What would/should you do?

[strake]

A question:

On a recent check-out flight complete with instructor we were re-joining the circuit (VFR) at an "international" airport whilst working the approach frequency. Having been cleared to join base we were instructed to call Tower. TWR responded to our call with "Standby". We continued on long-ish base for 10 secs or so and tried again "Standby" was the response. By now we realised that TWR was talking to an "historic" fast-jet on the ground. TWR was having a "chummy" conversation rather than "clipped instructional" and, whilst we were only coming in on the discussion halfway, it seemed to be about waiting for slots and best time for light-up etc. With the extended centre-line approaching we managed to get a call in again and were told in no uncertain terms to "standby". By now we were approaching the turn for finals. We did not know the number of A/C in the circuit and had not received clearance to continue. So...what would you do now......?

[foghorn]

Did you give a position report in your initial calls to TWR? 'Anytown Tower, G-ABCD joining left base'.... 'Anytown Tower, G-ABCD left base approaching final turn'. That's what I would do.

If that elicited no response, and given that this is Aerodrome Control (since you've said his callsign was tower) I'd fly a normal circuit, turn final and then immediately go around, following the standard circuit applicable to the aerodrome in question as had been applied by Approach's clearance for a base join (so RH if a right base etc.) I'd call going around and then call again downwind and see what he said then.

I'd also be tempted to politely call ATC later just to find out what the hell was going on.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Depending upon what you can see around you, either...

(1) Make traffic calls, land normally.

(2) Continue to finals, go-around, announce that you've done so, ask what the problem was on the runway.


I have done both on occasion, (1) generally results in no response at-all so long as your positioning and calls were correct, (2) causes a hell of a fuss if there was no good reason for you to do a go-around.

G

[Carlito]

You were cleared to base and instructed to call TWR. So you were perfectly entitled to be where you were. In a controlled environment you are only allowed to the limit of your clearance so I would assume you had no right to turn final. I would have called, "ABC, ready to turn final." If told to Standby again: "ABC, request clearance to final". What to do then? Orbit?
What DID you do?

Carlito

[Carlito]

I know how to fly an extended downwind. How do you fly an extended base?!

[Lowtimer]

Strake,

I've had something vaguely similar, though not because the tower was busy chatting away, but becuase the frequency was blocked by another excessively long-winded caller telling his life story in a request for flight information.

I had reported downwind and been asked to call final. That time I did much the same as Foghorn suggests, i.e. continued the approach onto final, proceeded down to about 100 feet and since unable to get a word in, and therefore not cleared, I went around and called again downwind. Emergencies apart I'd prefer not to land without a clearance under a full ATC regime where clearance is required - I'd be too worried about the safety of my precious and recently gained licence...

[Carlito]

Lowtimer, That's OK if you're cleared to base and asked to call final. THerefore you are not cleared to land and you didn't. Excellent.
But in strake's case, he was cleared to base, not final. Surely turning final without clearance is (almost) as bad as landing without clearance. Remember, there are right-of-way piviliges for aircraft on finals!
Carlito

p.s. strake, what did you do, the suspense is killing me!:eek:

[FWA NATCA]

You were right in how you flew your pattern, but I would not land without a clearance unless it was an emergency, to have done so could put your license in jepordy.

As for the controller chatting away with another pilot, I might become alittle sarcastic by the time I turned final after being told to standby several times while the controller chews the fat by saying, "If you are not done chatting with the other pilot I'd appreciate a landing clearance before I touch down, then you can finish your conversation."

Mike

[Chilli Monster]

As others have said - on your initial call did you just state your callsign, or did you say that you were joining along with your position.

If the former then it is possible that the ATCO concerned didn't appreciate that you were joining - he may not have been pre-noted by approach (in which case the Approach controller wants a good talking to!). If you did then the Tower controller needs a serious amount of re-training by not prioritising his workload.

As for your actions - fly a normal circuit, do a go-around from it (That should get his attention) and then when he finally clears you to land and you get into the clubhouse a phone call not to the ATCO concerned but to his supervisor / manager. His (in)actions have shown an amazing lack of situational awareness (a pre-requisite of the job) after all and need to be addressed.

CM

[hihover]

FWA NATCA - What kind of forum is this to promote sarcasm whilst in a tense predicament?

The interrupted conversation was ongoing, right or wrong, he was told to standby, repeatedly - end of story. There is no room in that situation for ambiguity, sarcasm or continuance through the previous clearance. A go-around could easily have been initiated on base leg with a subsequent telephone call to the control tower to complain or clarify what had happened.

If I were examining a candidate on an RT Test or on a flight test and the suggested sarcasm was used, it would certainly have put his licence in jeopardy.

You, as an Air Traffic Controller, should know better.

I am sure you have heard sarcasm in many forms on the radio, as I have, one thing is common to all those conversations - they go nowhere.

[strake]

Sorry chaps/chapesses been driving home...

To answer the first questions.....we were cleared to join base and reported that to TWR on initial handover from Approach.

The choices we saw were:

1. Continue and land.

2. Continue and overshoot

3. Continue past the extended centreline onto the deadside and orbit.

5. Say " s*d you you miserable b*****s and go somewhere else!

6. Orbit

Despite the attraction of 5., we decided to do 3.

Reasons:
We presumed deadside was clear because Approach had not
been talking to any overhead joins as we approached.
We knew Right base was (should) be clear because RH circuits were not in operation.
We quickly flipflopped to Approach and told them our intentions before going back to TWR.
Outcome:
As we commenced orbit on RB, TWR (presumably having been shouted at by Approach) cleared us to finals.
We requested a "come to Jesus" meeting after landing but everyone seemed rather busy.
Thoughts:
Most pilots have come up with the various solutions discussed so far but I was interested to see if there was a definitive "right way"
What amazes me, on reflection, is how quickly one has to make the decision. Half the time it takes you to read all this....!

[Keef]

hihover - I don't think a brief bout of sarcasm is unreasonable in the circumstances. If someone tried to fail me on a checkride for that, I'd probably be writing to the FAA or CAA about it. Obviously, it shouldn't go over the top.

strake - You don't say if the Controller knew you were on baseleg, or if you said that on your radio call. My inclination when told to "standby" again would be "G-XX right base, requests landing clearance". If he said "standby" again, I'd say "G-XX going round" and flip back to Approach.

I thought aircraft in the air had priority over those on the ground? So the vintage paraffin-burner on the ground can wait while you get your landing clearance - it should take only a second or two, after all.

