Qantas jets in near collision

[Wirraway]

news.com.au

Jets seconds from catastrophe
By Darrell Giles
February 15, 2004

AN investigation is under way after two Qantas jets were involved in a terrifying near-miss at Brisbane Airport.

A Boeing 737 aircraft with about 150 passengers had to abort a landing at the last moment to avoid crashing into another plane sitting on the runway on Friday night. Passengers yesterday said the jets were only a matter of seconds away from disaster in the incident, which happened just before 6pm.

One of the frightened passengers was federal MP Bob Katter.

"We were only a few feet from bumping down, perhaps half a second away . . . then he switched on the throttle," said the Independent member for the north Queensland electorate of Kennedy.

"I was scared for my life and I don't scare easy. Something is terribly wrong if one plane is coming into land and another is sitting on the runway.

"I personally intend to find out what went wrong."

The Air Transport Safety Bureau's duty investigator, John Robbins, initiated the investigation yesterday.

Mr Robbins said radar tapes and recordings of communication between air traffic controllers and the aircraft would be examined in detail.

He said it was very rare for a plane to abort a landing at such a low altitude.

Mr Robbins said it was possible the departing plane was granted permission to make an early, rapid take-off but was too slow in responding to the instruction.

"That's all speculation until we hear the transmissions. There are so many possibilities," he said.

Airservices Australia - responsible for air traffic control and navigation - and Qantas both confirmed the incident.

Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton said the Sydney-Brisbane flight QF542 was forced to "go around" because of the obstruction on the tarmac.

Mr Rushton said there were no reports of injuries to passengers or crew.

Airservices Australia spokesman David Gray said an initial report of the incident found a Qantas aircraft had "sat too long" on the runway due to a "communication problem".

He was unclear of the distance between the two jets when the pilot of QF542 was forced to take emergency action and take to the sky again.

Mr Gray said there was no problem with the "go around" manoeuvre. "The only issue we have is in regard to traffic separation," he said.

The incident is likely to escalate concerns over the controversial new air traffic control regulations.

The National Airspace System, introduced in November, has been widely criticised within the aviation industry.

The Air Transport Safety Bureau last month called for a review of the system after a series of mid-air near-collisions.

Federal Transport Minister John Anderson is expected to announce changes to NAS soon.

Mr Katter was concerned the near- collision could have been caused by the changes to air traffic regulations, which allowed light aircraft to share airspace with commercial jets.

Pilots and air traffic controllers say the new rules endanger the lives of passengers.

Airservices Australia chairman John Forsyth resigned this week without public explanation, amid growing speculation the Federal Government is about to reverse large sections of the new air rules.

"I was disturbed by the changes," Mr Katter said. "It has certainly compromised safety for no obvious benefit."

Mr Katter, who takes hundreds of flights every year, said it was the first time he had been on a commercial plane that had to abort its landing.

"I have been in a lot of tight situations in small planes, but nothing like that," he said. "If he had landed, then his ability to take off again would have been severely restricted -- the wheels were almost on the tarmac."

Another passenger, Philip Castle, a lecturer in journalism at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, said the flight had been delayed after having to skirt the edge of a storm over the Gold Coast.

"We were coming into land at Brisbane -- we were, I would estimate, about one to three seconds from touching down," he said. "Suddenly the pilot powered up and let fly. It was a complete surprise."

Mr Castle, an occasional pilot, said the decision to abort appeared "very late . . . I think he was right on the limit".

He said some passengers were obviously concerned as the plane elevated rapidly and headed out towards Moreton Bay.

Mr Castle questioned why it was not obvious sooner that a plane was on the runway and a decision to abort the landing was not taken 30-45 seconds earlier.

"It was a potentially life-threatening situation," he said.

The Sunday Mail (Qld)

===========================================

[Dehavillanddriver]

It goes to show that Bob Katter doesn't know poo from brown clay

HEADLINE....PILOTS AND CONTROLLERS DO THE RIGHT THING - NOTHING UNTOWARD RESULTS!

Dear oh dear - more responsible reporting from our esteemed press

[tobzalp]

This sounds like the exact same words used in a similar incident in Sydney a few years ago. I thought I was actually reading the same report. 1-3 seconds to touchdown go around? Those babies would have hit anyway.

While I agree NAS is a piece of shiat, I think it is a bit much blaming it in this situation (on face value).

[Wirraway]

ABC News Online
Sunday, February 15, 2004. 8:05am (AEDT)

Authorities downplay Brisbane airport incident

The organisation responsible for air traffic control and navigation is downplaying reports of a near-miss involving two Qantas jets at Brisbane airport.

Airservices Australia has confirmed that a Sydney to Brisbane flight carrying 150 passengers was initially unable to land on Friday night.

A spokesman says the pilot of the Boeing 737 decided to go around again after having some communication problems.

He says the problem arose when the aircraft arrived late and all air traffic control frequencies were busy.

But he says reports of a second Qantas aircraft blocking the runway are incorrect.

He says Airservices is satisfied there was no major problem and that the pilot adopted standard operating procedures.

===========================================

[Captain Sand Dune]

Gee whiz, I have no idea how I could accuse the good ol’ Aussie media of misleading sensationalist reporting! :rolleyes:

feet from bumping down, perhaps half a second away . . . then he switched on the throttle

Didn’t know you could “switch off” a throttle. Do we “bump down” these days? I was taught to land…….:}

pilot of QF542 was forced to take emergency action and take to the sky again.

A go-around is “emergency action”?!?!?:eek:

Mr Katter was concerned the near- collision could have been caused by the changes to air traffic regulations, which allowed light aircraft to share airspace with commercial jets.

Really likes to demonstrate his complete ignorance, doesn’t he??:rolleyes:

who takes hundreds of flights every year,

Well sitting down the back reading newspapers and stuffing himself with food and drink OBVIOUSLY makes him an expert on all matter aviation!!:mad:

"Suddenly the pilot powered up and let fly. It was a complete surprise."

A VERY occasional pilot, obviously. The more occasional the better I think.:uhoh:

Maybe time for a Bex and a wee nap...................

[swh]

If this is news worthy a day at a GAAP aerodrome would fill a full paper

[woftam]

What can I say.........good old Aussie press at it again.
What a bunch of w@nkers.
And thank God we have pollies like Mr Katter who are so well informed on matters aviation......NOT !!!:yuk:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Mr Katter was concerned the near- collision could have been caused by the changes to air traffic regulations, which allowed light aircraft to share airspace with commercial jets.

Well in his defence he does say he was concerned not that he blamed it on.

Who can blame his concern with all the bad press NAS has been getting.

[MoFo]

Maybe Bobs cowboy hat has been cutting off the circulation to his head.

Since when has a go around been headline news.

[Paul Martin]

If the ozzies had the same procedures in place as the French, this would not have happened. When I was o/s, on first contact with CDG tower, you were given the wind direction and strength then cleared to land. There may have been 3 or 4 a/c in front of you for the same rwy but it ALWAYS worked. The only additional info passed was if the a/c directly in front was a heavy.

They leave it up to pilot discretion to "accept the waiver" for wake turb, why can't we take the initiative and just land the a/c if the rwy is clear?

It is difficult to mandate common sense, but I think we need to wake up in this country and stop all this procedural garbage from stifling a common sense approach to resolve a minor situation.

Losing comms through congestion or equipment failure on short final should under no circumstance require a go around. The fact is in many other countries they could have landed without a clearance without incident. In Australia's current climate of culturally enhancing dobbing, is it little wonder people are afraid to exercise their better judgement.

Australian rule makers, welcome to the 21st century .

[Wirraway]

Unbelievable journalism

Said article has now been withdrawn from news.com.au site
but still remains in the Adelaide "Sunday Mail" and Sunday
"Courier Mail" sites.

http://www.ecola.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=www.sundaymail.com.au

http://www.ecola.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=www.thecouriermail.com.au

Wirraway

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Jeez with Bob Katter's extensive aviation knowledge, that is "flying hundreds of time a year", maybe he should head up an airspace reform group. He couldn't do a worse job than has been done, and you never know he might listen to the proffessionals rather than relying on advice from the amateur end of town.

