Late landing clearance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late landing clearance
Another one for you chaps.
Fully established on the ILS 26L at LGW (or anywhere for that matter!), you receive the instruction 'continue approach for a late landing clearance'. At what point (i.e. at what height) are you expected to initiate a go-around if you still haven't been cleared to land?
I've heard the figure of 300', however I've seen aircraft as low as 200'.
Any info on that?
Thanks in advance.
Fully established on the ILS 26L at LGW (or anywhere for that matter!), you receive the instruction 'continue approach for a late landing clearance'. At what point (i.e. at what height) are you expected to initiate a go-around if you still haven't been cleared to land?
I've heard the figure of 300', however I've seen aircraft as low as 200'.
Any info on that?
Thanks in advance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No simple answer I'm afraid - it all depends on lots of things.
Let's do a day when the weather is nice first. The controller really only has to issue the landing clearance before the wheels touch the ground. There's guidance that says landing clearance should be issued by the time the aircraft gets to 2 miles but the rules effectively permit it to issued almost down to the ground. Of course, it's good controlling practice to tell the pilot why the clearance can't be issued earlier so that the pilot can keep an eye on how things are going - something like "Continue for a late landing clearance, one aircraft to vacate at the upwind end".
In poorer weather, particularly Cat II and III conditions, many ATC units will have rules about the latest point that a landing clearance can be issued. This will be set down in the instructions to controllers. There will be lots of other conditions too - increased spacing between aircraft on the approach, protection of the ILS sensitive and critical areas, for example.
There's also the 'land after' procedure. In certain circumstances,
daylight,
the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected,
the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed clearly and continuously, until it is clear of the runway and
the pilot of the following aircraft is warned,
an aicraft may be permitted to 'land after' a preceding landing aircraft that hasn't yet vacated. Technically this isn't a clearance to land but permission for the pilot to make a judgement as to whether a safe landing can be completed. The last condition, that the pilot is warned, is achieved through the phraseology "G-CD, land after the B737 (or whatever)".
From the pilot's perspective, many Ops Manuals and Pilot Order Books sill set out a minimum range at which landing clearance must have been issued in order for the approach to continue.
Let's do a day when the weather is nice first. The controller really only has to issue the landing clearance before the wheels touch the ground. There's guidance that says landing clearance should be issued by the time the aircraft gets to 2 miles but the rules effectively permit it to issued almost down to the ground. Of course, it's good controlling practice to tell the pilot why the clearance can't be issued earlier so that the pilot can keep an eye on how things are going - something like "Continue for a late landing clearance, one aircraft to vacate at the upwind end".
In poorer weather, particularly Cat II and III conditions, many ATC units will have rules about the latest point that a landing clearance can be issued. This will be set down in the instructions to controllers. There will be lots of other conditions too - increased spacing between aircraft on the approach, protection of the ILS sensitive and critical areas, for example.
There's also the 'land after' procedure. In certain circumstances,
daylight,
the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected,
the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed clearly and continuously, until it is clear of the runway and
the pilot of the following aircraft is warned,
an aicraft may be permitted to 'land after' a preceding landing aircraft that hasn't yet vacated. Technically this isn't a clearance to land but permission for the pilot to make a judgement as to whether a safe landing can be completed. The last condition, that the pilot is warned, is achieved through the phraseology "G-CD, land after the B737 (or whatever)".
From the pilot's perspective, many Ops Manuals and Pilot Order Books sill set out a minimum range at which landing clearance must have been issued in order for the approach to continue.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would class a late landing clearance as anything inside 1 mile.
As has been said, it works better if the pilot is warned of the situation and can appreciate what is going on 9situational awareness)
Land after clearances are great, but can only be used during the day, so at night I tend to tell a pilot to continue and expect late landing clearance, once the a/c is inside 1 mile, (providing I'm confident that the rwy will be vacated), I tell them one to vacate, it will work very late landing clearance.
The pilot always has the option to initiate a missed approach, but if they know what's going on, then most will see it out.
As for a particular height, I would say that height would be decision height, if you can't land at decision height, you gotta go around.
As has been said, it works better if the pilot is warned of the situation and can appreciate what is going on 9situational awareness)
Land after clearances are great, but can only be used during the day, so at night I tend to tell a pilot to continue and expect late landing clearance, once the a/c is inside 1 mile, (providing I'm confident that the rwy will be vacated), I tell them one to vacate, it will work very late landing clearance.
The pilot always has the option to initiate a missed approach, but if they know what's going on, then most will see it out.
As for a particular height, I would say that height would be decision height, if you can't land at decision height, you gotta go around.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon,
Thanks for all the information.