The right way - I doubt there is one. The situation shouldn't occur! Options are to ignore the "standby" and ask for landing clearance, or to flip straight back to Approach and say "Tower isn't responding". Neither will make you any friends, but might get you a result.

[Carlito]

Well Done Strake!
I'd have orbited. You weren't cleared to final.

Carlito

[strake]

Keef

I say again: we were cleared to base and reported that to TWR on handover.

Carlito amigo......I think we think the same......:)

[Keef]

strake - sorry, missed that. Yep, what you did wasn't wrong!

I think I'd have made more noise about it when I got back on the ground, but that's optional.

[Chilli Monster]

Carlito & Strake

I'd love to know what you mean by 'cleared to final'.

If I'm busy on a landline, co-ordinating or getting an airways clearance I would not expect someone on a base leg or downwind to start orbiting just because I hadn't asked him to "report final" straight away. Orbiting should only be by ATC instruction - what if you get someone behind you bearing down on you (that you haven't appreciated is there) and you suddenly turn back into them for no reason other than you're unsure where to go.

The idea behind a circuit is you follow it and everyone else in it, initiating a go-around if need be. You never self initiate an orbit - I've had people do it to me "for spacing" not realising that someone was behind them - I wasn't impressed and they soon found out I wasn't! :mad:

CM

[strake]

Chilli Monster

That's why we went deadside and told approach what we were going to do...

[matspart3]

I agree with Chilli Monster. Chucking in an orbit for good measure can sometimes bu**er up a perfectly good sequence and, unless you consider that the safety of your aircraft is compromised..wrong!

Thinking logically you hadn't really been 'Cleared to Base', you'd actually been cleared to rejoin the circuit via base leg. There's no requirement for you to 'Report Base' so the correct course of action should be to turn (and report) final. If no clearance is forthcoming by your commital height, you must go-around.

One other point is the significance of the standard word "Contact...". The CAP413 definition is (without looking) "Establish communications with XXX, you're details have been passed." This means that the TWR controller should have known who, when and where you were and what you were doing. Technically, on this occasion there was no requirement for you to say anything other than "XYZ Tower, G-ABCD" on your initial call.

This is often forgotten. If I had £1 for every call along the lines of "ABC Tower, this is G-WXYZ, with you, at this time, on your frequency 123.45MHz, joining base runway 27, QFE..., Surface wind" etc. I would definitely have retired!! :)

It's normally the Approach Controller's responsibility to co-ordinate your arrival with Tower and it's unlikey the TWR controller would have approved your direct join without having a rough idea whether or not it would work.

Pity the ATC Unit concerned weren't able to assist you after the event though, hope my twopenneth helps!

[Chilli Monster]

So - taking the questioning one stage further - how do you know they had a deadside?

If this place was an 'international' airport as you describe it the chances are that there would be no laid down circuit direction - they would all be by ATC instruction. (Notwithstanding many places have circuits to only one side, it doesn't stop them joining traffic and using both sides of the circuit).

So - if this is the case your crossing the centreline could have put you in direct conflict with traffic joining the other side if it had been just told to do so by approach - before you switched back to approach to inform them of what you'd done.

Bearing that in mind - option 2 would have been better (but not knowing where the place in question is means that you won't get a definitive answer).

CM

[Aussie Andy]

Hi all,

I agree with CM, I've never regarded a circuit as a series of separate clearances, i.e. clear on to d/wind, then clear onto base, and then onto final etc. The clearance is into the circuit. Technically, I think you could just stay in the circuit at ciruit height if you had to. But that'd be dumb...

What I'd do is say hello, i.e "TWR G-ANDY on Left Base for RWY 25" or somesuch, then keep doing my thing. If no clearance or acknowledgment other than "STBY" came my way by, say, 200~300' I'd pointedly announce "G-DY SHORT final", and if still no reponse then, assuming the runway was clear, I'd wait until about flare height then add power and call "G-DY GOING AROUND", then I'd repeat the exercise: next call would be on downwind leg.

If this went on for a REALLY LONG TIME I'd make a PAN call and declare a fuel emergency I suppose, or pi$$ off somewhere else. Unless the radio had gone COMPLETELY silent, in which case I'd've been looking for signal lights, and would've checked my radio still worked on other frequencies ;)

[DFC]

The thing to do is to follow the circuit. After all the rule of the air require all aircraft in the vicinity of and aerodrome to follow the circuit or avoid it. Orbiting without ATC clearance is not following the circuit.

Approach will have co-ordinated your joining the circuit with the tower in advance. Furthermore, the zone is approach's airspace and that includes the circuit so approach will be aware if the circuit is active.

Flying onto the deadside when cleared to join on base leg is against the rules of the air.

Finally, ATC have no separation responsibility for VFR flights in class D airspace.....the pilot must look out and separate him/herself from other aircraft. ATC will assist with traffic information etc but when on base leg, the responsibility for separation from aircraft on final including B747s making IFR approaches rests with the pilot alone. ATC will provide traffic information and wake avoidance information (recomended spacing). Although this is a minimum and ATC may provide further assistance.

So taking the above, I would have joined base and final and if no landing clearance was received and the converdsation was continuing, I would go-arround at 200ft to make another right hand circuit.

One can not land without clearance except in an emergency.

Thats my $.02 worth.

DFC

[Tinker]

This is only my opinion and hopefully someone will correct me but orbiting on your own accorod is equally as bad as turning base with traffic on a straight in approach.
I would have called turning base, called final (and distance) and if no further respose (assuming that tower was genuinely 'nattering') asked for a confirmation of landing clearance from the ground freq' telling them that twr was congested etc. chances are these guys are sat next to each other. If no positive response you have got to go round. I would have made a few phone calls after that.

I use the example of calling ground as it is something I did in the states when a student in another aircraft either had a stuck PTT or kept her finger on it. I was outside of class D and wanted to go home.

[FlyingForFun]

Having read all the previous responses, I think I agree that you should have turned final (after visually checking that no one was on a straight-in), called final, and then gone around from as low level as you were comfortable with if you still hadn't received a landing clearance. You were cleared into the circuit, and therefore should have flown the circuit - the next clearance you were expecting was to land.

BUT - I only came to this conclusion after reading all the other comments, and filtering out the replies that seemed to make the most sense. When I first read your post, my initial reaction was that I had absolutely no idea what I'd have done in a similar situation. You said you were surprised how quickly you had to make the decision, and I can certainly believe that. So well done for handling the situation in an appropriate manner. I think the comments which people are making about orbiting without being told to do so are understandable and correct, but the criticism seems harsh to me.