[swh]

Just had a poli (I think Wayne Swan) on Sunday give his account it, people will use anything for 5 seconds of tv time, he tried to link this to NAS

[Ralph the Bong]

150 Passengers in Mid-Air Drama. Reports today of yesterdays mid-air drama in which 150 passengers spent 70 terrifying minutes flying without the wheels down wilst the pilots wrestled with the crippled jet trying to find somewhere to land. Witnesses on the ground also told of their fears when shortly after take-off from Sydney, the landing gear disappeared into the belly of the aircraft. Bill Bogan of Sydney told us " My grandmother was on that flight going home to Melbourne. Just after the pilot did the take off trick thing, the wheels just disappeared into nowhere. I knew right then there was danger because the plane needs wheels to land". National Party Member for Western Queensland, Mr Malcolm Ecks, said "This was terrifying. After we were in the air, there was a kind of a bump noise and then I knew we were in big trouble. I've seen many pictures of aeroplanes before so I know what I'm talking about" Reports came in of how the pilots circled the entire eastern sea board for just over an hour before electing for an emergency landing at Melbourne. Myrtle McIntire tells of panicing crew memebers. "The hostessess were in a complete panic. They sort of wandered about asking the passenges if we wanted something eat. All I could think of was that I would never see my pet Chou, Moppet, again". At 3:37pm EST, the aircraft made an emergecy landing in Melbourne with airport rescue services on full emergency department standby status category 9. Fortunately there were no reported injuries. However, departmental and airline representatives have refused to comment further on this incident save for staunch denials that yesterdays incident has anything to do with the newly introduced NAS.

[Cloud Cutter]

:confused: Have I correctly understood that the go around was caused not by a runway incursion, but the lack of a landing clearance due to coms failure or whatever?

Surely if you can see the runway is clear, and you have no other indication that you are not cleared to land, captain's discretion would dictate that a low level GA is not the safer/best option? I'm sure it would also have prevented the ignorant ravings of Mr Katter and the like.

On the positive side, I am so pleased that the pilot did in fact decide to switch the throttle on prior to going around - especially when they were so close to 'bumping down'.:rolleyes:

[AerocatS2A]

Ha ha, bravo! excellent work Ralph the Bong.

[DirectAnywhere]

and you have no other indication that you are not cleared to land

Sorry CloudCutter. The fact you have no indication that you are cleared to land is more to the point. Not only is it a breach of the CARs and SOPs to land without a clearance, more importantly, you don't know if someone's cleared to cross, cleared for an intersection departure and so on.

If it's OK to breach these rules - where do you draw the line?

There in NOTHING unsafe about a missed approach - I used to do up to 10 a day when teaching circuits - I wasn't flying!! - and I would say a major airline the size of QF would probably average one every few days (as a rough guess). It's a routine procedure.

[Ushuaia]

It just gets better and better. Now I know why I always cock up missed approaches in the sim..... the aircraft "has lost all of its aerodynamic performance" and it is a "very difficult if not a dangerous manoeuvre". Well, I won't be going around again now that I know this! Press on and land....

From The Sunday Herald:

Call for investigation of plane incident
February 15, 2004 - 1:14PM

An incident at Brisbane airport in which a Qantas pilot aborted a landing at the last minute should be fully investigated, federal MP Bob Katter said today.

The Queensland independent MP and opposition frontbencher Wayne Swan were passengers on the 737 aircraft flying from Sydney to Brisbane on Friday with about 150 passengers on board.

"It was a very bad situation and someone has a lot of questions to answer," Mr Katter said.

Mr Katter said he would be demanding a full investigation when Federal Parliament sat this week.

Some reports have said the pilot was forced to apply power to the aircraft engines and "go around" because there was another aircraft on the runway.

But both Qantas and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) have denied another aircraft was involved.

"The pilot had not received final clearance to land and in accordance with Qantas procedures applied power and went around again," Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton said.

"There was no other aircraft involved, there was no near miss and there is nothing to investigate."

An ATSB official said while there was an incident at the airport no other aircraft was involved.

He said the ATSB would examine radar tapes and tapes of conversations at the time of the incident, which appeared to be a "complete non-event".

"It seems the aircraft went around again but until we examine the tapes we won't know the exact reason," he said.

The spokesman said all pilots were trained to go around if they were not happy with the conditions for landing.

A spokesman for Airservices Australia, which handles air traffic control, said there had never been any danger of a collision and dismissed newspaper reports of a near miss.

He said the pilot of the 737 had had trouble getting clearance to land because of the number of other radio transmissions from other aircraft.

"The pilot then made the decision to go around," he said.

"As far as Airservices Australia is concerned this is a standard operation and there were no aircraft separation issues."

Mr Swan said the pilot of the Qantas plane had told passengers there was another aircraft on the runway.

"I only know what the pilot told passengers, and that was that (aborting the landing) was because there was another plane on the runway," Mr Swan said.

"There was no panic on the plane, and I had no sense of danger."

Mr Katter said it did not matter whether there was another aircraft involved or not.

"We were just on the point of the rubber (tyres) hitting the tarmac but instead of putting the plane down the pilot put the accelerator down," Mr Katter said.

"The aircraft had lost all of its aerodynamic performance and this would have been a very difficult if not a dangerous manoeuvre."

"It really scared me."

[Three Bars]

Confirms all of my previous thoughts about Mr Katter.

[Cactus Jack]

Shooting's too good for Mr Katter. It's a good kick up the @rse he needs....

If anyone would like to comment directly to the man, here's his email address:

[email protected]

This guy should be made to publicly apologise for his wildly eratic, dafamatory and irrational comments.

I thought he'd been banned from QF aircraft anyway; I seem to remember he'd been kicked off previously due to unruly behaviour on board???

Perhaps this is his idea of revenge...?

And along the same lines, The Sunday Mail should be complimented on their journalistic excellence. Heres the email address of their editor:

[email protected]

These people are just as culpable as the "honourable" MP.

[speedjet]

I am surprised Katter was actually awake and looking out the window.

In the 12 months or so that I flew him around, I've lost count of how many times I would park out front of terminal, open back door only to have him nearly fall onto bitumen as he would be resting head on door.

Also he never seemed to care about his beloved Charters Towers Airport, when we used to have to dodge the roos on take-off and landing.

[WhatWasThat]

Terror in the skies!!!
Perhaps poor old Bob produced produced a nasty Hershey squirt when the pilot "switched the throttle on".
Maybe he should produce the soiled article on A Current Affair to confirm that there was indeed panic on board.

[Cloud Cutter]

Point taken DirectAnywhere, I just wonder why the decision to go around was left so late - of course it's probibly just that expert reporting again. A missed approach in itself is obiously no big deal unless there are extenuating circumstances. I can think of one incident where a B737 crew elected to land with a departing HS748 still to get airborne (same rwy) after a conditional landing clearance was issued - the tower (realising the impending stuff-up) instructed the 73 to go around, the Boeing captain decided to land as he deamed this to be a safer option than the go around and resulting seperation issues. Granted, the situation in Brisbane was much more straight forward.

Further to Pual Martin's post, at many airports in countries like France and USA you may be cleared to land with other aircraft to use not only your runway, but a crossing runway before you eg. KSFO. I accept that the pilots involved in this instance had no other option - so I agree with Paul that perhaps a mordernisation of the rules is required. This is just my opinion - some people may think that this sort of discretion could create more of a problem?

What do others think?

[balance]

Don't think it really matters here, Clouds. That they went 'round was a captains decision, he made it and that makes it right. I reckon it happens probably once every few days in Aussie, but this time it had to have Swan and Katter on board.

And this was a simple opportunity for the d1ckheads to get their ugly mugs on TV. Or perhaps as Cactus has said, Katter doesn't like QF and they don't like him. This was a great opportunity for him to get a little back.....

[Cloud Cutter]

That they went 'round was a captains decision, he made it and that makes it right.

My point exactly.

[currawong]

Have seen a similar situation.

The folks in the tower were so desparate to avoid filing an incident report they shone the green light:ok:

Bob Katter......

Ever notice how those big hats have nothing in them?

[Angle of Attack]

Whats going on here? I cant beleive all the fuss over this incident!! I was on the aircraft involved, in fact just a row in front of Bob, and the only thing he seemed concerned with was his connecting flight once we lgot out in the terminal! I know the media beats up, but this is outrageous! I mean I don't know the facts, except a go - around was performed after the power was off during the flare, which granted is late, but it was performed smoothly, normal circuit followed by a normal landing. The F/O described it as a go - around due to an a/c on the runway, I dont see why he would lie about it and thats it. Never thought anything else about it! Except Low and behold reading papers today I was involved in a near CATASTROPHE! What the hell? I have no comment, the newspapers are just ridiculous! and the poli's on board, jes, get a life you dic$heads!!

