Gatwick Airport plane (allegedly) lands without clearance

[fireflybob]

Gatwick Airport plane (allegedly) lands without clearance (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-25640965)

[AtomKraft]

Oh oh.

Commander of aircraft makes decision.

This will never do!

[Dream Land]

Why didn't he use the "Say again over tower, that last transmission was garbled" :hmm:

[NigelOnDraft]

Nats said standard language was used by the controller who began to give surface wind conditions to the aircraft, which usually precedes a landing clearance, before issuing the "go-around" commandUmmm one can understand where the confusion might have started from ;)

[Vlad the Impaler]

"Commander of aircraft makes decision whilst possibly not in possession of all the facts required to safely come to a different decision than the controller"
Chapeau.
We don't generally send em round for fun and it certainly might not be for what appears to be the obvious reason. I'm all for the pilot having a say now and again but when the man (or woman) in the tall pointy office says "go around", if I was down the back I'd much rather you did.
Ta Muchly
An ATCO

[BARKINGMAD]

Perhaps they were afraid of failing the 2-engined go-around manoeuvre which has downed so many recently?

Tea, no biscuits asap in the office!

[NigelOnDraft]

Vlad...

Is it clear the crew understood e.g. via read back, the "GA" instruction?

Certainly "up the road" a late landing clearance is preceded by the ATCO starting a transmission (to prevent others cutting in), speaking slowly, and giving e.g. the wind. Once you hear this you are "anticipating" a "Clear Land", and understand if the ATCO is just waiting until the aircraft ahead has technically vacated.

The trouble with this is if the ATCO changes his mind (as appears to have happened here) he thinks he has clearly told the aircraft to "GA" - but at that late stage there can be so many audio alerts (e.g. Rad Alt calls, "Minimums", "Retard") you don't clearly here what has been said.

Rather worrying to see NATS decide to publicise this and "get their side of the story" in via the press, rather than let an MOR/ASR process learn the lessons :sad:

[Jonty]

Sorry Vlad, disagree with you there.

The Captain must think about the safety of his aircraft, and if he (she) thinks that is best served by ignoring an order from ATC then so be it.

After all, the chap in the tall pointy office, isn't attached the the large pointy plane, traveling very fast.

In this case, ATC issued a Go Around order, and the Captain elected to ignore it. Let's find out why before we roundly condemn the guy.

[Right Way Up]

If there was a reason, this story would never have made the media.

[Herod]

The incident happened during the hours of darkness. That being the case, the controller could not issue a "land after" clearance. Therefore, if the runway was still occupied, a go-around was the only option available.

[Vlad the Impaler]

I'm certainly not condemning anybody. I'm merely providing some early devil's advocacy. I'd be very disappointed if the firm had issued some kind of press release in advance of the MOR landing on the doormat of SRG. I'm sure all will be explained.
My point was just that whilst I totally accept that the men (or women, aren't I inclusive today?) in pointy hats bear the ultimate responsibility when things go tits up and as such always have the final say.....There are so many things besides the obvious that could make the ATCO call a go around. At the end of the day a missed approach is a standard procedure practiced often so why would you put yourself and slf into a situation of potentially unquantified risk rather than the tried and tested missed approach, ask why later?
I'm not aiming this comment at this particular incident as I don't have the foggiest what actually occurred. I don't doubt that all concerned did what they thought was best at the time.

[Burnie5204]

The Captain must think about the safety of his aircraft, and if he (she) thinks that is best served by ignoring an order from ATC then so be it.*

Jonty, if that was the case then they probably wouldnt have acknowledged the GA but said something to the effect that they were ignoring the instruction and landing.

I suspect its more likely to be that the wind readout caused the crew to anticipate a "Clear Land" instruction and at the end of a sector during a period of high workload and the PF was expecting to hear 'clear land' so his brain heard 'clear land' but their mouth read-back the go around on autopilot (pun not intended but happily coincidental)

I know CRM is supposed to mitigate this but if PNF was distracted by one of any-number of tasks then he may have missed the call and if they've, for whatever reason, not challenged PF or ATC to confirm for crew co-ordination then you can see how it could happen.

[Gonzo]

Nigel on Draft, I imagine someone listening in alerted the media who then approached NATS for comment.

[Lonewolf_50]

One of the best "wave off" (go around) calls I ever got was from tower at NAS Norfolk when a C-9 gooned up a taxi instruction and turned onto the runway I was lined up for, short final from a GCA with not great weather. I never saw the C-9, only learned of it later from ATC.

When tower calls go around (or wave off in that case) I bet most crews would simply go around as a reflex.

Will be interesting to find out what made this case play out as it did.

[ATC Watcher]

As many have said already before : let's see the facts :
what about this scenario:
Go around, PF applied Full power , resulting in a master warning and horns &bells, PM said , runway is clear now. What would you do, retard and land or persist in a go around ?
I know what I would do.

Not saying this is what happenned, but there are sometimes good reasons for ignoring a go around instruction from ATC....

[latetonite]

ATC watcher: possible scenario, but far fetched.

[silverhawk]

Not the first time by any means. I was at the hold at LGW on the day an orange airline introduced their new airbus into service. He was still on approach frequency and landed anyway without clearance. Rather sheepishly came up on tower as he taxied.
Most of us are still human.

[lomapaseo]

just wondering when a tower issued GA is purely a warning and when is it a command ?

The prang at KASE comes to mind in light of this incident

[Agaricus bisporus]

Well, here's a pretty specific description of the event.

Just for emphasis I'll reiterate...

An airport controller instructed the pilot to abort the landing because the runway was occupied by another aircraft that had already landed, National Air Traffic Services (Nats) said.

The crew of the Boeing 737 acknowledged the instruction to "go-around", but the aircraft continued to land, it said.

and

The crew of the Boeing 737 acknowledged the instruction to "go-around", but the aircraft continued to land,

Regardless of "expectations" after receiving "landing weather reports" and other such bunkum the crew were apparently instructed to Go Around. In my (admittedly limited) 15 yrs in UK London aviation I've never heard an ATC instruction to G/A given in other than an utterly authoratative, unmistakable form, typically, "Silverbird 123 GO AROUND!, I SAY AGAIN! GO AROUND!"

This isn't missable, it isn't mistakable, it isn't ignorable.

:mad: to what the Capt thinks he can see in front of him. How does he know what the instruction refers to? It could perfectly well be something out of his view or awareness. It's either a complete fool or a very self confident chancer that ignores such an instruction.

and will be required to justify his decision afterwards. Good luck fella....:(

[misd-agin]

@ ATC Watcher - what would I do? Just like I've done in real life. After minimums lost sight of the runway at EGE. Started go-around. Pitch and power. As the nose is rotating up FO is leaning forward and says "there it is!"
"Too late, we're on the go, F20, PRGU", verify LNAV, VNAV, and away we go.