FFF
--------------

[Grim Reaper 14]

NO question, I would have gone for your option 4.;)

[englishal]

Me..I would have continued, turned final, called final (assuming safe of course), requested permission to land, then gone around (and probably been sarcastic on thr radio;)). As Chilli Monster mentioned, some of the 'bigger' airports do not have a circuit laid down, even though it says in the Botlang manual. Example is Bournemouth, where aircraft arrive from the North, South, ILS, NE, SE, NW, SW blah blah but NOT overhead (as in VFR join)....Also its worth remembering if you fly into an airport with parallel runways, where you don't want to overshoot the extened ctr line.

Cheers
EA;)

[dublinpilot]

Strake,

I have to agree with FFF, in that, my opinion has changed from reading the responses here.

First thoughs were.....what the Fu...!!! I'd probably have orbited too...but in the panic of having to make a quick decision, i would probably had done it on the end of base leg, where I would avoid someone on a staight in approach.

Congrats for having the presence of mind to quickly think of another option, and do it on the dead side (if it was indead dead!).

But having read the other responses I think correct action would have been to turn final and announance, followed by a go-around.

I guess that's what they mean by learing from someone else's mistakes!!:) :)

Thanks for posting it here.:)

[Hooligan Bill]

I do not believe that there is actually a 'right' answer, there are circumstances where taking either option, continuing to final or orbiting on base leg may cause problems. However, the simple fact is it is the Aerodrome Controller's responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic in the circuit, if necessary by exercising positive control over traffic under their jurisdiction. In this scenario this has not been achieved, the pilot has not been given enough information to decide what would be the best course of action. Therefore, if anything untoward was to happen I believe the responsibilty would lie on the shoulders of the controller.

Secondly a number of people have suggested continuing dowm to 200-300ft before commencing a go-around. Not a good idea, if the controller is not prioritising properly there is a possiblity that there may be vehicles or personnel on the runway which have also been 'forgotten' about. If you descend below 500ft over the top of these you could yourself be in breach of the low flying regulations. It is always best in these situations to be as squeaky clean yourself as is possible, especially if you wish to take the matter further. :)

[FlyingForFun]

Hooligan, a couple of points:

Therefore, if anything untoward was to happen I believe the responsibilty would lie on the shoulders of the controller
I'm sure that's technically correct, but it's not much comfort to anyone concerned if a mid-air results. The final responsibility for safety always lies with the pilot, and there's a good reason for that.

If you descend below 500ft over the top of these you could yourself be in breach of the low flying regulations
I don't think that would apply here, since low-flying rules don't apply when you're making an approach to land. It's not unusual to get a clearance very late (even though it's unusual to be ignored until this point), so I think strake would have been quite justified in continuing his approach as normal, with the expectation of being cleared to land. Interesting to hear what other think on this one, though - as you say, certainly doesn't harm to do things by the book if matters are going to be taken further.

FFF
-----------

[Aussie Andy]

G'day Hooligan, not sure I fully agree with your concerns re- the vehicles etc. because:

a) Presuming we're visual with the RWY (we're talking VFR, right?) then we can see if the RWY is clear and if not obviously should not descned that low. But if clear you could descend to 1ft if you chose... (I'm not promoting that idea, just making the point) then go around; and

b) I think the 500' rule does not apply when approaching to land (but ready to be told otherwise by this august body :))

Fabulous thread - best that we all think these things through before they happen, eh!

Edited to say: Bugg*r! - I see FFF has beaten me to it ;)

[FNG]

What's all this about being "cleared" to turn final?
You have been given permission to enter the ATZ, and to join the traffic pattern. You don't need a clearance to fly each separate leg of the circuit.

I would turn final and either (1) call "final and going around at circuit height" (ie not descending) or (2) continue descending on final for a time but, if not cleared to land by, say, 300 feet agl, go around from there, calling it as you do so. All of this of course subject to the position of other traffic.

I would prefer going around to orbiting on or near base, as if going around you are moving through the circuit pattern in a manner which is predictable to other traffic and to the controller. Being in a place where people don't expect aircraft to be increases the likelihood of not being seen by other aircraft. OK everyone in the vicinity should be looking out and listening out, but we all know that not everyone does, and even the most alert can still miss things.

I don't think that landing without clearance would be a good option at a full ATC field (absent an emergency).

Also, why any need for sarcastic R/T calls, or even any post-landing chats with controllers? There might be all sort of good reasons why the controller can't talk to you. So maybe you had to go around, but that's surely no big deal.

edit: I posted before reading through all of the contributions from FF, DFC, Aussie Andy and others and so have repeated some of what they said.

[sharpshot]

I fly at an International Airport. You were cleared to base - you were not asked to report ready for base.
Therefore, once on base, nobody ever asks when you are ready to turn final - that turn you make of your own accord. (Exception maybe needed on an ILS to lose more ht. and dogleg etc to capture the glide).

So, methinks you turn final and confirm you are finals to land.
Let's face it, he / she was probably looking at you on a screen, but a little communication would have helped!

Take it you were in a single as no ref to a decision ht?
Agree with last poster - beating up the field at low level does one no favours - Go Around from a sensible ht.

[distaff_beancounter]

I think my preference, (with the benifit of 20/20 hindsight!) would have been:-

Call each part of the circuit, each time I was told to "Standby" just to inform other traffic of my position, eg
"G-ABCD downwind, left hand circuit for Runway 26"
"G-ABCD left base for Runway 26"
"G-ABCD final for Runway 26"

Then:-
- continue approach to about 300ft,
- go-around into left hand circuit

"G-ABCD going around into left hand circuit, due to no landing clearance received (in irritated tone!)"

[Spitoon]

Repeating earlier posts a bit but from what you say you were cleared to join the circuit on base leg without any additional restriction. I would expect you to join on that leg and continue around the circuit as you would normally making the appropriate calls. If you don't get a landing clearance - for any reason - then go around.

That's the easy answer but, as was pointed out earlier, it's a situation that really shouldn't arise. I don't think anyone has suggested that this was anything other than very poor practice - have you taken it up with the airport authority? Perhaps a letter to the Airport Manager, copied to the CAA, might get you a decent response.

Whatever you do, some of the comments being made are in the thread are rather worrying and show some basic misunderstandings about ATC. Not wishing to pick on sharpshot particularly, but
* the idea of having to do a dog leg to lose height and get on the glidepath means that some other procedure hasn't been followed correctly,
* TWR controllers may have a screen in front of them (these days they probably have a multitude of the darn things), but these are aids to controlling the traffic. It's mainly done by looking out ou the windows. - that's why they're so big. :)
* decision height is nothing to do with the type of aircraft but is associated with precision instrument approach procedures. Having said that, it is good airmanship to have a height in mind at which you will go around if no landing clearance is received.

