Landing NORDO at KDCA

[chuks]

I bet that the crews will get a slap on the wrist from the Feds for not taking the safest course of action, to deviate to an airport with a functioning tower.

There was no over-riding safety-related reason to land at DCA. If there had been, then, yes, one could use the PIC authority to deviate from the clearance (just for the approach) and to land. In this case, though, I doubt that a safety case could be made for landing at DCA without a clearance, when it would have been (arguably) much safer to divert to IAD.

This is all second-guessing, of course, especially since two safe landings were made. How about if there had been some un-notified movement, though? At that time of night you might well have had someone out doing a runway inspection or some maintenance, operating on a separate frequency from the one used by approaching aircraft. It would have been a case of the controller clearing them for that with "Inform me when you are finished and clear of the runway," ZZzzzz.... and then the approaching aircraft simply assuming that the runway was clearfor landing.

In any case, I think you will find that your IFR clearance is to the approach fix filed in the flight plan. If you have a comms failure then you can leave that fix at the ETA to shoot the approach and land if you have visual at minimums. In this case the TRACON can clear you for the approach but, even if you have the runway in sight, they cannot clear you to land, since they do not "own" that runway; it belongs to the airport control tower. In fact, I don't think you can go below the decision height without clearance from the tower, because that is the boundary between the approach and the landing procedure.

It is interesting that someone mentioned TWA514. They were "cleared for the approach," when they descended to the final approach altitude and collided with Mount Weather. The FE had queried this, to be told by the Captain that clearance for the approach included clearance to the final approach altitude. Later they changed the wording to something like "Cleared for the XXX approach. Maintain XXX feet until passing Round Hill intersection."

Here, although there was no accident, I expect that we will be told that there was no clearance to land and no over-riding reason to land so that these crews had deviated from their clearances and landed without permission. It will be one of those things where a reasonable judgement will be shown in hindsight to have been incorrect, with the Feds indisposed to give anyone a break, especially since the whole thing stems from their under-staffing in the first place!