Applying TOGA doesn't result in all sorts of master warnings, horns and bells. If you pull the landing gear up quickly you can get a momentary configuration horn that is heard on almost every G/A.

[ironbutt57]

Read some of the funny comments on Av Herald...people saying 150' is too low to go around in a 737...hmmm

[Chirpy Pilot]

The airline involved was Air Moroc and ATC instructed the aircraft to Go Around roughly at 100 - 200 feet AGL. On the Radio we hear the 50 Rad Alt call from their aircraft when the Air Moroc acknowledged the Go Around instruction however for whatever reason continued and landed

[Gonzo]

Silver hawk,

Do you know for certain that in your case landing clearance wasn't given by Radar, via Tower by phone?

[Auberon]

Will the UK ever realize that routinely giving landing clearances on short final doesn't promote safety? It creates an expectation that communication from tower on short final will be a landing clearance. In the US if tower is calling you on short final after you were cleared to land 5 miles ago you know something is up.

[sheepless]

Slightly off the point but in the same line..

At what point will you initiate a go around if you do not receive landing clearance. Runway is clear. Controller otherwise occupied.

Reason for question - currently teaching ab-intio ATC and discussing where priorities must lie..

[Capn Bloggs]

What a joke. Nats blabbing to the media before any investigation. Is that a government organisation?

[NigelOnDraft]

Nigel on Draft, I imagine someone listening in alerted the media who then approached NATS for commentWhat a joke. Nats blabbing to the media before any investigation. Is that a government organisation? I could not agree more...

As a result of this NATS action, I certainly will re-think co-operating with ATC and accepting a "late landing clearance". Vlad shows as little understanding of multi-crew ops as the press tend to with:I'm all for the pilot having a say now and again but when the man (or woman) in the tall pointy office says "go around", if I was down the back I'd much rather you did.Vlad - a 737 has a 2 pilot crew. 1 flying the aircraft, the other handling the RT. A "late landing clearance" can be difficult because you (the ATCO) broadcast your "instruction" to 1 pilot, yet the action required is by the other pilot. Ideally a crew can discuss and ensure they have both understood an instruction in the same way.

Ab: In my (admittedly limited) 15 yrs in UK London aviation I've never heard an ATC instruction to G/A given in other than an utterly authoratative, unmistakable form, typically, "Silverbird 123 GO AROUND!, I SAY AGAIN! GO AROUND!"

This isn't missable, it isn't mistakable, it isn't ignorable.
Even the NATS blub to the press admits the ATCO did not do this in the incident in question, but combined the GA transmission (and preceded it) with the routine language used for a landing clearance.

Almost all ATCOs and pilots will have misheard, or misunderstood, an ATC transmission. If NATS at London (LGW/LHR), who I thought were "onside", are going to play out incidents in the press rather than allowing the AAIB/CAA to investigate, I for one am sorely disappointed and will rethink how I fly - particularly in terms of late landing clearances. At LHR, twice I have received a clearance so late even had we gone around we would have touched down in the process. We "knew" we would be cleared, having been forewarned, and the drawn out "XX123 t h e w I n d i s 2 4 0 at 1 5, y o u a rrr eeeee clear to land". Guess in future I'll just GA at 100' :(

Might one ask for the ATCOs on here to express their disapproval (if they agree) to their management over this "press comment"?

[ATC Watcher]

misd-agin : I think you misundestood my post., or I did not express myself properly. What you say is absolutely correct, my " scenario" is indeed far-fetched , but was taken to illustrate that there are some situations where the PF/PIC mights decide to fly the aircraft instead of following an ATC instruction. But he will have to explain why afterwards. But maybe he did too, we do not know.

Now that the airline has been named, I think we could add CRM into the list of possible scenarii.

Nigel on draft : Might one ask for the ATCOs on here to express their disapproval (if they agree) to their management over this "press comment"?

Before throwing stones, I would like to hear what the NATS spokeman ( if indeed that is the one who is quoted by the BBC ) actually said . Not what has been translated into Journospeak.

[Weary]

At what point will you initiate a go around if you do not receive landing clearance. Runway is clear. Controller otherwise occupied.

Hello sheepless,

In answer to your question, I would personally leave it until I would otherwise have initiated the flare manoeuvre. That may strike some as a little late - but in the situation you have suggested, I think all party's concerned would agree a go-around is in nobody's interests and just means work, stress, and paperwork for everybody.
Before I reached that point of course, I would have tried to get a call in clarifying the lack of landing clearance. Assuming the frequency was blocked - the scenario you hypothesize? - I would meanwhile be re-iterating the go-around procedure with PM, with my finger poised ominously above/behind the G/A trigger switch.

[Crazy Voyager]

Will the UK ever realize that routinely giving landing clearances on short final doesn't promote safety? It creates an expectation that communication from tower on short final will be a landing clearance. In the US if tower is calling you on short final after you were cleared to land 5 miles ago you know something is up.


What if the frequency is blocked on short final and the GA instruction can't be issued?

[RobShan]

I think all party's concerned would agree a go-around is in nobody's interests and just means work, stress, and paperwork for everybody.

I thought I had read many times on this forum that a Go-Around was a standard, no-news manoeuvre.

What paperwork is involved?

[FullWings]

...a 737 has a 2 pilot crew. 1 flying the aircraft, the other handling the RT. A "late landing clearance" can be difficult because you (the ATCO) broadcast your "instruction" to 1 pilot, yet the action required is by the other pilot.
Very good point there, NoD. The person who read back the instruction was not the one doing the landing - if the landing pilot was concentrating hard, hearing is one of the first senses that get dulled under increasing workload. Maybe the PM assumed the PF had understood the GA call and was going to action it, and/or there was a bit of CRM breakdown in that the PM did not intervene when it became obvious that a landing was going to take place anyway?

[Weary]

Hello RobShan,

Yes - a go-around is a routine and practised procedure, however it is not nearly as routine and practised as a straightforward landing - ergo it presents additional risk if only because it is a last-second change of plan, especially in a busy airport environment.
My company requires an explanation for any go-around manoeuvre flown - I think we could all agree it is a useful statistic in trend monitoring.

[EARSA]

My company requires an explanation for any go-around manoeuvre flown - I think we could all agree it is a useful statistic in trend monitoring.

There speaks a management pilot? What's the implications of say, unstable approach or just 'plain unhappy' with the approach?

When a company (yes, I know many require an explanation) asks us to justify our decisions is when certain decisions that should have been made are not made.

