Qantas jets in near collision
I was told from "Lesson 1 - Ops and effects of controls" that the safest place for you is in the air. If there is fuel in the tanks and you the engines are going stay in the air until you know what the hell is going on. It has worked in every sim ex I have ever done. If you rush decisions in order to get the ship on the ground you are going to end up missing something. Missing things is very bad.
I have had Senator Katter on many a time and I have always found him to be arrogant, self absorbed and always LATE. ( he must get off on hearing his name called in the terminal)
Capt Stoobing.
I have had Senator Katter on many a time and I have always found him to be arrogant, self absorbed and always LATE. ( he must get off on hearing his name called in the terminal)
Capt Stoobing.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've just been having a look thru my rather old and battered Flight Crew Licences holder that DCA issued to me some years ago and I see that I have an SPL, PPL, CPL, SCPL, second class ATPL, first class ATPL, second class IR, first class IR, some flying instructor ratings, some sim instructor ratings, a few o/s licences and some other bits and pieces to do with Radio Telephone and Morse Code licences.
But, you know what?...I don't have one of those "common sense licence" thingies that some of you are going on about!
So, let's sort the men out from the boys shall we? The pros from the amateurs. Let's have a poll.
The question is..."In a non emergency situation would you land without an ATC clearance?"
Pilot licence holders to reply only please. With all due respect, any one without a licence doesn't have the knowledge or the experience to answer the question.
I'll go first...
NO.
But, you know what?...I don't have one of those "common sense licence" thingies that some of you are going on about!
So, let's sort the men out from the boys shall we? The pros from the amateurs. Let's have a poll.
The question is..."In a non emergency situation would you land without an ATC clearance?"
Pilot licence holders to reply only please. With all due respect, any one without a licence doesn't have the knowledge or the experience to answer the question.
I'll go first...
NO.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay amos I will play your little game,
NO
Not in Australia, for the obvious reasons already stated. We just can't think outside our little box can we?
Amos, instead of a poll, how about some positive input to the discussion. I know some older guys are very reticent to change, but the only way to recognise deficiencies and develop a better system is to engage in dialogue and debate the merits of an alternative, (you know, the same as The Smith Bros did with the NAS). Amos you may not have a license for common sense, but I bet you have had to use the same (common sense) on many occassions throughout your career!
I am not advocating a breed of jocks that hack around the country doing as they please, on the contrary. I like to see everything nice and smooth and tidy and within the bounds of the law/SOP's. I also like to think that I am not so set in stone as to not at least consider options/alternatives.
lets keep this objective.
NO
Not in Australia, for the obvious reasons already stated. We just can't think outside our little box can we?
Amos, instead of a poll, how about some positive input to the discussion. I know some older guys are very reticent to change, but the only way to recognise deficiencies and develop a better system is to engage in dialogue and debate the merits of an alternative, (you know, the same as The Smith Bros did with the NAS). Amos you may not have a license for common sense, but I bet you have had to use the same (common sense) on many occassions throughout your career!
I am not advocating a breed of jocks that hack around the country doing as they please, on the contrary. I like to see everything nice and smooth and tidy and within the bounds of the law/SOP's. I also like to think that I am not so set in stone as to not at least consider options/alternatives.
lets keep this objective.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Paradise
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a long time ATC, and pilot, (more than 30 years for both) I have heard all the arguements about whether or not an aircraft should land, at pilots discretion, without a landing clearance. Despite what Binoculars states quote 'But in a CAVOK situation where an RPT jet is aware of all tower conversations' - sorry, that may apply where there is a single runway and ground control/aerodrome control is carried out on the same frequency - but it cannot possibly apply where you have, for example, parallel runways and multiple taxiways, and several Tower operating frequencies. A radio failure in the Tower may be the reason that no clearance is issued - and keep in mind that the controller may, for various reasons not obvious to the pilot, have been about to issue go round instructions. In my experience there have been occasions when a landing without a clearance would have been uneventful and consistent with the controllers intentions if the instruction could have been issued. However, as several contributors have identified there have been other occasions when the circumstances were such, and could not have been apparent to the pilot, that proceeding with such a landing would have had serious consequences. I'm with those who vote for the landing clearance option. Please don't respond with tales about landing clearances being received while vehicles/workers/aeroplanes/childrens pets etc were occupying the runway at the time. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake - but we do worry about the repeat offenders.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This should be interesting ! 
