BA 747 off the RW in MIA [Archive]

Longtimer

27th Dec 2006, 00:18

Plane Carrying Tony Blair Overshoots Miami Runway
(CBS) MIAMI British Prime Minister Tony Blair was confirmed to be aboard the British Airways flight that overshot the runway at Miami International Airport Tuesday evening.

Flight 209, carrying 343 passengers and crew onboard luckily had no injuries. The plane did not sustain any damage, but some runway lights were broken by the plane. The plane was making an arrival from London’s Heathrow Airport, with Blair traveling in first class.

No word yet on what caused it to slightly run off the landing area and onto the grass.

The plane, with passengers inside, is being towed to the terminal.

CBS sources would not comment further as to why Blair was traveling on the plane.

(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

bubbers44

27th Dec 2006, 00:34

Clear skies with wind 340/07 last hour. Not any sign of wx in south Florida.

Iain

27th Dec 2006, 00:42

Considering it was towed to the gate, I would imagine it was to do with the construction going on there.

bubbers44

27th Dec 2006, 00:46

But it doesn't explain the news saying it went into the grass and broke runway lights.

Iain

27th Dec 2006, 00:51

But it doesn't explain the news saying it went into the grass and broke runway lights.
And you believe the news???? :p :p

bubbers44

27th Dec 2006, 01:00

Sorry about your PM's delayed arrival at the gate but yes, when all of the newspapers and TV news in Miami say the same thing, I believe the news. I normally don't but tonight I do. I looked at half a dozen different sources and they all say the same thing. This is not a big event here because the voting machines haven't failed since the last election.

Dan Winterland

27th Dec 2006, 01:04

Just heard it on the BBC, so it must be true!

bomarc

27th Dec 2006, 01:05

was the plane landing on runway 30? I just checked and there is an ILS apch to both 12/30.

I did read that the plane was not towed to the gate, but just pushed back on to the runway enough to allow it to taxi under its own power to gate.

Iain

27th Dec 2006, 01:07

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/26/blair.plane/index.html

They say construction.

con-pilot

27th Dec 2006, 01:29

HEY, WOW, another non-event;

Wait for it!

Wait for it!

STUPID NON-EVENT AVIATION NEWS STORY.:D :D :D :D :D

Another Number

27th Dec 2006, 01:30

"Aircraft carrying PM Tony Blair, completely out of control, skids off end of runway, travels 500m over bumpy ground, hits berm, and flips. Reports of flames."

-versus-

"Aircraft carrying PM Tony Blair, misses tight turn on taxiing after safe landing. Aircraft requires quick push to get back on track"

Which makes better copy?

Two's in

27th Dec 2006, 02:10

Let me try to guess the "Sun" headline;

Daring Blair in British Air late flare scare after using rare cheap rate fare - inspection at MIA reveals only fair wear and tear.

bubbers44

27th Dec 2006, 02:17

R30 has a stepdown localizer approach. With the winds tonight they probably landed on the shorter runway 30. Hopefully Tony will have a fun night at South Beach.

Chesty Morgan

27th Dec 2006, 02:19

TowerDog

27th Dec 2006, 02:24

British Airways spokesman John Lampl said that a portion of the runway was under construction, making it difficult for the pilot to see clearly where he was on the runway.

The plane was pushed back onto Runway 12-30, which is 9,354 feet long and 150 feet wide.

Easy to do.
Who is to cast the first stone?

I may have cut a corner or crushed a runway or taxiway light driving around various airports in big Boeings the last 18 or 20 years....And gotten away with it.

Once, during my first month as a B-747 captain I did a VIP flight into Split in Croatia and misjudged my turn on the runway...Left wheel tracks in the grass with 150 people waiting to greet the VIPs watching from top of the terminal building..A bit red in the face, but no CNN and no PPruNe on the scene.....:)

sirwa69

27th Dec 2006, 06:02

Daring Blair in British Air late flare scare after using rare cheap rate fare - inspection at MIA reveals only fair wear and tear.
Ha Ha Ha, 'Very funny Two's in You sure your not the Headline writer for the Sun?

captjns

27th Dec 2006, 06:46

I hope PM and tow made it to Joe's for Stone Crabs in time. Hope the captain is not sent to the Tower for a beheading.

chasb441

27th Dec 2006, 07:55

I note, as a good new user, and having read the posting rules that 'No Abuse of PM' is allowed := -LOL- so no abuse intended Mr Blair but please stay over there. Its much nicer here without you !!

