Originally Posted by
alfaman
There are criteria in ICAO 4444 which define when an aircraft should be instructed to go around, vs when it should be advised to go around. If the ATCO considers the aircraft is dangerously positioned, then it's an instruction; if he/she considers it to be in a position where a safe approach cannot be completed, then it's advice. Both of those hinge on understanding what the ATCOs involved were able to see, what they could deduce from that information, & of particular note, how much that differed from how they were used to seeing the aircraft fly it's approach. Without understanding how PIA normally fly, & how different this approach was, it's difficult to draw any conclusion as to whether the ATC reaction was appropriate or not.
Not sure why people are highlighting a go-around request by ATC: none was given in this case so it is hypothetical.
What was given by ATC in this case, were requests to change heading, which was refused by the PIC. This is the subject of the Pakistan CAA notice to PIA, headed "
VIOLATION NON-COMPLIANCE OF ATC INSTRUCTIONS BY PIC PIA8303". Clearly at least one person at the CAA felt instructions were given to the PIC which were not followed, when they should have been, regardless of justification or outcome.
Are the Pakistan CAA wrong? I was hoping someone could comment on that discrepancy rather than the hypothetical case.