[Keef]

I think the collective minds of PPRuNe have come to the right answer!

Approach "cleared" you to join the circuit at left base. The Tower didn't tell you to "call before turning final", so you can do that, too.

I fly at an airfield with Approach and Tower, and it's not at all unusual to turn finals and be told "continue approach". Usually, I can see the aircraft ahead or on the runway - either about to turn off, or about to takeoff. Sometimes, I can't see any reason for not getting the landing clearance - then the little tractor nips across the runway.

Even though we're all supposed to know the answer to this one already, I feel happier now and know what I'll do if it happens to me. Thanks for the question!

[sharpshot]

Spitoon - We have big planes on release from airways and occasionally they cannot lose the ht to intercept the glide.......hence my reference to a dogleg.......taking them through the loc. and coming back on........all under radar headings:)

I was only offering it as a potential reason for not actually turning on to final app. We can't all sideslip.......:D :D

[hihover]

Good thread guys, lots of interesting opinions.

For me, the most important point highlighted was the time factor involved. A decision was required pdq. A decision was made and it worked.

Spitoon - are you ex crab spitoon?? This is Tam.

Keef - no-one would fail a flight test for sarcasm, they would, however, be penalised if sarcasm was used in lieu of a decision at a critical point such as described by Strake. You can write to as many agencies as you like, sarcasm cannot be used as a substitute for airmanship and captaincy.

[strake]

Well thanks for all the replies...it's been useful to read other peoples thoughts.

On reflection, it probably would have been correct to continue and keep calling on finals then go around if necessary. However, it did seem a bit of a strange situation at the time and so unlike normal operations at the airfield.

A couple of people have responded to responses to responses etc and I think a bit of Chinese Whispers has crept in.
To repeat, we flipflopped back to Approach to tell them what was going on and that we were crossing the extended centreline to deadside. He "rogered" and told us to go back to TWR. Within seconds, TWR had cleared us in. We did not actually do an orbit....but, I admit we probably would have when further away.

A lot of people seem to be bristling with rage about sarcasm etc. We did not say anything while in the air and I don't believe that ever achieves anything anyway. The purpose of my question was not to apportion blame to TWR or anyone else (especially me... ), I just wanted to find out what other peole would do....and now I know!;)

[RotorHorn]

Good posts. I learned from it. I'd have been a bit nervous about turning final as well, but the go-around option is definately the way to go...

For my two-penneth, don't try orbiting dead-side at Blackpool as you might meet an R22 head-on.. they tend to use the deadside for helo circuits (that's when we HAVE to do circuits ;) )

[hihover]

Strake - the criticism of sarcasm crept in as a by-product of your initial question, that's all. My points were directed at those who felt it would have been an acceptable option.

Good thread! Scary isn't it, when you know you have to do something, but you're not really sure what.

[strake]

hihover

On looking at the posts, it appears I am having a go at you re critisism 'coz your post is above mine....I'm not. I think your post came while I was writing. I was actually refering to a couple that came in yesterday. :)

Yes, most situations allow for a bit of thought-time this one didn't...maybe I should take up rotary-wing.....

[alphaalpha]

Something does not quite add up, or is not complete, in Strakes's original word-picture of the situation he faced, since it is hard to comprehend that a TWR controller would behave as described to an aircraft within around 1 minute of landing.

Three possible explainations:

1. Assuming your calls to TWR were callsign only, the TWR controller may have thought you were on the ground. In this case giving priority to the jet may well have been correct, eg if he was trying to get him away on a fast-approaching slot. Here the problem was poor coordination between APP and TWR. Resolve by making clear in your second call eg '[callsign] Final.'

2. Was the TWR service an ATC service or was it an RADIO or INFORMATION service where no cordination is provided from approach? An example could be "Wolverhampton International,"
where approach functions are provided by Shawbury or Birmingham, but the airfield service is AFIS. If this were the case, I think you would have been entitled to land (if safe) as the AFISO cannot provide clearances.

3. TWR was having a bad hair day.

[FormationFlyer]

Ive just happened across this thread.....and have a few
comments to make.

[Rant mode on]

1. i am OUTRAGED :mad: at 'Genghis the Engineer' - and engineer you might be because airmanship is not in your vocab....

causes a hell of a fuss if there was no good reason for you to do a go-around.

No good reason?!?! No good reason?! You need a good reason to LAND *not* a good reason to go around...if my students took this attitude they would be set right fairly quickly...one reason for go-around 'not happy with ANYTHING' - and I can probably list at least another 6. Perfectly valid reason....mutter mutter.

[Rant mode off]

2. Cleared to final?! If you are on base or cleared to join base then you can proceed to base....there is no clearance to 'final' once cleared to base...if you are on base then you have little choice but to turn final and execute the go-around (i suggest by 200'). If on the other hand you simply 'fly away' you have broken the patterns and you become an aircraft milling about the place - a nightmare for ATC & other pilots. So you execute *known* procedures.

3. The ATCO needs to be reprimanded. An aircraft on approach has priority over ALL other traffic. The *other* aircraft should have been told to 'standby'. I personally would lodge a formal complaint against the ATCO for ignoring an aircraft in the air on approach and favouring one on the ground...The only time this is acceptable is if there is immediate danger to the aircraft on the ground...in which case the airbourne aircraft should be told to go-around off of the approach.

4. Landing?! Who suggested that?! Without a clearance it shows a huge disregard to airmanship, and clearly against rules. Unless you are in an emergency situation then you should go-around. If you lose radio contact and are not cleared to land you go-around...

5. Verbal over the air....eh?! Lets be sensible about this...if you wanna argue/sneer/be sarcastic keep it OFF the RT and onto the telephone after you have landed. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE over the RT. Simply follow standard procedures.

ho hum. I must say its no wonder the CAA regulate heavily given some of the rather niave and blantant breaking of rules advised here....I thought most pilots were more sensible...certainly there are one or two here I would not like to meet in the air.... :(

As an instructor there are really only two options available - orbit or fly the approach & miss-approach. If it messes up the controller - tough luck - he should correct his priorities. Personally I believe the approach & go-around to be most appropriate, given a clearance to base. However, If i did not know the traffic situation I would orbit. (In the direction of the circuit(if known) or left-hand. Although orbiting produces its own somewhat ambiguous problems.

Hope this helps.

[FormationFlyer]

Wolverhamption is called Wolverhampton Business Airport AFAIK...not international.....

