Latest point for obtaining landing clearance?

[Slasher]

Went around yesterday in good weather (and what I saw was a clear runway), because the tower bunny didn't issue a landing clearance in time. Where I exactly was doesn't matter for the purpose, but was within SE Asia.

We passed the OM on a LLZ and Tower said to expect a late landing clearance - par for the norm. We broke out right at the minima and a moment later my FO told her we were on short final. Tower said nothing. At 100ft there was a 2 sec "...er...." on Tower freq and that was it. At 50ft over the threshold I gave it away because the landing manoever (for which we needed to be cleared) begins at 50ft. At about 100ft on GA she issued our landing clearance!

The ****'s hit the fan because local ATC says a clearance only needs to be issued prior to touchdown. I countered by arguing that the country is an ICAO signatory, and that also there is no stated proviso for this deviation both in the Jepps or their own AIP.

My main concern of course was if I hit something I didn't see or know about, AND without a landing clearance.

My ICAO references are old and of course these buggers don't have any around here, but any ATCOs here with some thoughts and maybe an up to date ICAO ref? I recall a number of years ago at the old Kai Tak in HKG the Tower warning us of a VERY late clearance (which we subsequently obtained at 30ft), but that was issued by a bloke who knew exactly what the hell he was doing and kept us well informed. There was no stink afterwards so we just passed Go and told him to keep the $200.

Any ATCer inputs appreciated.

Thanks,

Slash

[Roadrunner Once]

I can't quote you an ICAO ref. as I'm not at work but, aside from what the docs might say about landing clearances, surely if the crew decides to GA at any point for any reason then that's the start and end of the matter? I struggle to see what scope there is for anything to 'hit the fan' as a result.

[Slasher]

My mob still operates in the era where a GA has to be fully
explained and it spoke to ATC as well. Its come back to me
as a "explain further" memo.

Anyway I gotta go to work - long night!

[Blockla]

I wouldn't expect 'sh!t to hit the fan' from that; you were told to expect late landing clearance, you didn't get it by 50 feet so you made the decision to go around. You would be in the 'sh!t' if you wheels downed without said clearance, obviously, so based on what you have said it seems a fair decision to hit TOGA.

I'm not sure why the ATCs would have been annoyed in the resulting go round, issuing a clearance after the aircraft has changed attitude is a little late...

Perhaps you could have asked (again) before hitting TOGA, timing is everything of course. i.e. a little earlier than the 50ft decision... Immediately after the "er" transmission for example...

Either way as an ATC I would expect a go round at anytime (even after wheels down), and certainly wouldn't be concerned that you did it, especially if I hadn't given you a landing clearance, mea culpa... Perhaps they were trying to avoid some hard please explain questions themselves... IMHO, there really is no such thing as "no blame culture" in ANSPs, despite the rhetoric of there existence.

[Denti]

We had a couple occurences of pilots going around at minimum if they didn't receive a clearance at that point. Since that happens quite often at busy airports we got a new rule that we can wait until 50ft where a go around is now mandatory if no clearance is received.

[Spitoon]

You can have a clearance any time before the wheels touch the runway. In countries where the clearance cannot be issued until the runway is actually available (as opposed to there being a reasonable assurance that it will be) this can mean clearances regularly issued at half a mile on a nice day.

If the weather is poor it gets more tricky but the key is to make sure that everyone knows what is going on. I can clearly remember a handful of times when a big aircraft was in the flare before it got a clearance (or on another occasion that I clearly recall, had to go-around). Likewise I recall seeing a very impressive go-around by a 737 because they mis-tuned the TWR frequency and couldn't make contact by the time they were over the numbers. All this - and similar - stuff happens on a daily basis and if handled in a suitable way (although undesirable) should surely not be considered anything special.

For ILS and visual approaches the ICAO book (Doc 4444) gives no minimum distance - for radar approaches there are procedures which should ensure that a landing clearance (or whatever) is issued by the time the aircraft gets to 2NM.

