Go-around or land? [Archive]

Captain Airclues

23rd May 2005, 15:24

As can be seen on that other thread, there are many people who live in an ideal black and white world where there is only one answer to every question. Unfortunately my world has a few grey areas (and I'm not talking about my hair).
A few years ago I was operating a 747 into Heathrow. The F/O was doing his very first landing on type (ZFT). After holding at BNN around some very interesting Cb's we were cleared for an approach onto 09L. During the latter stages of the approach the Air France A320 ahead was taking his time trunding down the runway. The controller told us to expect a late landing clearance. At about 300ft the A320 was clear but then the aircraft behing, rather than just calling "4 miles" decided to give his life story over the RT. With a trainee in the RHS and some fascinating weather on the go-aroung track, I decided to land anyway as the runway was clear and I had been told to expect a late clearance. The very nice lady controller gave the landing clearance at about 10ft (that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)
I realise that I was probably wrong (unless it could be classed as a radio failure) but now and again in aviation you have to do what you thingk is safe, despite what the rulebook says. However, a black and white world is probably much easier than my grey one.

Airclues

square leg

23rd May 2005, 15:38

The way I see it...

Use your nous and airmanship. Now THAT sounds broadband-like.

Ok, what do I mean...?

If the frequency is blocked, the runway is clear and you cannot get that call in or be called, LAND. Why? Because you can treat the situation like a lost COMMS situation. Land at nearest suitable aerodrome. Seeing that you are already looking at that "nearest suitable" aerodrome right in front of you, LAND.

But as always there are other variables that come into play. These must be considered within a short space of time. (WX, fuel, traffic behind you or waiting in the holding pattern and the 101 other things to consider).

The other option is to step on the frequency and just say: "WE ARE LANDING!"

:D

MANTHRUST

23rd May 2005, 16:57

Landed once at AGP after repeated attempts to get clearance.
At the time it was CAVOK there were no aircraft on at the hold and all was quiet on the TWR freq.
Cleared the runway, called ground who cleared us to stand without a mumur just a short admission that they had had a temporary problem with the TWR freq.
Glad I didn't go around as it happens!
Tin hat on ready for incoming.

Right Way Up

23rd May 2005, 17:03

Have to agree with the last three posts. Life as a Captain involves taking the safest course of action. That does not always mean playing by the rules. Captain Airclues analogy about grey areas is spot on. Monday morning quarterbacks tend to talk about things in black & white.

cwatters

23rd May 2005, 17:27

Slightly OT but..

This problem with blocked frequencies has caused accidents in the past. It's a problem that's solvable with the right technology. Are there any plans to do anything about it?

Stick Flying

23rd May 2005, 19:40

Thank goodness this thread has taken on more a sense of realism of late.

In all regulations you will read there is a disclaimer stating that, in the view of the COMMANDER, should they deem any situation to be better dealt with by an action in contradiction to that which is written, then so be it (not quoted verbatim as you may guess).

Well anyone who advocates that you should go around regardless of the fact that the runway is clear, there is nobody at an intersection holding point who can line up in front, there are no ground based vehicles about to enter the runway, there is possibly an already busy controller, there is possibly even a busier TMA above, just because the busy controller cant get a word in edgeways. Well I am sorry, someone may have already hit the nail on the head. It is a NO-BRAINER. Gladly I prefer being crewed with those with brains.

Come on guys call it as you see it. The recommended procedure without either a clearance to land (or a steady green light) is to go around. But this is only recommended. Sometimes it may not be the best answer.

mupepe

23rd May 2005, 19:56

and....if you are clear to land ......then you are also clear for go-around! this time :rolleyes:
my answer to your question is GO AROUND!

Turn It Off

23rd May 2005, 20:21

This is absolutely shocking.

You MUST be cleared to land, if anybody lands on a runway i am looking after without clearance (Unless in an emergency condition (and if RT fail I would expect to see A7600 selected)) they can expect me to take CA939 action.

I decided to land anyway as the runway was clear and I had been told to expect a late clearance. The very nice lady controller gave the landing clearance at about 10ft (that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)

If she had said "go around" because the landing Air France burst 2 tyres on landing and there is tyre debris on the first 1/3 of runway what would you have done? Would you have been capable of carrying out a missed approach?

I would expect the answer to be NO you would not be able to go around from 10 feet. I hope i never have the pleasure of either being in the back of an aircraft you fly, or in the tower when you are operating. IMHO you are operating dangerously.

TIO

Eva San

23rd May 2005, 21:09

Steady on there Eva San

Easy...Didn't you notice the smilies ? I was just trying to put some fun in a subject that shouldn't probably even exist as the answer (as some have already pointed out) is very very OBVIOUS...

Cheers !

When not cleared to land at a controlled airfield just simply go by the book and don't try to find some so-called good reasons not to...

Miserlou

23rd May 2005, 21:16

But she didn't say go-around. She couldn't get a word in to say cleared to land until he reached 10'.

Apart from reporting a crew for landing without a clearance, what action would you take against another aircraft which is blocking the frequency or against yourself for allowing the situation to become such that the first mentioned aircrew got a report filed against them?

Certain SOPs require a go-around to be conducted if there is traffic on the runway regardless of the fact that it may be 2400m down (considerably more than your aircraft requires).

Cartman's Twin

23rd May 2005, 22:00

I've tried to read the replies as impartially as I can, even removed my ATCO brain to test the 'No-Brainer' theory but my view remains the same I'm afraid. The pilot's environment is the aircraft, the controller's is the runway.

THEY know whether it is safe to land and their job is to issue YOU with clearances. IF you don't have one, then you don't land. Simple. Even if it may be safe, you are not cleared to land. With traffic being issued clearances on different frequencies you really are in no position to determine whether it's safe to land when travelling at 140kts a mile from the threshold.

A busy TMA may be above you, but that is where you should stay unless somebody tells you that you can plant your wheels on the tarmac. I can hardly begin to see how this would be viewed in the event of an accident. I'm going to see a training captain of a certain large BRITISH based airline very shortly and I'll be most interested to hear his view. I really will be shocked if he goes along with the 'I'll land anyway' view. How potentially downright dangerous.

Referring back to the post from the chap (or indeed Chapess) who's FO was attempting their first landing, if you doubted the safety of your right-hander in the event of a late Go-Around then why on earth did you step aboard with them?????