In all seriousness (IMHO) its a bit of a non-event. Thats one big aircraft to control and I'm sure these incidents are regular but, due to 'non-VIP' content on most PAX list's, we never get to hear of them on the International press.

A300Man-2005

27th Dec 2006, 08:04

According to ITN, Mr. Blair was actually en-route to stay at the mansion of one of the "Bee Gees" lead singers..........

........and when Tony eventually arrived, they sang "Staying Alive", no doubt!!

The fact remains that if this was a normal flight (i.e. without a celebrity on board), this particular thing wouldn't even have made the news anywhere (except here on PPRUNE, of course). Media nonsense. Here on the radio news in the Middle East, it was reported that the "aircraft had overshot the runway and clipped the lights at the end of the runway as it tried to climb out........."

A300Man

d71146

27th Dec 2006, 08:11

As other posters have mentioned it probably only made news because their was a VIP on board.
Even so the Flight Crew will take a ribbing over this on arrival back in London and possibly the wrath of other certain individuals.

WhoopWhoop Whoops

27th Dec 2006, 08:17

Looks like the crew will have taxi training in the sim when they get back. Unless it was a management pilot in charge. In which case it will be Miami airports fault.Usual practice in such incidents.

parabellum

27th Dec 2006, 08:41

OK, so there was Tony Bliar, his wife and some of their kids on board, no mention of the name of the VIP though, strange. Anyone know who they were?

G-CPTN

27th Dec 2006, 09:30

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/12/26/blair.plane/index.html
A Boeing 747 carrying British Prime Minister Tony Blair missed a turn after landing and struck runway lights Tuesday at Miami International Airport, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1245269,00.html
The British Airways flight skidded and ran over some lights after landing at Miami International Airport in Florida.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6211307.stm
BA said the pilot could not see the lights leading to the taxiway - causing him to hit more lights - and the plane had to be realigned.

747-436

27th Dec 2006, 09:31

tafftheraf

27th Dec 2006, 10:21

I suppose its worth suggesting that here we have another example of the rather lack-a-daisical mentality that exists in the US (where I have lived for decades) with regards to ATC procedures, runway lights (sometimes hardly worth the name), construction, and so forth (KLEX another more tragic example). I was an Air Traffic Contoller in the UK and am far more comfortable with ATC in the UK (not much experience in the rest of the world outside N America). A few years ago at EGLL a US pilot (on a long final for 27R) almost demanded landing clearance (would not accept "continue the approach") even though there was traffic lined up for t/o - and would be vacating the runway soon. Also remember the media probably dont realize that a B744 does not have a reverse gear......

TheOddOne

27th Dec 2006, 10:39

As others have said a complete non event, no one would have heard about it if it wasn't for a couple of SLF on it!!
Feel sorry for the Pilots, will be in for a ribbing from their colleagues, hope BA don't do anything to them!
Saw on Generally Mediocre Television (GMTV) this morning the reporter saying that the aircraft was towed so it could make its way back to runway! Usual reporting where the whole airport is the runway :ugh:

Well, I disagree, this is NOT a non-event (if you'll pardon the double negative)

Translating the LDA into numbers I'm more familiar with I make it 2524 metres. There are runways with LDAs shorter than this in the UK regularly used by B747 arrivals. If 30 at MIA is CAT I or visual, I don't suppose it benefits from green centreline lighting on the exits, so presumably has blue edge lighting.

A trawl through the MIA NOTAMs for today suggests plenty of construction work in the area of the Terminal buildings (lots of cranes etc) but no reference to work out on the Manoeuvrig Area.

There seem to have been 2 possible scenarios:
a) the aircraft failed to come to a halt within the LDA and finished up in the departure Stopway.
b) the aircraft slowed sufficiently to make the turnoff onto Quebec but for some reason the available ground lighting failed to give sufficient cues to the crew as to the appropriate turn to take, so they taxi'd into the Stopway.
I'd be disappointed if the NTSB didn't carry out some sort of investigation, to prevent a recurrence.

I'd say that in this instance, the quote about being towed back to the runway IS accurate - the Stopway ain't part of the landing runway!

You're probably right about it not coming to the attention of the news media if HE hadn't been on board.

TheOddOne

Hudson Bay

27th Dec 2006, 11:17

Very poor Piloting. My guess is that the Captain used to be a bored bank manager and came into the profession late in life. Financed his training by selling his third house and really has no comprehension on how to stop an aircraft using no more than the LDA. The F/O has got 200 hours on a Cessna 150 and thinks that a good landing is soft! All the reward points go to touching down at the correct speed and on the touchdown markers. Sorry no points for the rest of it.

