Late clearences?

[charlie-india-mike]

Quick question?

How late would you expect to receive a landing clearence.

Yesterday, I was down to 100' and about 250 meters from the threashold without getting a landing clearence. There was nothing on the runway and I asked again for clearence to land and got a negitive in reply. This phased me a bit so I decided to initiate a go around.

What should I have done?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[LowNSlow]

I would have expected it sooner than that. Was the frequency busy?

[sennadog]

You did the best thing. If in doubt go around.

[Crosswind Limits]

I hear that heavies into Heathrow and other very busy airports occasionally get clearances in the flare! :eek: I guess that could be as low as 20-30ft rad alt. Not sure how common that is though! :D

[FlyingCesspit]

In terms of wht you should have done, you did exactly the right thing. In fact, you had no choice - if there is an ATC service then you have to have a definite clearance to land before you touch down - without that (inc. not getting a response) you have to go around.

I guess if the service is just "Radio" or "Information" you could elect to lanbd at your discretion, but it would clearly be irresponsible to do so if you have been advised not to.

[bookworm]

ATC doesn't withhold a landing clearance for the hell of it. Was there an aircraft within the cleared strip width (e.g. vacating but not yet past the holding point) but not actually on the runway? If not, it may be worth having an informal chat with ATC to find out what their procedures are -- it's helpful to understand such things to enable you to keep a firm grasp of the big picture.

Where did this happen?

[Final 3 Greens]

Again, a misconception about the authority of A/G and AFISO services....

Only ATC can give landing clearances. A/G and AFISO can give information only.

Flying Cesspit, you really ought to look up your air law textbook if you don't clearly understand this.

If you are not under ATC, it's your call totally.

CIM

IMHO you did the right thing - delaying your go around further would have been indecisive and making the decision more critical.

If it had been me, I would have been on the telephone to the ATCO asking why the clearance was delayed.

If I was not satisified with the response, I would have wished to talk with his/her supervisor about why causing a late go around is not a wise idea in terms of flight safety.

This is not being needlessy aggressive, ATC would (rightly) expect us to fly their clearances accurately, but they must understand that they have a responsibility to add to flight safety by sensible, early and well communicated decision making; mostly they do in fairness, but aberations should be discussed.

[charlie-india-mike]

Thanks for the reply's.

I don't want to identify the airfield at this point but it is ATC and not A/G


The full senario is as as follows

The airfield was busy with loads of aircraft asking for circuits

CIM: Parked, fan turning, all checks completed, ready to go
Call ATC G-XXXC good morning. expect G-XXXX pass message

ATC: "G-XXXX, taxi to holding point A1 via XXX cleared to cross YYY"

CIM: A bit confused but understand the clearence and start taxi to A1 (I thought that ATC may have known my intentions via telephone from my instructor.) On the way to the holding point...

ATC: "G-XXXX pass your meaasge"

Not expecting anything from ATC until power/take off checks done.
I'm now a bit confused. R/T busy at this point

CIM: "G-XXXX I didn't call"

ATC: "G-XXXX, I'm calling you! Pass your message"

I now realise that ATC want my details and intentions

CIM: details passed

All else as per the book, power checks complete, take off clearence given, take off and complete about 3 or 4 touch and go's. Circuit is busy with 4 or 5 others doing the same thing. (plus heli's on the other side) Round and round we go, happy as sand boys

Circuit in question:

CIM: "G-XXXX , downwind XX for touch and go"

ATC: "G-XXXX, number 3 to a YYY on final and ZZZ late downwind, follow ZZZ in front"

CIM: " Number 3, follow ZZZ"

Another aircraft G-AAAA turns downwind

G-AAAA: "G-AAAA, downwind XX for touch and go"

ATC: "G-AAAA, number 4 to a YYY,ZZZ,PA28 (CIM) follow PA28 in front.

G-AAAA: "Number 4 follow PA28"

Downwind and Base uneventfull , YYY cleared and lands, ZZZ turns base then final and reports. CIM turns final and reports

CIM: "G-XXXX, final for runway XX"

ATC: "G-XXXX. number 2 ,continue approach"

CIM: "G-XXXX, number 2 , continue approach"

ATC: "ZZZ, surface wind xxxx, cleared to land"

ZZZ: "G-ZZZZ, cleared to land"

G-AAAA: "G-AAAA, final for runway XX"

ATC: "G-AAAA, continue approach"

G-AAAA: "Continue approach"

ZZZ does his touch and go. CIM now at 300' on approach and expects clearence. No such luck.

