Pilot 'owns' the runway after landing clearance
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely put Flower.
I am a microlight PPL and have the highest respect for ATCOs 'cos I know that you guys would never knowingly put me in danger, and if I get myself in difficulties you guys will do your utmost to help.
Unfortunately, accidents will happen, but if we trust one another, they will be fewer and further between!
I am a microlight PPL and have the highest respect for ATCOs 'cos I know that you guys would never knowingly put me in danger, and if I get myself in difficulties you guys will do your utmost to help.
Unfortunately, accidents will happen, but if we trust one another, they will be fewer and further between!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
single spey
it you wish to overide my instructions thats your perogative as the commander of the acft.
if you go around, for what ever reason ,after been given landing clearance thats your decision. which I dont have a problem with, seen it happen on many occasions.
If I send you around because the rwy is occupied by acft. vehicle, animal human.etc etc how could you overide that instruction, continue to land, therefore endangering your acft and occupants
it you wish to overide my instructions thats your perogative as the commander of the acft.
if you go around, for what ever reason ,after been given landing clearance thats your decision. which I dont have a problem with, seen it happen on many occasions.
If I send you around because the rwy is occupied by acft. vehicle, animal human.etc etc how could you overide that instruction, continue to land, therefore endangering your acft and occupants
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opnot,
Years ago my old man had severe smoke & fumes in the flightdeck which was getting worse. He was ordered to go-around due to a light aircraft which had infringed the runway at an intersection. He made the decision that he had enough r/w to land and even if he didn't, clipping the piper in his Tristar would still be worth the risk rather than burning up in the subsequent circuit. So, as it was his arse strapped to the aeroplane he made the call, landed safely and was fully supported by the company and the authorities in the later investigation.
Just an example i know of where a legitimate go-around instruction was overridden for good reason in the interests of the aircraft and it's passengers.
We would never normally dream of disregarding or even questioning an instruction from you guys but ultimately, if after an incident you as the captain are questioned on your actions, answering "i did it because ATC told me to" just isn't going to cut it.
Keep up the great work, still such a relief to be back under London control after 13hrs flying!
Cheers
Years ago my old man had severe smoke & fumes in the flightdeck which was getting worse. He was ordered to go-around due to a light aircraft which had infringed the runway at an intersection. He made the decision that he had enough r/w to land and even if he didn't, clipping the piper in his Tristar would still be worth the risk rather than burning up in the subsequent circuit. So, as it was his arse strapped to the aeroplane he made the call, landed safely and was fully supported by the company and the authorities in the later investigation.
Just an example i know of where a legitimate go-around instruction was overridden for good reason in the interests of the aircraft and it's passengers.
We would never normally dream of disregarding or even questioning an instruction from you guys but ultimately, if after an incident you as the captain are questioned on your actions, answering "i did it because ATC told me to" just isn't going to cut it.
Keep up the great work, still such a relief to be back under London control after 13hrs flying!
Cheers
True, but in normal operations (i.e. not an emergency situation for the aircraft), the controller is very likely to have the better overall understanding.
A controller is likely to have a more complete picture as regards collision risk. But collision risk is a rather small part of the overall risk management picture in aviation -- what proportion of fatal accidents are the result of collisions? The other risks to an aircraft can often only be appreciated by those sitting in the cockpit.
Those controllers and pilots both have incomplete understanding of the entire picture -- different views of the same picture. Most of the time, that doesn't matter, as the actions required are consistent with both risk management views. In cases where the views conflict, mutual understanding is required. Too many controllers out there obsessed with separation for separation's sake, too many pilots obsessed with the needs of their own aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is useful to remember the context of the original question
There is no aircraft emergency just the normal issue of configuration change from approach to departure. I would love to hear of some aircraft or environment where one can not safely execute this manoeuvre. As such I believe the answer to the question is - "Pilot A you are incorrect"
We seem a bit stuck in the 'who has the better picture box' and what about in an emergency (which of course allows the pilot to do whatever is necessary to achieve a safe outcome). As bookworm said - each party has a better picture of some of the elements of risk.
It all works best if we work together.
An aircraft on very short final and cleared to land is suddenly given a go around instruction - Pilot A claims "After I am cleared to land I 'own' the runway and can just land anyhow" - Question, Is Pilot A right?