TWR *is* an ATC service - unless the post is incorrect. Because the callsign for the a/d would be radio or information NOT...xx TWR.

It obviously wasnt an AFIS...because in either case they do not control *anything* airborne (or in the case of radio - anything at all).

Given there was an instructor on board we can safely assume a clearance to land was necessary...

[Genghis the Engineer]

FF, If you joined an airfield and an inept operator told you to land with a 15kn tailwind would you simply obey, or would you question it?

G

[Chilli Monster]

FF However, If i did not know the traffic situation I would orbit.
I sincerely hope not - for the reasons stated earlier in the thread.

Ghenghis A captain is wholly responsible for his aircraft - the ATC is only partly so, and if deprived of information about what is going on, and presented with an empty runway, I can think of worse options than to land and turn off asap
Unfortuanately I can also think of a reason why this is a bad thing to do - the apparently clear runway which suddenly becomes blocked by an aircraft on tow which has been legitimately cleared to cross. That would be very nasty indeed :rolleyes:

CM

[Genghis the Engineer]

The comment CM's quoted I decided I didn't like (along with some other stuff) and deleted about 5 minutes after making it. Oh well.

But you do emphasise the valid point, that our hero was put into a position where no action, or inaction, avoided the risk of problems entirely.

G

[FormationFlyer]

Genghis

BTW ATC dont 'tell' you to land - they 'clear' you to land - two very very different things indeed. obey? It is not an order - it is a clearance which I do not have to take up - I can go-around even IF cleared to land....

So..Yes I would question it. I wouldnt argue...I would simply state..

'Unable to comply due tailwind component. Request rwy xx.'

I believe that covers it.

Chilli

As for orbiting - I did say that brings with it its own problems. But if you are concerned about the possibility of traffic on final approach you have little options left....hence my comments...I dont necessarily advoate orbiting - and it should not be taken lightly....but orbiting is not a dangerous manoeuvre if the a/c behind is actually using his eyes (remember folks - this is a VMC manoeuvre in a VMC circuit ).....and obviously you would tell ATC on the radio as soon as possible...

And we should all remember that isnt it the definition of the AAIB - Where a committee takes 6 months to decide the action that should have been taken by a pilot who had 2 secs to make it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Being picky, whilst I know that ATC can't tell you to land, they can tell you if you're going to, which runway to land on. I had no doubt that you would question the instruction / clearance, my point was that sometimes one must question, or even in extremis disregard an instruction and announce that you've done so. The sin, IMHO, would be to do your own thing without talking.

w.r.t. Eyes open, a couple of weeks ago I was rejoining at Old Sarum, half way between Alderbury VRP and the airfield, I heard a Warrior (faster than what I was flying) call same join behind me. I made a precuationary call reminding Warrior that I was there. They couldn't see me, and did a couple of orbits until they did (I was slow, but painted bright yellow with a 30ft span, same level). Assuming other pilots have their eyes open isn't always a safe option. (Fully accept my RT was totally non standard at the time, but infinitely preferable to a PA28 up my backside, so far as I know neither the other pilot nor OS Radio had a problem either).

G

[Whirlybird]

Having been busy the last week, I've only just come upon this thread; interesting stuff.

Virtually the same thing happened to me recently, at Wolverhampton (Business Airport, known colloquially as Wolverhampton International, owing to their obvious delusions of grandeur :D) WBA has only recently become ATC, and controllers aren't used to it yet, and neither are pilots. I was in an R22, and doing the usual helicopter low level approach, and told "report final for south side grass". I did, and got no response. I repeated it, slowing down - as a helicopter can - still no reply. I then called, obviously urgently: "Wolverhampton Tower, helicopter G- XXXX, extemely short final for south side grass; please confirm that I'm cleared to land", at which point he finally did.

I'm not sure what I'd have done if I hadn't been cleared to land. Probably landed, though yes, it's strictly illegal. But it would have been safe, and I knew the ATCOs were having a hard time coping. But I know the airfield. At an unfamiliar one I'd likely have gone around.

In the long run though, it's not desperately important, so long as what you do is safe. The situation shouldn't happen, and it forces you to make a very quick decision. If it were easy, this thread wouldn't have run to four pages. So FormationFlyer, don't you think your comments are a little over the top? Some of these comments may not be perfect, but questioning people's airmanship! Come on now, had you had a bad day, or what? Because every post so far has been useful...and flame wars help nobody.

[tacpot]

Sorry, I thought WBA was known colloquially as Wolverhampton Intergalatic, owing to their landing fees being more appropriate to landing a Starship than a Cessna :D

(oops, wrong thread)

[Tinker]

Picking the bones out of the original thread the basic question was, should this aircraft turn finals? and in my opinion (and it appears to be the general opinion), yes. Next question what should one do from that point on due to a lack of landing clearance. Well rule 5, low flying rule is relaxed for any aircraft which lands and takes off in accordance with normal flying practice at a licenced aerodrome. So what at what height do you go around? answer...a safe height..or alternatively, how long's a piece of string(imho).
I wonder if the same situation would have occured if the aircraft was say a 737 full of slf ?

[FormationFlyer]

Whirlybird

Bad day - not at all.

Re my comments about go arounds - I see them as completely sound. Not flame at all. I was annoyed yes and admit that set the tone - but lets face it I try very hard to ensure students understand a go-around should be initiated when:

Approach is not stable
Runway is not clear, or is possibly not going to clear
Not cleared to land (if reqd)
If you are unhappy in any way about the approach.

I would suggest that 100-200' as a minimum height is appropriate for 'go around if not cleared by'.

Unfortunately I think your own comments show precisely the thing I am trying to train people against - continuing approach long after a go-around should have been commenced - and you do suggest this is (paraphrasing) 'ok because you know the a/d'. It s*not* all right....

As for questioning airmanship - every pilot should question it in themsleves and others. Personally if I stuff up Ill put my hand up straight away...ask Brize when I blundered into their airspace some time ago at low level...I put my hand up and took the bollocking (quite rightly so) - I called them whilst airborne even & had the phone number to call on my landing......im not perfect...far from it...but on the ground... forums like this can be used to help people formulate opinions about what would be the best thing to do...on the flight I just mentioned - I can list probably 3 major things I screwed up ith that put me in that situation...safe..well yes - at no point was the safety of any aircraft compromised...but it still matters doesn't it - because at that point it showed that I had made some bad judgements - now I have learnt from them...isnt *that* what its all about - and isn't that what we should be promoting here - learning and improvement.

