Latest point for obtaining landing clearance?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest point for obtaining landing clearance?
Went around yesterday in good weather (and what I saw was a clear runway), because the tower bunny didn't issue a landing clearance in time. Where I exactly was doesn't matter for the purpose, but was within SE Asia.
We passed the OM on a LLZ and Tower said to expect a late landing clearance - par for the norm. We broke out right at the minima and a moment later my FO told her we were on short final. Tower said nothing. At 100ft there was a 2 sec "...er...." on Tower freq and that was it. At 50ft over the threshold I gave it away because the landing manoever (for which we needed to be cleared) begins at 50ft. At about 100ft on GA she issued our landing clearance!
The ****'s hit the fan because local ATC says a clearance only needs to be issued prior to touchdown. I countered by arguing that the country is an ICAO signatory, and that also there is no stated proviso for this deviation both in the Jepps or their own AIP.
My main concern of course was if I hit something I didn't see or know about, AND without a landing clearance.
My ICAO references are old and of course these buggers don't have any around here, but any ATCOs here with some thoughts and maybe an up to date ICAO ref? I recall a number of years ago at the old Kai Tak in HKG the Tower warning us of a VERY late clearance (which we subsequently obtained at 30ft), but that was issued by a bloke who knew exactly what the hell he was doing and kept us well informed. There was no stink afterwards so we just passed Go and told him to keep the $200.
Any ATCer inputs appreciated.
Thanks,
Slash
We passed the OM on a LLZ and Tower said to expect a late landing clearance - par for the norm. We broke out right at the minima and a moment later my FO told her we were on short final. Tower said nothing. At 100ft there was a 2 sec "...er...." on Tower freq and that was it. At 50ft over the threshold I gave it away because the landing manoever (for which we needed to be cleared) begins at 50ft. At about 100ft on GA she issued our landing clearance!
The ****'s hit the fan because local ATC says a clearance only needs to be issued prior to touchdown. I countered by arguing that the country is an ICAO signatory, and that also there is no stated proviso for this deviation both in the Jepps or their own AIP.
My main concern of course was if I hit something I didn't see or know about, AND without a landing clearance.
My ICAO references are old and of course these buggers don't have any around here, but any ATCOs here with some thoughts and maybe an up to date ICAO ref? I recall a number of years ago at the old Kai Tak in HKG the Tower warning us of a VERY late clearance (which we subsequently obtained at 30ft), but that was issued by a bloke who knew exactly what the hell he was doing and kept us well informed. There was no stink afterwards so we just passed Go and told him to keep the $200.
Any ATCer inputs appreciated.
Thanks,
Slash
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Got the radio on.
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't quote you an ICAO ref. as I'm not at work but, aside from what the docs might say about landing clearances, surely if the crew decides to GA at any point for any reason then that's the start and end of the matter? I struggle to see what scope there is for anything to 'hit the fan' as a result.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mob still operates in the era where a GA has to be fully
explained and it spoke to ATC as well. Its come back to me
as a "explain further" memo.
Anyway I gotta go to work - long night!
explained and it spoke to ATC as well. Its come back to me
as a "explain further" memo.
Anyway I gotta go to work - long night!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't expect 'sh!t to hit the fan' from that; you were told to expect late landing clearance, you didn't get it by 50 feet so you made the decision to go around. You would be in the 'sh!t' if you wheels downed without said clearance, obviously, so based on what you have said it seems a fair decision to hit TOGA.
I'm not sure why the ATCs would have been annoyed in the resulting go round, issuing a clearance after the aircraft has changed attitude is a little late...
Perhaps you could have asked (again) before hitting TOGA, timing is everything of course. i.e. a little earlier than the 50ft decision... Immediately after the "er" transmission for example...
Either way as an ATC I would expect a go round at anytime (even after wheels down), and certainly wouldn't be concerned that you did it, especially if I hadn't given you a landing clearance, mea culpa... Perhaps they were trying to avoid some hard please explain questions themselves... IMHO, there really is no such thing as "no blame culture" in ANSPs, despite the rhetoric of there existence.
I'm not sure why the ATCs would have been annoyed in the resulting go round, issuing a clearance after the aircraft has changed attitude is a little late...
Perhaps you could have asked (again) before hitting TOGA, timing is everything of course. i.e. a little earlier than the 50ft decision... Immediately after the "er" transmission for example...
Either way as an ATC I would expect a go round at anytime (even after wheels down), and certainly wouldn't be concerned that you did it, especially if I hadn't given you a landing clearance, mea culpa... Perhaps they were trying to avoid some hard please explain questions themselves... IMHO, there really is no such thing as "no blame culture" in ANSPs, despite the rhetoric of there existence.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a couple occurences of pilots going around at minimum if they didn't receive a clearance at that point. Since that happens quite often at busy airports we got a new rule that we can wait until 50ft where a go around is now mandatory if no clearance is received.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You can have a clearance any time before the wheels touch the runway. In countries where the clearance cannot be issued until the runway is actually available (as opposed to there being a reasonable assurance that it will be) this can mean clearances regularly issued at half a mile on a nice day.
If the weather is poor it gets more tricky but the key is to make sure that everyone knows what is going on. I can clearly remember a handful of times when a big aircraft was in the flare before it got a clearance (or on another occasion that I clearly recall, had to go-around). Likewise I recall seeing a very impressive go-around by a 737 because they mis-tuned the TWR frequency and couldn't make contact by the time they were over the numbers. All this - and similar - stuff happens on a daily basis and if handled in a suitable way (although undesirable) should surely not be considered anything special.
For ILS and visual approaches the ICAO book (Doc 4444) gives no minimum distance - for radar approaches there are procedures which should ensure that a landing clearance (or whatever) is issued by the time the aircraft gets to 2NM.
If the weather is poor it gets more tricky but the key is to make sure that everyone knows what is going on. I can clearly remember a handful of times when a big aircraft was in the flare before it got a clearance (or on another occasion that I clearly recall, had to go-around). Likewise I recall seeing a very impressive go-around by a 737 because they mis-tuned the TWR frequency and couldn't make contact by the time they were over the numbers. All this - and similar - stuff happens on a daily basis and if handled in a suitable way (although undesirable) should surely not be considered anything special.
For ILS and visual approaches the ICAO book (Doc 4444) gives no minimum distance - for radar approaches there are procedures which should ensure that a landing clearance (or whatever) is issued by the time the aircraft gets to 2NM.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I go with 50' too - it is where we start doing things we don't really want to undo if we are not going to land. In terms of your 'predicament' you could always ask the company for written guidance on the clearance. That might quieten them down while they struggle with the dictionary and Thesaurus.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is traditional to have a clearance before landing. So the next question has to be, was going around sensible? A go-around shouldn't be considered a risky manoeuvre, just inconvenient from a schedule point of view. Furthermore, if there were a few more go-arounds we might have a few more intact aircraft - for a variety of reasons. The real question has to be, who are the clowns kicking up the stink? These are the real idiots who should be dealt with. It is beholden upon every pilot to perform a go-around if they believe a safe landing cannot be made.
PM
PM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies, much appreciated.
Piltdown this SE Asian outfit still live in the Dark Ages where
if you aren't justified in going around you need "councelling".
Councelling is a nice way of saying you get a medium-sized
boot up the bum and the event marked on your record (no it
doesn't incur any salary loss - if it did I'd pack up and leave).
Why do they do it? Because a GA costs them money and they
don't like a GA that they think was unnecessary - well as the
fact I'm an expat.
All GAs require a written report from the captain - wx or any
hazardous situation usually isn't questioned (but they'll check
the recorded ATIS or METAR or RVR at the time in question).
But only this time I did a go around in good weather with an
apparently clear runway (well as it appeared to me).
ATCs reply to the Company was that the Tower bunny* was in
the process of checking the runway was clear by visual means
and that.....had I not been so impatient, a clearance would've
been issued by touchdown. IMO she wasn't..."checking" - she
had a mouthful of rice or bloody noodles, which explains the
"...er...." and after she'd swallowed it then issued the landing
clearance.
As I implied earlier, a landing clearance (not a touchdown
clearance) is exactly that - a clearance to start and complete
the landing manouver which by strict definition begins at 50ft.
Anyway this prompted me to post here to ask what you guys
believe how late a landing clearance can be legally issued. I
am sticking to my guns, but does anyone know where I can
download an updated 4444?
* our nickname for the young female ATCers around here.
Piltdown this SE Asian outfit still live in the Dark Ages where
if you aren't justified in going around you need "councelling".
Councelling is a nice way of saying you get a medium-sized
boot up the bum and the event marked on your record (no it
doesn't incur any salary loss - if it did I'd pack up and leave).
Why do they do it? Because a GA costs them money and they
don't like a GA that they think was unnecessary - well as the
fact I'm an expat.
All GAs require a written report from the captain - wx or any
hazardous situation usually isn't questioned (but they'll check
the recorded ATIS or METAR or RVR at the time in question).
But only this time I did a go around in good weather with an
apparently clear runway (well as it appeared to me).
ATCs reply to the Company was that the Tower bunny* was in
the process of checking the runway was clear by visual means
and that.....had I not been so impatient, a clearance would've
been issued by touchdown. IMO she wasn't..."checking" - she
had a mouthful of rice or bloody noodles, which explains the
"...er...." and after she'd swallowed it then issued the landing
clearance.
As I implied earlier, a landing clearance (not a touchdown
clearance) is exactly that - a clearance to start and complete
the landing manouver which by strict definition begins at 50ft.
Anyway this prompted me to post here to ask what you guys
believe how late a landing clearance can be legally issued. I
am sticking to my guns, but does anyone know where I can
download an updated 4444?
* our nickname for the young female ATCers around here.
Last edited by Slasher; 25th Aug 2011 at 03:09.
I agree with Slasher. A landing clearance not received by the threshold = a go round.
Where I work, occasionally the landing clearance is sometimes issued as the aircraft crosses the threshold. Naturally this is preceded with keeping everyone informed as to exactly why the clearance will be late.
From the pilots point of view, I'd imagine you'd want a clear view of at least the first thousand feet of the runway before continuing as far as the threshold without a clearance, too, or a large amount of trust in those charged with providing separation that they were doing just that. And that's contributed to by a good information loop.
I gather from the OP that's a bit of a rarity where you fly. Bit sad.
Where I work, occasionally the landing clearance is sometimes issued as the aircraft crosses the threshold. Naturally this is preceded with keeping everyone informed as to exactly why the clearance will be late.
From the pilots point of view, I'd imagine you'd want a clear view of at least the first thousand feet of the runway before continuing as far as the threshold without a clearance, too, or a large amount of trust in those charged with providing separation that they were doing just that. And that's contributed to by a good information loop.
I gather from the OP that's a bit of a rarity where you fly. Bit sad.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 driver I can't seem to get through to that site. The URL
looks familiar so probably the same one I used to download
ICAO docs yonks ago.
Tarq yep, and ATC's extraordinary lack of basic English is the
common cause, but I believe not so in this case.
Bright-ling I suppose so - most of them look quite cute!
looks familiar so probably the same one I used to download
ICAO docs yonks ago.
Tarq yep, and ATC's extraordinary lack of basic English is the
common cause, but I believe not so in this case.
Bright-ling I suppose so - most of them look quite cute!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No reference about a latest point, but the pilot should know the controler's intentions at latest before the threshold (which is already very late).
As said above, that's around 50'.
How many seconds before touch-down from 50' ? How much time does a jet engine need to rev from almost idle to TOGA ?
50' seems a bit late for a jet. On the other hand, I've used "Report VERY short final" with little mono-engine planes.
As ever, a good explaination before the fan is hit can help the pilot make a decision. I reckon "...Errr..." is not precise enough.
As said above, that's around 50'.
How many seconds before touch-down from 50' ? How much time does a jet engine need to rev from almost idle to TOGA ?
50' seems a bit late for a jet. On the other hand, I've used "Report VERY short final" with little mono-engine planes.
As ever, a good explaination before the fan is hit can help the pilot make a decision. I reckon "...Errr..." is not precise enough.
Here's a Doc 4444 that works, it's a sort-of "pdf-in-browser" page, runway separation is on page 139.
I couldn't find a particular reference that explicitly answers your question, but the inference is definitely the threshold.
(Link courtesy of a post a few days ago here, by flightpathOBN.)
I couldn't find a particular reference that explicitly answers your question, but the inference is definitely the threshold.
(Link courtesy of a post a few days ago here, by flightpathOBN.)
How many seconds before touch-down from 50' ? How much time does a jet engine need to rev from almost idle to TOGA ?
50' seems a bit late for a jet
50' seems a bit late for a jet
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tarq. I've printed that off and will use it at my "tea &
scones" meeting with the CP later this afternoon. Given the
culture here, at least the bloke is willing to hear what I have
to say.
Br landing clearances have been issued by ATC not than 150
ft in my experience up till now, but I'll accept the landing at
50ft if the landing clearance IS in the middle of being given
at that point. The 50ft point is not so much a "performance"
or "handling" question (most jets start the flare around 40 to
30ft) but a definitive one as to where the approach ends and
the landing manouver begins. But once the GA has begun it is
EXTREMELY hazardous and damn foolhardy to cancel it and then
resume landing. Probably safe in a PA18 or DH82 given enough
runway length, but definitely not in a 330!
However a GA can be initiated even after touchdown (a "wave
off") provided reverse thrust has not been selected. Not so in
the EO case of course.
And for info it was confirmed on ATC's report that the Tower
bunny was alone at the time, the Supervisor was "not there"
(in localspeak means he was out taking a smoke or a dump!)
Thanks again for everyone's replies.
scones" meeting with the CP later this afternoon. Given the
culture here, at least the bloke is willing to hear what I have
to say.
Br landing clearances have been issued by ATC not than 150
ft in my experience up till now, but I'll accept the landing at
50ft if the landing clearance IS in the middle of being given
at that point. The 50ft point is not so much a "performance"
or "handling" question (most jets start the flare around 40 to
30ft) but a definitive one as to where the approach ends and
the landing manouver begins. But once the GA has begun it is
EXTREMELY hazardous and damn foolhardy to cancel it and then
resume landing. Probably safe in a PA18 or DH82 given enough
runway length, but definitely not in a 330!
However a GA can be initiated even after touchdown (a "wave
off") provided reverse thrust has not been selected. Not so in
the EO case of course.
And for info it was confirmed on ATC's report that the Tower
bunny was alone at the time, the Supervisor was "not there"
(in localspeak means he was out taking a smoke or a dump!)
Thanks again for everyone's replies.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the rabbit hole
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plentitude alone of the answers here gives a clear image of what ICAO requires. No clue... ICAO docs and Annexes are probably written by lawyers and THEN passed on to controllers, intentionally vague. I've experienced an instance when three controllers had three different opinions explanations about reading the same thing...
I've been time and time again annoyed by pilots having been issued a landing clearance which was read back and then asking again for confirmation. I promise I won't be getting annoyed any more. Next time ask again before GA. We 're here to make your job EASIER, not vice versa but both ends have been taking the pressure to do things faster and more economically for the industry.
Yes the controller had probably his/her mind elsewere...
I've been time and time again annoyed by pilots having been issued a landing clearance which was read back and then asking again for confirmation. I promise I won't be getting annoyed any more. Next time ask again before GA. We 're here to make your job EASIER, not vice versa but both ends have been taking the pressure to do things faster and more economically for the industry.
Yes the controller had probably his/her mind elsewere...
I have been in this situation and like you went around. Most of us are our own sternest critics. But for management the answer is do you want a press on mentality like the crash in Phuket or guys who in doubt are go-around minded. If I was your chief pilot I would be congratulating you. If he does not then I suggest you ask him to request the tower tapes. Better one go-around too many than one too few!