I can match all those licences too, and maybe there is a common sense one in there as well.
I was going into Cairns many years ago. Daylight. Cavok. Two aircraft only. Me on short final in a B737; light aircraft just departed and giving his life story on the radio so neither the tower or I could get a word in.
Me: thinks..I haven't got a clearance to land but if I go-around I'll rapidly overtake this git in front of me and there aren't too many options for manouvering to the south of Cairns. I think the safest thing do do in this particular situation is to just carry on and land. So I did. During the roll-out lightie eventually shuts up and tower says "xxx clear to land". No great drama and end of story.
So for the poll ..."In a non emergency situation would you land without an ATC clearance?" YES - if it is the best option available.
I can match all those licences too, and maybe there is a common sense one in there as well.
I was going into Cairns many years ago. Daylight. Cavok. Two aircraft only. Me on short final in a B737; light aircraft just departed and giving his life story on the radio so neither the tower or I could get a word in.
Me: thinks..I haven't got a clearance to land but if I go-around I'll rapidly overtake this git in front of me and there aren't too many options for manouvering to the south of Cairns. I think the safest thing do do in this particular situation is to just carry on and land. So I did. During the roll-out lightie eventually shuts up and tower says "xxx clear to land". No great drama and end of story.
So for the poll ..."In a non emergency situation would you land without an ATC clearance?" YES - if it is the best option available.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still can't understand why the tower didn't just talk over the departing aircraft, or pull out the big green torch. This is a good example of the sort of situation I'm talking about - when the landing is a safer option than the go around.
It's good to see rational, objective arguments from both sides of the fence.
It's good to see rational, objective arguments from both sides of the fence.
Last edited by Cloud Cutter; 16th Feb 2004 at 13:05.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amos
Since a clearance for an approach also is a clearance for a missed approach, then I would continue according to the last clearance received. That is, I would go around because it is what I am cleared to do, it is what ATC are expecting and is usually the safest option.
All of this is predicated upon the assumption that there is no safety reason for me to land, such as a slower aircraft ahead which might make landing safer than going around. A good example where landing might be safer would be Desert Dingo's example.
So, my answer is a very, very firm and definite "YES and NO."
Since a clearance for an approach also is a clearance for a missed approach, then I would continue according to the last clearance received. That is, I would go around because it is what I am cleared to do, it is what ATC are expecting and is usually the safest option.
All of this is predicated upon the assumption that there is no safety reason for me to land, such as a slower aircraft ahead which might make landing safer than going around. A good example where landing might be safer would be Desert Dingo's example.
So, my answer is a very, very firm and definite "YES and NO."
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: BRIS
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the tower show a green light?
Having spent many years working in a control tower, I can't recall a single occasion when the ADC didn't leap for the 'tower lamp' to show a green light to the aircraft on final, when 'radio problems' like this occasion, were a factor.
I was talking to a (former) pilot friend yesterday (don't mention '89), and he told me under these conditions, providing the runway was clear, he would always land; which I thought was reasonable action. However he wouldn't have even thought to glance at the tower to see if a green light was displayed.
Did the pilot look?
Duff
Having spent many years working in a control tower, I can't recall a single occasion when the ADC didn't leap for the 'tower lamp' to show a green light to the aircraft on final, when 'radio problems' like this occasion, were a factor.
I was talking to a (former) pilot friend yesterday (don't mention '89), and he told me under these conditions, providing the runway was clear, he would always land; which I thought was reasonable action. However he wouldn't have even thought to glance at the tower to see if a green light was displayed.
Did the pilot look?
Duff
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're the Captain DD and if you want to make that decision , so be it! But can you justify it at the subsequent enquiry if ATC 225'd you instead of giving you a "cleared to land" for tape purposes?
I mean, where does one begin and end with this "common sense licence" that tells you that you have covered every single possibility, in a short space of time, and are going to breach regulations because you "can't be bothered going around"? Altho, as you have pointed out, that's not your scenario.
Others will beat me to it ,no doubt, and give other examples, but what about these for you to consider...
