Go-around below minimums

[767 pilot]

Hello! Typically, the list of reasons to initiate go-around includes such reasons as the runway is occupied or landing permission is not received. But I could not find any information about minimum altitude when go-around should be initiated if the runway is occupied or landing permission is not received. Can anyone help me with the answer to the question: to what altitude (DA/DDA or below) it is possible descend legally without landing permission or waiting for the runway to be to clear? Thank U!

[oggers]

Unless otherwise stated, crossing the threshold is the limit without clearance to land. Ref PANS ATM.

[Check Airman]

From what I've been told by a controller (FAA), as long as your wheels aren't on the ground, there's still separation.

I've seen ORD operate where the first plane is rotating while the second is in the flare. Closer than I'd like, for sure, but at busy airports here, it's not unheard of to still have the runway occupied as you descend below mins.

[misd-agin]

Depends upon the country? I've gone around just prior to the flare as the previous aircraft missed their second or third exit.

Looks like the 3-10-3 section of the U.S. controllers manual requires 2,500'(??). https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf

[Smythe]

no permission to land before minimum, that is easy...GA. follow what is on the chart.

a GA or balked below minimums is an emergency procedure...therefore, there are no rules.

[AerocatS2A]

no permission to land before minimum, that is easy...GA. follow what is on the chart.

a GA or balked below minimums is an emergency procedure...therefore, there are no rules.

So if the minimums are 900 feet, you are visual with the runway, stable, etc, but don’t have a landing clearance, you are going to go around? Really? You might want to think that through.

[ScepticalOptomist]

no permission to land before minimum, that is easy...GA. follow what is on the chart.

a GA or balked below minimums is an emergency procedure...therefore, there are no rules.

Respectfully disagree.

Minimas can be quite high. A GA is never an emergency procedure.

[Wizofoz]

Respectfully disagree.

Minimas can be quite high. A GA is never an emergency procedure.



Agreed with a caveat- terrain clearance is based on a go-around from the minima. For a go-around below minima you may need to be mindful of any special take-off procedure.

[AmarokGTI]

Some curious replies on here. Emergency procedure? No. If a go around to a professional pilot is anything other than a standard procedure then additional training is required.

You can go around from below the minima. Of course you can. What if you lose visual reference after the minima (eg large shower). Vis reduced to zero. “Oh well gotta land off this VOR approach??!”. What if you realise the gear is not locked, etc? The AIP specifically references going around from visual circling due to loss of visual reference. You’d never land st some airports if you required the clearance by the minima on a 2D approach. You can even go around after you have touched the runway in certain circumstances (not getting into aircraft specific stuff).

[parkfell]

Perhaps the following criteria when deciding to GO AROUND:

1. Any SOPs, specific requirements / instructions in the AIP for the airport in question.

2. Good old fashioned AIRMANSHIP.

[FullWings]

To answer the OP, in my company we would GA at alert height (200R on my type) if < CAT I and not in receipt of a landing clearance. In any other situation it’s up to the crew to decide...

[Trossie]

An interesting one on the landing clearance bit: What about on an approach into CDG where you are cleared to land being number three on the approach?

I have done a few below minimums, the closest being as I was waiting for the wheels to touch and ATC said "XYZ Go around, er... can you make a go around from there?" By the time he had finished his transmission we were already climbing! He had spotted another aeroplane that had missed a taxiway turn and was about to infringe our runway. A formal 'thanks' was sent by our airline to the ATC unit.

Another landing that I did with a very late landing clearance was when, on a CAVOK day, a departing ahead was asked if he could expedite, said he could, was cleared to line up and take off, then 'dithered' (one of the 'legacy' airlines). We continued below 'minimums' as the go-around routing would have taken us straight into his climb-out with him being below our nose; using parkfell's 'point 2' we continued with a landing clearance as his wheels lifted off and we were near touching. We got a 'thanks' from ATC as we turned off the runway.

[jmmoric]

2. Good old fashioned AIRMANSHIP.


Quoted for thruth...

Flying on very short gravel strips in windy conditions teach you that quite fast. A go around is always an option.... all the way down to the ground, and sometimes a little longer (if you don't have thrustreversers and liftdumping devices)

Whether or not to land, that is in the end the decision of the pilot in command.... noone else.... even I as a ATCO can instruct a "go-around", if the pilot deems it safer to land.... he is in his right to do so (I've done my part).

