Interesting.
The other post revolves around the question 'a B767 during the final approach crossing 1000 feet, the tower did not response to their requests of landing clearance, so the captain assumed failure communications , with the runway in sight and clear of traffic he proceeded to land. Wast this the right thing to do?'
There were a good number of replies, most of which can be summarised as yes, good decision.
From an aerodrome controller's perspective landing without a clearance and without a good reason is just about the most heinous act possible. Now I recognise that from 1000ft there is very little time from the pilot to make the decision but, on the basis of the original post, this decision was made on the basis of not getting a reply from the tower. From my ground-based viewpoint this is not a good decision. And assuming comms failure just because there is no reply does not seem, to me, to be justified.
This is why I asked what criteria a crew use to decide that they have a comms failure? I find it rather surprising that although a fair few pilots are happy to land without a clearance if they have a comms failure, no-one appears to want to describe what has to happen before they make such a significant decision!
But thanks anyway.