Originally Posted by
donotdespisethesnake
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.
First, re the discussion of any possible go around request or instruction by ATC. The context where the discussion is of value -- and an aspect that will be looked at by the investigators -- will relate to whether the duty controller in the tower (officially known as the "aerodrome controller"):
1 could see the aircraft on short final (there have been several opinions expressed as to the sight lines and distance from the tower to the threshold area of that runway).
2 was watching (in other words, actually saw v/s was in a position to see the aircraft).
3 was required by national and / or local procedures and directives to observe aircraft on final for issues such as gear being up.
Second, re whether the heading of 180 degrees issued by ATC was a request (or a clearance) or an instruction. According to the audio available online, it was clearly an instruction (definitions as per ICAO Doc 4444) and something every controller knows by heart: the difference between a request, a clearance, and an instruction. With slight variations in wording in different jurisdictions, the definition of an ATC instruction is clear to all controllers (and hopefully also clear to all professional pilots). Basically it's a declarative statement from ATC requiring compliance (subject to captain's right to decline for immediate safety reasons, for which the captain would / should reply with something like: “Unable due xxx…).
I’m not commenting on the reason for the instruction nor the appropriateness of the instruction; I’m simply clarifying that it was, as stated by the CAA, an ATC instruction.