Am I alone in a state of shock??????

Rainboe

23rd May 2005, 22:16

Me too! I am also in a state of shock. I cannot believe what I am seeing here. If you are not cleared to land, you go around. If you continue with the landing, you are placing yourself in that unknown country of having contravened all regulations and making your insurance void and placing your job/rank on the line! All very well if there is no 'outcome'. God help you if something happens.

Sunfish

23rd May 2005, 22:29

With the very greatest of respect, isn't the real issue the question of at what point do you go around if you haven't yet received a clearance to land?

To me this is about the expectations of the pilot in command, and it is a question of judgement.

Obviously you shouldn't land without a clearance - that is the ATC view. But it isn't it perfectly reasonable in some circumstances for a pilot to proceed on the expectation that he will be granted clearance? And isn't it unreasonable for ATC to say "Tough! i'm going to report you, you expected wrong!" This could descend into an aerial game of chicken.

As an extremly humble amateur pilot of a tiny bugsmasher, I have occasionally continued down to 50 feet over the threshold in the expectation that a clearance will be given as soon as the frequency is clear, or ATC finishes some other task, because the runway appears clear. ATC always has responded, otherwise I will go around just for the sake of the practice, but I don't think you heavy guys have that luxury.

Obviously if the runway appears to be not clear, or I'm unhappy about clearance from a departing aircraft, despite what ATC says, I'll go around.

ATC and pilots are supposed to work together.

Captain Airclues

24th May 2005, 00:37

Turn It Off

I told my story so as to add another aspect to what I thought was a civilised debate. I fully admitted that I was probably wrong to continue. However, in those few seconds my thinking was that the controller had told me to expect a late landing clearance, the frequency had been blocked and the runway was clear. But for the quick mike-keying of the controller I would have landed illegally and would have had to face the consequences if something had gone wrong. However, I decided that it was safer to do that than to take my passengers back up into the weather. Definately against the rules, probably wrong, but debatable whether it was dangerous.
BTW, the 747 will go-around from 10ft, I've done it several times during base training when the trainee has floated too far down the runway, and I think that I would have seen any tyre debris before the controller.

Airclues

PS....I don't think that you'd want to travel down the back of my aircraft anyway. :)

Turn It Off

24th May 2005, 05:31

Capt. Airclues,

I apologise in that case for my point regarding the go around.

I also agree about the civilised debate, I am sorry if my response was maybe a little emotive, although it did provoke a response! :ok:

what action would you take against another aircraft which is blocking the frequency or against yourself for allowing the situation to become such that the first mentioned aircrew got a report filed against them?

1. The details of the aircraft blocking the frequency, if known, would be included in the report.

2. By virtue of the fact the paperwork had been filed, the controller would also be checked in a unit investigation, and if necesary, the CAA would also been entitled to see the unit investigation, and to carry out their own.

TIO

Stick Flying

24th May 2005, 06:12

Alright,

You are in a medium sized jet, into a busy Airfield with weather down to minima and you are told to expect a late landing clearance (not uncommon at one of Europes busy hubs). The reason you have been told this is because a Turbo-prop is a little slow in lining up. The frequency becomes busy/jammed. Your missed approach takes you on exactly the same routing as the departure.

Now what are your actions. Landing on a perfectly good runway is out of the question because you haven't got a clearance. TCAS wont save you as it doesn't work below a certain RA. You must follow the standard missed approach because you dont have a clearance to diverge from that.

Am I missing the point. Does the commander hold no authority to make decisions to avoid emergency situations or must he/she wait until the situation does become dire.

Well I am sorry. I will always call it as I see it. I dont make a habit of landing without a clearance. But I believe to say you must never land without a clearance may put you and others in jeopardy. I have full confidence that I will be able to back up my actions should I be filed against.

Miserlou

24th May 2005, 07:44

Cartman's Twin,

While you're talking to your friend in a large BRITISH airline, ask him why his company requires a go-around when there is traffic on the runway.
From where I was sitting it looked like they were at about 1000' when they initiated the missed approach. Their landing clearance was already given, "Aircraft vacating 2400m down the runway, you're cleared to land."

By the time they had reached the runway the other aircraft would have been well clear. It was severe CAVOK. Where's the logic in that? Where did common sense go?

Stick Flying,
It's much more likely that it would be the jet which was slow to line up rather than a turbo-prop.

Sunfish,
Our operations are quite well lined up with reality. If we haven't received a clearance to land then we will make a go-around before the wheels hit the runway and when the required runway length no longer stretches before us.

I'd like to point out again that my local GA field, althoug having full ATC, prefers an aircraft to land behind without clearance rather than one going around into the previous which made a touch and go. Some of the traffic will typically be cleared 'circuits without calling'.

I learned this when I had a chat with them after NOT going around when instructed (in a SEP). They said that it was because an aircraft had crossed the stop line. I said, "So you wanted me to go around from the flare because there was an aircraft behind me?"
There was no fallout either way. They said they were sorry; they just saw the other aircraft and called before he'd seen me. Quick reaction, I guess. Too quick.

CanberraGuy

24th May 2005, 07:57

I'm not a pilot, yet, so I'll leave it to them to give some insight into what they would do and the considerations to be thought of while deciding etc. because there is without question always going to be a situation where breaking a written rule is the right course of action.

However, I'll just add that untill you have the specific clearance required in any situation you shouldn't act as though it has been issued in the hope that it will be later on, because there is always the possibility that you don't have the entire picture and may be flying into an unseen danger. The KLM crew thought that they had been given a take off clearance when their ATC clearance came through in Tenerife and on any other day there probably wouldn't have been a problem with their takeoff. Lady luck was working against them that day, but that accident could have been prevented.

Cheers,
CanberraGuy

ifleeplanes

24th May 2005, 08:03

I tend to go with the cover my arse option and in this case go around. The captain can In an emergency take any action necessary under the circumstances and may deviate from the rules and procedures in the interests of safety. ( JAR OPS1 ) Not having the landing clearance is is hardly an emergency, a quick GA and a return to land is the safe option under NORMAL operations. Its always easy to analyis after the fact, at 10ft its not so easy!:uhoh:

Miserlou

24th May 2005, 08:46

"...you shouldn't act as though it has been issued in the hope that it will be later on..."