The next transmission took me by suprise!!!!!

ATC: "G-AAAA, surface wind xxx, cleared to land runway xx"

G-AAAA: " G-AAAA, cleared to land, runway XX"

CIM is now confused:confused: :confused: :confused: and at 100'

CIM: " G-XXXX, does G-XXXX have clearence to land"

ATC: " G-XXXX, negitave"

At this point I decided that it was time for some positive action on my part and initiated a go around. Got the aircraft climbing and configured for the go around

CIM: "G-XXXX, going around"

ATC: "G-XXXX , garbel, garbel"

CIM: " G-XXXX, say again"

ATC: "G-XXXX, garbel, garbel"

CIM: "G-XXXX, say again, I don't understand"

No further communication between CIM and ATC until next downwind when all went by the book.


I don't understand why the aircraft behind me was cleared to land before me and I don't know why there was no reply to my last transmission. I can only summise that as the field was busy that the ATC got 2 aircraft mixed up??????

[FNG]

Gosh, another thread based on the conception that aircraft are kept in the air by radio waves, and so soon after the last one.

Going around was the right answer, although speaking for myself I would have gone around from something like 300 feet. As for ATC, either (1) the Controller judged that there was insufficient spacing between you and the aircraft just landed or (2) he made a mistake, being, er, human. In either case, ranting phone calls or letters to his boss would achieve nothing. Can't we leave the culture of complaint to nimbies and Ryanair passengers etc?

[FlyingForFun]

CIM

Sounds like you did exactly the right thing to me. Very strange, though. And did you ever find out what the "garbel garbel" was?

FNG

If the controller thought there was insufficient spacing, surely he'd have told CIM to go around?

F3G

You said "Only ATC can give landing clearances. A/G and AFISO can give information only." I agree. However, if an A/G or AFISO advises me not to land, although I have no legal duty to do as they say, I would still go around (unless I felt it wasn't safe to do so, which would be very unusual). Maybe they've seen something that I haven't?

(Incidentally, I've only seen this happen once. The fire crew at the airfield became temporarilly unavailable. An airfield can't be licensed without fire cover, therefore they were now temporarilly unlicensed. Solo student was on short final. It's illegal for a solo student to land at an un-licensed airfield, so A/G operator "suggested" that solo student might like to go around. By the time the next circuit was completed, airfield was licensed again. Not at all relevant to CIM's question, but just one example of when the A/G operator may have information which you don't have, and why it's a good idea to listen to him/her even though you don't legally have to.)

[FlyingCesspit]

Final 3 Greens - did you actully read what I had written, or do you just enjoy being rude?

[Final 3 Greens]

FFF

I'm not suggesting that one should ignore information from A/G or AFISO services - in fact, a responsible a/c commander will factor all available information into a decision.

If you read Cesspit's post again, it infers that A/g and AFIS can "advise" on a course of action ... in other words give a clearance.

The incident you quote was an example of an A/G operator passing high quality information in an efficient manner and "suggesting" a sensible course of action. A pedantic zealot may point out that this is beyond the remit of these services, but I am not such a person. (And I bet the conversation wasn't held at 100'agl!!)

FNG

I respect your opinion, but fundamentally do not agree with it.

I would have called the ATCO - if he/she had said "sorry, I forgot you", I would accept that on the basis of human frailties and the matter would have ended there and then. One should also note that this is often the end of uncleared incursions into controlled airspace by pilots after talking to controllers who are usually reasonable people too.

However, if I really was not happy with the outcome, I would escalate to the supervisor.

The last time I did this was back in the mid 90s following a nasty incident on final and the subsequent investigations revealed a "blind spot" on part of the glidepath at a largish airfield.

Result, a CCTV was fitted in the tower curing the problem by helping the ATCOs to maintain situational awareness - not a bad outcome.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Sounds as if the controller forgot you were there; we're all fallible. My view, a quick phone call, clarify the source of confusion and have a mutual tree hug.

As far as your actions are concerned, going around was the only solution. The visul cct is dead safe if ATC are not talking, no one gets to use the runway! ;)

Just an observation, but do you think you descended too low in the expectation of a clearance?