We seem a bit stuck in the 'who has the better picture box' and what about in an emergency (which of course allows the pilot to do whatever is necessary to achieve a safe outcome). As bookworm said - each party has a better picture of some of the elements of risk.
It all works best if we work together.
Guest
Posts: n/a
bookworm, the example that prompted this thread is about landing clearances - and the issue of a landing clearance is largely determined by the risk of a collision on the runway. However, I have specifically talked only of principles and, as principles, the can be applied generally.
At no point have I intended to suggest that a controller can take on the decision-making related to many aspects of the safety of the aircraft but, on the contrary, I have tried to balance my comments with the non-normal situation in which a pilot can quite correctly act in a different manner than would be expected in response to an ATC instruction. I did not consider risk management issues because the thread was about the 'legality' of landing when a landing clearance had been cancelled (although for various reasons I could disappear along that particular tangent for hours if you really want!) .
As you rightly point out, neither pilot or controller will have the full picture but I stand by my statement that in normal operations, in the context of whether or not a landing clearance can be issued, the controller is likely to have the better understanding of the determining factors.
I agree that the application of 'separation for separation's sake' is not appropriate or desirable but I would argue that in many situations that is the primary role of a controller so you can hardly blame him or her for treating it as important. Of course, there are times when traffic is over-controlled and I would support you completely if you are suggesting that standard separation is sometimes unnecessarily applied when far less distance between aircraft would far better facilitate the safe and orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.
Finally, having said all that about separation, I would also respectfully suggest that the role of an aerodrome controller is about far more than simply avoiding collisions.
172driver, you are quite correct that before my earlier post I only skimmed through the other thread. As you advocated, I have now read the thread carefully. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I find nothing that inclines me to change my view.
Your statement that 'Once cleared, the rwy is yours, period.' is incorrect. I will reiterate my concerns that making the statement can cause much harm by planting a fundamentally incorrect idea into minds that have not previously questioned the point.
In your later post on the other thread you ask 'Some of the ATCOs here care to comment ?'. I have done just that. And I'll repeat it once again - your assertion that ''Once cleared, the rwy is yours' is wrong. The way in which landing clearances are issued in different parts of the world do differ (particularly in respect of the application of ICAO SARPs on anticipated landing clearance), however, I would be interested to know what rules you believe support your assertion (and just to play fair, I'm happy to enter debate about international or UK rules).
At no point have I intended to suggest that a controller can take on the decision-making related to many aspects of the safety of the aircraft but, on the contrary, I have tried to balance my comments with the non-normal situation in which a pilot can quite correctly act in a different manner than would be expected in response to an ATC instruction. I did not consider risk management issues because the thread was about the 'legality' of landing when a landing clearance had been cancelled (although for various reasons I could disappear along that particular tangent for hours if you really want!) .
As you rightly point out, neither pilot or controller will have the full picture but I stand by my statement that in normal operations, in the context of whether or not a landing clearance can be issued, the controller is likely to have the better understanding of the determining factors.
I agree that the application of 'separation for separation's sake' is not appropriate or desirable but I would argue that in many situations that is the primary role of a controller so you can hardly blame him or her for treating it as important. Of course, there are times when traffic is over-controlled and I would support you completely if you are suggesting that standard separation is sometimes unnecessarily applied when far less distance between aircraft would far better facilitate the safe and orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.
Finally, having said all that about separation, I would also respectfully suggest that the role of an aerodrome controller is about far more than simply avoiding collisions.
172driver, you are quite correct that before my earlier post I only skimmed through the other thread. As you advocated, I have now read the thread carefully. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I find nothing that inclines me to change my view.
Your statement that 'Once cleared, the rwy is yours, period.' is incorrect. I will reiterate my concerns that making the statement can cause much harm by planting a fundamentally incorrect idea into minds that have not previously questioned the point.
In your later post on the other thread you ask 'Some of the ATCOs here care to comment ?'. I have done just that. And I'll repeat it once again - your assertion that ''Once cleared, the rwy is yours' is wrong. The way in which landing clearances are issued in different parts of the world do differ (particularly in respect of the application of ICAO SARPs on anticipated landing clearance), however, I would be interested to know what rules you believe support your assertion (and just to play fair, I'm happy to enter debate about international or UK rules).
As you rightly point out, neither pilot or controller will have the full picture but I stand by my statement that in normal operations, in the context of whether or not a landing clearance can be issued, the controller is likely to have the better understanding of the determining factors.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once cleared to land the runway is yours.
If that clearance is cancelled the runway is no longer yours.
Issuing a new clearance cancels the previous.
Simple.
If ATC issue a clearance to land and then have to send you round because of a vehicle on the runway, ATC have an MOR to write so taking Captains Authority and landing anyway will just add to the number of words on the form but could change the investigation from incident to accident.
Regards,
DFC
If that clearance is cancelled the runway is no longer yours.
Issuing a new clearance cancels the previous.
Simple.
If ATC issue a clearance to land and then have to send you round because of a vehicle on the runway, ATC have an MOR to write so taking Captains Authority and landing anyway will just add to the number of words on the form but could change the investigation from incident to accident.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed a very interesting thread. I started thinking in broader terms. Would any ATCO call a go around once an aircraft has actually landed, in the terms of forcing them to do a balked landing?
/LnS
/LnS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon, I'm pleased to see that this moves to a civilized debate. I should have probably worded my comment on the other thread differently, agreed. I certainly do not claim to be perfect, hence also my comment 'Would any ATCOs care to comment', which you and others have.
I would, however, point out, that my original comment was made excluding emergency situations or conditional clearances. You ask which rules I believe to give rise to my thinking - FAA is the answer. Comments ?
In a way I guess DFC has really summed it up nicely and I - probably - stand corrected.
All that said, my original post was made in reply to this post by someone who was asked to orbit from a short final position. Comments invited.
I would, however, point out, that my original comment was made excluding emergency situations or conditional clearances. You ask which rules I believe to give rise to my thinking - FAA is the answer. Comments ?
In a way I guess DFC has really summed it up nicely and I - probably - stand corrected.
All that said, my original post was made in reply to this post by someone who was asked to orbit from a short final position. Comments invited.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 driver
when I trained to becombe a controller we were taught to fly (ppl license) therefore I knew the limitations of light acft.
I was then posted to a unit with 4 flying clubs and was able to apply these limitations when integrating light acft with their heavier bretheren
Nowdays you could be at a unit with minimal GA movements and no Ga experience and there this is where you get told to orbit on final approach rather than go around
when I trained to becombe a controller we were taught to fly (ppl license) therefore I knew the limitations of light acft.
I was then posted to a unit with 4 flying clubs and was able to apply these limitations when integrating light acft with their heavier bretheren
Nowdays you could be at a unit with minimal GA movements and no Ga experience and there this is where you get told to orbit on final approach rather than go around
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont really see the problem if ATC tell you to go around and you carry on to land its up to you to justfy why you did ,you might have a valid reason if so the inquiry will show this if not its yout head.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LnS, in extreme circumstances it's possible but is a good example of when I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if the pilot totally ignored the controller. It's a very similar case to cancelling a take-off clearance when an aircraft has started to roll - a couple of years ago I recall seeing some guidance from the CAA to help controllers when faced with circumstances where they might feel the need to do this.
The problem is that cancelling a take-off clearance after the aircraft rolls, as is often the case when instructing an aircraft to go-around, there is very little time available to make the decision and transmit the instruction. An ideal might be for the controller to explain the problem to the pilot (giving both a better underdstanding of the situation) and agreeing a course of action. In the real world, of course, all this has to happen in a split second and so the controller should assess the risks and do the best thing that their professional judgement determines.
The vast majority of the time all of the things we are talking about on this thread are done efficiently and safely by the pilots and controllers involved. Unfortunately we only tend to debate it on the relatively rare occasion when it doesn't go well. If I recall correctly the guidance on cancelling take-off clearances was issued because, despite years of sensible use of the procedure where appropriate, a couple of controllers made poor judgement calls within a matter of weeks.
172driver, I'm always civilised - if slightly tongue in cheek at times. I'm not famiar with the detailed FAA rules (hence my offer to debate UK or ICAO rules only) but I believe they are very close to the ICAO SARPs. However I would offer the following thoughts - and maybe an FAA controller may care to comment or correct me. An aircraft can be given an anticiapted landing clearance if, amongst other conditions, there is a reasonable assurance that the runway will be clear by the time the aircraft gets to the threshold. As with any clearance, if circumstances change and the clearance is no longer valid then the controller will cancel or amend it. An anticipated landing clearance is still a landing clearance and if for some reason the controller no longer has assurance that the runway will be clear when the aircraft gets there, I would expect the clearance to be cancelled.