[amos2]

I'm not too sure where Cloud Cutter and Paul Martin are coming from...but I am sure it's from a position of ignorance in respect to the rules and regs in OZ.

If you land without a clearance from ATC in OZ you can probably kiss goodbye to your licence!

But Hey, if you want to try it, go for it! :rolleyes:

[Beagles]

In Texas they have saying for types like Katter:

"All hat and no cattle"

[Paul Martin]

Amos2 that is exactly the point. In good old ANAL RETENTIVE Australia a pilot dare not exercise any command judgement as there is no room for common sense. They would have been reported before they got to the terminal. In many other parts of the world, this incident would not have happened as the guys would have just gone ahead and landed (as I have done). Rules are rules and we obviously obey them but lets not lose some sense of perspective.

I remember landing in Florence during the European league soccer on a Sat afternoon a few years ago. We called the tower numerous times with no response. The rwy was clear so we landed. After landing we called the tower again and the guy said callsign "cleared to land" with the soccer blaring in the background. We told him we had already landed so he said thank you and proceed to your bay. I must admit some Australian procedurally anal types would have gone around, all in the name of correctness???yeah right!!! Some times a little bit of lateral thinking can go a long way, thus negating the need for Mr Katter and his ilk to get his dial on national television mis-representing the facts.

I also understand trying to win this type of argument in this country is pretty much a waste of time, hence our reputation in other parts of the world.

[balance]

Jeez Paul, whilst your point is taken, you just gotta ask who is RIGHT?

Just because this dopey clown is watching the soccer doesn't mean the runway is actually clear, does it? I know the pilot can make some sort of a judgement, but there are so many what if's?

I don't beleve that just because there are people in the world who have "relaxed standards" that we should lower ours, simply because they sneer at us and call us anally retentive!

And BTW, I have flown throughout the world with both Australian carriers and others, and have never once come across the attitude you speak of.... Doesn't mean its not there, but then I don't care if it is...

And Mr Katter can get on TV all he likes, what goes around comes around.

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

Ralph the Bong ..........love your work.

However technically correct and accurately written your article was, it brings to mind the following warning:

"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions."

Are you sure you're not a member of our illustrious press????


On a different note, how close to the runway can one proceed without a landing clearance??? I had believed it to be 50'(a/c < 5700kg). I assume it's 35' or end of the runway for a/c > 5700.

Surely, with or without allowance for inertia, this would require "switching on the throttles" (gotta love that?) at 70-100' at least. In any case, well before the "rubber hitting the tarmac?"

Penny for your thoughts people.............or should email Bob and ask him??? Like :mad: !

[ferris]

Was just going to say the same thing.

Bit of 'cultural cringe' there, Paul?

The culture in oz is not so 'lassez faire', that doesn't make it wrong or less enlightened. How clever would the captain look after he cleaned up the runway inspector, or the MWT? That is why there are rules. Whilst the capt. is able to use his judgement/discretion, was all the information at his disposal in those few seconds before the decision was required? Better to go around and think about it, IMHO.

As for the journalism....

[Ausatco]

For those of you advocating landing without a clearance at an Australian airport, bear in mind this incident:


Conditions were IMC, weather fluctuating about the ILS minima - ie, sometimes it was below minima.
A Dash8 was lined up 1/3 down the RWY after a preceding landing. A 747 was on final, on TWR freq.
The Dash was cleared for TKOF. No reply, no movement of the aircraft.
It rapidly became apparent that the TWR freq was inop, both primary and secondary. (Long tech story, now resolved. Suffice to say it was inop, but in the critical few moments of the incident, no-one knew why.)
All other TWR freqs (SMC x 2, Clearance Delivery, spare VHF) attempted to call both a/c, no result.
The light signal to vacate the runway was given to the Dash - no action resulted.
The 747 appeared out of the murk at the minima.
The light signal to go around was given to the 747.
The 747 went around, just before crossing the landing threshold.

Subsequently, the crews of both the Dash and the 747 said they never looked for nor saw the light signals.

The 747 crew said they did not see the Dash on the runway and went around only because they didn't have a landing clearance.

Which makes being cleared to land when the runway is not clear and you are not #1 (a la USA and, apparently, CDG) aviation safety b u l l s h i t.

We were so close to a LA DC10/Metro tragedy ....

If our outdated procedures saved 300 people and two aircraft, then I for one am proud of and thankful for them. As, I suspect, are the two crews. And their pax, if they know about what nearly happened to them.

AA

[DirectAnywhere]

For crying out loud, what's the problem?

Firstly, it is a requirement to land with a clearance. No, ifs, buts, maybes or questions as to the logic of that. IT IS A RULE!! There is no room to apply "common sense" and that's for everyone's protection. If you don't like it, make a submission to the Minister of Transport. Who knows what may happen?

OK, now I've vented my spleen, CAT III minima for QF aircraft are as low as 20' HAT. From that position the wheels will generally touch the ground while the aircraft is conducting an automatic go-around. Is this safe?? You betcha. It's been tested - and done - so many times it's routine, day-to-day. If an aircraft conducts a go-around from 20' due to Wx does it make the paper?? Do Wayne Swann and Bob Katter have a hissy fit?

During base training aircraft...gasp...touch down...take half the runway to reconfigure and...shock horror, become airborne again. I thought I was going to die when I did mine....give me a break.

I can forgive Wayne Swann and Bob Katter but for pilots to be questioning the need for a landing clearance and the Captain's response to a lack of that clearance, really makes me wonder.

[Binoculars]

Some interesting comments here. first of all, credit where credit is due; congratulations Ralph the Bong, beautifully said!

Let's take the givens out of the equation, the chief one being that two politicians were on board, so any opportunity to get their mugs on TV would be gleefully accepted. Secondly, the standard of journalism involved has been correctly mocked by everybody here; it will ever be thus I'm afraid.

Now as to the question of landing clearances, yes, we have different standards to the US, and I don't claim to know the finer points of their system. If it doesn't take into account the situation that Ausatco described, then forget it, but I find it hard to believe that given the extremes of weather they have over there this isn't taken into account in their regulations? Lots more knowledgeable people around than I on this one.

But in a CAVOK situation where an RPT jet is aware of all tower conversations, watches a departing aircraft get airborne, knows that no other aircraft has been cleared to enter the runway, has a full view of the runway ahead and suddenly can't get a word in, I find it extremely difficult to accept Amos2's view that the pilot's licence would be at risk by landing without a clearance. The final decision is the pilot's if safety is concerned; yes, you are only cleared to the runway threshold if a landing clearance is not issued, but any pilot who couldn't successfully argue that in those conditions landing was safer than going around would not be worth his chops, and most tower controllers would agree.

Direct Anywhere, your argument accepts as a given that every rule is set in stone, no ifs buts or maybes. Sorry, as a twenty year tower controller I just don't agree. That may apply in enroute control where everything is done by the book, but tower controllers all over the world will tell you that without commonsense aviation would come to a grinding halt.

Let's forget the furphy of the soccer watching going on, this is a situation that just happens every now and then, especially in procedural towers where more airspace and more talking is involved. Standard procedure as every pilot and controller knows is for the pilot to land then call short final and get a landing clearance. Commonsense must be allowed to prevail in certain circumstances.

And EVERYBODY on this forum should be emailing the editor of the Sunday Mail and telling him what a disgrace to journalism both he and the journalist concerned are. Err, send him the link to this thread too.

[Ushuaia]

Sorry if I'm getting a bit off the subject, but if we're going to start going on about how great the procedures are overseas, then I hardly think a DUAL-LANGUAGE airport such as CDG is exactly world's best practice! I've been in there a few times and it is a disaster waiting to happen. Oh, that's right, it has: ask the crew of the Streamline Aviation Shorts 330 who "met" the Air Liberte MD-83 on rwy 27 one night after instructions were issued in French and English. Well, you can't ask the F/O... he died....

I'm a little tired of people going on about how great overseas systems are and how backward, how last-century, we are here. Whether it's NAS or landing clearances, I happen to think we've got it pretty right in this country (well, pre Nov 27). Perhaps the rest of the world should take a good look at us.

[DirectAnywhere]

Binoculars, agreed, there are times when it's necessary, and I emphasise, necessary, to apply common sense if the rules don't give appropriate guidance. If I had an uncontrollable fire, could determine the runway was clear and didn't have a landing clearance then yes, I would land. A situation like this, however, is simply not one of those times.