I am familiar with the 'land after' instruction and that it is only given in daylight conditions. However, it was good to be reminded of all the other required conditions. Now, on your explanation of the 'late landing clearance' situation, you say:
"There's guidance that says landing clearance should be issued by the time the aircraft gets to 2 miles but the rules effectively permit it to issued almost down to the ground."
OK, so you are suggesting (airmanship and common sense set aside) that the aircraft can legally continue almost to touchdown as long as it gets its landing clearance just before the wheels touch the runway. Is that right? Now, have you got a reference for that?
Again the Low Visivility Conditions are another issue. Hopefully as you said, all the provisos regarding LVO approaches i.e. increased separation between aircraft during approach, etc., should be satisfied.
But, is it written anywhere a minimum height that a missed approach must be carried out if not yet cleared to land.
radar707
Thanks also for your comments.
I was referring (although I didn't state it) to weather conditions better than CAT 1 minima.
So, are you saying that if weather conditions are CAVOK, your minima 200' (above the threshold) and after having received the 'continue approach for a late landing clearance, one to vacate at the end' instruction, you must go around if by 200' you have not be told "Clear to land ". Yes? Again, sorry to ask, but where can it be found in black and white?
Once again ladies and/or gents thanks for your comments and contributions.
Cheers.
At BMI we have the following entry in our ops. manual.
A G/A will be flown is landing clearance has not been recieved by 200ft agl unless:
a. The runway is clearly visible
b. The touchdown area is clear of aircraft or vehicles.
In all cases a G/A will be flown if landing clearance is not recieved by 100ft agl.
I would like to see much more use made of "land after" clearances and even better go to a US style system where you are cleared to land miles out and you make your own mind up when you get there. In effect a conditional landing clearance, sounds strange but it works very well out there, the pilot or the controller can still initiate a go-round at any time so it's really not a problem.
A G/A will be flown is landing clearance has not been recieved by 200ft agl unless:
a. The runway is clearly visible
b. The touchdown area is clear of aircraft or vehicles.
In all cases a G/A will be flown if landing clearance is not recieved by 100ft agl.
I would like to see much more use made of "land after" clearances and even better go to a US style system where you are cleared to land miles out and you make your own mind up when you get there. In effect a conditional landing clearance, sounds strange but it works very well out there, the pilot or the controller can still initiate a go-round at any time so it's really not a problem.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viscount, as a non pilot who will probably never again get to spend time on a flight deck asking awkward questions, my interpretation of a decision height, is the lowest height at which a decision to land an aircraft or execute a missed appraoch must be made. If you haven't had a landing clearance then you can't land, therefore you gott go around.
No doubt someone will correct me on that.
As max angle has said, things are probably different for different comapnies.
Although it's something that we ATC bods would like to know SOP's are such varied things.
No doubt someone will correct me on that.
As max angle has said, things are probably different for different comapnies.
Although it's something that we ATC bods would like to know SOP's are such varied things.
my interpretation of a decision height, is the lowest height at which a decision to land an aircraft or execute a missed appraoch must be made.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viscount,
Whenever I have to with hold a landing clearance I normally will say continue your approach, expect landing clearance within 1/2 mile final, and the reason, (ex. vechicle on the runway, or previous acft hasn't cleared the runway).
As to when you should execute a go around, I would suggest that if you don't have the landing clearance by 1/2 final (normally the middle marker) then I would first ask, " Am I cleared to Land", if you don't receive an answer, or the landing clearance then you need to decide at what point should you execute a missed approach (go around).
I would not land without the landing clearance, and I would not continue the approach beyond a point that puts your acft in a critical situation.
SAFETY IS THE KEY, and there is nothing worse than an aircraft going low and slow, strugling to add power and climb because of a late attempt at going around.
Mike
FWA
Whenever I have to with hold a landing clearance I normally will say continue your approach, expect landing clearance within 1/2 mile final, and the reason, (ex. vechicle on the runway, or previous acft hasn't cleared the runway).
As to when you should execute a go around, I would suggest that if you don't have the landing clearance by 1/2 final (normally the middle marker) then I would first ask, " Am I cleared to Land", if you don't receive an answer, or the landing clearance then you need to decide at what point should you execute a missed approach (go around).
I would not land without the landing clearance, and I would not continue the approach beyond a point that puts your acft in a critical situation.
SAFETY IS THE KEY, and there is nothing worse than an aircraft going low and slow, strugling to add power and climb because of a late attempt at going around.
Mike
FWA
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
radar707
<<is the lowest height at which a decision to land an aircraft or execute a missed appraoch must be made>>
Lowest "Height" at which decision is to be made is on the ground e.g. CAT3B, DH is 0'.
In general, you will find that aircraft can Go Around up until the point at which Reverse thrust is selected.
If you now suggest that without landing clearance you would not be happy with aircraft touching down, then the lowest height is ~10R - a GA started below 10R will probably result in a (brief) touchdown.
It is my understanding (having just done the course) that for LVPs the Lczr Sensitive Area must be clear from when the landing aircraft is inside 2NM. In general in our company, the only specification is for LVPs when Landing Clearnace must be received before 200R, if not GA - else no limit...
NoD
<<is the lowest height at which a decision to land an aircraft or execute a missed appraoch must be made>>
Lowest "Height" at which decision is to be made is on the ground e.g. CAT3B, DH is 0'.
In general, you will find that aircraft can Go Around up until the point at which Reverse thrust is selected.
If you now suggest that without landing clearance you would not be happy with aircraft touching down, then the lowest height is ~10R - a GA started below 10R will probably result in a (brief) touchdown.
It is my understanding (having just done the course) that for LVPs the Lczr Sensitive Area must be clear from when the landing aircraft is inside 2NM. In general in our company, the only specification is for LVPs when Landing Clearnace must be received before 200R, if not GA - else no limit...
NoD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Warwickshire
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Nigel, the LVP's thing, at our unit, landing clearance should be given by the time the a/c reaches 2 miles otherwise pilot told to expect late landing clearance, if unable to issue a landing clearance by 1mile, a/c instructed to go around
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Near LGW
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seem to recall many years ago seeing BCal DC-10 departing 26L at LGW, heavy for IAH with CX 747 coming over the fence at the other end, holding off on the touchdown until the -10 staggered off!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Viscount, you make this a very interesting point! Since you asked I went to look at the books and - where it is written down - it's written in reverse, if you see what I mean.
The only absolute in the Manual of Air Traffic Services is 'Unless specific procedures have been approved by the CAA, a landing aircraft shall not be permitted to cross the beginning of the runway on its final approach until a preceding aircraft, departing from the same runway, is airborne.'. In this context I think 'permitted to cross' means allowed to continue (i.e. not given a go-around) rather than been cleared to land but others may have a different interpretation.
There are other bits in the Manual that say things like 'Clearance to land or alternative instructions received from approach/aerodrome control shall be passed to the aircraft before it reaches a range of 2 miles from touchdown.' This is specifically about radar vectored instrument approaches and, in practice, alternative instructions can include to continue approach.
The law says ‘air traffic control clearance’ means authorisation by an air traffic control unit for an aircraft to proceed under conditions specified by that unit (Rules of the Air Regs). 'Continue approach' is an authorisation by an air traffic control unit. If there is no ATC, the general rules for avoiding collisions etc apply, one of which says 'A flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if the runway is not clear of other aircraft'.
The reason I gave the original answer was because that's the way I was taught to do it on simulators and when doing on-job-training. Given sensible application it works and it's safe - but it doesn't seem to be written down anywhere, although I do recall a little training book that may have given more details.
You ask if a minimum height is written down anywhere that says an aircraft must go-around if it doesn't have a landing clearance. In the UK, I don't think there is although as I said earlier, some aircraft operators might specify one for their aircraft.
The nearest I can think of to what you're looking for is the 'approach ban' that says an aircraft shall not descend through 1000 ft when making an instrument approach if the relevant runway visual range is less than the specified minimum for landing.
Hope this helps.
The only absolute in the Manual of Air Traffic Services is 'Unless specific procedures have been approved by the CAA, a landing aircraft shall not be permitted to cross the beginning of the runway on its final approach until a preceding aircraft, departing from the same runway, is airborne.'. In this context I think 'permitted to cross' means allowed to continue (i.e. not given a go-around) rather than been cleared to land but others may have a different interpretation.
There are other bits in the Manual that say things like 'Clearance to land or alternative instructions received from approach/aerodrome control shall be passed to the aircraft before it reaches a range of 2 miles from touchdown.' This is specifically about radar vectored instrument approaches and, in practice, alternative instructions can include to continue approach.
The law says ‘air traffic control clearance’ means authorisation by an air traffic control unit for an aircraft to proceed under conditions specified by that unit (Rules of the Air Regs). 'Continue approach' is an authorisation by an air traffic control unit. If there is no ATC, the general rules for avoiding collisions etc apply, one of which says 'A flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if the runway is not clear of other aircraft'.
The reason I gave the original answer was because that's the way I was taught to do it on simulators and when doing on-job-training. Given sensible application it works and it's safe - but it doesn't seem to be written down anywhere, although I do recall a little training book that may have given more details.