One of the things I seek to improve is that every pilot should understand there is no pressing need to land regardless - do the right thing - if you arent happy go around... no problem there...

As for the ATCO...well its a two way process - some atc are good some are bad - some are incredible (hello brize, cardiff, gloucester and D&D!), if an incident occurs you must complain...I would certainly be phoning the SATCO to have a chat and see what the hell was going on...ok maybe not a formal complaint as an a/c was not endangered - ok I take that back - hasty annoyed typing does me no favours...

[Whirlybird]

formationflyer,

OK, I think the "correct" answer, as you say, should be: turn final, if not cleared to land, initiate a go-around from a safe height. Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if I was an instructor that's what I'd teach my students too.

But this thread is called "What would/should you do?" And perhaps we've been mixing up what you "should" do, from what you "would" do, in a real life situation.

In my situation, I could have initiated a go-around at any point whatsoever, even from low level at low speed; this is a helicopter we've talking about . And yes, I do have the experience to know I can do that safely. Though I'm not actually sure what the rules would be for that, on a low level approach to the south side grass - helos at WBA don't use the circuit; they come in below everyone else and land on the grass. But of course, in practice, I'd climb to a safe height and make a radio call. BUT I had been on frequency for a while, had excellent vis, knew there was no other traffic around, and certainly no other helicopters. A go-around in such a situation might be "right". But it would have been damn stupid.

I think the initiator of this thread (sorry, forgotten who you are by now!) was partly asking a similar question, ie are "should" and "would" necessarily the same, and is "would" necessarily wrong. I believe Genghis, as an experienced aviator, was making the same kind of point. After all, we're all human beings - even confused ATCOs at Wolverhampton Intergalactic (nice place to fly out of, for the record).

But yes, if we're going by the book, you're absolutely correct. Er...I think. (Have to put that, don't want to risk a good thread ending :D )

[Hooligan Bill]

FFF wrote

I don't think that would apply here, since low-flying rules don't apply when you're making an approach to land. It's not unusual to get a clearance very late (even though it's unusual to be ignored until this point), so I think strake would have been quite justified in continuing his approach as normal, with the expectation of being cleared to land. Interesting to hear what other think on this one, though - as you say, certainly doesn't harm to do things by the book if matters are going to be taken further.

Just to take a diiferent slant. In a situation where a controller knows that the runway is going to be occupied when a go-around is going to be executed i.e. it has been requested from an instrument approach or aircraft in the circuit, then the procedure is to issue a go-around instruction which includes a restriction to 400 feet or above the threshold elevation. While this is 100 feet lower than the 500 foot rule I believe it has its origins there. Rule 5 states the rule does not apply to landing and take off in accordance with normal aviation practises and it is my opinion that flying to within 50 feet or so of a vehicle or personnel is not 'normal aviation practise'.
Obviously in situations where the preceding aircraft is slow to depart or vacate the runway this procedure can not always apply and the go-around my be initiated from a lower level, but at an aerodrome with full ATC this will be in a 'controlled environment'.

AussiAndy also said that being VFR you should be able to see any obstruction on the runway. Don't you believe it. You may have read an article that occurred at the weekend in Brazil. A pilot put down on a disued airfield which is now used as a park by local people and manager to kill a woman out walking. Also I know of an incident where a pilot mistakenly made an approach to the wrong airfield and it was only when over the threshold it became apparent that the runway was closed and occupied by a number of maintainance vehicles. Apparently the workmen scattering was like something out of Benny Hill only a little more serious.

[Aussie Andy]

Hooligan - I was thinking of e.g. Wycombe Air Park not a disused somewhere in Brazil!!!

[Chilli Monster]

FF but orbiting is not a dangerous manoeuvre if the a/c behind is actually using his eyesOk, so let me run this scenario by you:

PA28 throws in a self initiated orbit, putting him head to head with the Beech 200 / Citation / Faster twin who is bearing down him. What options does that give the faster traffic who has been passed the traffic information and has fully accepted that they will have to extend downwind. Said trafic now has to take avoiding action in the circuit and possibly files an AIRPROX through the manoeuvere done by the orbiting traffic. By the time you tell ATC you're doing it the damage has been done.

Still think it's not dangerous? Just by saying you're going to do it doesn't make it right - it is potentially lethal.

So - I will re-iterate this again for the benefit of those that have not got the message:

Pilots should NOT self initiate orbits in the circuit :mad:

CM

[RotorHorn]

Whirly, if you come into a low hover (i.e. your skids haven't touched the ground).. have you technically 'landed'.... ? ;)

[Hooligan Bill]

Aussie

The second incident I mentioned happened at a UK aerodrome where there was more than one vehicle on the runway displaying the mandatory yellow rotating light.

[FormationFlyer]

Chilli

In the situation as you state I agree whole heartedly.
That is where situational awareness comes in - which will of course modify any actions you take....I agree that *normally* pilots should not self-initiate orbits - however I would not go as far as saying NEVER....the pilot is up there and ATC are on the ground - ultimately the pilot has to make the decision - given all the options available if the pilot believes that orbiting is the answer then so be it....I personally would say it is one of the last options I would take...extending legs or departing the circuit completely are the more preferable two...

As a twin pilot in the situation you pose the answer is clear - you orbit. You did allow yourself a reasonable separation for the a/c to land? - exactly - we arent flying in formation here....citation?! In the same circuit as a PA28? whoever mandated that needs their head examined - for a start the citation would be hard pushed to maintain the same circuit pattern...so lets keep it real shall we...Its as bad as putting grob 109s or microlights in the same circuits as pa28/c152 - you have 40kt difference in speed - it causes huge problems for pilots.

The answer is separation.

Anyway in your example clearly the pa28 pilot is wrong as he can and is expected to extend downwind...to orbit in this situation would show a complete lack of situational awareness on the part of the PA28 pilot.

However, extending downwind in the case in question was not an option - back to the orginal post...the pilot is on a base leg...if unsure what to do (i believe we all agree he should have gone to final and executed a go-around) what do you blasting through the final approach track - possibly to the deadside where descending aircraft may be more than a little surprised to you?

Ill give you an example...I was airborne with a student on a direct base approach, I called 'left base to land' and tower said 'WAIT'. This non-standard use of RT left me in an interesting situation - there was a heavy on final approach. Do I proceed to final? or do I HOLD or what?! Apparrently the controller meant 'STANDBY' - which if he had said I would have continued...but the non-standard RT meant I was now unsure where I should be going - particularly if I was being told to hold off....therefore a self-initiated orbit was sensible - it bought vital time to clarify the controllers meaning without the a/c flying into what could have potentially been a conflict situation...due to the nature of the a/d I did not know if another a/c was on final (particularly a heavy) because they would have been talking to a different controller.