You Gimboid

27th Dec 2006, 11:19

Unless it was a management pilot in charge. In which case it will be Miami airports fault.Usual practice in such incidents.

Latest headline on Yahoo! says "BA blame Miami airport for incident". Look no further for where this one is going....:ugh:

smith

27th Dec 2006, 12:42

Was the aircraft at taxi speed and taxying or was it still in the landing roll?

overstress

27th Dec 2006, 13:18

There seem to have been 2 possible scenarios:
a) the aircraft failed to come to a halt within the LDA and finished up in the departure Stopway.
b) the aircraft slowed sufficiently to make the turnoff onto Quebec but for some reason the available ground lighting failed to give sufficient cues to the crew as to the appropriate turn to take, so they taxi'd into the Stopway.
I'd be disappointed if the NTSB didn't carry out some sort of investigation, to prevent a recurrence.

TheOddOne
You are completely wrong on both counts. The a/c never left any paved surface.
The BA 747 was the third a/c to do this within a short period, MIA ground know all about it and maintenance on the TWY is scheduled. But a shame to let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh? :hmm:

VFR - yes I do know the reg but I can't imagine why you'd need to know so I'm not telling you!

Carnage Matey!

27th Dec 2006, 14:21

There is a plan of MIA here (http://www.answers.com/topic/miami-airport-diagram-png). The aircraft rolled to the end of R30 and was aiming to make the 150 degree right turn towards taxiway M. Those familiar with MIA will know that area is a bit of a pigs ear and lacks adequate lighting. In the darkness the crew went taxied too far and crunched a few lights on the displaced threshold of R12 during the turn so decided to hold position whilst they got an inspection. The area of the incident can be found here (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://mia.airport.aero/assets/images/MIA-aerialLM.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mia.airport.aero/html/mia_maps.html&h=1501&w=1717&sz=932&hl=en&sig2=8JXQpNHT6I5KLcMU0q9ATg&start=16&tbnid=JbovfOEpUHG4nM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=150&ei=sI6SRf2oHMz-wAGcg621DA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmiami%2Binternational%2Bairport%26svnum%3D10%26 hl%3Den%26lr%3D) although Google Earth gives a better image. Bit of a non-event.

bomarc

27th Dec 2006, 14:34

This is an "EVENT" and needs to be analyzed and problems corrected.

Unless someone has data to refute the following:

the last 2000' of runway the runway lights (edge) turn an amber/yellow color

the last 3000' of centerline lights start to alternate red and white

the last 1000' of centerline lights are all red.

while a tough taxiway turnoff is just that, one must wonder about adequate lighting for the turnoff and , sorry pilots, proper briefing of the approach and expected turnoff .

another poster has indicated that there were other similiar incidents on this runway. if so, then time for some changes at MIA.

Carnage Matey!

27th Dec 2006, 14:47

There are no centreline or edge lights for the turn off in question, and the red runway end lights are not actually at the end of the runway but some way beyond it.

sox6

27th Dec 2006, 15:05

************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

December 27, 2006

************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING BRITISH AIRWAYS LANDING INCIDENT IN MIAMI

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board is
investigating an incident that occurred last night at Miami
International Airport involving a British Airways Boeing
747. There were no injuries to the 343 persons aboard,
including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his family.

At approximately 6:15 p.m. EST, December 26, British
Airways flight 209 from London landed on runway 30 at Miami
International Airport. The aircraft was a Boeing 747-400,
registration G-BNLM. After slowing to taxi speed, the
aircraft taxied beyond the end of the runway and went into
the paved runway overrun area. In so doing, it knocked down
two approximately 12-inch-high approach lights for runway 12
(the same runway in the opposite direction).

The aircraft was towed onto a taxiway, at which time
it proceeded under its own power to the gate. An inspection
revealed no damage to the aircraft or its tires and it
subsequently departed on its scheduled return flight to
London.

Jeff Kennedy from the NTSB's Southeast Regional Office
in Miami is the Investigator-in-Charge of this incident.
Damage to the runway lights has been documented and the
Safety Board will collect statements from the flight crew.

bradfordboy

27th Dec 2006, 15:19

According to ITN, Mr. Blair was actually en-route to stay at the mansion of one of the "Bee Gees" lead singers..........
........and when Tony eventually arrived, they sang "Staying Alive", no doubt!!