You ask if a minimum height is written down anywhere that says an aircraft must go-around if it doesn't have a landing clearance. In the UK, I don't think there is although as I said earlier, some aircraft operators might specify one for their aircraft.
The nearest I can think of to what you're looking for is the 'approach ban' that says an aircraft shall not descend through 1000 ft when making an instrument approach if the relevant runway visual range is less than the specified minimum for landing.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by Spitoon; 27th Jan 2003 at 19:36.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATC rules are complicated but at what point would you refuse a Go-Around after a landing clearance?
As far as I know , the Airworthiness Rules still require that your aircraft should be able to execute a missed approach from Zero feet and you should always be prepared to do so.
Has this been changed?
As far as I know , the Airworthiness Rules still require that your aircraft should be able to execute a missed approach from Zero feet and you should always be prepared to do so.
Has this been changed?
General rule is that once reverse thrust has been selected the option to g/a no longer exists, this effectively means touchdown on most aircraft. Hope I never have to cut it that fine.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a pilot point of view, we have our standard calls, the last one of which on the approach to land is "DECIDE". As someone earlier stated, this could be at 200'agl on an ILS or 300'agl on an NDB or even approx 1200' on an SRA to EDI (!).
I have always thought about the decide call refers to whether or not we have got the runway environemnt in sight and that we are correctly aligned vertically and laterally.
If we forget LVP's - where late landing clearances should not be received - then so long as I could see that the aircraft on the runway was moving and likely to get airborne then I would not go around until I was in the flare.
We often get late landing clearances at CDG, about the only plac e I go to know, and have very very occasionaly had to fly below decison height before receiving "Cleared to land".
In contrast to BMI, there is no reference to when a go around must be flown in respect to a landing clearence.
I have always thought about the decide call refers to whether or not we have got the runway environemnt in sight and that we are correctly aligned vertically and laterally.
If we forget LVP's - where late landing clearances should not be received - then so long as I could see that the aircraft on the runway was moving and likely to get airborne then I would not go around until I was in the flare.
We often get late landing clearances at CDG, about the only plac e I go to know, and have very very occasionaly had to fly below decison height before receiving "Cleared to land".
In contrast to BMI, there is no reference to when a go around must be flown in respect to a landing clearence.
In contrast to BMI, there is no reference to when a go around must be flown in respect to a landing clearence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
Thank you very much once again.
On your last post I think you have nailed it, or at least have answered my original question.
A few people slightly deviated from the subject, but I am sure with the best of intentions.
Unlike BMA we do not have in our company (that I can find) anywhere in the books, guidance on visual approaches.
Thanks everyone.
Thank you very much once again.
On your last post I think you have nailed it, or at least have answered my original question.
A few people slightly deviated from the subject, but I am sure with the best of intentions.
Unlike BMA we do not have in our company (that I can find) anywhere in the books, guidance on visual approaches.
Thanks everyone.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the simple answer to the original question is that if you have not received landing clearance just before the point when not going around would mean the wheels touching, you should initiate a go around-this would therefore depend on a/c type weight etc.
And I forget the handle of the BMA driver who thinks we should go to the US system of clearing the a/c to land whatever. Imagine the situation:-
"Heathrow Tower BMA 123 with you 7 miles ILS 27L"
"BMA 123 Heathrow Tower roger number 3 cleared to land 27L, 2 747's to cross in the first gap, a 777 and Fokker50 and if he gets his arse in gear Concorde to cross in the second gap. Surface wind 270/15"!
Goodness I'm in facitious(is that how you spell it?) mood tonight!!
And I forget the handle of the BMA driver who thinks we should go to the US system of clearing the a/c to land whatever. Imagine the situation:-
"Heathrow Tower BMA 123 with you 7 miles ILS 27L"
"BMA 123 Heathrow Tower roger number 3 cleared to land 27L, 2 747's to cross in the first gap, a 777 and Fokker50 and if he gets his arse in gear Concorde to cross in the second gap. Surface wind 270/15"!
Goodness I'm in facitious(is that how you spell it?) mood tonight!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"BMA 123 Heathrow Tower roger number 3 cleared to land 27L, 2 747's to cross in the first gap, a 777 and Fokker50 and if he gets his arse in gear Concorde to cross in the second gap. Surface wind 270/15"!
I want you to know we'd never trouble a pilot about traffic crossing a runway 7 miles ahead.
More likely, we'd be pointing out the Baron, traffic watch helo, pipeline patrol Cessna, and banner towing rag wing crossing his final immediately ahead!
I want you to know we'd never trouble a pilot about traffic crossing a runway 7 miles ahead.
More likely, we'd be pointing out the Baron, traffic watch helo, pipeline patrol Cessna, and banner towing rag wing crossing his final immediately ahead!