Continue approach???

[Killroy]

Hello all,

Every so often when you are instructed by an approach controller to contact the tower -once you are established on any instrument approach- and you do so the tower responds with: "continue approach"..
I've always wondered what the use of this bit of conversation might be; I'm interested in my number to land and of course I'm planning on continuing.

Does anyone know if I'm missing something here?

Regards,

K.

[DFC]

The way that I see it, the Tower controller can tell you one of three things that are important to you on final approach;

Cleared to Land;

Go-Arround; or

Continue Approach.

The old system was that you were cleared to land at the OM. These days very few places can do that and consequently you often get the continue approach.

Where it has slipped slightly is that in years gone by, the phrase was always followed by the reason for not being cleared to land;

eg -

ABC123 Outer Marker
Tower - ABC123 continue approach traffic to vacate.

These days we simply get the "continue" cause if you are at 4nm at somewhere like Heathrow, chances are that there is one on short final and one to vacate!

Regards,

DFC

[NudgingSteel]

I'd guess:
1. it's confirmation on first contact with the tower that the runway, approach aid etc is available and nothing terribly unexpected is occurring.

2. more importantly, to confirm that you're not clear to land at that point for any reason.

If you were just told "Roger, number 3" or similar on first contact, yes I know that doesn't constitute a landing clearance on this side of the Atlantic but maybe there is enough possibility of confusion?
I don't really know. Perhaps it's because ATCOs prefer to give an order than just a piece of information......
;)

[eastern wiseguy]

Of course the Tower atco may have other things going on.If you were for example to fly in to my patch you may have just missed a checker vehicle being instructed to vacate ...or a helicopter cleared to cross ...or the tower controller on the phone ..a load of things .You should have been told by approach your number in the sequence...I MIGHT decide to tell you continue ..becoming number1 ...I might not.All of the above could be covered by "Roger" when you first call...but that is a whole (already hammered to death)other thread

:ok:

[Father Jack]

In my view the phrase is completely superfluous, and could be effectively replaced by "roger."

However...you try not saying it and you'll end up with further questions from crews who are so used to hearing it.

"tower, do you want us to continue?"
"tower, are we cleared to land?"
etc
etc

:ok:

[Gonzo]

From my point of view the main purpose of 'continue approach' is to give the crews something to reply to, thereby confirming to me that both myself and the a/c have working radios.

[Widger]

Continue approach is not superfluous. It means,

"I cannot give you a positive clearance to land at this time but, I anticipate that I may be able to soon. Continue your approach until I give you further instructions or your reach your DH/DA. If you get to that point without a positive clearance to land, you should execute a MAP"


Simple really.

[BOAC]

..........and I believe a full readback of 'continue' is required?

[javelin]

Or as heard at Las Vegas -

Heading 220, lock onto the localiser 25L, you are number 4 in traffic for 19L, clear land 19L, not below 4,000' until final, caution the helicopter below you.

The helicopter got a very good view of us fully configured coming round final turn :ok:

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Widger

Are you sure we have to go around if we have not been cleared to land by DH/DA if you've told us to continue approach? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just haven't seen it written anywhere. To add to the confusion, what if we were on a visual approach?

I don't think that this would work at the London Aerodrome!

G W-H

[Barnaby the Bear]

If an aircraft is established at 6 or 7 miles and transferred to me on the tower frequency. I will either say 'continue approach' or Continue with a DME report. This is usually either because I have departing traffic, traffic to vacate or vehicles.
At that distance I don't want to give up my runway too early. Its not uncommon as soon as I say 'cleared to Land' a vehicle will call to cross the active runway.
If I get the aircraft later...say at 4 miles if nothing already on the runway, then the landing clearence will be issued.

I think just 'Roger' doesn't say enough, I agree 'continue approach' is not perfect but it means exactly what it says on the tin in minimal words.....Continue, I am not ready to issue a landing clearence.
:}

[LateLandingClearance]

@Widger

Your long winded explanation of what you mean by continue approach seems to add to my belief that the use of "continue approach" is wasted r/t.

To come at it from another direction, all of what you have told the flightcrew is what they are going to do anyway. Therefore a response in the form of "roger" is perfectly sufficient.

I would suggest Gonzo's argument also an excuse for giving yourself something to say. I've heard the aircraft (so I know their tx and my rx are working). I respond "roger". I get no second call from the aircraft repeating their initial call, so I'm confident that they heard me respond (therefore my tx and their rx are working).

I'm not suggesting by any means that responding to an aircraft's initial call with "continue" is wrong. Each to his/her own. I just prefer to respond with "roger" as it saves my time when I can be doing other things. We get crews to call us on initial contact with callsign only to reduce r/t, then we respond with a transmission which requires them to readback, therefore increasing the r/t useage. Just seems backward to me :hmm: :)

[hangten]

i believe in sharing the picture, pilots situational awareness and all that but if i'm busy i'm afraid it's just not practical. if you call at say 9 or 10 miles it's quite feasible the correct reason for 'continue approach' could be

'continue approach, number 2, 1 to vacate, 2 to depart, there is a vehicle on the runway performing a routine runway inspection which will vacate and re-enter shortly'

bit of a mouthful (number 1 has probably gone around by this point..!) and potentially confusing, hence unfortuanately you have to make do with 'continue approach', which as mentioned is essentially just a response to your 'check-in' on the frequency. you're not cleared to land but don't go-around! some colleagues in the above picture would simply say

'continue approach, number 2'

which is true but perhaps misleading as to the actual runway plan?

finally i think the use of just 'roger' is a little too minimilist, and i agree with father jack, crews will rightly ask for clarification which takes even more r/t time.