Bearing in mind the New Years Honours list is just around the corner you might like to amend that shortly to 'Lord BeeGee'

BB

doubledolphins

27th Dec 2006, 15:44

I thought ex bank managers became cabin crew. Any way, bet it was a very senior captain because of the VVIPs on board. Some one who would not normally dream of bidding to go some where as "awful" as Miami.

(I quite like Florida, but then I'm "Charter".)

Well who ever it was, tough luck.

Carnage Matey!

27th Dec 2006, 15:50

No it was a regular Joe. The management only turn up for the cushy charter flights, especially on Boxing Day.

h73kr

27th Dec 2006, 16:01

This non-event event is gonna run for days no doubt, especially at this time of year. Does this mean Blair was an insurgent! :hmm: Waits for full in depth shallow 'analysis' of the possibility this was related to a terror strike, and for more stringent examination of passengers hand baggage as an obvious measure to 'reassure' everyone in the 'War on Terror'......sigh...

verticalhold

27th Dec 2006, 16:13

Slight thread creep. I wonder if the Bliars had to go through all the nausea of airport security in London and then the usual welcoming performance from the Department of Homeland Security in the States.

I'd hate to think that having been largely responsible for the mess we are in that he missed having his shoes x-rayed or his pile ointment confiscated:E

h73kr

27th Dec 2006, 16:15

'...all hand baggage to be checked for marshalling wands.......'?

TheOddOne

27th Dec 2006, 17:29

TheOddOne
You are completely wrong on both counts. The a/c never left any paved surface.
The BA 747 was the third a/c to do this within a short period, MIA ground know all about it and maintenance on the TWY is scheduled. But a shame to let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh? :hmm:
VFR - yes I do know the reg but I can't imagine why you'd need to know so I'm not telling you!

With all due respect, I didn't say it left the paved surface, just the declared Landing surface. The chart I've got seems to indicate an area of Stopway beyond the runway, that may also be used as a blast pad for the reciprocal rwy. My understanding is that this is where the a/c came to rest. Anyone any better info than that?

There's no 'good' story here. We all need the 'facts' so that we can prevent a recurrence, whether we're pilots or airport operators.

I'm pleased to see that my aspiration that the NTSB investigate is happening.

TOO

bomarc

27th Dec 2006, 18:06

I don't think we can call this an "overshoot". not even an "overrun". instead it is a taxi incident.

my earlier post indicating the colors of the lights on the runway etc. were meant to allow us all to consider being darn slow once the centerline lights are all red.

as to centerline lights leading off the runway to the taxiway, that quite possibly could have helped avoid the whole incident.

M.Mouse

27th Dec 2006, 18:14

From my understanding what looked like a taxiway wasn't and once they realised they may have hit a light they elected to stop and ask for assistance rather than risk exacerbating the damage.

I also understand that the light they hit was not illuminated either.

Hands up anybody who has never become confused at night at an unfamiliar airfield.

Sounds to me like the aircrew made an honest mistake and demonstrated intelligent airmanship by seeking assistance rather than blunder around trying to recover from a confusing situation.

The fact the aircraft was undamaged would indicate that only pride was hurt and the fact that they were the third aircraft in recent times to do the same would indicate that something more than an error of judgement was at work.

bomarc

27th Dec 2006, 18:23

M. Mouse:

I've even been confused at my home airfield at night, even in daylight.

I recall a tragic crash in DTW where confusion caused a collision on the ground.

apparently there are not ''taxiway lead off lights'', but as I haven't been to Miami in about 5 years, I will wait for someone who has recently been there.

I think if all airports were bulldozed and rebuilt with new standards on lights, signage and configuration, we would see very different looking airports.

Britjet

27th Dec 2006, 18:51

I quote the AIS that was available to the crew (I assume from the posts that they landed on 30)..

"Exercise extreme caution when taxing clear of RWY 30 via exit at end of RWY due to unusual lighting characteristic".

What is that exactly? Fifth of July fireworks? A laser show? You work it out.

At the end of the day the crew went for the safe option. No-one hurt. An excellent result despite poor briefing availability. This is a small demonstration of the lack of information that is available on a world-wide basis to professional crews who have to make the best of someone else's poor collation of airfield unserviceabilities.

The fact that is doesn't happen more often is testament to the experienced instinct and perceptive appraisal of the information that is made available to them, often at short notice.

doubledolphins

27th Dec 2006, 20:08

Just an ordinary Joe? Ouch! poor chap! I was just trying to enjoy the thought of a Management Pilot disciplining himself. Sorry for the little dig. There but for the grace of God.......

gordonroxburgh

27th Dec 2006, 20:48

I quote the AIS that was available to the crew (I assume from the posts that they landed on 30)..