You'll never get off the ground if you don't. You continue right up to where you are cleared. Cleared for the approach then you continue the approach right up to just before, but not beyond, the point at which the wheels touch the ground. That is as far as you can expect to go.

Rainboe

24th May 2005, 08:46

In attempting to analyse the situation and what one would do, we are presented with logic like this from Square Leg:
If the frequency is blocked, the runway is clear and you cannot get that call in or be called, LAND. Why? Because you can treat the situation like a lost COMMS situation. Land at nearest suitable aerodrome. Seeing that you are already looking at that "nearest suitable" aerodrome right in front of you, LAND......
The other option is to step on the frequency and just say: "WE ARE LANDING!"
I think he has thrown a fog over the issue with some serious misconceptions- what is your level of experience to come up with these gems?. A busy frequency is NOT a lost Comms situation. Stepping on a busy frequency does NOT get your message through- it prevents everybodies message getting through with a squeal! It was of no help whatsoever!

Papa Owfa

24th May 2005, 09:19

Was in Florida a while ago. Tower controller gave aircraft on very short final an instruction to go round to which the reply was.....

"Say again please!"

Miserlou

24th May 2005, 09:30

That's exactly what I did!

Cartman's Twin

24th May 2005, 10:11

An interest thread I'm sure you'll agree!

Glad to see nobody's overheated....

Re Cap Airc, I can empathise with the situation mentioned previously with severe WX on the GA track and a frequency blocked by a series of autobiographies. I am also certain that a vast majority of controllers would have filed against you if you hadn't been issued a landing clearance and indeed, in our world, it is required of us. Of course we do not live in a blame culture (yeah right...) and being filed upon does not determine responsibility, it allows an external investigator to do that, as well as justify their postion for the next day or two. I would hazard a guess though that the controller would be aware of the bad weather and in the event of a GA they would have been able to guide you safely back for second approach with clearance!

I can see you fully appreciate that in the event of an incident you would have had very few feet to stand on, perhaps none, and I appreciate that you have overall responsibility for the safe conduct of your flight.

Thank you for your comments Miserlou and I will ask the question, I'm not sure of the facts myself yet, although I'd guess that several hundred aircraft of that particular denomination land at a central London airport each day with clearance well under 200'.

I wouldn't want to be critical, and I hesitate to make any comment for fear of vilifying my colleagues at an airfield of which I have no knowledge. I visit several small to medium sized airfields in the South of England and I've yet to encounter one that would prefer an ac on approach to land without clearance rather than go around in the situation you put forward. When I was working in a Tower I would have been told that I was pushing things a little too far if I got myself into that pickle on a regular basis.

Stickflying raises a very realistic and potentially dangerous scenario. When a jet on finals is competing with a Prop on departure in low vis. IMHO, and from what I've seen happen, if conditions are poor, especially in LVPs, controllers revert to a 'super-safe' modus operandi, and there unless there is going to be PLENTY of room for the departure to take flight then it stays put. However with the Prop 'lined up' the safe decision is to go around surely. No take off clearance means he's occupying the runway, I'll go around. The situation becomes much more interesting after take off clearance is issued and I'm sure there are a hundred controllers who've been in that situation only to see the departing aircraft begin instructing the Granny in row 8 that she needs to start pedaling a bit quicker as it strolls towards the far end.

There have indeed been several incidents (and near incidents) caused by this very situation, and I can assure you that nobody is more concerned at this point of time than the controller. Whose pulse will increase, time will appear warped, and they start to think, "Should I cancel TO clearance, shout 'STOP IMMEDIATELY'', tell the landing aircraft to Go Around? How am I going to separate them???

Of course it's an infinitely variable situation and you can't blanket statement an answer, what I would say is that in this situation it is the controller's responsibility, ney job, to keep you safe. Issue go-around instruction with safe headings, pass traffic (altho I'm sure you'd be only too well aware!), etc.

I'd have to agree with Rainboe too, trying to force your message through will achieve nothing constructive whatsoever. It will cause temporary deafness with a loud squeal however. And it is certainly NOT a lost Comms situation. With a clear GA path, with other a/c on the freqeuncy, with no landing clearance - if you have the fuel you go around I'm afraid.

I'm glad a majority of you would not land without a clearance and I'm sure even the few who would even consider it would only do so under the most difficult of situations. I reserve the right to check with the captain of my next flight before departure!

I like to have the same number of aircraft landing as taking off thank you!

tocamak

24th May 2005, 10:45

An issue that probably lots of people have been confronted with at some time and I have to say in principal the go-around must be the choice. However I have been in the situation at a large airfield in a very flat country where converging approaches to a northerly and northeasterly runway take place under certain weather conditions. Those familiar with the place will be well aware that the R/T can be very busy at times and on more than one occasion the landing clearance was going to be very late indeed and I have considered what if it does not come at all. To go around will with no question place you in the missed approach track of the other runway. Highly unlikely for two go-arounds I know but if it is at all possible then it could happen. Go-around initial altitude is different on each but the tracks will cross. Other option is to land on a runway that may be contaminated with debris from previous landing (mixed mode is not normal practice so take off problem is not an issue). If the previous aircraft just vacates in a normal manner and you don't recieve clarance because controller has been distracted by other events (and it does happen that you have to call very short finals at times) then the decision has to be made. I had my decision made with the converging 747 still in my peripheral vision on the right!

xetroV

24th May 2005, 11:26

AFAIK, the tower controllers in that flat country use 'ghost blips' to ensure separation in case two aircraft on converging approaches go-around simultaneously. That is: the radar echoes of approaches to RW06 will be projected on the ILS scope for RW36 and vice-versa; the controllers must ensure separation to the following and preceding traffic on the same runway as well as to the ghost traffic from the converging runway.

In any case, that's the theory. ;)

MANTHRUST

24th May 2005, 11:36

Rules and regs in black and white are fine, we all need them, they can be tested in the classroom. If we know the rules we get our license and off we go. Shock horror we discover that the world outside is not only black and white but also grey and sometimes full of colour.
Cartmans twin.......have your chat with your British training captain friend, you will get his opinion, speak to another one and who knows you may get a different viewpoint.
I have landed once without clearance, it was the right thing to do on the day! all my other x thousand landings were with the required clearance.