[Scott Voigt]

In the US you may get a continue, and if you do land with out a clearance to land, you could be violated for it.

regards

Scott

[MrApproach]

In Australia it used to be a published phrase in answer to a pilots initial call to the Tower when transferring from an approach unit and all the older guys were taught to use it. Nowadays there are more aircraft, less time and no published phrase so most pilots prefer a simple acknowledgement or g'day. They know they will get a landing clearance eventually. Continue Approach doesn't need definition, it's obvious what it means and the approach controller has already issued a clearance for the approach so it's superfluous. Do en-route controllers on first contact with aircraft being handed off from another sector say "Continue Cruising"?

[manintower]

Not a needless phrase at all
1. situational awareness to ATC/Pilot/vehicles
2. pilot doesn't have to worry that ATC is aware of his/her intention (critical in landing phase

[Goldfish Jack]

"Continue approach" has for me been one of the most useless transmissions you can ever make. Tell an a/c "not to continue the approach and see what happens" !!

The aircraft has a forward speed and will continue, no matter what you say to them! So why waste time and tell them the obvious - just give them their order in the queue, or when they can expect landing clearance, or any other important info.... but "continue approach" is just wasted r/t to me.

I have never used it in 20 + years as an ATC and no pilot has ever asked me, must they continue the approach.

I just tell them their landing order, or if there is traffic ahead to depart and it works well.

"cleared to continue the approach" was a lot of .....

[This is a crisis]

My thinking is that pilots like to hear a positive transmission when they come on frequency - not just a 'roger'. One of my mentors years and years ago used to always say "Say something positive even if it is only continue approach"!!

It is actually standard phraseology in both the Radio Telephony Manual and Mats Part 1.

The RTF Manual says:

"The runway may be obstructed when the aircraft makes its ‘final’ report at 4 nm or less from touchdown but is expected to be available in good time for the aircraft to make a safe landing. On these occasions, the controller will delay landing clearance.

e.g. "G-CD final"............."G-CD continue approach"

The controller may or may not explain why the landing clearance has been delayed but the instruction to ‘continue’ IS NOT an invitation to land and the pilot must wait for landing clearance or initiate a missed approach"



:ok:

[DFC]

This is a Crisis,

You have hit on a very interesting point.

Don't moan about being told to continue your approach when you selfom if ever call final! :)

Regards,

DFC

[terrain safe]

That opens up the can of worms of where is final? 4miles, 2miles or what? Furthur worm filled recepticle of short final. Whereis that? Some pilots seem to think it's about 4 miles while I think it's about 1/2 a mile. Anyway back to the question yep say continue approach and say number 2 one to depart ahead of you, keeps the pilot in the picture (hopefully). Besides it's polite to talk.

[AdmlAckbar]

Don't have a problem with 'Continue approach' but one thing I definitely don't like doing is mentioning the words 'land' or 'landing' until aircraft are cleared to do so. Just in case they get the wrong end of the stick.

Keep them in the picture, if necessary telling them the colour of the vehicle on the runway. And 'Continue approach, you're number 1' even at 3am means that in all those lights they can see around the runway, they're not looking for an aircraft.

[2 sheds]

"That opens up the can of worms of where is final? 4miles, 2miles or what? Furthur worm filled recepticle of short final."
____________________________________________________

There is no can of worms at all.

The UK documents are quite clear - "final" is on final approach at 4nm or less; beyond that distance is "long final". And the UK does not use "short final" for the very reason that that expression potentially becomes confusing to all concerned. I have seen an airprox caused by the (UK) controller wrongly using "short final" and the pilot's interpretation of it being totally different.

"Short final", however, is an ICAO expression (and therefore, various other States') meaning the same as the UK "final".

There is nothing to prevent a controller or a pilot using the term "3 miles final" etc when it is necessary to be more specific.

[Widger]

Let's break it down then. Visual circuits and Radar Approaches.

In the visual circuit, when an aircraft calls finals, he must go around unless he gets either a positive clearance to land or a continue, The continue is given to ensure that the circuit is expeditious and a circuit is not wasted. It is usually given when the one ahead is rolling, slip and sliding, what ever you want to call it in your part of the world. If the pilot is told to continue and still does not receive a clearance by the time he reaches his commital height, he should go around.

Now to radar. When conducting a radar approach of whatever kind and NOT on Tower frequency, the radar controller needs a statement from Tower at the finals point (wherever it is). If he does not receive that clearance or continue, he should break off the approach.

We now come to essentially a visual, straight in approach which is conducted the majority of the time, where the aircraft is flying an instrument approach, whilst spaeking to the Tower, This is where the procedure becomes blurred, but the command is essentially the same, continue your aproach and expect a positive clearance to land.

I agree that conditional clearances are indeed poor practice except in certain circumstances and there are plenty of incidents and accidents to back up this fact.

:ok:

[bekolblockage]

Heading 220, lock onto the localiser 25L, you are number 4 in traffic for 19L, clear land 19L, not below 4,000' until final, caution the helicopter below you.

Glad you're impressed. Good to see the Yanks are embracing ICAO phraseology and International English language proficiency with open arms.
Frankly, as I've said before on other forums, I don't see an ounce of logic in clearing somebody to land when they're still number 4. Why don't you just tell them when they're NOT clear to land - save yourself a lot of breath.