"Exercise extreme caution when taxing clear of RWY 30 via exit at end of RWY due to unusual lighting characteristic".

Looks like the Crew were 100% right in my book: They exercised extreme caution and decided it was not safe to taxi clear if they did not know where they were due to the lighting. The took the aircraft safely out of danger and in the runway run off area, rather than stop on the runway itself.

In my view if there are issues with the runway exit, the airport are at fault for not having a follow me van out there to cover all situations.

overstress

27th Dec 2006, 22:46

This kind of thing happens reularly at JFK as well. The area near the BA terminal is very difficult to operate a 747 in especially in heavy rain with standing water. There are very few taxyway lights and is is almost impossible to distinguish the taxyway centreline especially with sodium lighting in the background. You try to taxy safely whilst GMC is bellowing 'hurry up' at you. Armchair pilots, flightsim experts and Monday morning quarterbacks are welcome to have a go!

Another Number

28th Dec 2006, 00:38

Lawyers for Tony Blair, BA, and the UK Government have commenced action for unspecified damages, against the designers, manufacturers and installers of the ... runway lighting. ;)

They are citing a clear precedent (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=257070).

:D

Basil

28th Dec 2006, 09:56

try to taxy safely whilst GMC is bellowing 'hurry up' at you
Yes, recollect taxying in at Baku and stopping to evaluate wing tip clearance on parked aircraft. ATC shouting at us to continue, 'Follow me' doing rapid 360s in front of our nose and our station manager on the flight deck saying "It's OK to taxy here!"
Needless to say we ignored the lot of them and continued when the FO and I were satisfied that we could get through safely :*

derekl

28th Dec 2006, 10:14

I just loved the Sun this morning . . .

"PM Tony Blair was recovering last night at Bee Gee Robin Gibb’s £5million home after his jet was caught in a landing scare in the US.

The BA 747 overshot the runway and smashed into lights in Miami, Florida."

and so on ad nauseam

overstress

28th Dec 2006, 18:36

his jet was caught in a landing scare
It isn't his jet it's BA's
It wasn't caught in anything - do they mean like in a net or something?
No-one was scared
It wasn't landing, it was taxying clear of the runway
So the accurate words in the above quote are 'jet' and err.. that's it :ugh:

And journos wonder why we get frustrated with them printing any old inaccurate rubbish in order to sell newspapers which we then buy and read and get frustrated at etc etc

I'm off to lie on the sofa.... ;)

Wangja

28th Dec 2006, 21:02

I just loved the Sun this morning . . .
"PM Tony Blair was recovering last night at Bee Gee Robin Gibb’s £5million home after his jet was caught in a landing scare in the US.
The BA 747 overshot the runway and smashed into lights in Miami, Florida."
and so on ad nauseam

and the Telegrahp cartoon:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2006/12/28/ixd28big.gif

pedropedro

29th Dec 2006, 11:28

I was the pilot on the 209. This is a highly public forum and it is quite sad that this is no longer a professional pilots forum. However i can say that the lighting is completely unacceptable and non standard. The NTSB has verified this. More details later.

bomarc

29th Dec 2006, 13:18

pedropedro

it is good that you are speaking out...instead of publishing in the jepps or posting on the ATIS that taxiway exiting can be confusing on RW30, that non standard lighting exists and that caution should be used...WE ALL HAD TO FIND OUT THE HARD WAY thanks to BA.

Warning to all pilots : be careful always at all airports at all times.

on the NOS plates there is a special inset at the taxiway in question.

130.4

29th Dec 2006, 15:11

It isn't his jet it's BA's
It wasn't caught in anything - do they mean like in a net or something?
No-one was scared
It wasn't landing, it was taxying clear of the runway
So the accurate words in the above quote are 'jet' and err.. that's it :ugh:

Strictly speaking, it wasn't a jet. It was an aircraft. (The jet is the air that comes out of the engines.)

So the only accurate word in the headline was the word "was."

bomarc

29th Dec 2006, 16:16

regarding "continue the approach" vs. landing clearance.

In the US, we see this happen and work with it. But, once you are in the vicinity of the approach lights, one does start to demand a landing clearance.

to ATC people, most airlines now demand some sort of written report if a go around is initiated below 1000' AFE. So, if we are going to play the "continue the approach " game, fine...but don't forget about us on short final.

misd-agin

30th Dec 2006, 02:16

Carnage Matey!

