding is therefore that you are within your rights to land, assuming you can see it is safe to do so.

Tim

[DFC]

AFIS has no relevance to the debate.

If you saw that the previous had vacated and the runway was clear then why not land at the appropriate point.

Aviate

Navigate

Communicate

When you do not need to obtain a landing clearance then why bother with the "very short final" call which is simply adding unnecessarily to the congestion on the freq.

-----------


And then the bu**er charges you a touch and go!:E


Ask for an invoice and a copy of the CA939 (?)

If they did not clear you to land / touch and go then they would have to fill out paperwork if you did one.............if of course they agree that you did not do one then they can not charge for one.

Regards,

DFC

[mixture]

From CAP393, Section 2, part 45 "Flights within aerodrome traffic zones"

45-(2) "An aircraft shall not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone unless the commander of the aircraft has complied with paragraphs (3), (4), or (5), as appropriate"


I'm not going to paste in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) ....because I think it's about time some people here refreshed their memory of Air Law ! Talk about picking up bad habits, remind me not to fly with some of you ! :eek: