Report RWY in sight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Report RWY in sight
Hello,
I'm flying a lot in Italy and I got very often the instruction to report on approach-frequency when the RWY is in sight on an ILS-approach. After the call "RWY in sight" we were instructed to contact the TWR.
For what reason do you need us to report the RWY in sight on an IFR-approach?
It happend to me once, that we got the RWY in sight in 800ft AAL and thereafter we had to contact the tower! You can imagine when we got the landing-clearance...
I'm flying a lot in Italy and I got very often the instruction to report on approach-frequency when the RWY is in sight on an ILS-approach. After the call "RWY in sight" we were instructed to contact the TWR.
For what reason do you need us to report the RWY in sight on an IFR-approach?
It happend to me once, that we got the RWY in sight in 800ft AAL and thereafter we had to contact the tower! You can imagine when we got the landing-clearance...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
As far as I know, pilot is requested to report airfield or RWY in sight for visual approach when is being vectored for visual approach. But there are some countries where national regulations require pilot to report RWY in sight for other reasons. Regarding landing clearance, it is to be given to the pilot before passing 2 Nm inbound RWY in use. Landing clearance may be given by APP if TWR and APP coordinate it. Normally, to contact TWR should be before 800' AAL.
Regards,
As far as I know, pilot is requested to report airfield or RWY in sight for visual approach when is being vectored for visual approach. But there are some countries where national regulations require pilot to report RWY in sight for other reasons. Regarding landing clearance, it is to be given to the pilot before passing 2 Nm inbound RWY in use. Landing clearance may be given by APP if TWR and APP coordinate it. Normally, to contact TWR should be before 800' AAL.
Regards,
Guest
Posts: n/a
As ATCO2 says, there may be some national regulations playing a part in this but the rest of his comments are generally what I would call guidance.
Ideally landing clearance should be given before 2 NM from touchdown for obvious reasons but in certain circumstances (nice day, pilot advised of late clearance and given all other relevant info etc.) it can be given as the aircraft crosses the THR.
Landing clearance could also be passed to the pilot by approach - there are times when the aircraft might only be transferred to TWR after it has landed.
As far as international ATC rules/standards are concerned, there is no defined point at which the aircraft must be transferred to TWR - it all depends on the circumstances.
But transferring an aircraft at 800ft (at a little more than 2 and 1/2 miles from the THR) is not the end of the world - although if I wee doing approach I would try and get the landing clearance for the aircraft before the transfer of comms just to make life a bit easier for the crew.
Ideally landing clearance should be given before 2 NM from touchdown for obvious reasons but in certain circumstances (nice day, pilot advised of late clearance and given all other relevant info etc.) it can be given as the aircraft crosses the THR.
Landing clearance could also be passed to the pilot by approach - there are times when the aircraft might only be transferred to TWR after it has landed.
As far as international ATC rules/standards are concerned, there is no defined point at which the aircraft must be transferred to TWR - it all depends on the circumstances.
But transferring an aircraft at 800ft (at a little more than 2 and 1/2 miles from the THR) is not the end of the world - although if I wee doing approach I would try and get the landing clearance for the aircraft before the transfer of comms just to make life a bit easier for the crew.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why, but always, when we were instructed to report rwy in sight, we got the landing-clearance just after our report or we were transfered to TWR for the landing-clearance just after our report.
It's not nice, when you have the rwy in sight at about 800ft, then you have to contact the TWR where another aircraft is talking... and then you get the landing-clearance with a lot of instructions for the vacation so you don't have time to readback the clearance before touchdown!
It's not always like that, but I'm just wondering, because there is no need to have the runway in sight for the lading-clearance!
It's not nice, when you have the rwy in sight at about 800ft, then you have to contact the TWR where another aircraft is talking... and then you get the landing-clearance with a lot of instructions for the vacation so you don't have time to readback the clearance before touchdown!
It's not always like that, but I'm just wondering, because there is no need to have the runway in sight for the lading-clearance!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: At work!!!
Age: 41
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sucks!!
Not the best of circumstances i believe. At that altitude you are probably short final which in my understanding is a critical portion of flight. I don't think the passengers would enjoy knowing that the pilots are busy trying to contact the tower rather then actually land the beast.
When weather is VFR ,well at least you can confirm rnothing is on the runway. But overall if i was flying that plane i would speak up and ask the ATCO for my landing clearance. Not only are you making sure that the runway is clear and good to go but u are also covering your ass in the event sth bad might happen.
The aircraft is still under your command and if you deem it not safe well pull the plug and do what you think is safe. Listening to an ATCO or vice versa,well sometimes can get you in some trouble.