[055166k]

No comment obviously; however several UK phrases might make perfect sense to a UK audience but there may be dilution or misunderstanding to a crew where English is not the first language: "Go Around/ Contact Ground" for instance...and there are other examples of normal [but non-UK] procedures that permit or instruct early frequency change to next agency. Just a red herring...I wasn't there!

[dallas]

Unless for emergency/flight safety reasons, I suggest it is a dangerous precedent for pilots to overrule/disregard ATC instructions in controlled airspace of any type. There needs to be some order, some system or it'll be more than pilots egos that collide ;)

At face value with limited info, it sounds like a very last minute call by the controller, which the crew anticipated and interpreted incorrectly, compounded by a scenario of apparently negligible danger that added to their sense of security.

Just my 2c. Will be interesting to see what results, but it needs a systematic review of both ATC procedure or Air Maroc procedure to ensure the next GA isn't because of a 747 on the piano keys.

[EDML]

Well, regardless of the GA instruction - they where not even cleared to land.

That means they would have been forced to do a GA anyways. The interesting question would be WHEN you would go around in case of an expected late landing clearance after passing the OM. I would suspect at the minimum of the approach - 200 ft AGL here.

[Weary]

Hello EARSA,

You don't have to be in the industry very long to realise that aviation safety is almost entirely built upon such statistical analyses. Whether it's regarding the various reasons why a go-around may be initiated, or perhaps the incidence of double engine failure on a twin engine aircraft - whatever - without the intelligent collation and study of such data our ability to recognise/quantify risk would be little better than guesswork.
In the case of my company, data concerning go-arounds might identify a poor company procedure, a higher-risk airport (met, ATC, geography), or deficiencies in crew training. It might also suggest we are actually doing the right thing. All that information can be fed back to manufacturers and regulators, and the industry takes another step forward. The point is, without analysing pretty much everything, we might never know anything other than the obvious.

[andrasz]

What's the implications of say, unstable approach or just 'plain unhappy' with the approach?

In a well run outfit, none. Go around was a reportable incident at my old haunt, simply for the purpose of learning and educating. Most of the non-standard cases were circulated in the weekly digest as an endorsed example to follow when encountering the same situation. There was the rare case when it was used as an example not to do, but with no ill effect to the perpetrators. In all cases it was just the event being described, no names and times (everyone knew anyway, it was a small group, but that's beyond the point).

[misd-agin]

Lowest point before starting G/A? I agree with previous poster - prior to transitioning to flare. Approx 20'.

[4468]

Will the UK ever realize that routinely giving landing clearances on short final doesn't promote safety?
Will the US ever realise that routinely giving landing clearances whilst aircraft ahead haven't even landed, doesn't promote safety?:rolleyes:

[Mikehotel152]

Lowest point before starting G/A? I agree with previous poster - prior to transitioning to flare. Approx 20'

If you haven't been cleared to land by the time you cross the threshold you must perform a go-around. Or so I was taught.

That said, I remember once flying a Cessna on the stall warner for 300 metres down Lanseria's runway waiting for the jolly chap in the tower to stop wittering to his mate and clear me to touchdown. :ok:

[EDML]

Crossing the threshold surely makes sense.

Technically the GA might be performed even after touchdown as long as the reversers are stowed.

[NigelOnDraft]

Lowest point before starting G/A? I agree with previous poster - prior to transitioning to flare. Approx 20'. IMHO wrong answer ;) The latest point to initiate a G/A I have been repeatedly taught is on selection of Reverse Thrust i.e. at that point you are committed to land. A bounced / deep landing is an example...

If we repharse the question as to "latest point to GA without landing clearance" I believe it is not defined? (well, it is for us in LVPs). 20' might be an answer, but it depends on what is going to cause NATS to run to the press :8 Are they going to be upset if you briefly touch down on the GA? If so, then as much as height being important, it is the point at which you reduce thrust - since this determines the spool up time making a touchdown more likely.

If NATS are going to get upset by a brief touchdown, then what is the minimum height for them not to be upset? 1'? 5'? 10'? As the BA 744 v bmi 321 @ LHR showed, it might be an aircraft fin in the way.

There is value in learning from this, and really questioning what is being achieved by LHR's (at least) "late landing clearance" sometimes given past the threshold and into the flare. By implication in proceeding to that point, both I and the ATCO have somehow agreed the runway threshold area, at least, is clear - yet no specific R/T calls have established that :eek:

Interested in ATCOs' viewpoint on that?

[Piltdown Man]

Will the US ever realise that routinely giving landing clearances whilst aircraft ahead haven't even landed, doesn't promote safety?

Total tosh! It's not so long ago that I was "Cleared to land, number 5." I have no problem with that. It's a bit like "undo" in word processing software. It allows the controller to monitor and it stops the constant yackety-yack. But

...flying a Cessna on the stall warner for 300 metres down Lanseria's runway...

...is something that doesn't promote safety. The point to have gone around or land was when the speed approached 1.2vs. In a bug smasher, either would probably have been sensible.

[deepknight]

The "bolter" option is available right up until the moment you select the reversers. My firm trains it in the sim for just that unexpected event.

[oceancrosser]

Total tosh! It's not so long ago that I was "Cleared to land, number 5." I have no problem with that. It's a bit like "undo" in word processing software. It allows the controller to monitor and it stops the constant yacketyack.

Completely agree. Even at CDG the French have introduced such landing clearances, and it works well. I am frequently at LHR, CDG and several US airports, and I much prefer this system to the very late landing clearances at LHR (even below 200').

I guess it´s a British thing, like not being able to say "cleared ILS" or
issue RNAV arrivals and departures..., and the strangest of all: "deconfliction service" eh??? what??? :ugh:

[Pub User]

I guess it´s a British thing, like not being able to say "cleared ILS"

Someone said to me "cleared ILS runway 26 left" just this morning. Was he in error?

[oceancrosser]

Someone said to me "cleared ILS runway 26 left" just this morning. Was he in error?

Well there is a first for everything, going to LHR in the morning, can't wait to hear what we´ll get! :8

[Defruiter]

We can use cleared ILS now, as long as you are at the platform height for the approach. So unless you've been dropped to 2500ft, you won't hear it tomorrow at Heathrow.

[EDML]

If we repharse the question as to "latest point to GA without landing clearance" I believe it is not defined? (well, it is for us in LVPs). 20' might be an answer, but it depends on what is going to cause NATS to run to the press http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif Are they going to be upset if you briefly touch down on the GA? If so, then as much as height being important, it is the point at which you reduce thrust - since this determines the spool up time making a touchdown more likely.


I never learned a fixed altitude for that either. I only know that you have to ask on passing the OM if there is no clearance or statement on when to expect the clearance.