[BOAC]

I go with 50' too - it is where we start doing things we don't really want to undo if we are not going to land. In terms of your 'predicament' you could always ask the company for written guidance on the clearance. That might quieten them down while they struggle with the dictionary and Thesaurus.:)

[Piltdown Man]

It is traditional to have a clearance before landing. So the next question has to be, was going around sensible? A go-around shouldn't be considered a risky manoeuvre, just inconvenient from a schedule point of view. Furthermore, if there were a few more go-arounds we might have a few more intact aircraft - for a variety of reasons. The real question has to be, who are the clowns kicking up the stink? These are the real idiots who should be dealt with. It is beholden upon every pilot to perform a go-around if they believe a safe landing cannot be made.

PM

[Slasher]

Thanks for your replies, much appreciated.

Piltdown this SE Asian outfit still live in the Dark Ages where
if you aren't justified in going around you need "councelling".
Councelling is a nice way of saying you get a medium-sized
boot up the bum and the event marked on your record (no it
doesn't incur any salary loss - if it did I'd pack up and leave).

Why do they do it? Because a GA costs them money and they
don't like a GA that they think was unnecessary - well as the
fact I'm an expat.

All GAs require a written report from the captain - wx or any
hazardous situation usually isn't questioned (but they'll check
the recorded ATIS or METAR or RVR at the time in question).
But only this time I did a go around in good weather with an
apparently clear runway (well as it appeared to me).

ATCs reply to the Company was that the Tower bunny* was in
the process of checking the runway was clear by visual means
and that.....had I not been so impatient, a clearance would've
been issued by touchdown. IMO she wasn't..."checking" - she
had a mouthful of rice or bloody noodles, which explains the
"...er...." and after she'd swallowed it then issued the landing
clearance.

As I implied earlier, a landing clearance (not a touchdown
clearance) is exactly that - a clearance to start and complete
the landing manouver which by strict definition begins at 50ft.

Anyway this prompted me to post here to ask what you guys
believe how late a landing clearance can be legally issued. I
am sticking to my guns, but does anyone know where I can
download an updated 4444?

* our nickname for the young female ATCers around here.

[172_driver]

Doc 4444 (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc%204444%20-%20Air%20Traffic%20Management/)

The Danish CAA put most ICAO documents on the web. Try the first link (ATM 15 ed).

[Tarq57]

I agree with Slasher. A landing clearance not received by the threshold = a go round.
Where I work, occasionally the landing clearance is sometimes issued as the aircraft crosses the threshold. Naturally this is preceded with keeping everyone informed as to exactly why the clearance will be late.

From the pilots point of view, I'd imagine you'd want a clear view of at least the first thousand feet of the runway before continuing as far as the threshold without a clearance, too, or a large amount of trust in those charged with providing separation that they were doing just that. And that's contributed to by a good information loop.

I gather from the OP that's a bit of a rarity where you fly. Bit sad.

[Bright-Ling]

Slasher - Is "Tower Bunny" a term of endearment?

[Slasher]

172 driver I can't seem to get through to that site. The URL
looks familiar so probably the same one I used to download
ICAO docs yonks ago.

Tarq yep, and ATC's extraordinary lack of basic English is the
common cause, but I believe not so in this case.

Bright-ling I suppose so - most of them look quite cute!

[Bright-Ling]

Lucky you!

[BrATCO]

No reference about a latest point, but the pilot should know the controler's intentions at latest before the threshold (which is already very late).
As said above, that's around 50'.

How many seconds before touch-down from 50' ? How much time does a jet engine need to rev from almost idle to TOGA ?
50' seems a bit late for a jet. On the other hand, I've used "Report VERY short final" with little mono-engine planes.

As ever, a good explaination before the fan is hit can help the pilot make a decision. I reckon "...Errr..." is not precise enough.

[Tarq57]

Here's (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6108873/DOC-4444) a Doc 4444 that works, it's a sort-of "pdf-in-browser" page, runway separation is on page 139.
I couldn't find a particular reference that explicitly answers your question, but the inference is definitely the threshold.

(Link courtesy of a post a few days ago here, by flightpathOBN.)