In essence any clearance is valid until it's 'used up', cancelled or amended.
As to the situation in the post you refer to, it's impossible to comment without more details but as I mentioned in an earlier post, good practise would suggest that the pilot should be told why he or she is being sent around simply to avoid the pilot feeling the way he/she obviously does to have made the post.
The problem is that cancelling a take-off clearance after the aircraft rolls, as is often the case when instructing an aircraft to go-around, there is very little time available to make the decision and transmit the instruction. An ideal might be for the controller to explain the problem to the pilot (giving both a better underdstanding of the situation) and agreeing a course of action. In the real world, of course, all this has to happen in a split second and so the controller should assess the risks and do the best thing that their professional judgement determines.
The vast majority of the time all of the things we are talking about on this thread are done efficiently and safely by the pilots and controllers involved. Unfortunately we only tend to debate it on the relatively rare occasion when it doesn't go well. If I recall correctly the guidance on cancelling take-off clearances was issued because, despite years of sensible use of the procedure where appropriate, a couple of controllers made poor judgement calls within a matter of weeks.
172driver, I'm always civilised - if slightly tongue in cheek at times. I'm not famiar with the detailed FAA rules (hence my offer to debate UK or ICAO rules only) but I believe they are very close to the ICAO SARPs. However I would offer the following thoughts - and maybe an FAA controller may care to comment or correct me. An aircraft can be given an anticiapted landing clearance if, amongst other conditions, there is a reasonable assurance that the runway will be clear by the time the aircraft gets to the threshold. As with any clearance, if circumstances change and the clearance is no longer valid then the controller will cancel or amend it. An anticipated landing clearance is still a landing clearance and if for some reason the controller no longer has assurance that the runway will be clear when the aircraft gets there, I would expect the clearance to be cancelled.
In essence any clearance is valid until it's 'used up', cancelled or amended.
As to the situation in the post you refer to, it's impossible to comment without more details but as I mentioned in an earlier post, good practise would suggest that the pilot should be told why he or she is being sent around simply to avoid the pilot feeling the way he/she obviously does to have made the post.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I would like to think a pilot wouldn't just ignore an instruction, but at the very least query it.
(1) negotiate, or:
(2) query, or:
(3) refuse, or:
(4) just get on with staying alive.
In all cases it would of course be polite to actually say something to ATC ... subject always to Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
(Most recently when I wasn't too keen on an ATC instruction I received I negotiated and got what I wanted. In this particular case I had plenty of time, and was prepared to do what I was told if the negotiation failed, but it's not always like that.)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, there are many pilots who "know better". I was on the flight deck of a 747 landing at Heathrow sometime ago. After leaving the runway GMC told us to take the second intersection ahead (using the old block numbers). The captain said to the first officer "Oh , I think we'll take the first; it's an easier turn". I said: "And how do you know that a broken light fitting has not just been reported at that intersection athat might rip your tyres?" They took the 2nd intersection.
Of course no one person has the overall picture, same as no pilot or controller "owns" any part of the airfield but ATC has a far, far better idea of what's happening on the ground that the pilot. The pilot who ignores an ATC instruction to go-around without good reason is mighty foolish.
Of course no one person has the overall picture, same as no pilot or controller "owns" any part of the airfield but ATC has a far, far better idea of what's happening on the ground that the pilot. The pilot who ignores an ATC instruction to go-around without good reason is mighty foolish.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director: your last sentence is perfectly reasonable, of course. But there might be a time when the Commander HAS a good reason, and that is when he or she really needs to feel that they can and should make the final decision. Pretty rare these days, I admit.
However, only yesterday I saw and heard a controller giving take off clearance to an aircraft when there was another aircraft backtracking the runway. The pilot of the first aircraft didn't take-off! ATCOs, like anyone else, can err in judgement: no one is perfect all the time.
However, only yesterday I saw and heard a controller giving take off clearance to an aircraft when there was another aircraft backtracking the runway. The pilot of the first aircraft didn't take-off! ATCOs, like anyone else, can err in judgement: no one is perfect all the time.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was once instructed to hold half way round a bend at LHR and the controller was having none of it when I told her we couldn't stop there. It was only when I pointed out that our body gear was making disturbing sounds and we were quite likely to end up stuck there for some time if we didn't move pronto that she saw our side of things.