Several options were available and, in accordance with the rules and the airline's SOPs, the Captain chose the correct one...based on the assumption of course that the reports of what happened are correct. To have done otherwise would have the left the individuals concerned open to all sorts of repercussions.

[Eee Tee]

Bob Katter is a :mad: !

I witnessed him having a tantrum after he had just been kicked off a departing dash 8 for abusing another politition who was on board.

Further to that display of arrogance, his secretary (I think?) carried his rather large bags to his car while he carried only his briefcase and that stupid hat.

[Kaptin M]

Until now, I've (obviously) refrained from comment, however without full knowledge of this particular "press release", I'd like to make the following observations.

(I) It's a brave man who lands (esp at a "Primary Airport"...is that terminology still in use?), without having received a landing clearance.

(ii) A go-around is an option ALWAYS available to ALL pilots - unfortunately not enough of us exercise it often enough!!

(iii) A go-around is NOT an "emergency" or "abnormal" procedure. The reality is, ATC are generally quite "conservative" with separation standards, so as not to frighten the "beegeezus" out of the pilots!!

The people who cite the "Cleared to land, as No3 (or whatever)" are generally talking about dual runway ops (1 R/W for landing, and another for take-off), eg, "Cleared to land as No 3."
However, the "Go-around" option is ALWAYS there - at ANY phase during the approach.

(iv) Boeing tell us that a go-around is available even after touch down, as long as the thrust reversers have not been selected. So even IF (according to 10 gallon Bob) the "rubber" had made contact, a go-around was still an option.

And last but not least...........did anyone suffer any injury from this?
Of course the answer is "No" (except Bob Katter apparently..who sh!t his undies, and made an apparent national fool of himself). "I'll be demanding an investigation into why pilots are allowed to make go-arounds!!" :uhoh:

[Wirraway]

Mon "The Australian"

Qantas checks aborted landing
By Steve Creedy and Scott Emerson
February 16, 2004

QANTAS is investigating why a flight crew told passengers it was aborting a landing because an aircraft was on the runway when authorities say this was not the case.

The pilots executed a "go-around" as the Boeing 737 from Sydney came in to land at Brisbane airport about 6pm on Friday after they were unable to get final clearance to land from air traffic control. Authorities say the plane was in no danger of hitting another plane and the event is not being investigated as an incident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

But the pilot announcement led to headlines that the aircraft was only seconds away from a collision.

"There was a PA announcement which did go to passengers indicating the reason for the go-around was another aircraft on the runway," said Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton. "And we're investigating the circumstances surrounding that announcement to passengers."

Asked why the crew would think there was another aircraft on the runway, Mr Rushton said: "That's what we're investigating."

Federal Opposition frontbencher Wayne Swan, who was on the flight, confirmed the pilot had told passengers he had aborted the landing because of another plane.

"It was the latest-aborted flight I have ever been in," Mr Swan said. "I've been in a couple, and it was pretty late. I wasn't personally terrified and I don't believe that those on the plane were, but it was obviously a serious incident."

But ATSB deputy director Alan Stray said the bureau had determined there was no incident based on information supplied by Airservices Australia and the Qantas safety department.

"The pilot followed appropriate standard operating procedures and exercised his discretion to go around because of a delay in receiving a landing clearance," Mr Stray said.

"There was no incident."

An Airservices Australia spokesman said a communications problem on landing prompted the go-around.

"The pilot did not get clearance to land and he made the decision to do a go-around," he said. "There were no aircraft separation problems and in the circumstances this was the standard operating procedure."

========================================

[ferris]

So the crew is going to get into trouble for telling a porky? Lots of crews are in trouble now then.......wish I had a dollar for every "delay caused by ATC".

Seriously; two pollies carry on like pork chops, the media run with some sensationalistic garbage, yet it turns into 'pilot error'.

Love this industry:hmm:

[Kaptin M]

"...it was obviously a serious incident., said Federal Opposition frontbencher Wayne Swan (alias Wayne Ker) sitting in the passenger cabin, staring at the forward bulkhead.
"It was the latest-aborted flight I have ever been in," Mr Swan said. "I've been in a couple, and it was pretty late. I wasn't personally terrified" :{ "*but I felt that I REALLY HAD TO contact the media, (because I'm such a no-one the rest of the time, and this was my big chance to get some free air time*)!!"

*My interpretation as to why Wayne would voluntarily make a d!ckhead of himself.

[halas]

Aptly put Kaptin.

Gallah aka Swan used to be my local member.

Before the last election l challenged him as to his position and conviction to the recently out of work Ansett employees.

l am still waiting for an answer. (start date was '96)

Blisfully ignorant of his media charade until now, l am always amused by this lap dog of whoever is leader Beazley/Crean/Latham. Goes to show his true conviction and stamina when all he has to bleat/crow/shrill about is a flight on good 'ol QF.

If he was paying for the ticket himself l may have listened.

Anyway l have to agree what a balls up CDG is. That place is disaster waiting to happen.

Mumbai the other day... "Go Around" from tower at 500'. Once safely on the ground, blood circulation returning to knuckles, and not due to procedure but due to the dozens of multi-clearances by ATC to get back, an explanation was saught. "Dogs on RWY"
In the murk there you are lucky to see the PAPI let alone a RWY coloured mutt!

A clearance is just that, and without a clearance there is no clearance. Brave man/woman who crosses that line - Florence or anywhere. Just think of the insurance ramifications IF something went wrong.

halas

[Suffering Sucataash]

This from the Sunday Herald Sun

NEAR MISS PROMPTS INVESTIGATION
An investigation has begun into a near miss involving two Qantas jets.
A Boeing 737, with more than 200 passengers, had to abort a landing to avoid crashing into another plane sitting on the Brisbane Airport runway at 6pm Friday.
One of the frightened passengers was Queensland federal independent MP Bob Katter.
"I was scared for my life and I don't scare easy," he said,"Something is terribly wrong."
............................
The incident will escalate concerns over the new air traffic control regulations...........................


No wonder they had difficulty with the aborted landing with more than 200 passengers on a 737.

I hope Bob Katter never goes out in the sun as his shadow might give him a heart attack but thankfully we have leaders like him that "Don't scare easy".

Finally how, just how, is this in anyway related to the new airspace arguments.

Geoff Thomas if your out there perhaps you might write to these bozos and explain just how pathetic they make journalists look, perhaps they may listen to one of their own.

[Capt Claret]

The dreaded we climbed vertically an' I thought I was gunna die manoeuvre.

In fairness to Wayne Swann, in the interview I saw on the Sunday program, Swann was asked about the incident. There was no obvious sign that he had prompted the Lawrie Oakes to ask the question, and his answer seemed reasonable to me.

It's interesting that AsA and QF say there was no other aircraft on the RWY, yet Ausatco's post quite positively contradicts this. Additionally there is also a contradiction in types 747 v 737.

For the land anyhow brigade. Imagine how silly one would look if one did so and an aircraft cleared to cross the runway got T-boned. :eek: If one lived that is.

[Agent86]

Clarrie,

Before you get EVERYONE up in arms, read ausatco's post again.... Different "incident"...same outcome : all safe :D

[Traffic]

..and there was more Katter Nutter Klatter when I checked my smh.com.au this morning. Me thinks he should give up politics and become an aviation journo (respect to Geoff Thomas of course). Now I see why the politicians super issue is topical..we are getting monkeys so why not pay peanuts.


Aborted landing put lives at risk, says MP
February 16, 2004


The lives of more than 100 passengers were put in danger when a Qantas pilot aborted a landing at Brisbane Airport at the last minute, federal MP Bob Katter said today.

The Queensland independent MP was one of about 150 passengers aboard the 737 aircraft flying from Sydney to Brisbane on Friday which aborted its landing.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) denied reports the jet was forced to apply power and abandon the landing because another plane was on the runway.

But Mr Katter said he thought that was the most likely explanation.

He blasted officials for failing to give passengers a satisfactory explanation of what occurred.

"He (the pilot) was almost landing and the statements made by the various authorities have been made in a very cavalier and irresponsible manner," Mr Katter told the Nine Network.

"There was no doubt, to anyone on that aeroplane, ... the rubber was just about to touch the tarmac.

"If you make a decision to go around again when you're at 1,000 feet or something that's alright.