Touching down while in the GA might happen in a heavy when the GA ist initiated at the CAT II or even CAT I minimum.

[fmgc]

It is utterly wrong that any airline should insist on a report for a GA. It might be that the cause of the GA is worthy of a report.

A pilot must never feel that should press on with a landing just because they do not want paperwork to do.

Sometimes not having the stats is safer than the act of obtaining them.

[oceancrosser]

We can use cleared ILS now, as long as you are at the platform height for the approach. So unless you've been dropped to 2500ft, you won't hear it tomorrow at Heathrow.

Thanks Defruiter, so apparently there is progress. Apologies for the thread drift.

[sheepless]

So there is a clear case for removing landing clearances all together in some cases. i.e by default you are clear to land. (USA/France style)

Late landing clearance is often just to ensure rules are complied with. Clearly this requires extra concentration in a specific area for a period, for both controller and pilot. - effectively to tick a box.

ATC spend their efforts to ensure that aircraft will achieve the required runway separation so it should be there by the time you get to the runway.

ATC role (for the landing aircraft) would then be to monitor for things going wrong and the only instruction you would expect to hear would be a go around.

Although as humans we are not that good at monitoring, so would this reduce safety?
- we might still have to concentrate on the problem but not "having" to issue a landing clearance might mean we monitor less effectively.

[1Charlie]

Technical breakdown of runway separation occurs when the landing aircraft crosses the threshold to land. I would initiate a go around prior to crossing the threshold if I hadn't received a clearance. It's the difference between an occurrence and an incident. If you've already crossed the threshold, the damage is done (although perhaps not literally).

Controllers can issue landing clearances when there is reasonable assurance that separation will exist at the time the landing aircraft crosses the threshold.

In this case it was obviously going to be tight and in my experience controllers tend to wait, unsure of whether it will work and issue the clearance too late. If it's true the 50ft call was heard with the read back, that's too late in my opinion. 100' - 200' is your last chance to make the call.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

1Charlie. I note that you are a PPL so do you have any experience of commercial operations at a busy airfield? The conditions for an aircraft landing behind another are clearly laid down and 99.999% of the time they work OK. The airlines demand high landing rates and ATC works hard to provide them in a safe environment. Inevitably, someone will be slow to clear the runway or not fly precise speeds on final approach resulting in go-arounds. However, when ATC says "Go-around", IMHO only a complete fool would then land. That's because it is only ATC which knows the whole picture and all manner of things are going on which only they know about. I don't recall a pilot landing when told to go-around during my career so it seems to be a fairly rare event.

[fmgc]

IMHO only a complete fool would then land

Absolutely, you'd have to have a something so badly wrong with the aeroplane that the consequences of going around were worse than than the consequences of landing.

[NigelOnDraft]

However, when ATC says "Go-around", IMHO only a complete fool would then land. That's because it is only ATC which knows the whole picture and all manner of things are going on which only they know about. I don't recall a pilot landing when told to go-around during my career so it seems to be a fairly rare event. Quite a strong statement HD? How do you know the "complete fool" has heard and understood your instruction? As frequently stated above, it is an area where LHR ATC leave themselves wide open with their late clearances - the later it is, the ever increasing probability the message will not get through for the 2 pilots to comprehended as a crew, the need to action a GA.

For an LHR based crew, we have less excuse. Please see above for how out of kilter the UK, and LHR is, with worldwide standards for what a landing clearance is/means.

NoD

[beardy]

I understood that in this instance the GA instruction was acknowledged and ignored. That is bad. If it was acknowledged and not understood, that too is bad.
If it was not acknowledged then there is room for doubt whether it was heard or not. If it was not heard there is a need to find out why.

GA should always be anticipated and planned for, I do; it is not difficult to think about it and having done so, not difficult to execute.

[1Charlie]

HD your condescension is appreciated as always. I note your handle says Director. Do you have any experience flying aircraft?

And yes I have ATC experience at at least one airport very similar to Gatwick. I understand the pressure to move the traffic, but if you're issuing landing clearances / go around instructions crossing the threshold you're running it too tight. Make a call earlier for the go around or expect the unexpected from the pilot. He can't read your mind (thank god)

[A and C]

The reason that traffic in the London area is packed so closely together and as a result incidents like this happen is due to a lack of runway space.

UK Governments of all political party's have been to cowardly to build the runways that London badly needs, the root of the problem is that we now have a class of career MP 's who's only aim is to stay in power by avoiding offending any one by not taking tough decisions.

Basically the attitude of MP's is the country can rot as long as they preserve their careers.......... There is not a statesman amongst them !

[Mikehotel152]

Wot he said. :D

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

1Charlie. My handle is the R/T callsign I used for most of my working life, although I could have used "Heathrow Tower" instead.

I sat up front on a BA 747 landing at Heathrow. After landing the pilot was told to take a particular turn onto a taxiway. Captain said said "We'll take the first turn; it's quicker". I told him that he should do as he was told as he was not to know if the turn off he was about to take might have a problem. He readily accepted my point. ATC is the only agency which has the full picture of traffic, both aircraft and vehicles, on the ground and if a GA instruction is issued it would be folly to ignore it. Sorry, but that's my opinion put as poilitely as I can.

[NigelOnDraft]

HD and if a GA instruction is issued it would be folly to ignore it. Understood, but if your "instructions" are so vital, they need to be made in good time / at a suitable point to be comprehended and actioned.

After landing the pilot was told to take a particular turn onto a taxiwayIn today's world this is often too late... I have been asked by LHR ATC, on short finals, to make an early turn off. Trouble is, I briefed 45mins ago and setup for a reduced flap landing (iaw my company policy to save ~7kgs of fuel) = a longer landing roll, and if I now alter Flap <1000agl, I have to Go Around (Company dictat).

We are encouraged more and more the brief taxi routes, / vacating points etc., and it is not in our "training" to just accept a change on the rollout. Yes - some can and will try to cope, but I have seen more than one inappropriate screeching turn to comply, and often if ATC start issuing instructions on the rollout I tell my colleague to disregard them until there is a suitable space in our SOPs actions / callouts.

[1Charlie]

I agree. If you MUST issue instructions in such a critical phase of flight be prepared for the pilot to make up his own mind.

[Defruiter]

You want a landing clearance sooner? Sure, that can be arranged. Final approach spacing will have to be increased though. Less aircraft will land per hour. You'll spend more time going round and round in circles waiting to come in. You'll all probably start moaning about that then. We can't win....