[oggers]

A reminder of the question:

But I could not find any information about minimum altitude when go-around should be initiated if the runway is occupied or landing permission is not received

The answer is go-around by the time you cross the threshold if landing clearance is not recieved. Refs are PANS ATM 7.10.2, FAA Order JO 7110.65X 3.10.3, CAP 493 2.1.19, amongst others. I dare say most pilots have continued an approach past the threshold in anticipation that the overworked controller will imminently blurt out your landing clearance. Nonetheless you should understand that the separation minima for a runway does not depend on whether you have touched down, it depends on whether you have passed the threshold.

[akindofmagic]

no permission to land before minimum, that is easy...GA. follow what is on the chart.

a GA or balked below minimums is an emergency procedure...therefore, there are no rules.

Wow. Competition is admittedly pretty stiff, but this has to be a contender for the title of "biggest load of bollocks ever written on PPRUNE".

[sonicbum]

no permission to land before minimum, that is easy...GA. follow what is on the chart.

a GA or balked below minimums is an emergency procedure...therefore, there are no rules.

Next time we hear somebody on frequency declaring an emergency because of a go around we will know who to look for ;-)

[safelife]

oggers has it right. Runway threshold, or 50 ft above the runway, if you're looking for a vertical minimum.
Official solution in my company (operator of considerable size in Europe) after lengthy discussions.

[misd-agin]

A reminder of the question:



The answer is go-around by the time you cross the threshold if landing clearance is not recieved. Refs are PANS ATM 7.10.2, FAA Order JO 7110.65X 3.10.3, CAP 493 2.1.19, amongst others. I dare say most pilots have continued an approach past the threshold in anticipation that the overworked controller will imminently blurt out your landing clearance. Nonetheless you should understand that the separation minima for a runway does not depend on whether you have touched down, it depends on whether you have passed the threshold.

Reading 3.10.3 and I didn't see any comment about requiring a go-around by the threshold. It mentions distance between the aircraft.

[oggers]

oggers has it right.

Thankyou for reading and understanding the question.

[safelife]

It’s actually quite reaonable... crossing the threshold at 50 ft is where the approach ends, and the landing begins.
You were cleared for approach, but not for landing, so go around at this point if you aren’t cleared any further.

[oggers]

Reading 3.10.3 and I didn't see any comment about requiring a go-around by the threshold. It mentions distance between the aircraft.

Yes distance, and it is based on crossing the threshold, not based on touching down. It stands to reason that if the separation does not exist then a go-around is required by the threshold or the separation minima will be busted. If ATC don't issue this instruction by the threshold why wait any longer?

Don't get me wrong; I have continued past the threshold all set for a GA but expecting to get the landing clearance in the next second. Sometimes it is just obvious from what you can see on the ground and hear on the radio that ATC are trying to get the words out. But the OP's question is predicated on the unusual circumstance of getting neither landing clearance nor go-around instruction from ATC whilst you can see the runway is occupied. The question is how long can you wait "legally without landing permission or waiting for the runway to be to clear?" The answer is until no later than the threshold. The rationale is that is the point where separation minima will be busted.

[oggers]

It’s actually quite reaonable... crossing the threshold at 50 ft is where the approach ends, and the landing begins.
You were cleared for approach, but not for landing, so go around at this point if you aren’t cleared any further.

Exactly, cleared for the approach but not for landing. Equally "continue approach" does not imply you are cleared to occupy the runway. Cheers.

[poldek77]

In order to continue below minimum you need to have sufficient visual reference for the runway and your aircraft should be in correct configuration and position for normal landing. Landing clearance is required before the wheels touch the runway.
Just remember about performance considerations in case of a go-around.

[FlightDetent]

Exactly, cleared for the approach but not for landing. Equally "continue approach" does not imply you are cleared to occupy the runway. Cheers.
See oggers, you are cheating here by having read the actual question. ;)

[oggers]

........:ok:

[Dogma]

;-)

as A’s has been stated this thread is mostly nonsense. The Commander can elect to land or go around depending on what he / she considers to be the best course of action

Theyd have to be able to justify that decision. Best to thing about the scenario well in advance

[767 pilot]

Thank you all, especially to oggers for Refs! I apologize for the absence (long flight and I just arrived). And YES may be this question looks like nonsense (to Dogma) but it is exactly about to be able to justify “that decision” (to be more clear: I had line check and during approach in BKK we received landing clearance approximately at 70 ft) unfortunately my Company’s SOP procedure is different from the Boeing’s FCTM recommended procedure (if very briefly: according to my Company’s procedure PF at DA should call: “Landing” or “Go-around”, and Boeing’s recommendation is: “Continue” or “Go-around”) so maybe it is time to change our procedure and one more reason to do this is legal possibility to continue approach below minimum under some circumstances…

[safelife]

You call landing, well that's old fashioned, because it mentally commits you to land. Modern SOP call continue. So you continue below the IFR minima, down to 50 ft. Then it's the next call to continue further or not.

[renard]

Edinburgh airport had a runway incursion when one plane crossed the threshold while the departing aircraft was still on the runway.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-48463972

[AerocatS2A]

Doesn’t matter if you call “landing” or “continue” that’s just some verbal bla bla indicating you are not going around yet. You can always go around, even if you have said “landing”.

[oggers]

Thanks for coming back 767 pilot, I think your question is one that more pilots should be asking themselves.

[NGsim]

This whole thread makes me hate being a pilot. As if I needed more reason.

[sonicbum]

This whole thread makes me hate being a pilot. As if I needed more reason.

You don't like go arounds ?

[FlightDetent]

Funnily, the OP's valid "how far can you legally go without ATC clearance" is answered with the very first reply.

Bail out, while there's life ahead to be had.

[FullWings]

Doesn’t matter if you call “landing” or “continue” that’s just some verbal bla bla indicating you are not going around yet. You can always go around, even if you have said “landing”.
You’d have thought so, wouldn’t you? The HF experts say no, by calling “land” you are mentally more committed to landing (I don’t have any references but studies have been done), whereas “continue” leaves the options a bit more open. Bit like the difference between a green light at a junction and one that’s flashing amber: you can still cross it in either case but you use more caution in the second scenario...

[GlenQuagmire]

You don't like go arounds ?

I suspect he doesn’t like pedantic bulls**t.

[sonicbum]

I suspect he doesn’t like pedantic bulls**t.

What You call pedantic bulls##t other people call it brainstorming. Skip the thread. Easy.

[Sepp]

...
Bit like the difference between a green light at a junction and one that’s flashing amber: you can still cross it in either case but you use more caution in the second scenario...

Tell that to the goons who ignore red lights round where I live. Seems to be SOP these days: Green=go. Amber=go NOW. Red=GO GO GO GO!

[Check Airman]

Doesn’t matter if you call “landing” or “continue” that’s just some verbal bla bla indicating you are not going around yet. You can always go around, even if you have said “landing”.


This forum needs a “like” button. I’ll admit I’m biased because my airline uses the “landing” callout, but let’s play devil’s advocate here.

You get to DA, and call “landing”. At 100ft, an aircraft down the runway starts to cross. Are you going to land the airplane because you said “landing” and are thus mentally prepared to land? As somebody said, I’d like to see some actual evidence to support that claim. If that’s indeed true, we’re in big trouble.

You’re not committed to the landing until the reversers are unlocked, and even then, one can make an argument for sufficiently long runways, but that’s for another day.

[FullWings]

You get to DA, and call “landing”. At 100ft, an aircraft down the runway starts to cross. Are you going to land the airplane because you said “landing” and are thus mentally prepared to land? As somebody said, I’d like to see some actual evidence to support that claim. If that’s indeed true, we’re in big trouble.
I think in obvious, extreme cases then no - it doesn’t matter what you said because there is clear and present danger. Something more subtle like an increasing tailwind, the approach becoming unstable, landing a bit long, etc. The thinking is that even if the difference made by using alternative phraseology is small or even non-existent at times, it is an incremental gain in safety. So why not?

[FE Hoppy]

I would have thought terrain in the missed is probably the deciding factor.
If your minimum is predicated on achieving a specific approach climb gradient and you mooch on through it waiting for landing clearance then you've put yourself in a position where you will be unable to guarantee terrain clearance in the case of going around with an engine out.
If terrain isn't a issue then it's useful to know the height loss during a go around which is in your AFM.

[Dan Winterland]

Minimum height? So long as there's air under the wheels. After that, it becomes a rejected landing - provided reverse hasn't been selected. Then you are committed to stopping.

[FlightDetent]

I’ll admit I’m biased because my airline uses the “landing” callout, but let’s play devil’s advocate here.
You get to DA, and call “landing”. At 100ft, an aircraft down the runway starts to cross. Are you going to land the airplane because you said “landing” and are thus mentally prepared to land? As somebody said, I’d like to see some actual evidence to support that claim. If that’s indeed true, we’re in big trouble. It's great your airline has such a good and deep understanding of the real meaning behind a "landing" call and wealth of shared experience you did not need to adopt the change.