"But when you're making it when you're only a second or two seconds away from putting the rubber on the tarmac, no, that is a decision of entirely different time.

"That's the point at which you're open to wind shears and to continue that danger period by another four or five or 10 seconds (and that) is a very bad decision to make."

Mr Katter said there had to be a good reason why the pilot aborted the landing and it was likely because there was danger ahead.

"There had to be some greater danger out there and we're not getting any answers to that," he said.

"Either the pilot was given wrong information or the pilot acted incorrectly, the cockpit staff acted incorrectly, or the most likely event was there was something out there."

[Cloud Cutter]

Capt Claret, I think the issue of another a/c crossing is covered by Binoculars' post. Great to hear a realistic ATC point of view. I'm certainly not saying that pilots should go about landing willy nilly without a clearance - my initial point was that in the situation covered by Binocs (VMC, monitoring frequency, and unable to get a word in), surely a low level go 'round (below 50') is not the most practical/safe option - yes we know that a go around is no big deal, but lets exercise a bit of common sense (in NZ when training we require a specific 'low approach and overshoot' clearance to descend below 50' on the business side of the threshold - as I understand it, the same seperation is required for the overshoot as for landing with respect to aircraft on rwy, crossing etc).

Another point that has not been covered is the ability of ATC to overide a/c trasmissions - I have recieved more than one landing clearance on short final over the top of a poor student trying to stumble through a joining request, are Ozzie towers not able to do this, or were they blissfully unaware of the 737 about to cross the threshold? Of course as mentioned, the green light is also an option.

Getting back to topic, as for this pratt Katter....
"That's the point at which you're open to wind shears and to continue that danger period by another four or five or 10 seconds (and that) is a very bad decision to make."
Who the hell does he think he is? I thought some kiwi polies were full of s%#t, but this is rediculous, how can he get away with comments like this?

[Paul Martin]

Ausatco and others. I will try again to ram home the point of common sense. The conditions you mentioned are not a consideration. No one in their right mind would land off that sort of approach in those conditions without a clearance. I assumed some would get emotional but god almighty this is unreal! Low vis, a/c crossing rwys, a school bus full of kids. Yes go around. What about the following.

It's a CAVOK day unlimited VIS, at 500 feet you can see the rwy and all taxi ways are clear but you can't get a word in or have a radio failure. Why on earth complicate everything with a go around? Some of you are saying that in an emergency it is fine to continue and land. Of course it is. Are you any less liable in an emergency than you are on a normal approach?

I am not having a go at any of you people. I just think we could engage in a bit of constructive dialogue and actively persue some healthy debate about some of our procedures. I don't for one second condone many of the practices o/s. However that said, some places do have some very good procedures and I think we are burying our head in the sand if we think we do it better than everyone else. Whether we like it or not we are far too ANALY RETENTIVE and politically correct for our own good.

Lets keep the debate constructive. If you want to have a sledge I will down at the breaky creek hotel on Fri afternoon so we can discuss it over a beer. Slainte.

[blueloo]

That used to be the most interesting thing about Mumbai - taxiing around with stray dogs everywhere . Always used to wonder about the response to a "dogstrike". It would make some interesting paperwork!

[Capt Claret]

Agent86,

Ooops, missed the significance of the word this in Ausatcos intro. On first reading I took "this" to refer to the incident under discussion, not a separate incident. :\ I'd delete what I wrote but that would make some subsequent posts (like yours) redundant. Please accept my retraction. :ugh:

Cloud Cutter

I understand the scenario Binos was painting, I just don't think one can rely on knowing no other aircraft has been cleared to enter (or cross) the runway. Especially as a clearance to cross is often given by SMC and unless the pilots are listening to both frequencies they wouldn't know about said clearance to cross.

Paul

I believe a sound reason for executing a missed approach if not issued with a landing clearance is simply the fact that this is what ATC would expect.

[Cloud Cutter]

Capt Claret, these are reasonable points - As Paul said, other aircraft could be taken into account using some of the four class 1 eyeballs up front - common sense would dictate that an aircraft taxiing near the rwy, or lined up on a crossing vector would swing the balance somewhat.

Once again, this is just my opinion and you offer a well backed-up argument.

[5 Left & Right]

Interesting topic, one that there is no real clear answer for.
A COMMAND decision was made by the captain and that is that.

I have been in exactly the same predicament on a number of ocassions (3 that i can remember) and have landed without being cleared to do so, at the time i made an assesment, (you do have a very good veiw from 50ft on final) and opted to land instead of going around, as PIC I beleive it was the best thing to do. Each time I was cleared to land as or after the wheels were on.

A go round is always an option but not always the best one, obviously a 737 will have plenty of get up and go even with everyting hanging out. But a light twin on a hot day at gross weight could be a recipy for disaster, as has happened before with catatrophic results.

As for Bob Katter, i wouldn't waste my piss on the bastard if he was on fire.

Cheers :ok:

[Sonny Hammond]

No comment from QF supporting the pilots conservative actions....

[lambsie]

The most disappointing aspect of the whole event is the lack of appropriate comment from the QF PR people. Yet again they have failed to reassure the travelling public that the crew acted safely. They could have supported the pilots, but failed to say a word. Not the first time...won't be the last. :rolleyes:

[Night Watch]

I have sent an email to :mad: head Katter...... does anyone have an email address fro Wayne Swan? Would like to give him a serving as well.

Suggest you all do the same

[SteveJWR]

Chris Adams - arvo announcer at Brisbanes 4BC wants to cover this story - and get it right.

Wanna have your say onair, call his producer Brenden Wood on 0417 407 851 - The show goes to air Today (Monday) from 3pm EST (Brisbane Time)

Tell them about Bob's sensationalism and the of the papers too.

www.4bc.com.au

[Ushuaia]

Ibex.... touché. Send that to Katter, will you?

[NAMPS]

Night Watch and others

Email addresses below:

Wayne Swan [email protected]

Bob Katter [email protected]


Yes, it is quite pathetic. There is another report on the SMH website quoting Katter as saying:

"... the statements made by the various authorities have been made in a very cavalier and irresponsible manner"

What ... the authorities aren't agreeing with Mr Katter (who has already shown his aviation expertise....not)?!

Perhaps, Mr Katter, "going round" is not such a big deal after all!

[Captain Stoobing]

I was told from "Lesson 1 - Ops and effects of controls" that the safest place for you is in the air. If there is fuel in the tanks and you the engines are going stay in the air until you know what the hell is going on. It has worked in every sim ex I have ever done. If you rush decisions in order to get the ship on the ground you are going to end up missing something. Missing things is very bad.

I have had Senator Katter on many a time and I have always found him to be arrogant, self absorbed and always LATE. ( he must get off on hearing his name called in the terminal)

Capt Stoobing.

[amos2]

Well, I've just been having a look thru my rather old and battered Flight Crew Licences holder that DCA issued to me some years ago and I see that I have an SPL, PPL, CPL, SCPL, second class ATPL, first class ATPL, second class IR, first class IR, some flying instructor ratings, some sim instructor ratings, a few o/s licences and some other bits and pieces to do with Radio Telephone and Morse Code licences.

But, you know what?...I don't have one of those "common sense licence" thingies that some of you are going on about!

So, let's sort the men out from the boys shall we? The pros from the amateurs. Let's have a poll.

The question is..."In a non emergency situation would you land without an ATC clearance?"

Pilot licence holders to reply only please. With all due respect, any one without a licence doesn't have the knowledge or the experience to answer the question.

I'll go first...

NO.

:p

[Capt Claret]

NO.

a coloured light from the tower constitutes a clearance.

[Paul Martin]

Okay amos I will play your little game,
NO
Not in Australia, for the obvious reasons already stated. We just can't think outside our little box can we?

Amos, instead of a poll, how about some positive input to the discussion. I know some older guys are very reticent to change, but the only way to recognise deficiencies and develop a better system is to engage in dialogue and debate the merits of an alternative, (you know, the same as The Smith Bros did with the NAS). Amos you may not have a license for common sense, but I bet you have had to use the same (common sense) on many occassions throughout your career!

I am not advocating a breed of jocks that hack around the country doing as they please, on the contrary. I like to see everything nice and smooth and tidy and within the bounds of the law/SOP's. I also like to think that I am not so set in stone as to not at least consider options/alternatives.

lets keep this objective.