[Dan Dare]

Here's an idea:

Why don't ATCOs go on regular Fam flights and pilots visit ATC? The safety benefits could be enormous. Oh, it would cost a few shillings, so it could never happen:rolleyes:

As for late go-around calls - although not ideal there are all sorts of reasons for a late call and mostly unpredictable. I am seeing more and more unnecessary go-arounds being instructed for no good reason (except that we get sacked if we get it wrong) and feel that is is not safer either. If you want a landing clearance or go-around instruction at 500' that is fine, and can also be a possibility, but you loose 40 miles of final approach spacing per hour. How would UK plc or IAG shares fare with these constraints?

[provo]

Dan Dare

I remember going to NATS a few years ago and being involved in a joint pilot/ATCO CRM type initiative. I thought that we all learnt a bit about some of the problems faced on either side of the microphone. Not too sure if it still happens or if anything changed as a result

[A and C]

I went on that NATS/pilot CRM program, a day well spent it increased my understanding and respect for those who have to control the traffic, the insight into the problems faced by ATC has helped me no end.

[Mikehotel152]

A lot of NATS facilities will accept visitors. I went to STN tower recently and enjoyed an informative yet relaxed visit which included chocolates and coffee. Whether my airline would allow me to reciprocate is another matter, but not necessarily out of the question.

[blind pew]

Made a good half a dozen visits to heathrow tower in the 70s...always warmly received and learnt a bit which changed BEAs RT.
On initial contact with departures we used to go through the whole card with clearance ..blah blah blah...discovered the controllers worked the same screen and asked what they needed.
Bea line 247 passing 3.6.
Good morning Bealine 247 radar identified continue as cleared.

Got a huge rollicking from the skipper but explained why three calls were unnecessary and the word spread.

Similarly flying with the Swiss used to fly underneath the Biggin stack at VNE until we recieved climb clearance.
Just needed to ask " do you have any specific speed restrictions".

Great bunch of guys.
During my induction in Zurich we had a day with ATC and similarly on my command course.

Notice my post re landing without clearance in Tripoli has disappeared.
C'est la vie.

[no sponsor]

Personally, if the runway was clear, and I had not received landing clearance and could see the entire runway was clear, I would continue to land.

If I had been instructed to go-around, then I would go-around, unless there was an emergency which meant it was safer to land.

[clearanceoverthekeys]

KK Air: Germania 9972 expedite to vacate at FR

GMI9972: Expedite vacating FR Germania 9972

KK Air: Royal air maroc 672S runway 26 left wind 210 at 15 knots maximum of 27 disregard royal air maroc 672s go around I say again go around acknowledge turn left heading 180 maintain altitude 3000 feet

RAM672S: Air maroc 672s go around and erm runway heading (unintelligible)

KK Air: Easy 84AB stop disregard line up clearance and hold...

RAM672S: 672S on ground

EZY84AB: Holding position Easy 84AB

KK Air: Thank you sir

KK Air: Germania 9972 ground 121.8 goodbye

GMI9972: 121.8 bye

KK Air: RAM672S contact ground 121.8

RAM672S: ground 121.8 and (unintelligible) there is (unintelligible but sounds like wake) turbulence on final

KK Air: Roger

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<We are encouraged more and more the brief taxi routes, / vacating points etc., and it is not in our "training" to just accept a change on the rollout. Yes - some can and will try to cope, but I have seen more than one inappropriate screeching turn to comply, and often if ATC start issuing instructions on the rollout I tell my colleague to disregard them until there is a suitable space in our SOPs actions / callouts.>>

You didn't used to fly VC10s by any chance Nigel?

Things happen fast at a busy airfield and the fact that you "briefed" on something an hour ago means zilch to ATC..... Someone on short final and an airfield vehicle calls on another frequency that they've seen debris on the runway... so the Tower instruct a G/A. It's no good getting an engine full of crap and saying you briefed for this, that or the other over Northern Africa. If that's really what happens nowadays I'm glad I'm out of it.

[Basil]

ISTR, at JFK, being given the landing runway on the finals turn, at KWI being given a late change, at HKG being given a GA for no apparent reason (even when subsequently discussed).

[F-16GUY]

I am quite puzzled by some of the posts I read in this so-called ”professional” pilot site.

If you for any reason consider a Go Around in a functioning airplane, anything else then a routine manoeuvre, regardless of the type of aircraft you are flying, seat position upfront, company etc., then sorry, but you should not be there in the first place.

If you consider the Go Around to be a stressful emergency like event, you should practice it some more, either in the sim, by chair flying it or ideally in the aircraft if you ever get the chance. God airmanship dictates that you know your own limitations and that you actively seek to become better/stronger in those areas.

If you are concerned about filling out paperwork due to a Go Around, regardless of why you have to do so (collecting data or justifying), and therefore elect to avoid Go Arounds when ever possible, then you should re-think the concept of airmanship. Furthermore, a wrong decision to avoid a Go Around where it was called for, would at best scare you and bring loads of paperwork your way. The other end of that scale is the end of your flying career the “ugly” way…

Pilots and controllers are all humans and they all make mistakes. I will be the first to admit that I make mistakes. Making mistakes is not always a bad thing, as long as the mistakes made are new and that the mistakes made results in new knowledge, which is shared.

Do you know the old joke about the difference between a pilot and a controller? When the pilot makes a mistake, he dies – when the controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies!

Even though this joke is very real, I believe that in the case of a Go Around an error on the side of the controller issuing the instruction is an error on the “better safe then sorry” side of the scale.

If a pilot wilfully decides to ignore the order, maybe because he thinks he possesses total situational awareness, then he should maybe consider leaving a tad of his ego at home, next time he goes to work. The tricky thing about situational awareness is that you only know when you have had a brake-down in your situational awareness, the instant that you start to regain it.

I know that my “company” has a slightly different pattern of operation then most commercial companies, but most of the going out from/into an airfield part is probably pretty much the same. Our SOP stipulates that a Go Around shall (not should) be performed anytime it is required for the safety of flight, regardless of the reason (ordered by ATC, bad approach etc.) and regardless of when it is required (even during flare or touchdown).

Furthermore our SOP describes how to perform a low approach and when to perform one. A low approach is to be performed if ordered by ATC, if on short final at 100’ AGL and with no clearance to land (unless ATC tells you to expect late clearance) or anytime the pilot deems it necessary to perform a low approach. The low approach itself is described in the SOP as an overshoot of the RWY not lower then 100’ AGL and offset slightly to the right of the RWY. The 100’ AGL minimum is to avoid any other traffic on the RWY (mind you an Airbus 380 fin reaches close to 75 feet up in the air), and the offset part is intended to improve the pilot(s) view of the RWY over the nose of the aircraft.