Just think of the 747s accident in Tenerife in the 80s or so. If the KLM captain would have just listened to the PanAm captain.....
When weather is VFR ,well at least you can confirm rnothing is on the runway. But overall if i was flying that plane i would speak up and ask the ATCO for my landing clearance. Not only are you making sure that the runway is clear and good to go but u are also covering your ass in the event sth bad might happen.
The aircraft is still under your command and if you deem it not safe well pull the plug and do what you think is safe. Listening to an ATCO or vice versa,well sometimes can get you in some trouble.
Just think of the 747s accident in Tenerife in the 80s or so. If the KLM captain would have just listened to the PanAm captain.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
It happend to me always on airports with only one runway and never in FCO or MXP!
I don't understand why we have to have the runway in sight for the landing-clearance!? And they gave it to us only after we reported rwy in sight or when the tower got us in sight!?
But maybe this is because it's Italy!??
It happend to me always on airports with only one runway and never in FCO or MXP!
I don't understand why we have to have the runway in sight for the landing-clearance!? And they gave it to us only after we reported rwy in sight or when the tower got us in sight!?
But maybe this is because it's Italy!??
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Delhi, India
Age: 51
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sight rwy before landing
the procedure is followed in Delhi (India) also when the rwy 09 is in use which is quiet close to rwy 10 and there is no ils on rwy 09. aircraft carry out vor/dme app rwy09 and once identify rwy 09 they are given landing clearance. But again I am also surprised why in an ils(working) approach the pilot has to identify the rwy ????
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: on my way
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the english speaking folks who can't read the "italian excuse" in its original lingo well it's basically a very local interpretation of the ICAO doc. 4444 and an even more original way of applying the reccomendation.
Of course all but efficient.
Of course all but efficient.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's "a very local interpretation"!
And absolutely it's not an excuse! (Italy, luckily, doesn't write Docs)
If you read carefully my post you can see that I don't approuve this behaviour.
Anyway, if you think that it's so dangerous (and, I repeat, you are absolutly right!), please you have to do a report.
At the appropriate autority, off course, not at an internet forum.
118,45 Parma Twr
RP6
And absolutely it's not an excuse! (Italy, luckily, doesn't write Docs)
If you read carefully my post you can see that I don't approuve this behaviour.
Anyway, if you think that it's so dangerous (and, I repeat, you are absolutly right!), please you have to do a report.
At the appropriate autority, off course, not at an internet forum.
118,45 Parma Twr
RP6
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: inside of a pretty bustard
Age: 53
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks spitoon, but I want just to know different opinions about that...because ,as I remeber a few years ago, at MUC, I received landing clearance seconds before computer says'minimums,minimums'(it was maybe a departing traffic ahead or just a lack of controller I dont' remember)however the clue is: could you land if you didn't receive landing clearance?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello airman13.
Our OPS-Manual doesn't say anything about continuation of the approach without landing clearance but I would continue the approach to the lowest altitude from where I can safely fly a G/A without touching the runway (so it depends on the aircraft, I wouldn't fly with a 747 down to 50ft), but I would never land without a clearance!
Our OPS-Manual doesn't say anything about continuation of the approach without landing clearance but I would continue the approach to the lowest altitude from where I can safely fly a G/A without touching the runway (so it depends on the aircraft, I wouldn't fly with a 747 down to 50ft), but I would never land without a clearance!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: inside of a pretty bustard
Age: 53
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRJ2,
thanks for your feedback...I guess many of aircariers saying no word about this....nevertheless ,I'll never land w/o ldg clearance....(unless beeing in short of fuel,my godness...)
Brgds.
thanks for your feedback...I guess many of aircariers saying no word about this....nevertheless ,I'll never land w/o ldg clearance....(unless beeing in short of fuel,my godness...)
Brgds.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi airman13,
I worked for many airlines but till now I didn't find anything in the OM about a G/A when you don't have the landing clearance....
Of course in case of an emergency (Cabinfire, One engine inop the other on fire, low of fuel) I would also land without a clearance but during normal operation I wouldn't!
I worked for many airlines but till now I didn't find anything in the OM about a G/A when you don't have the landing clearance....
Of course in case of an emergency (Cabinfire, One engine inop the other on fire, low of fuel) I would also land without a clearance but during normal operation I wouldn't!
Guest
Posts: n/a
airman13, I think you've got the right balance, from an ATC perspective you can continue the approach beyond your minima without a landing clearance but except in an emergency I wouldn't expect you to try and land unless you have a clearance. The point at which you go around may be determined by either the controller or the pilot but I would expect the controller to keep you informed (if he/she can) of the situation and why you cannot land until the G/A. Similarly, I would expect a pilot who is going to land without a clearance to transmit those intentions.