[Vampire 91]

As a long time ATC, and pilot, (more than 30 years for both) I have heard all the arguements about whether or not an aircraft should land, at pilots discretion, without a landing clearance. Despite what Binoculars states quote 'But in a CAVOK situation where an RPT jet is aware of all tower conversations' - sorry, that may apply where there is a single runway and ground control/aerodrome control is carried out on the same frequency - but it cannot possibly apply where you have, for example, parallel runways and multiple taxiways, and several Tower operating frequencies. A radio failure in the Tower may be the reason that no clearance is issued - and keep in mind that the controller may, for various reasons not obvious to the pilot, have been about to issue go round instructions. In my experience there have been occasions when a landing without a clearance would have been uneventful and consistent with the controllers intentions if the instruction could have been issued. However, as several contributors have identified there have been other occasions when the circumstances were such, and could not have been apparent to the pilot, that proceeding with such a landing would have had serious consequences. I'm with those who vote for the landing clearance option. Please don't respond with tales about landing clearances being received while vehicles/workers/aeroplanes/childrens pets etc were occupying the runway at the time. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake - but we do worry about the repeat offenders.

[Desert Dingo]

This should be interesting ! :E
I can match all those licences too, and maybe there is a common sense one in there as well.
I was going into Cairns many years ago. Daylight. Cavok. Two aircraft only. Me on short final in a B737; light aircraft just departed and giving his life story on the radio so neither the tower or I could get a word in.
Me: thinks..I haven't got a clearance to land but if I go-around I'll rapidly overtake this git in front of me and there aren't too many options for manouvering to the south of Cairns. I think the safest thing do do in this particular situation is to just carry on and land. So I did. During the roll-out lightie eventually shuts up and tower says "xxx clear to land". No great drama and end of story.
So for the poll ..."In a non emergency situation would you land without an ATC clearance?" YES - if it is the best option available.

[Cloud Cutter]

I still can't understand why the tower didn't just talk over the departing aircraft, or pull out the big green torch. This is a good example of the sort of situation I'm talking about - when the landing is a safer option than the go around.

It's good to see rational, objective arguments from both sides of the fence.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Amos

Since a clearance for an approach also is a clearance for a missed approach, then I would continue according to the last clearance received. That is, I would go around because it is what I am cleared to do, it is what ATC are expecting and is usually the safest option.

All of this is predicated upon the assumption that there is no safety reason for me to land, such as a slower aircraft ahead which might make landing safer than going around. A good example where landing might be safer would be Desert Dingo's example.

So, my answer is a very, very firm and definite "YES and NO."

[Duff Gen]

Did the tower show a green light?

Having spent many years working in a control tower, I can't recall a single occasion when the ADC didn't leap for the 'tower lamp' to show a green light to the aircraft on final, when 'radio problems' like this occasion, were a factor.

I was talking to a (former) pilot friend yesterday (don't mention '89), and he told me under these conditions, providing the runway was clear, he would always land; which I thought was reasonable action. However he wouldn't have even thought to glance at the tower to see if a green light was displayed.

Did the pilot look?



Duff

[Cloud Cutter]

Good point

Perhaps some of us need to brush up on NORDO technique

[amos2]

You're the Captain DD and if you want to make that decision , so be it! But can you justify it at the subsequent enquiry if ATC 225'd you instead of giving you a "cleared to land" for tape purposes?

I mean, where does one begin and end with this "common sense licence" that tells you that you have covered every single possibility, in a short space of time, and are going to breach regulations because you "can't be bothered going around"? Altho, as you have pointed out, that's not your scenario.

Others will beat me to it ,no doubt, and give other examples, but what about these for you to consider...

1. CNS has a short x/strip if I remember correctly. What if a lightie decided to T/o without a clearance too?

2.What if a lightie that you haven't seen is waiting to line up on RW 15 and decides to do so without a clearance too?

Remember the basics, of course you do. Safety..Comfort..Schedule...Economy! :O

[HotDog]

The most disappointing aspect of the whole event is the lack of appropriate comment from the QF PR people. Yet again they have failed to reassure the travelling public that the crew acted safely. They could have supported the pilots, but failed to say a word. Not the first time...won't be the last.

Why should Qantas PR waste their time explaining a perfectly normal and safe operating procedure? Let Katter and company shoot themselves in the foot, together with the journos.

[turbantime]

Remember the busy old days of GA guys? Especially at busy GAAP training aerodromes where landing without a clearence was a norm because:

a) there was usually someone that took 2 whole minutes to give a ready/inbound call

b)there was so much traffic in the area that the safest option was to land and get out of the way!!

In saying that though, each situation was assessed ie) other traffic on the ground etc

I have landed without a clearence on some occasions because I believed it was the safest option than executing a missed approach and then having to deal with all that other training traffic out there.....I'm sure it made the controller's jobs a little easier too with one less plane in the air.

[Capt Claret]

Most of this thread seems to be about landing at a Capital City Controlled (Primary for us olde dogs) aerodrome. Arguments that one lands without a clearance at uncontrolled aerodromes or GAAP aren't really relevant to the story.

Whilst the rules are for the guidance of the wise and blind obedience of fools, unless there's a good reason for not executing a missed approach, as espoused by Desert Dingo on p5 of this thread, I don't think "I thought it would be ok", or "I thought the runway was clear", or "I didn't see any other traffic" stands up as a sound reason to land without a clearance. Nor does "I didn't want to worry the passengers by executing a missed approach".

IMO at a primary aerodrome, with SMC and TWR on discrete frequencies, landing based on the aforementioned assumptions, is a recipe for disaster. :uhoh:

[Islander Jock]

Turbantime,
I know what you mean about GAAPs and have on several occasions called "ABC short final" with less than 100' to go. Surprisingly a fairly senior instructor who on one occasion heard me on the radio said to me over a beer later "If you are on short final and the runway is clear then you should land". His opinion pretty well mirrored your comments and reasoning above.

My concern would be though that landing without a clearance would at least get me an invitation for a morning tea with my local friendly FOI or worse still, voiding insurance if I happened to have an accident of some kind on landing.

[amos2]

If you're not dead , that is, Jock! :p

[Traffic]

What rhymes with Katter???

FLUSH.....

There you go my son!

Now don't we all feel better:O

Amos...NO.

At any airport with more than one runway and separate frequencies for ATC and SMC a go-around is always preferable to a please explain or a funeral, even if you are bigger and faster than the a/c in front.

If your final scans do not include the tower then they should. Just cos you think the coms are OK doesn't always mean they are and as someone said the first thing that gets switched on is the torch.

No clearance to land and no green light...go around.

[Ausatco]

Paul Martin wrote

Ausatco and others. I will try again to ram home the point of common sense. The conditions you mentioned are not a consideration. No one in their right mind would land off that sort of approach in those conditions without a clearance. I assumed some would get emotional but god almighty this is unreal! Low vis, a/c crossing rwys, a school bus full of kids. Yes go around. What about the following.

My example wasn't emotional, Paul, it was fact. OTOH your implied involvement of a schoolbus full of kids in an aviation accident is somewhat over the top.

It's a CAVOK day unlimited VIS, at 500 feet you can see the rwy and all taxi ways are clear but you can't get a word in or have a radio failure. Why on earth complicate everything with a go around? Some of you are saying that in an emergency it is fine to continue and land. Of course it is. Are you any less liable in an emergency than you are on a normal approach?

I agree, you're the pilot in command, ultimately responsible for the safe conduct of your flight. Make your decision, but do not make it lightly and without considering all of the circumstances. I suggest that resisting "ANAL RETENTIVENESS" does not cut the mustard.

To be fair I quoted an unfavourable, though real, situation. On the other hand, you have quoted a very favourable one. Most situations in real life will lie somewhere in between. Where do you draw the line? CAVOK can be 8/8 blue and 50km vis. It can also be uniform grey overcast at 5000ft with 10km vis in same coloured grey murk - in fact, that is the more likely "CAVOK" at the airport where I work. What are you going to see in that vis against that background? What if it's 1500 ft ceiling and 5000m - that's VMC - cripes, it's hard enough for us and we're stationary with big windows and binoculars.

As I see it, my landing clearance is a kind of safety contract between you and me. When I issue it, I'm saying to you

"I think it's safe for you to land if you do".

If I didn't think it was safe I wouldn't say it. If you don't think it's safe, you won't accept it.

The absence of my half of the safety contract means there is no contract - for whatever reason I have not been able to assess the safety of the landing area and communicate that assessment to you.