[Final 3 Greens]

Flying Cesspit

Yes, I did read what you posted, you wrote ....

I guess if the service is just "Radio" or "Information" you could elect to lanbd at your discretion, but it would clearly be irresponsible to do so if you have been advised not to.

A/G and AFIS are not qualified to advise an a/c commander on any airborne action, so your generalisation that it would be clearly irresponsible to land is based on a false premise.

If you crashed on the subsequent go around, you would receive little sympathy at the board of enquiry for having followed the recommendation of a perosn exceeding the priviliges of their licence.

[Flying Tooth Driller]

Hi CIM,

From your description, I think I know where the airfield is. I think the controllers there do a wonderful job integrating VFR and IFR training, together with transiting traffic getting a FIS, visiting traffic and dealing with fixed wing props, jets and helicopters. All without radar. On some days, I reckon the controller's load is verging on the ridiculous. He/she still stays remarkably calm. You should hear the controllers at Fort Lauderdale Executive on a busy day, mixing Lears with 152's and running left and right hand circuits simultaneously, and sometimes using two runways. They've got the benefit of radar, but they still sometimes blow a fuse.

I reckon that you were the victim of a simple human error, and you did precisely the right thing. A nuisance, but safe. Well done. Don't bother ATC with a complaint or a question. Chalk it up to experience.

FTD

[charlie-india-mike]

Thanks for all the replies.


For those who wish to know the airfield is EGTC (Cranfield)

FTD / SZF

I agree, the controllers at EGTC do an excellent job keeping us all in step. Thanks guys/girls.

I have no intention of formally complaining and it's all part of learning which I accept

Whipping Boy's SATCO

I have had several instances at EGTC where I have been told to expect a late clearence and got it on very short final, but this time not. I was still expecting a clearence up until the time I heard the clearence for the aircraft behind me. When I asked and got a negitive in reply then I decided to go around.

Question

I :confused: :confused: :confused:

What is a good decision hight in perfect visability?

[Evo]

What is a good decision hight in perfect visability?


My 'decision height' is 200ft - if I'm not happy it's time to go around. The only exception I can think of would be at an ATC field (FIS or A/G it is my call, and if I'm not happy at 200ft I'm not going to risk being unhappy at 100ft) and then only if I had been given an explicit reason to continue below 200ft (e.g. an "expect late clearance" call) by ATC.

Reading what you posted, I think you were fine. :)

[Kirstey]

Sounds like you done good!!

Ultimatley even if the ATCO was forgetful then safety wasn't comprimised so no issue. You did your bit well so no harm done (apart from 10 quid to go around the circuit!!)

As for decision height. If I'm happy with the approach, but don't get a clearance then I'll happily wait until 20ft agl before going around (late clearances are par for the course at EGKA - if we went around if we didn't get a clearance at 200ft we'd all still be up there now!).

However if it's a dodgy approach (you know - upside down on finals that kind of thing) the 200ft is about bang on.

[Evo]

When i've been in to Shoreham then my final call (at 500 feet or so) has always been acknowledged with something along the lines of "G-CD, continue approach". That's fine. Actual clearance can come quite late, I agree. :)

It's just "G-CD, standby" or no response at all that make me start to think about what to do next. Had both at an ATC airfield, but both times clearance came in time to avoid the go around.

[rustle]

CIM,

Just getting back to your original question about how late you would/could accept a landing clearance.

Depends what you are flying - in a "simple" single, lower than in an assymetric complex multi.

How much height does your aircraft lose "cleaning-up" and climbing away?

Then add some to that for reaction-time, less than perfect performance, higher temperature/altitude etc.

This sort of 'decision height' (AKA commital height) you need to have in mind all the way down final approach if you haven't already been cleared for the landing.

I don't think there's one answer suits all :)

[Circuit Basher]

CIM: Given the circumstances, you did the right thing by going around.

I'm maybe a bit more pushy and with the benefit of hindsight + a few minutes to think of an answer, I'd have maybe interjected once or twice when it looked like I'd been forgotten, eg:

Blah Blah Blah ..........

G-AAAA: "Continue approach"

G-ZZZZ "G-ZZZZ Late finals xx"

If no reaction from ATC:

ZZZ does his touch and go. CIM now at 300' on approach and expects clearance. No such luck.