Pardon me, the idea of ramming someone else on the runway because "landing" was said is a strawman argument. In reality (as I see it) "continue" does

1) support the go-around mindedness below DA/H (remove any obstacles against)
2) call spade a spade, because to continue towards landing is what you decide at minima (semantics is not all just water under the bridge)
3) in the particular case of FBW Airbus remove the sound-alike calls "LAND - green" vs. "Landing". (no matter Land / vs. Landing of latter years)

ad 1) runway overruns are one of the big three of our era. Each of them is a G/A not executed- Even the north-western hemisphere does not have a record as stellar as it should. Why does Little Rock keep repeating? Now being a D.A. against myself: since the adoption of "Continue" not much has changed, hah?!

ad 2) If you tried to explain the concept of "landing" meaning "we will continue towards the touchdown zone in an attempt for one, ever aware that a g/a is an option and by the way the only right one for many things that might still happen" to a 7 year old you would not get the message across. A 17 year old programmer would raise a finger most likely.

It does matter. There are different cultures where formal compliance is seen a high virtue, which is where actually the whole thread stems form. If we agree there's nothing wrong with being formally correct in aviation, see the 767 pilot from 17 SEP. He came to ask about how far you can go without ATC clearance, because announcing "landing" without the approval from tower felt unauthorized to him. That's not a type of thinking you wish to have at minima on a checkride day to a foreing hub with tropical weather all around.

ad 3) for the record, when adopted by Airbus they only followed what was done on your pond side already, so this triple win is none of their creation.

I get it "don't fix what ain't broken" prevailed where you are, but mostly for anybody else there are reasons to activate the change. And K.I.S.S. is what we got.

[Check Airman]

There are a great many things that we do (and don't do) at my airline that are against industry norms. Presumably because we know what we're doing, and the rest of you have it wrong (sarcasm, for those who missed it).

I do think that landing vs continuing is overthinking it a bit though. We say "9000 for 8000" knowing that if ATC gives us another altitude before getting to 8000, we'll have to abandon the original plan.

You do raise a very good point on the FMA. Ironically, your example is one of the only 2 times we read the FMA aloud. (Only 2 US airlines read FMAs)

Regarding "formal compliance", I realise that in Europe, Asia and Australia, it's quite highly regarded, but here, when forced to choose between the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the law, we go with the spirit. That reminds me of a clip I saw on YouTube only last night.

https://youtu.be/yP1ebLK3b9M

[aterpster]

no permission to land before minimum, that is easy...GA. follow what is on the chart.

a GA or balked below minimums is an emergency procedure...therefore, there are no rules.
Never heard that before. Do you declare?

[hans brinker]

There are a great many things that we do (and don't do) at my airline that are against industry norms. Presumably because we know what we're doing, and the rest of you have it wrong (sarcasm, for those who missed it).

I do think that landing vs continuing is overthinking it a bit though. We say "9000 for 8000" knowing that if ATC gives us another altitude before getting to 8000, we'll have to abandon the original plan.

You do raise a very good point on the FMA. Ironically, your example is one of the only 2 times we read the FMA aloud. (Only 2 US airlines read FMAs)

Regarding "formal compliance", I realise that in Europe, Asia and Australia, it's quite highly regarded, but here, when forced to choose between the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the law, we go with the spirit. That reminds me of a clip I saw on YouTube only last night.

https://youtu.be/yP1ebLK3b9M

Are you saying the spirit of the law is more important in the US than in the EU? Because if so BS...

[Check Airman]

Are you saying the spirit of the law is more important in the US than in the EU? Because if so BS...
No, but just saying that most people here don't even think about stuff like that. For example, I was in the jumpseat one evening going into ORD. The crew couldn't get a word in on the tower frequency because it was so busy. Landing was judged safer than going missed. They didn't even bother to file any paperwork.

[jmmoric]

Here comes the "fun" part.

The missed approach procedure starts at the missed approach point.... so what to do if going around after the missed approach point? The procedure is only protected if you follow it as defined from the missed approach point.

I'd always expect an IFR flight to follow the missed approach procedure, even when going around after the MaPt.... is there anything arguing against that?

[aterpster]

Here comes the "fun" part.

The missed approach procedure starts at the missed approach point.... so what to do if going around after the missed approach point? The procedure is only protected if you follow it as defined from the missed approach point.

I'd always expect an IFR flight to follow the missed approach procedure, even when going around after the MaPt.... is there anything arguing against that?
That is correct but highly technically at most airline airports. Having said that, if the MDA or DA is higher than the norm and/or the MAPt for a non-precision IAP is well prior to the runway then you could be in a box. At an airport like that, there is nothing ATC can do for you.

[AerocatS2A]

It’s a bit like a missed approach while circling. There’s no one answer that suits all circumstances. The best thing is to have a plan and if it’s something different than what ATC might expect, make sure you communicate it with them. As long as you don’t hit the ground, another aeroplane, or run out of fuel, you’ve done ok.