[fireflybob]

How many seconds before touch-down from 50' ? How much time does a jet engine need to rev from almost idle to TOGA ?
50' seems a bit late for a jet

BrATCO, in the jet I fly (B737-800) and indeed in all the others I have flown a GoAround from 50 ft (assuming the engines are correctly spooled up for the approach) would not result in the wheels touching the runway, assuming the GoAround is flown correctly - but I agree that 50' feet is a bit late to get a landing clearance!

[Slasher]

Thanks Tarq. I've printed that off and will use it at my "tea &
scones" meeting with the CP later this afternoon. Given the
culture here, at least the bloke is willing to hear what I have
to say.

Br landing clearances have been issued by ATC not than 150
ft in my experience up till now, but I'll accept the landing at
50ft if the landing clearance IS in the middle of being given
at that point. The 50ft point is not so much a "performance"
or "handling" question (most jets start the flare around 40 to
30ft) but a definitive one as to where the approach ends and
the landing manouver begins. But once the GA has begun it is
EXTREMELY hazardous and damn foolhardy to cancel it and then
resume landing. Probably safe in a PA18 or DH82 given enough
runway length, but definitely not in a 330!

However a GA can be initiated even after touchdown (a "wave
off") provided reverse thrust has not been selected. Not so in
the EO case of course.

And for info it was confirmed on ATC's report that the Tower
bunny was alone at the time, the Supervisor was "not there"
(in localspeak means he was out taking a smoke or a dump!)

Thanks again for everyone's replies.

[kpnagidi]

The plentitude alone of the answers here gives a clear image of what ICAO requires. No clue... ICAO docs and Annexes are probably written by lawyers and THEN passed on to controllers, intentionally vague. I've experienced an instance when three controllers had three different opinions explanations about reading the same thing...
I've been time and time again annoyed by pilots having been issued a landing clearance which was read back and then asking again for confirmation. I promise I won't be getting annoyed any more. Next time ask again before GA. We 're here to make your job EASIER, not vice versa but both ends have been taking the pressure to do things faster and more economically for the industry.
Yes the controller had probably his/her mind elsewere...

[lederhosen]

I have been in this situation and like you went around. Most of us are our own sternest critics. But for management the answer is do you want a press on mentality like the crash in Phuket or guys who in doubt are go-around minded. If I was your chief pilot I would be congratulating you. If he does not then I suggest you ask him to request the tower tapes. Better one go-around too many than one too few!

[1Charlie]

If the weather was at minimas she wouldn't have been waiting for RWY sep on a departing aircraft because she would have to be protecting the missed approach, so no one would have departed infront of you once you were inside 5NM or so. She must have had a vehicle on the RWY which may have been on a ground freq? Whatever the case she won't have been mucking you around for fun. I'm impressed you went around, I know of a number of examples where the aircraft has seen a clear RWY and just decided to land on it.

[Slasher]

Fact of the matter is Charlie a lot of the locals land without
clearances if they're forgotten to be issued or missed. There
are always minor incidences including one recently where a
B737 almost hit an inspection car who was too impatient to
wait to cross the runway for some reason (maybe busting for
a leak who knows). Complicated story but in essence the guy
went ahead and landed anyway. All of this is just Third world
mentality with a vengeance.

As for the meeting the CP agreed I had to cause to go around
and it won't be a blemish in my record. He said he'll "have a
chat to ATC", which unofficially means it'll be all swept under
the carpet so as to not cause ruffles.

[BOAC]

..don't forget to ask for a peep at your 'records' unless you trust the man implicitly.

[Slasher]

The other few expats here say he's ok, but "taking a peep at
my records to make sure" in his eyes would imply I don't
trust him (and I don't), but mainly invites further problems
down the track if I should ever end up in the **** for real and
he's still fleet CP. One has to understand the culture if one is
in it for long term survival.

I just found out this afternoon, by my own sources, that said
Tower bunny was bawled out and a stern warning given. This
would give added weight that that the CP won't put any dark
stains on my file (or rather my "dossier" which would be more
accurate).

Again thanks for all your replies and comments.

[ameet0121]

As per Doc 4444 the landing clearance generally shall be given at or before 4 miles to touch down. But if the aircraft is radar monitored or radar vectored the landing clearance shall be at or before 2 miles from touch down.