ATC: "G-AAAA, surface wind xxx, cleared to land runway xx"

G-AAAA: " G-AAAA, cleared to land, runway XX"

G-ZZZZ "G-ZZZZ VERY late finals - confirm you wish me to go around"

That's not quite CAP413, but I have been known in similar circumstances to 'remind' ATC that they've made a boo boo without trying to rub their noses in it! ;) ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

CIM

What is a good decision hight in perfect visability?

An ATPL once told me that "you're not committed until you're on the taxiway!"

The lowest go around I have done was from a poor landing, more precisely from the subsequent bounce.

When operating from a short field, I would be prepared to go around down to the point I felt that I could land as necessary to stop on the runway and in a "floaty" PA28 that could be just before flaring.

The lowest go around I have personally witnessed in an airliner (as pax) was from 14 ft (radio altimeter)

F3G

[alphaalpha]

Late landing clearances are often the result of the preceding aircraft having a long taxi to vacate the runway. Here a 'land after' clearance from ATC can be very useful, where the onus for separation falls very firmly on the shoulders of the following aircraft. ATC seem to use this clearance infrequently at GA airfields. On a couple of occasions, I have transmitted on short final. 'G-XXXX can accept land after.' the response has been a land after clearance, a safe landing with adequate separation, and avoiding a go-around. However, land after can only be given in certain conditions (daylight, good vis, clear visual contact between the a/c etc).

This does not apply to the CIM scenario, I know, but is relevant to the general subject of late landing clearances.

[PA28-161]

Hi CIM

Sticky stuff, but a good decision under pressure...ATC must simply have forgotten you. You had the right under air law - being the a/c on approach to land at the lowest height - but as everyone has said, you need permission, and once the ATC passed over you to the next geezer, all you could do is go around. I think most of us who fly in and out of larger airports have been close to going around before we've gotten a clearance - despite a few reminders. They're only human! No idea what the garble stuff was about. If you have a chance, visit the tower and ask someone what it was about - chances are actually having the temerity to show up will get you an apology/explanation. Some controllers have been kind enough to give me one over the air after a minor foul up. Sounds like another busy day. But isn't it funny how the mood of the ATC can affect how you think of your flight - you did an admirable job, all was well, yet you've probably been thinking about it a lot - yet if ATC had asked you to go around, you'd probably have felt ok about it and no more would have been said.
All good experience.....!;)

[Kirstey]

"Some controllers have been kind enough to give me one over the air"

Oo-er PA28!!

[PA28-161]

Aye aye...;)
I knew it wouldn't be long till the double-entendres came out to play. 'Flying planes....is much like making love to a beautiful woman...' Swiss Kirstey.

[charlie-india-mike]

Hi

Still not got to the bottom of the "garbel" "garbel" transmission.


Let's have a small competition to see who might come up with the best interpretation


My guess


ATC: "G-XXXX, Sorry I forgot about you"

or

ATC: "G-XXXX, Thanks a bunch, that has really bo??ocked up my spacing efforts."

:D :D :) :)

[flyboy6876]

CIM

The airfield I fly into is fairly busy and it is quite common not to get clearance until as late as crossing the undershoot. The lowest go round I've done has been from about 2ft of the runway.

Last week while doing some circuits I was told to continue as a low approach whilst another aircraft cleared the runway and was given landing clearance while about 50m down the runway at about 1ft from the hard top.

I guess that in a busy circuit the ATC's can lose sight of whats happening, to me that's just one of those things. Usually compounded by someone in the circuit doing something that they should'nt be. Like the prat last Sunday who decided to make an early turn after doing a go round without clearance from the tower. Got a right bollocking over the air.

My neighbour a couple of years back was ATC at this airfield and he ended up taking 6 months off after a fairly hectic time to get his head straight again. I would not do ATC for love nor money and have the greatest respect for folks who do a very tough job. My own inclination would be to forget it and get on with life. It's nothing major.

[A and C]

The biggest problem That I have is controlers who wont give a late clearance and so i have to GA at 200ft when a "land after" would do.

[Final 3 Greens]

CIM

How about G-AAAA "Oh B*lls"

[PA28-161]

Air Tragic. Sometimes it just lives up to its name!