Last but not least, if you are one of those so called professionals, whom have managed to puzzle me during this debate, I sure hope that on the night when I for any reason happened to end on the threshold of the runway you are approaching (we all make mistakes even I do), and the controller instruct you to Go Around, You comply without hesitation or delay, thereby avoiding being the last slice of cheese with the holes aligned. If on the other hand you chose to ignore the controller’s instruction, I hope that the pure bastard in front of you or the pure bastard sitting in the cabin behind you is not me….

[YRP]

Does anyone know whether the aircraft acknowledged with just their callsign or "callsign, go around"? Everyone seems to be assuming they deliberately landed without clearance. Maybe they just misheard... still a problem but not quite as dramatic as understanding but deciding to land anyway.

Someone said they had listened to the recording. Any idea?

(Bit out of my depth here... VFR in Canada, we just acknowledge most clearances with callsign only).

[zonoma]

YRP, the news article says that the pilot acknowledged the instruction to "go around" so knowing NATS, they wouldn't say that if the aircraft hadn't responded "Maroc****, going around".

My thoughts are that if you haven't been issued a landing clearance, you should never even brush the tarmac, let alone touch and go as a post or two alluded to earlier. That is for the cockpit to know exactly how low they can get and have that "decision height" even if told to expect a late landing clearance. I cannot even contemplate what would happen if a controller ignores such a major instruction.

For those that think it is fine to ignore ATC, I hope you aren't the next major news article that ends up being your fault after the investigation.

[clearanceoverthekeys]

YRP/Zonoma: My post #73 above which was waiting for approval by a moderator.

[DH_call]

Perhap all of you "command" pilots need a reminder that the worst disaster in aviation history happened on a runway when a 747 "commander" exercised his command decision. That instance might not be exactly the same as what happened here but it boils down to the captain doing the opposite of what the ATC wanted him to do.
As F-16GUY mentioned earlier, if performing a go around makes your butt tingle then I'm afraid you need some more sim time.

[YRP]

zonoma, guess I'm wondering if they acknowledged it or read it back, "Maroc ***" vs "Maroc ***, going around". First case could indicate they thought it was a landing clearance, confirmation bias or the like.

Both of them could count as acknowledging the transmission -- depends on how NATS wanted it to appear in the media.


Edit:

Just realized my original post had "cleared to land" in the readback. I meant "go around".

[A Squared]

Perhap all of you "command" pilots need a reminder that the worst disaster in aviation history happened on a runway when a 747 "commander" exercised his command decision.


No, not really. VanZanten committed a multitude of sins that day, but intentionally refusing to comply with a corrrectly understood ATC instruction was not one of them.

[ATC Watcher]

If the transcript provided earlier here by "clearanceoverthekeys" is genuine then I would bet bad CRM is probably where the problem lies.
I would not be surprised tos see 2 captains in front or a huge age difference between PF and PM.

Since we are on the prehistoric stories pre English Level 4, and Tupolev 134s , one has to remember the non-standard phraseology of those days where eeverybody had its own words to describe the same thing : Go-around, Overshoot, Pull up, etc..

[YRP]

Ah, missed that post. Thanks ATC Watcher.

[fmgc]

Anybody here who thinks that in all but the most exceptional circumstances not Going Around when asked to do so by ATC is OK is not really a professional pilot.

[LostThePicture]

While I don't doubt the authenticity of the transcript provided in #73, there is something obviously missing. Without any idea of the timescales involved between the transmissions, the transcript is of little meaningful use and merely invites criticism of the non-native pilots involved.

I don't work in tower ATC, but those pilots and controllers who work daily in that environment, trying to squeeze quarts into pint pots, have my admiration. The posts that have said similar things about crowded runways in the TMA are thinking along the right lines, IMO.

[Sunnyjohn]

Thanks for that, LTP - I was wondering the same thing but didn't like to show me ignorance. Also - and this too is ignorance - what is FR?

[Squawk 7500]

FR is a taxiway

[Landflap]

FMGC ; ATC rarely ask you to Go Around. They often order you to do so. In all walks of life, better be armed with a good reason for refusing an order ! I was observer on a big bus into LHR one time when because of the high level of automation, we went to something called mini ground speed (or something like that) when Capt re-selected auto from managed (or something like that - er, I am a simple Boeing driver) ............BUT....... we got awfully close to the preceeding, destroying the immaculate seperation (albeit it tight) by ATC. We got a very clear order.............."AC call sign, GO AROUND, GO AROUND". WE went around.

[suninmyeyes]

Many years ago when on the takeoff roll in a 747 from a major USA airport we were ordered to stop by ATC. We were about 10 knots short of V1 and chose to ignore the call. We also had in sight ahead a low flying helicopter which was slightly closer than we would have liked it to be but still well clear and we guessed that was the reason. Rejecting the takeoff in a 747 classic at that speed would have meant brakes overheating and many flat tyres.

Once airborne tower said they had ordered us to stop due to a helicopter infringing the zone but as we were airborne contact departure good day. Slavish adherence to ATC who may not understand the nuances and limitations for the particular aircraft you are flying is not necessarily safer. To our mind a rejected takeoff in a jumbo just prior to V1 was more dangerous than getting airborne and having to take evasive action. Stopping after V1 may have resulted in a hull loss and ATC have no way of knowing how close to V1 we are.

One of the posters above stated that if he was a passenger on a plane and he was instructed to goaround he would hope the pilots would do so. If I was on a plane with insufficient fuel for a goaround or a plane with smoke in the flight deck and the pilots could see sufficient runway to stop on I would rather they continue and land. As always we do not know the details and the pilots may have made a serious error. Maybe not.

[Ian W]

One of the posters above stated that if he was a passenger on a plane and he was instructed to goaround he would hope the pilots would do so. If I was on a plane with insufficient fuel for a goaround or a plane with smoke in the flight deck and the pilots could see sufficient runway to stop on I would rather they continue and land. As always we do not know the details and the pilots may have made a serious error. Maybe not.

If the flight crew have an emergency then they should communicate it to the controller and ensure that the runway is theirs. The controllers otherwise may have a report of a runway problem or taken a decision to give the runway to someone else and tell you to go around as they don't know your emergency status.

[F-16GUY]

One of the posters above (me) assumed that it was understood that his (my) statement regarded a pilot in a perfectly working aircraft. Obviously if you are the pilot of an aircraft with any malfunction, fuel emergency, etc. (which you probably have declared an emergency for) then you are required to asses the situation and make your decision to either comply with ATC or say “unable”. In this case you would also have your arguments readily available afterwards when asked to explain why you chose to ignore the order.

What I referred to as unacceptable (not professional) is the decision to ignore the instruction from ATC based on the fact that you A) did not understand the language of the controller, B) found it inconvenient, C) considered a Go Around an emergency manoeuvre.