30th Dec 2006, 11:40

Any go around requires a report in BA, but its no big deal and takes about 5 minutes to produce.

bomarc

30th Dec 2006, 13:03

misd again

sorry, I won't list all of the airlines that require some sort of form to be filled out regarding go arounds below 1000' afe.

mine does and it is a very large carrier that begins with a vowel...very few airlines are really different in these things...

and yes it only takes about 5 minutes, but 5 minutes without being paid.

but for the atc people that the comment was aimed at: continue the approach is fine, but be super duper on top of things and say: expect landing clearance on very short final...that way if you get busy or the freq is blocked at the last second we can go ahead and land instead of going around ( all other factors being considered)

I really hate negotiating for a landing clearance while in the flare...it spoils my grease jobs ;-)

all the best

paulthornton

30th Dec 2006, 15:16

Now forgive me for wading in here, as I'm just a lowly PPL causing some thread creep, but:

misd again
...that way if you get busy or the freq is blocked at the last second we can go ahead and land instead of going around ( all other factors being considered)

I'd never land without a positive landing clearance from ATC. There have been several threads about this here in the past with people wading in on one hand saying "Yes, but its CAVOK and the runway is 4000m and there are no other aircraft around; so the landing is safe" and others saying "be that as it may, its not legal."

I've been in plenty of busy fields where I've been told to expect a late landing clearance, and sometimes been told "Don't acknowledge, clear to land" on very short final - but the point surely remains that if you plonk the wheels down on the runway without being cleared to do so you might have a lot of explaining to do if all didn't turn out quite as expected.

Paul.

christn

30th Dec 2006, 15:40

If you are awaiting a late landing clearance you should be aware of the reason (a/c ahead, a/c crossing etc). If the frequency is then blocked/busy and you cannot get the clearance, provided you are certain that there is no longer a confliction I believe it would acceptable to land. Better get it safely on the ground and then sort it out than go-around into busy airspace with minimal fuel and a tired crew after a 13 hr flight.

Obviously if any doubt about the safety (not legality!) of landing - go-around!

Dream Land

30th Dec 2006, 16:18

Never heard anyone demand a landing clearance but I don't have the vast amount of ATC experience that some people have, "continue approach" is even heard more frequently in Asia where 10 miles used to be the normal separation but that now seems to be changing.

bomarc

31st Dec 2006, 04:46

paul thorton

by all means do what you think is safest for you and your plane, but:

you mentioned you were a PPL. You might not have an instrument rating. I offer this.

If you are cleared to land, you are cleared to land.

If you are told to continue the approach and do not receive landing clearance, you must not land (unless using far part 61.3)

HOWEVER in the world of IFR flight, when one is told to "expect clearance" and then does not receive it, and you can reasonably determine that the clearance would have been issued except for some problem like stuck mic on freq, or something else along those lines (and there may be many things), then you could act in accordance with the expected clearance.

Indeed the whole lost communications regulations includes the concept of "expected clearance".

now you might be in the UK or another country, check your nation's regs, but they might be close.

and of course if you are not operating IFR, then VFR would determine your fate.

and welcome to the world of decision making.

AND after all of this, talk it over with an aviation lawyer and try to figure it all out...and that's why I would ask/request for "an expected clearance to land by ( fill in the blank: middle marker, threshold, etc)

no harshness, nor real advice is intended...just food for thought.

paulthornton

6th Jan 2007, 18:36

Bomarc,

I was thinking VFR at the time of my post, yes, at fields where a go-around followed by a quick visual circuit is no issue. What you say makes perfect sense out there in the IFR world.

Of course, it seems that these days even if you follow accepted procedures, and something happens, you can end up with an uncomfortable time (I'm thinking of the brazil midair here, but that is very much another thread).

Thanks for the input - was indeed food for thought.

Paul.

bomarc

6th Jan 2007, 22:08

dear paul thorton

as you know, the world of airliners is IFR. I am truly glad we had a chance to share our perspectives, and yes, maybe IF I was back in my piper cherokee ( 32 years ago, pa28 140 was my first solo , N41949) at my small airport near San Francisco I would go around too.

now of course, with all the CRAP an airline pilot has to put up with, better to yell at ATC, then to be yelled at by the chief pilot for not writing up a goaround report.

and I will bet both of us are glad we live and fly in aviation's first world and not the third!