As I say...never say never..its all a question of options...

[Aussie Andy]

Hooligan: yeah, but as you said it was someone landing at the wrong airfield - so the big issue is not the one under discussion here in that case, as presumably he/she would've been talking to the WRONG TWR, leading obviously to exceptional risks due to a failure of navigation.

But I take your point that one might not visually pick-up absolutely everything that might be about to cross the runway - fair point (but you'd hope if TWR had cleared e.g. vehicles across the RWY that he/she then WOULD be talking to the traffic on final!?)

:)

[Hooligan Bill]

Aussie

But I take your point that one might not visually pick-up absolutely everything that might be about to cross the runway - fair point (but you'd hope if TWR had cleared e.g. vehicles across the RWY that he/she then WOULD be talking to the traffic on final!?)

Glad to hear you feel it is relevant :) irrespective of it being the wrong airfield there were a number of visual clues which in theory should not have let the incident happen.

[Kirstey]

Chilli - I agree with your reasoning entirely.

From a legal perspective though an ATZ in class G airspace is class G itself if I'm right? In that respect there is no responsibility for the ATCOs to provide any seperation for VFR traffic.

I was always under the impression that you didn't need permission to enter an ATZ in class G airspace, you were just obliged to inform the ATSU of your intentions?

of this i may be wrong - and of course common sense needs to be factored in as well! but strictly speaking i think i'm right?

[Aussie Andy]

I think you do need to permission to enter an ATZ - at least at a controlled airfield - maybe you're thinking of MATZ Kirstey?

[Cat.S]

Strake- you were lucky you had an instructor with you. My all-time worst ( and only bad) experience with ATC happened on my solo cross country. I had been cleared by Approach to join left base, but only passed over to Tower towards the end of it. Tower did not answer any of my calls!
I knew there was another aircraft behind me, I could hear one downwind (it was a right hand circuit) and I could also see another on the runway for departure. Orbiting is out of the question, as is landing, so I did what I thought was right and went round at 1000' to fly a r/h circuit. The first acknowledgment from TWR was a very angry "unknown a/c going round...", as I was about halfway down the length of the runway.
After eventually getting clearance to land I was told to take the third turn off from the runway and by now, tired and flustered, I wasn't sure how many turnoffs I'd passed and asked for confirmation that this was the correct one. More tirade from this very grouchy female and a command to ring ATC from the firestation which was the reporting area. Consequence- my sheet marked as "showed poor airmanship due to poor radio procedure." Her explanation as to what I should have done- changed frequency back to Approach and talked to them again!
Really!! One thing's for certain- no amount of money could ever persuade me to visit this airport (famous for having two towers!) again!!

[Hooligan Bill]

As this scenario has been bugging me most of yesterday evening at work and this morning, I have done a bit of research and believe the following to be the 'book' answer. I standby for major disagreement.

An air traffic control clearance shall include the following items:

Aircraft identification
Clearance limit
Route
Levels of flight and changes of levels.

A clearance limit is defined as the point to which an aircraft is granted an air traffic control clearance and shall be specified by naming:

(1) an aerodrome
(2) a reporting point, or
(3) a controlled or advisory airspace boundary.

While not mandatory, base leg is a published reporting point in the circuit. Therefore if instructed to 'join base leg' by default this becomes your 'clearance limit'. The AIP then adds, in VMC or IMC, if a pilot is instructed to change frequency to contact another control and fails to make satisfactory two way contact, then the pilot shall revert to the orginal frequency and inform ATC of the situation.

Therefore, by the book, you hold on base leg and go back to approach and tell them you can not get satisfactory two way with the tower.

[Carlito]

I don't know if I'm repeating myself but:
I fly at an controlled airport. Sometimes I'm cleared base and final, sometimes I'm cleared base only. I presume, this means there's a difference. Therefore I should not turn final without clearance to do so.
I've flown at another controlled airport where, if it's quiet, the controller will ask you to report BEFORE base, then clear you to base, and ask you to report BEFORE final then clear you to final, then clear you to land. I know he got stroppy with me for turning base without clearance.
I remember an old joke where they say "Final is when you don't have to turn anymore to land."
I still would have difficulty turning final without the appropriate clearance to do so.
Carlito.

[Kirstey]

Hi Andy,

I'm clear on the MATZ situation. Not sure about ATZs though - certainly not sure at airports with full ATC. I beleve at airports with an AFIS or A/G service then you certainly don't need permission to transit through an ATZ, although the requirement is there to inform the ATSU of your intentions.

As for clearences within a circuit I would say that unless you were only cleared to a specific point then you fly the circuit as normal. If you are asked to report x,y or z then you do just that. Or as soon as is practical if the RTF is busy.

I have had a number of incindences at Shoreham where I cannot get a "downwind" call in until turning finals. Conversly at Southend I frequently get asked to report "when ready to turn left base" this is pretty implicit to me that I shouldn't be turning left base until the TWR is ready for me to do so.

[sharpshot]

FF

:confused: :confused:
Where do you aviate. Fortunately there are still some airports that mix traffic - I landed behind a DC-10 the other evening.

And last week I maintained 150 kts to 2:5 miles to keep ahead of a 757.

A Citation and PA-28 following each other can hardly be out of place in some patterns!!

The strangest thing I witnessed the other day was a Baron going round behind a powered microlight/hang glider (thingy) that was almost in reverse into a 12kt headwind.

Felt sorry for the guy in the Baron - it was all looking inevitable. That wasn't here, but it was at a field where 757's etc were parked:D :D

[Aussie Andy]

I think there's a difference between being cleared to a certain point, versus just being asked to report again at a certain point.

But reading the above, I think I am less sure now what I would do in the case where passed from APPROACH to TWR and getting no response from TWR. Base legs are short, so not much time to decide and then retune back to APPROACH, so how practical is that?

But I would expect that there has been proper coordination between APP and TWR on our behalf if cleared into base leg... how unfair is that story told by Cat.S above!???!?

Q) What airfield has two TWRs? Is this Manchester or somewhere "oop north" that we don't venture too much from "darn sarf" here???

[RotorHorn]

I think you just have to accept that everyone is human - yep, even ATCO's. And they can sometimes make mistakes - but given their workload at times, I think they do a lot better job than I ever could.

I was once cleared to cross the active runway from the south side of the airfield (with two towers? Think about it....:D ) to the northside back to the apron.