I also agree that during the take-off roll, there is a certain point where the decision to abort is more risky then the decision to continue, and that ATC does not have the ability to judge how far in the take-off process you are (when close to V1 speed), however a landing situation (Go Around) is a different story.

[Sunnyjohn]

Thanks, Squawk.

[SLF3]

The go around instruction in post 73 is the same phraseology as used by the controller in the BA038 incident at Heathrow.

If you listen to that recording on Youtube and this one was similar it is hard to imagine how the instruction (or the urgency) could be misunderstood.

Certainly the Gulf Air pilot got it in one.

[Eric T Cartman]

Cancelling take-off clearance is already covered in the UK MATS Part 1 i.e.13 Cancelling Take-off Clearance
13.1 If take-off clearance has to be cancelled before the take-off run has commenced, the pilot shall be instructed to hold position and to acknowledge the instruction.

13.2 In certain circumstances the aerodrome controller may consider that it is necessary to cancel take-off clearance after the aircraft has commenced the take-off run. In this event the pilot shall be instructed to stop immediately and to acknowledge the instruction.

13.3 The cancellation of a take-off clearance after an aircraft has commenced its take-off roll should only occur when the aircraft will be in serious and imminent danger should it continue. Controllers should be aware of the potential for an aircraft to overrun the end of the runway if the take-off is abandoned at a late stage; this is particularly so with large aircraft or those operating close to their performance limit, such as at maximum take-off mass, in high ambient temperatures or when the runway braking
action may be adversely affected. Because of this risk, even if a take-off clearance is cancelled, the commander of the aircraft may consider it safer to continue the takeoff than to attempt to stop the aircraft.

13.4 As the aircraft accelerates, the risks associated with abandoning the take-off increase significantly. For modern jet aircraft, at speeds above 80kt flight deck procedures balance the seriousness of a failure with the increased risk associated with rejecting the takeoff.
For example, many system warnings and cautions on the flight deck may be inhibited during the take-off roll, and between 80kt and V1 most aircraft operators define a limited number of emergency conditions in which the take-off will be rejected. Consequently, at speeds above 80kt, the take-off clearance should normally only be cancelled if there is a serious risk of collision should the aircraft continue its take-off, or if substantial debris is observed or reported on the runway in a location likely to result in damage to the aircraft.
The critical speed will be dependent on the aircraft type and configuration, environmental conditions and a range of other factors but, as a general rule, for modern jet aircraft, it will be in the region of 80kt airspeed.
The typical distance at which a jet aircraft reaches 80kt is approximately 300m from the point at which the take-off roll is commenced.
The unit MATS Part 2 shall contain further guidance on the likely position on the runway at which those aircraft types commonly using the aerodrome typically reach 80kt.

13.5 Controllers should also be aware of the possibility that an aircraft that abandons its take-off may suffer overheated brakes or another abnormal situation and should be prepared to declare the appropriate category of emergency or to provide other suitable assistance.

[freespeed2]

FMGC,

It is utterly wrong that any airline should insist on a report for a GA. It might be that the cause of the GA is worthy of a report.

A pilot must never feel that should press on with a landing just because they do not want paperwork to do.

Sometimes not having the stats is safer than the act of obtaining them

From the last line of your quote methinks that your company may have a problem with its 'Just Culture' and the level of trust of company management.

We report GA's confidentially to our Flight Safety Dept and include whether it was weather related/ATC related/unstable approach etc. The "Management" do not get any details. This contributes to the Safety Assurance of our SMS as repeated instances of GA's at certain airports or at certain times of the day can show whether there are issues with an individual ATCO's performance or training (we're also responsible for the ATC at our base), a poorly designed approach and so on. A go-around may be the pilot's decision, but that does not make it the pilot's fault.

If a pilot feels he'd rather risk the passengers, crew and airframe by landing when he should go-around because he has such a big issue with a few lines on a page, what other paperwork relating to the flight could he not be bothered to take seriously?

Our pilots know the reasoning behind the report, trust the organizational culture and believe that sharing their experience can enhance safety for all their colleagues.

[Lord Lucan]

If you for any reason consider a Go Around in a functioning airplane, anything else then a routine manoeuvre, regardless of the type of aircraft you are flying, seat position upfront, company etc., then sorry, but you should not be there in the first place.

Well, I agree with you that pilots should not be afraid of going around, but I disagree that it is a routine manoeuvre, except in the sim.

In several decades of flying, except when training, I have probably had to go around less than ten times. So hardly routine, at least for me.

What are other peoples experiences with Go Arounds? Done hundreds of them? Or once every three or four years? I'm curious now.

The issuing of late landing clearances is, in my opinion, not good practice. I find it preferable in places such as Paris CDG where you are cleared even with one or two aircraft in front of you, and the decision to land is back with the crew.

[207592]

Read this yesterday consequent to a renewed CAA instruction:


At the initiation of any go around manoeuvre, especially one near to or even in contact with the runway, workload (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Pilot_Workload) is significantly increased so that they are likely to be functioning much nearer their mental capacity (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Information_Processing) than during the approach phase. Notwithstanding their need to communicate with aircraft making a go around to assure traffic separation, Air Traffic Control, need to recognise that this is a time to keep communication to a minimum commensurate with safety. The only additional communication which will be helpful to pilots beyond instructions essential for separation are those which simplify the go around being flown - for example by increasing the stop altitude or issuing a radar heading in place of a complex tracking sequence. The message is that ATC can make an important contribution to go-around safety (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/ATM_Contribution_to_Go-around_Safety).
SKYbrary - Go-around Execution (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Go-around_Execution)


Seems that ATC should not give routine, only emergency instructions at a late phase in landing. It also suggests that the capacity to decipher transmissions at that time might be diminished.

[valvanuz]

207592:

I agree, ATC emergency messages should be just that and not combined with other information.

Message should be clear and brief.

A message such as "EZ 123: cancel take-off clearance" is not clear and does not convey a sens of urgency

Why not say something like "EZ 123: STOP AND HOLD NOW" repeated twice

Same for go arounds': "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW" "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW"

when crew acknowledges, ATC can go on with further instructions: "EZ 123: maintain 3000 heading 180...." or "EZ 123: take-off clearance runway 27..."

[Scrotchidson]

A message such as "EZ 123: cancel take-off clearance" is not clear and does not convey a sens of urgency

That phraseology 'Hold Position, Cancel Take Off' is only used before the aircraft has commenced its take off roll which is why you probably don't get a sense of urgency from the message but it's repeated twice and very clear.

If the aircraft has commenced its roll then 'Stop Immediately' x2 is used which does give a sense of urgency. What is more important though is the way it is given to the pilot so the urgency really comes from the voice of ATC and not the wording.