Voel

24th May 2005, 15:53

Thanks for this overwhelming response. Makes our investigation easier to an unfortunate incident, as the go-around complicated matters a bit. It was safe to land, even without landing clearance, as there were no acft at the holding nor on the taxiway and the runway was inspected prior to the arrival of the scheduled flight.

xetroV

24th May 2005, 18:05

I have once been on a jumpseat as a passenger, witnessing how a crew decided to land without a landing clearance in exactly the scenario that Stick Flying described earlier. The only difference was that the weather overhead the field was clearly above minimums, but a very impressive rain shower was visible directly ahead of us in the go-around path, which also happened to be the take-off path of that small propeller airplane.

During the roll-out, the tower controller apologized for the R/T congestion,and actually thanked the crew for not initiating a go-around, saying landing without a clearance in this case was clearly the safer option.

Real world situations are not black or white, and I am actually shocked to see so many people issuing such definite statements in this thread, where sound airmanship would be to follow the rules, unless it's safer not to. Obviously cases like these are exceptional, but that's what captaincy is all about: being able to recognize exceptional situations and to act accordingly when needed.

DOVES

24th May 2005, 18:06

Some time ago I was in Los Angeles.
It was an early sunday morining. I was not able to sleep due to the jet lag and the not so far 15 hours time long tour of duty. I went out of the hotel to take a walk. Looked left, looked right, no car was visible miles around, crossed Wilshire Boulevard at a red traffic-lights. "You have broken the law": a voice shouted out of nothing: the second lonely early bird in town. It was a lesson for me.
If you brake the rule you enter a no-men land and you carry full the responsability of what you've done (nobody will support you). It could be consequenceless, but in this case, for sure, you'll try again, and one time or another you'll toss your nose .
I don't follow you guys! Who can tell me why after 39 years I'm still in the air?
And please don't tell me that you cannot go around even after the touch down. We use to perform something like that in the sim. during one of the many boring Low Visibility approaches (Cat IIIa), when, during the flare, we enter a fog patch and loose visual contact with the essential references and go around.
Further more: have you ever heard about RUNWAY INCURSIONS???
If you are not cleared to land: YOU HAVE TO GO AROUND!
Fly safe
DOVE

dicksynormous

24th May 2005, 19:20

whilst on final approach last night with a fine filly i was cleared for the backcourse approach. On short final, gear down and almost in the slot i recived an urgent go around instruction as the runway was blocked. dashed difficult manevere resulting in a crash landing at the alternate, which was firmly closed and not accepting traffic. very messy.

Next time i'll just land. Damaged my undercarraige on the over shoot and split my coffee everywhere.

Miserlou

24th May 2005, 19:48

I'd always ask twice in Italy anyway! ;-)

A-3TWENTY

24th May 2005, 20:16

GO AROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AlanM

24th May 2005, 20:31

Forgetting the GA/Bizjet world, for airliner Captains I have a question:

What is the SOP/Company ruling regarding when to initiate a go-around?? Is the DA also not landing clearance dependant? (Actual landing clearance as opposed to you are 100% sure the runway is clear and someone is babbling on the RT)

The only reason I ask because in the UK, there should be a CAA MOR form completed for landing without clearance - and the paper trail back to the cockpit could drop the crew in it, couldn't it?

Just wondered what the chief pilots out their decree. Like anything, the sh1t always hits the fan with the smaller details if it all goes wrong....

DOVES

24th May 2005, 21:00

To dicksynormous
Oh... poor boy!
If you come to the land of sun with your plane and her twins I can teach you how to land them softly as you've never seen, and with thousands of touch and-go, without splitting a single drop of coffee. Of corse if your undercarraige is not gone for ever.
My reagards to SHAKESPEARE
DOVE

Miserlou

24th May 2005, 21:48

AlanM,
Our SOP has no content re. time of landing clearance.
As long as you receive the landing before the wheels touch the runway, you're OK.
Da has nothing whatsoever to do with landing clearance though when in actual Low Viz ops. it is less usual not to have received the clearance before DA.

Capt Pit Bull

25th May 2005, 08:00

Real world situations are not black or white, and I am actually shocked to see so many people issuing such definite statements in this thread, where sound airmanship would be to follow the rules, unless it's safer not to. Obviously cases like these are exceptional, but that's what captaincy is all about : being able to recognize exceptional situations and to act accordingly when needed.

Exactly. Never say never, and never say always.

Whilst I certainly agree that going around would be the normal course of action, its not too difficult to imagine situations where it would clearly be safer to land.

e.g. smoke starts appearing in the flight deck as you are on short finals. Or you are in a fuel emergency due to already having diverted and send around once. In the ultimate case, what about if you are making a 'for real' glide approach.

God forbid we should ever be called upon to exercise any judgement.

CPB

AlanM

25th May 2005, 08:32

miserlou

Thanks for that. I thought companies had SOP's for this sort of thing (like being stabalized in the apporach by x miles)

Cheers

Gary Lager

25th May 2005, 09:18

Ours does - if no clearance by DA, it is permitted to continue to 100' RA, at the Captain's discretion, if reason exists to believe that a clearance is forthcoming (or words to that effect)

Examples: one can see the aircraft just vacating at the end of the runway, RT congestion is causing a late clearance to be issued, etc etc.

Rainboe

25th May 2005, 09:28

The point is the rules are set in stone and your company, along with my old company, have expanded those rules in a controlled fashion. But if a pilot goes outside the rules he is supposed to operate under, and breaks something or hurts somebody else, then I would expect he should prepare for a lawyers field day! His liability would be unlimited, his insurance void, and frankly I am surprised at the people here attempting to persuade others that there is any sense or justification in it.

ifleeplanes

25th May 2005, 09:44

What a discussion! GO AROUND...if you have an emergency short finals then all bets are off but that then becomes a captaincy call and what we are paid the money for.

Stick Flying

25th May 2005, 10:20

Rainboe,

You are correct. The rules are quite clear. If you break a rule which ends up in any sort of damage/loss/legal claim you will be slaughtered.

But there is talk here of bending some rules with the equally 'cast in stone' clause that should the commander decide in an emergency situation, which requires an immediate decision, the rules/regs may take second place. I will add though YOU MUST GET IT RIGHT.

Radio interference and hence loss of Radar control combined with loss of seperation is, in my mind, edging well towards an emergency which requires an instant decision.

To blindly say No Clearance- No Land in my mind borders (in some situations) more irresponsible.

I have never landed without a clearance, but I reserve the right as a commander to do so if I have 150 soles on the line. Paperwork I can deal with, mourning relatives I cant.

Centaurus

25th May 2005, 11:39

Capt Numpty. There is no way a competent instructor should allow his student to operate a radio in a busy area until said student has demonstrated full competence at correct and concise radio procedures either in a synthetic trainer or in a classroom.

Of course we all have to learn sometime, but not at the expense of flight safety or at the expense of other users.

The instructor concerned who allowed the student to block the airwaves with such drivel should be taken aside by his CFI and spoken to strongly. The trouble is there is a good chance that the instructor himself uses long winded mumbling R/T procedure and his student copies him. The blind leading the blind?

Northerner

25th May 2005, 12:10

Having read what has gone before, I confess to being a little shocked by some of the statements made.

AS controllers we are in charge of the runway.

As pilots, you are in charge of the plane.

Hopefully the two meet up within all the rules and with no problems.

Emergencies as cited by many of you cloud the issue somewhat. OF course if you are in an emergency situation then that is your call, and as far as I am concerned anything goes.

However many of the situations you describe are emergencies which would have occured sometime before, in which case ATC Should already be informed, and in that situation generally, the runway would be sterilised for you to use and you should have landing clearance so early that it never beecomes an issue.

If you simply land because you were expecting a clearance and didn't get it then imho you are showing bad airmanship. You have a decision point (whatever that may be) and should act accordingly.

"I can see the runway is clear"
What all of it? You can see the bit of lawnmower that the man chopping the grass has just dropped and left on the runway? You can see the man at the end of the runway? And as previously mentioned - runway incursions!

And if you have to go around and interact witha departure, that is something the controller should be trained to deal with.

Fly safe, speak to you soon.
Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

MikeGranby

25th May 2005, 20:20

This is a little off topic, but I notice a couple of controller talked about filing against a pilot for landing without a clearance, even if no loss of separation occured. In the US, controller will often ask the pilot to call the tower for a chat for infractions that they want to point out as unacceptable, but about which they don't want to make a formal complaint. Is there a similar process in the UK?

con-pilot

25th May 2005, 20:20

I feel that one more time we have entered an area that there is no yes or no, right or wrong answer to this question.

I have learned in the 40 plus years that I have been flying that are very few absolutes in the safe and efficient operations of aircraft. In primary and basic flight school one is taught that thou shall never do such and such. Then when operating in the real world one learns that thou shall never do such and such, except in this or that condition. Then the rules change.

I had a situation very similar to that of Captain Airclues happen to me once at Chicago O’Hare (ORD). I was the PIC and PF on a Boeing 727 landing at ORD; it was the middle of the rush hour with minimum spacing, good VMC weather and heavy frequency congestion. I was following a heavy 74 from an Asian country and as he was clearing the runway at the end I was less than a mile final. We had not received a landing clearance and as the 74 was clearing the runway the crew on the 74 started asking the local (tower) controller a series of questions blocking the frequency. Aircraft were departing on two other runways, one parallel the other a diagonal.

I elected to land without a clearance (gasp!) as we were rolling out the local controller apologized for not issuing a landing clearance. After changing to ground control the controller informed us that if we had gone around we would have caused a near-miss or worse.

So in 99% of the time I would agree that one should go around under normal circumstances. However there is one term that no one on this thread has brought up that MUST be considered.

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS! In other words keep track of what is going on around you, especially outside of the cockpit (flight deck if you must). Don’t create an accident or cause an unsafe situation by blindly following some rule.

Thank you.

Northerner

25th May 2005, 21:40

MikeGranby,

I've certainly done that myself on occasion, and I know others have too. Not really official though....

Don't want to file a report unless I have to!

Much prefer to simply chat things through and try and understand, learn and educate on all sides.

con-pilot,

you are certainly right about SA, by all means be aware, but beware that your SA may not be the whole picture the whole of the time.

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

Rainboe

25th May 2005, 21:59

Stick Flying:
I have never landed without a clearance, but I reserve the right as a commander to do so if I have 150 soles on the line. Paperwork I can deal with, mourning relatives I cant.
I think flying cargo with 150 soles (that you could have gotten into one suitcase only) is not an urgent enough situation to declare 'an emergency' because a frequency is busy! People can wait for their shoes!

ifleeplanes

25th May 2005, 22:18

Yes you should have SA but you have often only been on that frequency for a minute or two before you are cleared to land ( or not ;) ) hardly enough time to build up the complete picture. The controler has been there for ages and does have the whole picture. Go Around, its not an emergency and the controler can deal with the resulting tangle, thats what he is there for.

Stick Flying

26th May 2005, 05:17

Ahh the English language. You gotta love it.

I meant Soles of the marine variety. Have you ever seen those little blighters kick off in the back. Last thing you want is a Flipper induced oscillation.

unruly

26th May 2005, 09:02

Read thru the whole thread! Very nice discussion here. Having asked some high timers here who might have been thru the same situation, most of them replied: "It depends!". I guess Situational Awareness does come into the picture.

But with all things considered, I think it would be better to execute a Go Around and explain my actions to the pax ("Tower is to blame!" ;) luvya tower guys! Just had to blame somebody so pax doesn't blame me!) and also to the management (who espouses SAFETY over schedule! Bless them!). But bear in mind that even up to a 100' RA, mindset is for the go around in case no clearance comes my way. The landing is just prepped at the back of my mind.

Rainboe,
haha haha haha :D

PIGDOG

26th May 2005, 10:10

As has been said many a-time (but I think is appropriate here)

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."

The problem arises when the latter think they are the former.:D

Rainboe

Maybe he had 75 people on board hence the 150 soles.;)

Capt Pit Bull

26th May 2005, 11:33

I meant Soles of the marine variety. Have you ever seen those little blighters kick off in the back. Last thing you want is a Flipper induced oscillation.

But Flipper was a mammal, not a flatfish.....

Captain Airclues

27th May 2005, 09:35

The rule in BA and several other airlines is that, in IMC, a go-around is mandatory if landing clearance has not been given by 200ft aal. To me that rule is inviolable as I have no idea what is on the runway or the adjacent taxiways.

Airclues

Northerner

27th May 2005, 17:40

I-FORD:

By the comment about being in charge of the runway I simply meant that I don't try to do your job (well, not most of the time ;) ) and as such I don't expect you to do mine.

"Looking out and listening, to me, is much safer than having a clearance."

Personally I'm a huge advocate of both!

Ultimately you are in command of your aircraft and if your decision is that you land then so be it, as long as you are aware that you may not always have the full picture, and that you might meet up with a slightly disgruntled ATCO, not necessarily an apologetic one!

Rules are there for a reason, which is why most of us follow them most of the time. I particularly like PIGDOG's comment in that respect.

Fly safe and keep a good lookout then.

:ok:

Cheers,
N

P.S. Should point out that I'm not a tower ATCO, although I did have the rating once.... :{

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

con-pilot

27th May 2005, 20:06

You are 100% right on that Captain A. When IMC there is no other choice but to go around and trust in God and TCAS.

Unless one out of fuel and then you shouldn't be there anyway.:)

Rainboe

27th May 2005, 23:36

Captain A- you have pointed out the IFR rules for landing. Even if you were in VMC, were you to land intentionally without an ATC clearance and even because the frequency was busy, you would be disciplined, and possibly even sacked.

You do not land without an ATC clearance unless you have a genuine emergency. A 'genuine' emergency is not a momentarily congested frequency. You cannot 'step' on transmissions already being made. If you can't cut in and interrupt, you have but one option, and that is go-around. I hope that is clear and I hope people can see that is good airmanship. Anybody encouraging landing anyway should make clear they are encouraging breaking the rules and exposing the pilot to disciplinary action and potential loss of their job!

Is that clear enough to all?

Captain Airclues

28th May 2005, 09:53

Rainboe

You are absolutely correct. However, sometimes in life, circumstance conspire to produce a situation where, to some people, things are not so simple. When faced with a go-around into solid thunderstorms with a blocked frequency, a long clear runway can be very tempting. I realise that you would have gone around and I respect you for that. You would have been absolutely correct.
BTW. I phoned the controller to thank her for being so quick with the clearance and she was very friendly and supportive, but then it was probably a different world then (early 90's).

Airclues

Stan Woolley

28th May 2005, 10:12

Rainboe

Funny how it's so black and white with this issue yet you're totally happy with crew discretion on the B744 engine out thread?Would that skipper have gone around in these circumstances, after all his 'Mayday' was only precautionary?

Perhaps B744 pilots should be excluded from this thread as they do not have enough experience of approach and landings to have a valid opinion? :p

Rainboe

28th May 2005, 14:04

I don't see where raising the other incident has any effect on the point we are trying to talk about. I do not see what that has to do with landing without a clearance. Are you trying to make some weird convoluted point? That crew followed agreed procedures and rules to a 'T' and they do not need to suffer criticism from you.

Stan Woolley

28th May 2005, 16:24

I thought my point was obvious and the tone of your last post patronising and pompous.

Sorry I'll spell it out for you, the 744 flight and landing without a clearance are similar because they are both judgement calls.

I didn't actually criticise the crew in this thread but the question is still valid - would he have gone around?

Rainboe

28th May 2005, 16:34

With respect, they are not both judgement calls. Both are actually following rules and regulations and agreed procedures- do not land without clearance unless in a genuine emergency situation, and the flight continuation policy is agreed and confirmed with the licensing authority and in full agreement of the crews involved who have been applying it for umpteen years where appropriate, and quite happy with it as well. It is quite clear. Mixing them up is clouding the discussion.

Stan Woolley

28th May 2005, 16:58

Rainboe

The other day we found ourself at three miles 'continuing approach' while a Gulfstream backtracked for takeoff. It was always going to be tight and at two hundred feet I said to the other pilot I would land as long as the Gulfstream got airborne ie with or without clearance because to fly a published go around was asking for a mid-air .

We touched down with a clearance (just) as the all too visible Gulfstream raised its gear maybe a kilometre ahead. The other guy said he'd seen tighter but if I have I don't remember when.

One of probably dozens of scenarios where the rules don't cover real life and I have to make a judgement that I would be prepared to defend in court. Was it a genuine emergency situation and if so who was to blame?

Rainboe

28th May 2005, 22:47

Stan, so you had a close approach with one taking off. Who is to say which is the most hazardous? You were close together- what if you had plonked it down without clearance just as he ran into birds, lost engines and also plonked it down? Would that have been safer than doing a go around behind him just airborne (and probably at the same speed as you- maintaining horizontal separation)? A controller would see the hazard and control you and the Gulfstream immediately. Probably safer than landing without clearance- remember the controller may be delaying it to the last moment until he is satisfied it is safe for you to land. Who would have been in big trouble then? And marched into the FMs office? So not a very valid scenario I think.

kaepa

29th May 2005, 10:40

it is an interresting situation ,
i didn't have the time to read all the replies but i would state my action
i would excute a go-around if no landing clearence , but if my approach was for an emergency situation (fire, rev deployed, .... etc) i would land prvided VMC conditions and saftey of the landing area is visiable to me

respecting all opinions

regards :ok:

square leg

29th May 2005, 11:45

Hi Rainboe,

When I said what I said in my previous post, I under no circumstances wanted to spread the notion that I advocate landing without a clearance.

When I reread my post, I also got the feeling that I could have been misunderstood as saying that landing without a clearance is ok. It certainly is not, but... there are circumstances where it might be necessary. I won't delve into those possibilities as many have been mentioned.

Another point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is the use of 121.5. We all monitor this freq on set 2. It would be quick and easy to regain contact by contacting the tower on 121.5.

I have not yet landed without a landing clearance and don't intend on doing so.

Safe flying,

SL

Gonzo

29th May 2005, 12:01

Generally, many towers don't listen to 121.5.

Rainboe

29th May 2005, 14:57

It certainly is not, but... there are circumstances where it might be necessary.

There you go again! YES......in an EMERGENCY! Busy comms is not an emergency! Extraordinarily bad weather around.....maybe, but you would be a fool to use that as an excuse for landing without clearance. Daft answers like 'talk on 121.5'........the EMERGENCY frequency? Who, when they are trying to break in on a busy frequency with a hard runway rapidly approaching has got the time to rabbit away on 121.5 saying WHERE they are, WHAT runway, WHAT they were going to do, and BTW, could you tell XXX I shall be landing in 20 seconds please? That's 3 strikes now, Square Leg- please you are OUT! Please don't give a 4th. daft answer.

People- Air Traffic Controllers have tried to say it here discreetly. I will say it in your face....DO NOT LAND WITHOUT CLEARANCE except in genuine EMERGENCY. Stop finding ridiculous scenarios where you think it might be a good idea! Unless you have a genuine emergency, your aeroplane insurance will be void and your job on the line, and you may well go to prison if anyone gets hurt through any circumstance. The controller MUST know you are positively landing and going to be on the ground or you may find someone else on top of you (with a crunching sound).

Stan Woolley

29th May 2005, 16:04

Rainboe

Stop finding ridiculous scenarios where you think it might be a good idea!

If you include my 'scenario' above , I didn't ' find it ' , it happened last week in a Boeing in which I too am a Commander- there are others around believe it or not. :rolleyes:

We're getting your opinion loud and clear but it's just one of many, nobody lands without a clearance for fun! By the way there are two(or more)people in on the decision apart from the controller.

Controllers can make mistakes too - I've nearly been wiped out in a 757 by a controllers mistake and at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower e.g. AMS 18R/36L. He/she may well be thinking about seven things at a time (more and more these days) while we are more likely to be covering our own ass.

Rainboe

29th May 2005, 18:34

I've been at the threshold waiting for take-off completely unable to see a Checker on the runway ahead of me. You are not always aware that the runway hasn't been taken out- maybe the controller cleared a vehicle onto the runway 'after the departing A/C'. Maybe you were missed in all the ATC chaos and suddenly there you are flaring, unable to see the vehicle ahead of you through the plastic windscreen. Unless you have a serious problem, there is no excuse- don't do it!

wynned3

29th May 2005, 18:34

I'd say go-around. Most places in the EU make you contact the tower @ approx 6 miles on final. Only a few times I found it hard to get my say in but usually it won't be a problem. Is this problem in the US?

Northerner

29th May 2005, 18:50

Stan Woolley,

If the situation you describe was as tight as that then I would hope the tower controller would send you around and hold the gulfsteam on the runway. I wasn't there, so I can only hazard a guess. If you go around with the Gulfstream taking off it is up to the controller to take charge of the situation and ensure separation. That is his/her job, obviously with help and cooperation from you.

<Controllers can make mistakes too >

Oh yes, we can. There but for the grace....
But we are usually well trained in sorting them out too.

<at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower >

Whilst I agree that may be true, with respect that does not mean that you know everything that is going on on a runway. After all there may be folk on the gound, on other frequencies, working another controller, etc etc who you would not be aware of, and even if not on the runway yet, they may be very soon.

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

Rainboe

29th May 2005, 20:11

<at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower >

I'd actually disagree with this statement. Even on short finals, it can frequently be very difficult spotting an aeroplane still on its rollout as you are viewing it end on. So I don't think you can make a valid decision based on visual clues only to land without clearance. You are not to know whether the controller has already issued another aeroplane clearance" to enter and backtrack after the landing xxx".

knobbygb

29th May 2005, 20:42

Shifting the subject slightly - Just reading con-pilot's comments on the previous page (landing at ORD without clearance). Quote "...the controller informed us that if we had gone around we would have caused a near-miss or worse". Now obviously movements on intersecting runways are closely controlled to avoid any comings-together on the ground, but surely seperation needs to be applied in the situation mentioned too? Is it really the case that a go-around is sometimes not an option (or a less than safe option) when on short final in this scenario?

As a private pilot it's somthing I'm less likely to encounter than you lot, but I've often wondered about. I remember particularly thinking about this whilst watching arrivals and departures knitting neatly together at LaGuadia one day. It was a couple of years later that I read about an accident/incident there between a departure and an aircraft going around (sorry, can't remember the exact details).

Surely, with the controller aware of the 'full picture', the pilot on final should be able to declare a go around (possible for any number of reasons) at any time without putting either his/her own aircraft, or an intersecting one at risk?

I'm not criticising here - just hoping to gain even more insight from an already very interesting discussion.

Stan Woolley

29th May 2005, 21:01

Northerner

It was very tight and an earlier go-around might have been better but if we were to do that every time it looks close I'd do two a week! The bizjet probably wasn't local and I was aware of the Gulfstreams high climb rate as well as our relatively high approach/Go around speeds (738).

Everybody doing their best but just one of those many situations that call for a bit of practical decision making. I am by no means having a go at the controller - he was trying to help us.

I'm just generally trying to make the point that going around regardless might occasionally be a poor call in the real world. Other people have stated that the controller not only agreed with their decision to land, but thanked them for it.

By the way I really think it would be of huge benefit to get controllers back on the jump seat more often.

Rainboe

I've been at the threshold waiting for take-off completely unable to see a Checker on the runway ahead of me.

Time to retire mate! ;)

P-T-Gamekeeper

29th May 2005, 23:19

Every take off, be ready to abort.

Every approach, be ready to go around.

Having said that, I have landed without clearance. It was an operational task and the tower controller had lost comms. I made a judgement call based on all available information.

I totally agree with the previous posters on the importance of SA. In some parts of the world are not as competent as here, you can adjust your approach to prevent the potential airmiss on go around. It could also be argued that an early go around could be the safest option, to give more separation. Hanging on to the last minute waiting for a possible clearance isn't always that clever.

Northerner

30th May 2005, 09:58

Stan Woolley:

<By the way I really think it would be of huge benefit to get controllers back on the jump seat more often>

I couldn't agree more.

And in return, you guys should be at towers and radar centres more often too.

(that's a generic you by the way, as for all I know you personally may already be a regular visitor)

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

df1

3rd Jun 2005, 17:04

I read this thread a week or so ago now. I've skim read the latest posts so apologies if this has been covered already.

Relating to Heathrow and to some extent Capt. Airclues account, verbatim from Jeppesen Heathrow Airport "Use of Runways For Landing" chart:

" 1. "Land After" Procedure

Normally, only one aircraft is permitted to land or take-off on the runway-in-use at any one time. However, when traffic sequence is two successive landing aircraft, the second one may be allowed to land before the first one has cleared the runway-in-use, providing:

a) The runway is long enough;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the second aircraft will be able to see the first aircarft and continuously until it is clear of the runway;
d) the second aircraft has been warned.

"ATC will provide this warning by issuing the second aircraft with the instruction "land after......(first aircraft type " in place of the usual "cleared to land ". Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation between the two aircraft rests with the pilot of the second aircraft"

I appreciate it doesn't relate to the original question but it worthy of mention (if not already).

df1

triple smudge

3rd Jun 2005, 18:03

"If no landing clearance has been received, you MUST go around"... period / full-stop / end of story / shut your mouth.

A statement of absolute certainty like that should stand up to the most extreme analysis. What if you were on very short finals, on a clear day with the runway clearly open and no ground traffic approaching it, without landing clearance, and one of the following situations applied:

1. Your tanks were almost dry due to a fuel leak and a go around would be fatal.
2. There was a raging fire on board.
3. Terrorists were breaking through the flight deck door with an axe.

You'd land without clearance, I hope. Even if you were one of the contributors that said no-way-in-hell should you ever land without landing clearance.

Now, those situations are pretty unrealistic, but the point is this: those who seek to describe the best course of action in terms of an absolute rule that must never be broken are kidding themselves.

Even the die-hards would admit there are some situations (like those above) where it would be better to land, even without clearance - because it would be the safest course of action.

A few years ago, I was flying a 757 on an ILS into Schipol. There were no aircraft ahead on the approach and one had just vacated the runway. Conditions were clear at night. There were no intersecting runways. An open microphone blocked the RT and we had not yet been cleared to land. Now, which would have been more dangerous: to land on the clear runway, or to go-around in very busy airspace with a loss of comms?

I believe we took the safest option!

Smudge

Northerner

5th Jun 2005, 13:44

Triple smidge,

With respect, at the risk of inflaming (enflaming ?grammar/spelling...) the argument again, what you are describing are two different situations.

In any of your 1,2, or 3 you are, without doubt, in an emergency, and as I have said before, in an emergency anything goes and of course you land, and no-one would question that. That goes whether or not we know of the emergency, although certainly with the first two I would hope that ATC would have been given some warning before you were 200ft from touchdown but I accept that maybe that's not possible all the time. In the subsequent inquiry we would find out your emergency, and so, anything goes.

Landing without clearance and not going around in a serviceable aircraft because of a blocked mike/controller too busy/any multitude of reasons which you may or may not be aware of just because the go-around would take you into busy airspace is NOT the correct course of action. I'm sorry, but it's not. I work in TMA airpace, there are procedures for go-arounds, and they are there for a reason!

You think you chose the safest option, we will never know the full particulars, but at the risk of provoking you, perhaps you took the easiest or possibly even the laziest option?
I applaud Pilot's discretion, generally I find you all to be an incredibly professional lot and it is a pleasure to work with you guys. Let's work together hey?

Fly safe!

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

Gary Lager

6th Jun 2005, 16:20

I found out the technical name for a 'blocked mike' the other day - it's called a 'heterodyne' (sp?).

I was watching a National Geographic Channel programme about the 1977 Tenerife accident where a heterodyne (good, isn't it?) was certainly a contributory factor. Interesting to draw parallels between that accident and the discussion here, I think.

Although, I must say, I personally believe that there are no hard & fast rules, and agree with smidge's sentiment.

As my old Grandma used to say: "Flexibility is the key to Air Power"

Odlix

8th Jun 2005, 17:45

My 2 cents...

Here's a real life situation that happened last winter;

A320 on radar vectors for rwy 18L, on base leg 2000'agl, indicated wind 80kts and mod to severe turbulence (one of those days when it's hard to even read the instruments). ATIS wind is 230/30G55, CAVOK, windshear all rwys.
Preceding traffic is 2,5NM ahead. After short-cut for final (given by ATC), separation is reduced to 2NM.
Over the threshold at around +/-30ft, still no landing clearence. Preceding aircraft is half way into the taxiway, rolling out of the runway.

What to do at this point?????
Is it safer to land without clearence knowing that by the time the nose gear is down the runway will be clear , or, go-around under those highly adverse conditions?...

Waiting for everyone's opinion and I will let you know how it ended. :ok:

letMfly

8th Jun 2005, 22:54

If you can't get a landing clearance because of a blocked frequency, remember to look at the control tower before going around - you might just get a steady green light. It happened at my airfield this evening!

LightningIII

8th Jun 2005, 23:19

I have just come back from the States where a local flying school (PAN AM) with stacks of planes constantly filled the pattern to overflowing. With non English speaking pilots struggling with American English (yes it is different !!??).
I had this happen soooooo many times . Do I go around ? Have I been cleared ? The tower would tell me quite often give clearance 10ft from the ground in the end , sometimes not at all. The answer is the following
1. In controlled airspace you are positioned 1 / 2 / 3 etc. So they are expecting you to land 1 /2/ 3 - you should do it.
2. Going around may upset the whole cart if there is no way of getting in that transmission 'GOING AROUND' coz of non stop chatter. You end up Upwind with other traffic crossing
3. Use common sense . Do not land if there is someone on the active and always keep you eyes open !
Be this in VRF flight , can't say I would do the same IMC.:rolleyes:

OzExpat

9th Jun 2005, 07:29

Odlix... my 2-cents worth for your scenario. For me, there are 4 issues :-

1. The preceding aircraft is still half on the runway; and
2. Your approach speed is going to be higher than normal, as a defence against the windshear, so you're going to eat up more runway than usual during the landing.
3. If the decision is to go around, will I still have enough airspeed to give me afighting chance with the windshear?
4. If the decision is to go around, what other traffic is likely to get screwed up? And will this action lead to a separation breakdown, or worse? :eek:

So, is that taxyway... the one where the preceding aircraft is only half on... at or near the end of the runway? Will there be enough room left, before the intersection with that taxyway, to stop your aircraft if the preceding aircraft comes to an unexpected stop while still only halfway on the taxyway?

The balancing of these considerations is just one of the reasons why command judgement is so vital.

On balance, I think that I'd prefer to land and hope to be able to avoid the preceding aircraft if it stops before fully exiting. I base this on the consideration of the severe windshear, the effect on the pax of a late go-around and the very high possibility that the preceding aircraft won't stop unexpectedly. So, yes, I'd rather land and debate the issue with ATC after that - always easier to seek forgiveness afterwards! :E