You are correct - what you do then is up to you, as pilot in command. It may indeed be safer for you to land, and if that is your assessment, that's what you should do. If it's not, then clearly you should go round. Easy.

At my workplace either event will result in an incident report. It's not punitive - the purpose is to find out why the landing clearance was not issued and that would be an internal investigation within ATC at my location with feedback into Airservices' safety system.

On the aircrew side, ATSB automatically gets a copy of the incident report and, if your company has a safety information sharing agreement with Airservices, so would they. (We have no discretion in that, the addressing is computer-controlled, automatic and not editable.) If you went around, that's SOP and it's unlikely there'd be follow-up action with you unless you submitted your own report for whatever reason. If you elected to land without the landing clearance, then that would be in the report and ATSB would follow that up and you would be able to explain why landing was safer than a go-round.
I am not having a go at any of you people. I just think we could engage in a bit of constructive dialogue and actively pursue some healthy debate about some of our procedures. I don't for one second condone many of the practices o/s. However that said, some places do have some very good procedures and I think we are burying our head in the sand if we think we do it better than everyone else. Whether we like it or not we are far too ANALY RETENTIVE and politically correct for our own good.
I think there's been a fair bit of constructive dialogue, so I think you've achieved you aim, Paul.

I do agree that some of our procedures are restrictive. As in any discipline, you will find people that "work to rule", but I suggest that the more common situation is that a controller will find a rule or procedure or interpretation that enables him to legally work around a restrictive situation if it is safe to do so. Problem is that when he gets busy the extra complication and workload may preclude that option. So yes, I agree, get rid of the cluttering crap.

On this issue of landing clearances, though, I don't think there's any crap in the Aus way - I may be naive, but I can't think of a better way to do it.
Lets keep the debate constructive. If you want to have a sledge I will down at the breaky creek hotel on Fri afternoon so we can discuss it over a beer.
I'm not interested in sledging, just the discussion will do. But the Brekky Creek sounds fine, it's just a bit far to drive :D

Cheers

AA

[themwasthe days]

The procedures described in use at CDG Paris DO go wrong, despite earlier posts to the contrary. The US doesn’t use Conditional Clearances per se, but they do use multiple landing clearances – they also go wrong, regularly. UK use “Land After” at some aerodromes (probably more if they didn’t have so many problems), whilst good old Oz, and many others, continue to use outdated ICAO Conditional Clearances, and how they go wrong.

All these capacity enhancing procedures have had the band aid treatment applied over years, as the “experts” (yes, we all know the definition) try to play catch up with aircraft performance and traffic counts. The bottom line is that like everything else in aviation, there is always a down side when we compromise our standards. Safety is, and should always remain the driver. Capacity must come a clear second. The bean counters will tell us that “we agree” whilst pressuring us to keep the numbers up. The spreadsheet in the tower lift showing the performance figures (rate of landings/take offs) ensuring that (not so) subtle pressure is continuously applied. Oh for the gold watch when we retire – yeh, and look out the tooth fairy doesn’t fly in and grab it!

How many more examples are required before it is seen that the days of these type of capacity enhancement techniques are long gone, and there is an urgent need to allow the pilot to fly the airplane, and the controller to do just that. New types require more and more head down time minimising the opportunity to look out the window, sum up the situation, listen to the RT and stay on the ball. Language, cultures, rapid RTF, wide body airplanes with high body angles and so it goes on, continuously reduces the effectiveness of these antiquated procedures.

The top dozen or so aerodromes throughout the world (US) do not use conditional clearances – ATC make the decision and use that rare (become rarer) form of control, called judgement. Ask the guys in Paris how the use of this procedure worked for them. Ask the Sydney guys what a Metro looks like lining up in front of a departing jet at night. Do a little surfing to find untold many more examples, especially at night or in poor viz. Build in a couple of intersection departures, an occasional runway crossing, and multiple line ups, and see how complex it can become. Just hope that it’s not you in the cab, cockpit or cabin when it all turns to ….

Come on guys – put the responsibility for control back where it belongs, and throw away the band-aid box.

[turbantime]

Islander Jock,
I have too called short finals and have instructed my students to do so too. But I was talking about the times where the radio is way too busy and when there are 10 aeroplanes in the area with another 5 making their way in.....that's when I believed it was ok when taking into consideration all the other factors such as is the runway clear etc etc

[Paul Martin]

Thank you for the responses and also the decorum. Can I ask some of the "senior contributors" (amos, D.Dingo) and Ausatco and others what you guys think about the French system of giving a clearance to land on first contact with the tower. In over 3 years of receiving this type of clearance I never had a go around. Some lads did from time to time if the crew in front missed the appropriate twy. However I never witnessed this type of situation we have here in Oz. Last second clearances just did not happen.

Themwasthe days I agree that it can go wrong, but it certainly was not very often in my experience. There was also a lot more traffic @ CDG than we have here in Syd and Bne.

The other good thing the French did was to put a/c approaching parrallel rwys at 1000 feet difference. Eg 26L ILS started at 3000 where as the 27L or R started at 4000. So if someone made a mistake and flew thru the LLZ, which happened on a few ocassions, there was still 1000' clearance.

At Syd we could have a/c for 34R @4000' and 34L @3000" etc. Just an idea that would be particularly beneficial during PRM approaches, but also at any other time.

Surely we can get Oz authorites to consider some alternatives to the current shambles. The guys in the twr would have an easier time and there is no doubt about the benefit to pilot's.

[amos2]

Well, I don't have a problem with the French clearing you to land on first contact with the tower. That happens in other parts of the world also. But we're not talking about that are we?...we're talking about making a unilateral breach of regs and landing without clearance! :O

[Three Bars]

I too am an ATPL, 1st Class Instrument Rating holder - my response to your question Amos:

I think it would depend on the circumstances.

Normal ops - no clearance - go round (which is also a normal operation).

Emergency - AIP states that (if I recall correctly) the PIC can act in an emergency situation without a clearance, if required. If continued operation of the aircraft was more dangerous than landing without a clearance, I would land. Well before short finals, in this type of situation, I would be declaring an emergency and advising ATC that "I must land off this approach" to clear any possible conflicting traffic out of the way.

[amos2]

...and I agree with you! :cool:

[Ausatco]

Can I ask some of the "senior contributors" (amos, D.Dingo) and Ausatco and others what you guys think about the French system of giving a clearance to land on first contact with the tower. In over 3 years of receiving this type of clearance I never had a go around. Some lads did from time to time if the crew in front missed the appropriate twy. However I never witnessed this type of situation we have here in Oz. Last second clearances just did not happen.

Paul, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the French system to be able to critique it specifically.

The situation that prompted your question on the 1st page of this thread - ie, the ABC News Online report of the QANTAS aircraft arriving late on TWR freq and being unable to get a word in for a landing clearance when the runway was apparently clear - would be far less common, I would think, than the routine situation where you arrive on freq in good time and the runway is to be used or crossed by multiple movements before it's your turn.

It is true, the French system would fix the former, less common scenario, the one that you're querying.

But for the life of me I cannot see any logic in applying it to the second scenario, which, at the airport where I work, applies to almost every aircraft that calls on final.

I cannot see the value in a landing clearance when the landing area is clearly not clear, if you see what I mean :D Ie it's going to be used or crossed by many other aircraft before you use it.

Do the French (and the Yanks, for that matter) issue landing clearances on first contact when the landing runway is also used for departures? Or when crossing runway operations are in progress? Or when aircraft routinely have to cross the runway between movements to get to the holding point - eg all domestic jets to get to 34L at Sydney? I see all those as limiting factors in the French/US procedure, and I'd be interested to know what they do in similar circumstances.

Cheers

AA

[Three Bars]

Ausatco,

In answer to some of your questions, I can give you some info with regards to LAX airport - although I haven't been there for a few years now.

The airport has two sets of parapllel runways in a north/south complex arrangement. One of each set of runways is usually used for takeoffs and the other runway is used for landings.

On first contact with tower, you are usually cleared for landing - presuming the conditions are VMC (which they usually are in LA). It is then up to the crew concerned to ensure that the runway is clear before landing. When conditions are IMC, things are a little more interesting. I only experienced one go-round at LAX and that possibility was pretty well advised early-on by ATC. The rest of the time it works reasonably well - although it does rely on everyone expediting their approach and occupying the active runway for the minimum ammount of time. Also, arrriving aircraft were often told to hold on the crossing taxiway and were then cleared enmasse to cross the takeoff runway when a gap in the sequence occured - a real Le Mans rush!!