I agree with you that further instructions after a Go Around should only be given once the aircraft is in positive climb unless there are overriding safety implications.

[Crazy Voyager]

Message should be clear and brief.

A message such as "EZ 123: cancel take-off clearance" is not clear and does not convey a sens of urgency

Why not say something like "EZ 123: STOP AND HOLD NOW" repeated twice

Same for go arounds': "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW" "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW"

when crew acknowledges, ATC can go on with further instructions: "EZ 123: maintain 3000 heading 180...." or "EZ 123: take-off clearance runway 27..."

How about

EZY123 go around, I say again, go around, acknowledge
or
EZY123 Hold position cancel takeoff, I say again, cancel takeoff, acknowledge

or
EZY123 stop immediately, I say again EZY123 stop immediately, acknowledge

That is the standard UK phraseology, I don't see how it could be much more clear personally, suggestions?

[Squawk 7500]

I agree with Voyager.

I've issued many of those instructions to many different nationalities, and I have never had anything other than prompt compliance. If it ain't broke...

[055166k]

I like to keep an open mind, and phraseology and instructions that seem completely acceptable and understandable in the calm office environment are not always suitable for "real world" situations. A controller may be absolutely by-the-book......great....pat on the back....utterly blameless; however that is not much good if the end result is a misunderstanding. Let me ask a question; how often in normal day-to-day controlling do we use the phrase " ,,I say again,,"? How often does a pilot [UK or foreign] hear this phrase? Always be willing to consider that something might need changing.

[HDRW]

While the standard phreaseology is determined in a calm office environment, it is decided based on common sense and experience. And it's changed when it is found to cause problems - for example "Take off" is only used when that clearance is issued (or cancelled), so that this sequence does not happen: PJ123: "PJ123 ready for takeoff" ATCO: "PJ123 Roger" and due to misunderstanding "Roger" to mean that approval has been given, the aircraft takes off. This is two mistakes, but it has happened, so the phrase "Ready for departure" is used nowadays. As for readbacks, again there is a list of what must be read-back, and it includes all clearances, altimeter settings, altitudes, headings and so on. A Go-Around must always be read-back, as it was in this case. If an instruction cannot be complied-with, the word "Unable" is used, possibly with a reason, but just ignoring it because as Captain "you know best" is not just bad airmanship, it is also illegal! Remember that in Controlled airspace ATCO instructions are just that, not suggestions. ("Well Mr.Spock, I like to think of it as the Prime Suggestion" :-) ) And in the UK if you are cleared to land by an ATCO, they are taking the legal responsiblity that landing is safe - how can they possibly do so until the runway is clear of the previous aircraft? Giving "Clear to land number 5" makes no sense as it's fail-dangerous - if a radio failure occurs (or someone doubles, or has a stuck transmitter) the clearance may not be able to be cancelled. On a CAVOK day the pilot can see the runway is clear, but if it's a CAT IIIA Autoland there could be four aircraft piled up on the runway that you can't see! (Obviously a silly example, but not impossible). I was taught that every approach is an approach to a Go-around, and if you can land then it's a bonus - a Go-Around should be a standard, no-drama procedure and not regarded as an surprised mad panic. LHR is incredibly busy - I have watched for a while and timed landings at 40 second intervals, and I think this may be about as close as anyone can do safely. If that means late landing clearances, then so be it - the alternatives are either increased danger or lower runway usage, and neither is going to be acceptable to someone.

[055166k]

TBS [time based separation] on approach will seek to improve runway utilisation in windy conditions; much work being done in UK and Eurocontrol on this. Somebody mentioned Heathrow, which is often reported to operate at near full capacity. It may be politically acceptable to say this, but in actual fact the real movement capacity will never be realised because of severe operating restrictions caused by dedicated landing/take-off runway protocols.
How do ATC cope with extensive holding delays?...they can use both runways for landing subject to certain conditions. Compare Gatwick single runway utilisation to Heathrow's two.
A Clearance to take-off or land is not an instruction, it merely conveys an ATCO's situational appraisal [or judgement] so that the pilot can proceed....but the pilot makes the ultimate decision based on a multitude of factors of which ATC clearance is one. Certain UK ATC units have permission to clear an aircraft to land with preceding traffic still on the runway....not to be confused with the "land after" procedure.

[ATC Watcher]

I have watched for a while and timed landings at 40 second intervals,
At an average Vref of 135 Kts that would be 1,5 NM long. separation on APP .
Question to EGLL APP ATCOS here : Do you really do this in LHR regularly ? If yes, how do you cope with wake turbulence separations and to guarantee high speed exits ? ? or is this just occasionally with single types , home based airline(s) and full CAVOK , etc..
Just curious ( and very impressed if true !)

[Aluminium shuffler]

They land batches of aircraft from the respective wake categories, rather than on a first come, first serve basis. That's part of why the holds are so busy - they are used as sorting stacks.

There was a BBC programme run for a week called "Heathrow Live", and they explained it. It was news to me, and it's a clever idea where runways are so limited. The programme was aimed at the public, not professionals, so some of it is a bit noddy, but it's worth trying to find on line as there were a few interesting nuggets like this.

I was based at LGW a decade ago, and landing clearances during peak hours typically consisted of a "Land after" at about 100-150', such is the congestion. The first high speed exit is for turbo-props, and jets are to aim for the second - if a jet tried for the first, the net aircraft would have to go around as the landed slowly trundled on to the second exit. There were a few frequent infringers of this procedure. The same three airlines were also regular abusers of "line up, ready immediate" clearances, causing go-arounds while they waited on their cabins to be secured on the runway.

[DaveReidUK]

I have watched for a while and timed landings at 40 second intervalsBetween the start of segregated ops at 7am and when things start to tail off at around 10pm, Heathrow typically sees around 540 landings.

That's about 36 arrivals per hour, or an interval of around 100 seconds on average between successive landings.

[Gonzo]

ATC Watcher,

In a good headwind and when the tower can provide visual separation, we'll be doing 2.5nm spacing (non-wake pairs, obviously) to 4DME, which then compresses once the first one slows down. I've seen situations where the first one is just touching down and the second one is inside 2nm from touchdown.

[ATC Watcher]

Thanks Gonzo, now it makes sense. In FRA on a very nice day when everything is right they also go down to 2,5 NM , but not all the time .

So it is definitively not a landing one every 40 seconds as writen before.

[rigpiggy]

My personal SOP is the old school landing lights with the clearance. has saved me
at least 5 time. Twice I have been cleared to land by center, due to no switch at the beacon. I try to have a visual backup for all phases a la ac 120-74a