I asked if that was behind or in front of the landing Cessna? (It had been cleared to land a minute or so earlier, and was now directly above the numerals coming down said active runway.... ) :eek:

A momentary pause and 'after' was confirmed....

Otherwise could have been a good time to practice quickstops! (That's an 'avoidance turn' in plank-speak...). ;)

As Pilot in Command the final decision to obey ATC rests with you.

As does the consequences....good or bad.

[sharpshot]

Two towers:eek: we have two but only one is ATC but it confuses many:(
It's such a pity about the potential liability in naming names.....!

Strake couldn't even say where this kicked off. Ummm, somewhere with an App & Twr freq - and an historic jet based at same. Umm.

Aussie A - I know you r :cool: on the R/T, so in answer to you last,

Twr on one box and the App on the other. Or if you have one that flips from standby, its just a nudge of the button:D

[Whirlybird]

Kirstey,

You definitely need clearance to enter an ATZ. If the airfield is AFIS or A/G, strictly speaking you don't need permission to do anything (except on the ground if AFIS). But you would always be expected to ask first.

Rotorhorn,

Has a helicopter landed when it comes to a low hover? That's a really interesting one. I don't know. And if the answer's yes...what about a 10 ft hover, a 20 ft, 200 ft... What about hovering on final (if it's safe)? I suppose I could theoretically have hovered 20 ft from the south side grass, awaiting clearance to land. :eek: :confused: Does anyone know?

[FormationFlyer]

Sharpshot


Where do you aviate. Fortunately there are still some airports that mix traffic - I landed behind a DC-10 the other evening.


I think you misunderstood me....Mixed traffic - everywhere I fly pretty much is mixed traffic from lights & to heavies.

The point was not about final approach - but where you have two very different types of aircraft flying the SAME circuit pattern as opposed to different circuits.

i.e. Gloucester - Helo cct at 750, fixed wing at 1000, popham has different microlight & light a/c circuits, brize heavies go round at 1500' but lights go round at 1000' - again completely different size of circuit as well....

thus what I was talking about was a situation where you have a citation flying the same size circuit at the same height as a pa28 - it wont happen - the citation needs more space. As for final - well everybody ends up here eventually (I hope!!!) :D

Does that clear it up? sorry for any confusion.

-----------

ATZ is regulated airspace. With ATC you *must* obtain a clearance to enter it. At AFIS or Radio you will find the UK AIP says you do not need a clearance but must have appraised yourself of the traffic situation to the point that you can ensure the flight is safe. Or some such words to that effect.

Hope this helps.

[Hooligan Bill]

Whirlybird

Apparently ICAO Annex 14 Volume 2 para 3.1.28 (as was on 11/06/2001), defines air taxiing as a helicopter operating in ground effect with a ground speed of less than 20 knots. Therefore I would say you can consider yourself landed if you fulfill this criteria.:)

[Cat.S]

Aussie A.- it's not Man or LPL, but further north (one tower is a damn big one to the north west of the field!).

I know that, by the book, I should have retuned back to 'Approach', but I was too busy 'aviating' and 'navigating' to take my eyes away from the outside situation and vital instruments, to fiddle with the radio and 'communicate' and by the time I was in a position to give attention to anything other than staying in the air and not bumping into anything, I had established contact with TWR.
To give them their due, ATC was so busy that when it was time for me to go, it took 23 minutes from start up to managing to get a word in edgways to ask for taxi. The shame about the whole episode was that it took the pleasure out of completing my cross country successfully.
Once I was told to line up I found I had to ask for another runway as I was totally blinded by the low sun and by the time I returned to LPL the sun was actually setting and unfortunately I had to land straight into it on 27. Thankfully, I know LPL well and ATC helped with directions. I was saved from having to orbit until the sun had actually gone down, by making my turn onto finals past the centreline, based on ground features only, and luckily this angled aproach gave me visibility of the runway. It was no problem on the flare as the sun was now below the hump in the runway. I'd find this stressful now, but it was not an experience for a learner!

[Aussie Andy]

Jeez, you sure had a bad afternoon that day! But a good learning experience too by the sound of it!

[theRolfe2]

My 2cts:

I fly at Livermore, CA which has two parallel runways. If I'm on base and I don't get a clearance to land my choicees would be:

1. Straight on and do something else - not possible as I will cross the centerline of the other runway.

2. Turn downwind (away from the runway) - sets up a conflict with other people on final

3. Turn final and do a go around - the only sane choice. I'd add that I'd also sidestep the runway (away from its parralell neighbour) so I can see it.

theRolfe

[DFC]

A number of people have posed the question - what if there was an aircraft on final?

The answer is that a) the approach controller would have known about the aircraft and given traffic information but more importantly, when on base leg it is imperitive that the pilot looks along the final approach to ensure that there are no aircraft making a longer final approach than them. If there is traffic then you can position the aircraft behind it if required.

Orbits are not legal without ATC clearance...follow the pattern etc. Thus one can never orbit in the circuit at an airfield without ATC i.e. AFISO, A/G etc. What one can do however is leave the circuit and then re-join it in the appropriate manner if required.

There is also no overtaking or undertaking in the circuit thus a citation can easily fly a larger circuit between two PA28s and maintain it's position by not joining final ahead of the first and by the second not turning inside the citation. It's all in the rules of the air.

The 500ft rule does not apply to aircraft taking off or landing. ATC use 400ft when vehicles are on the runway. However if there was a vehicle on the runway and you commenced a missed approach at say 50ft then one could consider the matter of recless operation and endangering property possibly?

That's $.04 !! :)

DFC

[Final 3 Greens]

Strake

Interesting situation.

I would try to revert to APP and report that 2 way communication had not been properly establised, then ask for further instructions.

If I was too near the final turn, I would turn final, continue the approach, reduce to minimum safe approach speed and make a blind transmission to TWR declaring this - if he was still talking to the other traffic I would contact APP. Given a 2-3 mile final it would probably be all sorted out and a landing clearance issued.

However, if no landing clearance was received by say 200', I would overshoot and keep trying to contact TWR or APP.

These actions would be driven by my need to mitigate risk. It is always arguable which is the best approach, but I'd prefer to avoid penetrating the deadside, as lots of things can be hidden against ground clutter and the scanning area is bigger and I'd resist orbiting on base as it is a chokepoint where other traffic could be following (e.g. non radio if permitted, radio failure etc.)

DFC

Thus one can never orbit in the circuit at an airfield without ATC i.e. AFISO, A/G

Am I reading you right here? AFISO and A/G cannot issue ATC clearances - although AFISO can issue taxi instructions to the runway holding point.