[Four Seven Eleven]

Ausatco
I cannot see the value in a landing clearance when the landing area is clearly not clear, if you see what I mean
I, too, clearly share your clear concerns in this regard. Let us examine the recent Brisbane incident:

1) The aircraft calls the tower. Perhaps the call was acknowledged, I am not sure. Either way, a landing clearnce was not succesfully issued on first contact.
2) The aircraft continued approach, as cleared.
3) Tower attempted to issue a landing clearance, but was blocked by another transmission.
4) Despite a clear runway ahead, the 'anally retentive' pilot elected to go around, thus ensuring both the safety of the aircraft and compliance with the last received clearance.

Result: A technical 'incident' and the extra cost of a go around to the airline.

Now, let us imagine a similar scenario, but where a clearance is issued in advance:

1) The aircraft calls the tower and is issued a landing clearance, despuite the fact that a vehivle is still on the runway (on SMC frequency).
2) The aircraft continues approach and sets up for a cleared landing.
3) Noting that the vehicle has failed to clear the runway, the tower attempts to issue a go around instruction, but the transmission is blocked
4) The aircraft lands and collides with the vehicle.

Result: A collision.

Like Ausatco, I do not see the 'value' in an early landing clearance. It merely strips away one of the layers of safety which are designed to prevent collisions. If there is a sound reason which justifies this method, I have yet to hear it. Perhaps our US colleagues canb enlighten us.

What concerns me here is 'mindset' or 'confirmation bias'. A pilot who has not been issued with a clearance is more likely to continue the approach with a 'go/no go' mindset. That is, they will have a 'plan B' which will be something like: "If not cleared to land by xxxFT, I will call short final. If still not cleared, I will go around." This would be one more opportunity for both controller and pilot to ensure that the landing will be safe. If it goes wrong, the cost will, as in the BN incident, be economic.

On the other hand, a pliot who has been cleared to land will have a landing 'mindset'. ANy subsequent go around instruction will involve a late change to this mindset. That is, the go around will be a change of plan, as opposed to the selecxtion of an already existing plan.

I realise that, on first reading this, some pilots will take this as a slight on their professionalism and their adaptability to all situations. It is not intended as such, and I apologise in advance.

My point is that all humans (and I include pilots in that definition ;)) are subject to certain ways of thinking. It is not hard to find instances of 'mindset' which has led to disasters. For example, the Air Inter crew who set a 3,3000fpm ROD, believing it to be a 3.3 degree AOD. The point is that the system must be designed to be as error tolerant as we can make it.

[amos2]

Would I be correct in saying that you like to lead a complicated life? :confused:

[Zarg]

Wow, what a thread and all because a pollie was on board! :O

I agree with AusATCO, 4711 and amos 2. It's the final "Safety Net" and possible lack of the "big picture" scenario from the flight deck - talking generally here - and of course, QANTAS SOPs.

The REAL problem in this case is that someone on the flight deck (allegedly) told the SLF (PAX) that the reason for the go around was that, "there was another aircraft on the runway". Wow! Where do we go from here? Did the crew LIE to the PAX?? What ELSE do you say in this circumstance? Trying to explain the complexities of aviation to your average punter is really a waste of time......unless there is a ferkin, big-mouthed pollie on board!! :E :)

[Four Seven Eleven]

Would I be correct in saying that you like to lead a complicated life?
On the contrary, I have found that by having a 'complicated' imagination, I have been able to lead a very simple life.;)

Plan for what could go wrong, and be pleased when it doesn't. It's much better than being surprised when a totally avoidable and predictable incident occurs and not being able to react to it.

As you can see from my last post, I don't even let things like spell-checks complicate things.:=

[balance]

I would submit at this late stage in the thread, that QF now have a bit of a "don't be afraid of going around" mindset following QF1. Indeed, in that incident QF15 had "gone around" minutes previously. If QF1 had done the same, it would never have happened....

Seems ironic really, on one hand being critisized for not going around, and then this clown Katter critisizes them for going around!

Just can't win!

[Ausatco]

Amos, 4711's post was Human Factors 101. I think he made a very good point.

Edited to add:

I asked a couple of US ATC regulars in the ATC Issues forum a few questions about their landing clearances on first contact. The thread is here. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1190486#post1190486)

AA

[westelevengenius]

Paul Martin...I could not agree with you more!!!!!

Hooray for some people with an open mind, instead of the usual Aussie anal attitude.

The US has over 30,000 airline flights 'A DAY' and with their system of been given a landing clearance when you're no.4 or 5 in line seems to work pretty well...me thinks!

[amos2]

Could we perhaps have an example of what some of you drongos call "the usual Aussie anal attitude". :ooh:

[Ausatco]

Mr Genius, Paul M and proponents of landing clearance on first contact ...

How often have you gone around at a controlled aerodrome because the freq was too busy for you to get a landing clearance?

I mean, campared to other reasons for a go-round, how significant is this?

Perhaps when we get to US traffic levels we can adopt US procedures.

I suggest we don't rush it. Look what's happening with NAS.

AA

[Ausatco]

Having said the above last night, this morning there was a reply (shown below) from vector4fun to my query in ATC Issues (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119527). I can see no reason why it wouldn't work here. A downside is almost certainly increased R/T. At Sydney we'd be giving the traffic info required by the procedure all the time. While it would work, I don't know yet whether it would be an improvement or just a change.

AA

AA,

Here is the actual rule from the U.S. ATC Handbook:





3-10-6. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION

Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft cross the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if not previously reported and appropriate traffic holding in position or departing prior to their arrival.

EXAMPLE-
"American Two Forty-Five cleared to land, number two following United Boeing
Seven-Thirty-Seven two mile final, traffic will depart prior to your arrival."

"American Two Forty-Five cleared to land, number two following United Boeing
Seven-Thirty-Seven two mile final, traffic will be an MD 88 holding in position."

"American Two Forty-Five cleared to land, following United Boeing Seven-Thirty-Seven
two mile final, traffic will depart prior to your arrival."

NOTE-
Landing sequence number is optional at tower facilities where arrivals are sequenced by the approach control.




I work at KAUS, we have two parallel runways, both of which are used for both departures and arrivals in a normal flow. We are an "up/down" facility, that is all controllers are rated in both the Tower and Approach Control, and rotate through all positions. SOP at my facility is that arrivals be turned over to the Tower between 15 and 5 miles from the airport, and, as Mike said, Approach is responsible for the approach sequence, Tower sets the landing sequence, blending any local pattern traffic into the flow of arriving traffic.

You should notice that the U.S. rule requires that we inform the pilot what and where the preceding aircraft is. We must also inform the arrival closest to the runway of any traffic we have holding in position on a runway for departure. Likewise, we must tell any departure holding in position about the closest arrival for that runway. The professional pilots I work with (and who are used to the U.S. system) seldom express any difficulty maintaining situational awareness of their position in the landing sequence or with departing traffic ahead. Of course, some of the newer pilots are a bit overwhelmed by all the chatter. It would be quite common here to have two or perhaps three aircraft cleared to land on each runway during busy traffic in VMC weather.

During IMC wx, we are required to maintain a stagger between arrivals on the parallel ILS approaches, so it would be uncommon for Tower to be talking to more than three or four (total) aircraft on approach for both runways. When the visibility deteriorates to the point we cannot physically see aircraft on the runways, or exiting the runways, then naturally, most controllers will get a bit more cautious. I certainly do. As yet, we do not have an ASDE system, but are (were) scheduled to receive one in a couple years. (Never believe good news until it's seen walking in the front door.)

The majority of the time, in VMC wx, the arrivals will already have the preceding aircraft in sight when contacting the Tower, OR, the spacing is great enough that separation is not a factor, providing the first aircraft is still mechanicaly capable of taxiing under it's own power after landing... Since in the U.S., Pilots are equally responsible for maintaining safe and proper spacing with another aircraft ahead, IF he has it in sight, , then the procedure is really seldom a problem. Obviously, the controllers bear most all the responsibility in IMC wx, but with proper spacing and appropriate groundspeeds and closure rates, again, we seldom have a problem with the procedure. If all else fails, send somebody around!

Don

ps The entire U.S. ATC handbook is available here:

http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/index.htm

edited in vain attempt to improve my grammar....


[Last edited by vector4fun on 21st February 2004 at 01:13