[dagowly]

Surely civil pilots have a procedure minima to fly to that if they cannot obtain a clearance before, they will instigate a go around? At 50' i'd be wanting to see the pilot deciding to put the power in and say "going round". Suppose its different at large civil airports, as you can't just join a circuit, its back out for a MAP.

[Geoff Fairless]

An interesting conversation but the answer is clear enough. The ATCO stuffed up, the pilot's short final call should have elicited a landing clearance, the captain did the right thing by going around. In thirty tower years I have seen all combinations:


Distracted and been reminded;
Given landing clearance more than once;
Had a go around because I did not issue clearance (distracted again not eating) and pilot chose to say nothing;
had aircraft land when I have not issued a landing clearance (ditto as above) Tower..You did clear us to land didn't you? Absolutely!

ICAO guidance absolutely necessary but at a busy airport with restrictive procedures (ie no ATC judgement allowed) difficult to comply with. If late landing clerance to be given pilot should always be given a reason, eg runway inspection in progress, departing aircraft and so on.

Relations don't sound too good if we are dreaming up derogatory names for colleagues. I wonder what "tower bunny" calls expat pilots?

Everybody makes mistakes we should accept that and move on.

[Slasher]

As per Doc 4444 the landing clearance generally shall be given at or before 4 miles to touch down. But if the aircraft is radar monitored or radar vectored the landing clearance shall be at or before 2 miles from touch down.

That's correct ameet, including a landing clearance given by
the MaPt in IMC.

However there are times when a certain degree of flexibility is
needed on the part of crew in order to maintain an expeditous
flow of traffic without infringing on legality (+ safety) in VMC.
So, my question to the ATCOs here was how late can it legally
be given in >10 and visual for all intents and purposes, which
in my opinion is 50ft.



Relations don't sound too good if we are dreaming up derogatory names for colleagues. I wonder what "tower bunny" calls expat pilots?

If you read the previous posts Geoff its our nickname for the
very young (and quite nubile!) female ATCOs around here. I
don't know what they call us, maybe an equivalent to "white
randy buggers" in their own lingo I've no idea. ;)

[Dan Dare]

In the UK you may not cross the begining of the runway is that runway is occupied (or without landing clearance if required?). If there is ATC there are various methods (such as conditional landing clearance) which allow a smidge closer. I'm sure some of the more accademic ATCOs can point to the CAP393 and MATS part 1 references to this.

NOW, define the beginning of the runway...

[ameet0121]

I can understand there are are times when a pilot thinks that its better to GA. There are cases when ATC lines up an acft and gives takeoff clearance all calculated that arrival will be given landing clearance at 2 miles to touchdown. But all of sudden arrival says Going Around. ATCO will definitely have heart attack as there is no separation between dep and acft GA and RA may be trigered at any time leading to inquiry.

It is the confidence between pilot and ATC that really matters which is generally missing. This may be because both are trained in a very different environment.
This situation is becoming more dangerous as the separation is being reduced from 10 to 5 to 3 miles in past years.
The worst part is there is no means where a pilot or controller can read each other mind. I dont know if this factor is considered by the authorities when framing separations.

[Tarq57]

ameet, if you don't have an option to maintain some form of valid separation, be it visual or radar, in the event that any aircraft overshoots "unexpectedly" at any point, I would suggest that your unit procedures are deficient.
You always have to have a "plan B".
If something can happen, sooner or later it will.

Murphy's law.

[Andy Mayes]

In the UK you may not cross the begining of the runway is that runway is occupied (or without landing clearance if required?). If there is ATC there are various methods (such as conditional landing clearance) which allow a smidge closer. I'm sure some of the more accademic ATCOs can point to the CAP393 and MATS part 1 references to this.

NOW, define the beginning of the runway...

MATS Part 1, Section 2 Chapter 1 Page 13 Paragraph 5.2.2Unless specific procedures have been approved by the CAA, a landing aircraft shall not be permitted to cross the beginning of the runway on its final approach until a preceding aircraft, departing from the same runway, is airborne.

Beginning of the runway being the threshold.
ICAO
The beginning of that portion of the runway useable for landing.