1. CNS has a short x/strip if I remember correctly. What if a lightie decided to T/o without a clearance too?
2.What if a lightie that you haven't seen is waiting to line up on RW 15 and decides to do so without a clearance too?
Remember the basics, of course you do. Safety..Comfort..Schedule...Economy!
I mean, where does one begin and end with this "common sense licence" that tells you that you have covered every single possibility, in a short space of time, and are going to breach regulations because you "can't be bothered going around"? Altho, as you have pointed out, that's not your scenario.
Others will beat me to it ,no doubt, and give other examples, but what about these for you to consider...
1. CNS has a short x/strip if I remember correctly. What if a lightie decided to T/o without a clearance too?
2.What if a lightie that you haven't seen is waiting to line up on RW 15 and decides to do so without a clearance too?
Remember the basics, of course you do. Safety..Comfort..Schedule...Economy!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most disappointing aspect of the whole event is the lack of appropriate comment from the QF PR people. Yet again they have failed to reassure the travelling public that the crew acted safely. They could have supported the pilots, but failed to say a word. Not the first time...won't be the last.
Remember the busy old days of GA guys? Especially at busy GAAP training aerodromes where landing without a clearence was a norm because:
a) there was usually someone that took 2 whole minutes to give a ready/inbound call
b)there was so much traffic in the area that the safest option was to land and get out of the way!!
In saying that though, each situation was assessed ie) other traffic on the ground etc
I have landed without a clearence on some occasions because I believed it was the safest option than executing a missed approach and then having to deal with all that other training traffic out there.....I'm sure it made the controller's jobs a little easier too with one less plane in the air.
a) there was usually someone that took 2 whole minutes to give a ready/inbound call
b)there was so much traffic in the area that the safest option was to land and get out of the way!!
In saying that though, each situation was assessed ie) other traffic on the ground etc
I have landed without a clearence on some occasions because I believed it was the safest option than executing a missed approach and then having to deal with all that other training traffic out there.....I'm sure it made the controller's jobs a little easier too with one less plane in the air.
Bottums Up
Off Track
Most of this thread seems to be about landing at a Capital City Controlled (Primary for us olde dogs) aerodrome. Arguments that one lands without a clearance at uncontrolled aerodromes or GAAP aren't really relevant to the story.
Whilst the rules are for the guidance of the wise and blind obedience of fools, unless there's a good reason for not executing a missed approach, as espoused by Desert Dingo on p5 of this thread, I don't think "I thought it would be ok", or "I thought the runway was clear", or "I didn't see any other traffic" stands up as a sound reason to land without a clearance. Nor does "I didn't want to worry the passengers by executing a missed approach".
IMO at a primary aerodrome, with SMC and TWR on discrete frequencies, landing based on the aforementioned assumptions, is a recipe for disaster.
Whilst the rules are for the guidance of the wise and blind obedience of fools, unless there's a good reason for not executing a missed approach, as espoused by Desert Dingo on p5 of this thread, I don't think "I thought it would be ok", or "I thought the runway was clear", or "I didn't see any other traffic" stands up as a sound reason to land without a clearance. Nor does "I didn't want to worry the passengers by executing a missed approach".
IMO at a primary aerodrome, with SMC and TWR on discrete frequencies, landing based on the aforementioned assumptions, is a recipe for disaster.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbantime,
I know what you mean about GAAPs and have on several occasions called "ABC short final" with less than 100' to go. Surprisingly a fairly senior instructor who on one occasion heard me on the radio said to me over a beer later "If you are on short final and the runway is clear then you should land". His opinion pretty well mirrored your comments and reasoning above.
My concern would be though that landing without a clearance would at least get me an invitation for a morning tea with my local friendly FOI or worse still, voiding insurance if I happened to have an accident of some kind on landing.
I know what you mean about GAAPs and have on several occasions called "ABC short final" with less than 100' to go. Surprisingly a fairly senior instructor who on one occasion heard me on the radio said to me over a beer later "If you are on short final and the runway is clear then you should land". His opinion pretty well mirrored your comments and reasoning above.
My concern would be though that landing without a clearance would at least get me an invitation for a morning tea with my local friendly FOI or worse still, voiding insurance if I happened to have an accident of some kind on landing.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What rhymes with Katter???
FLUSH.....
There you go my son!
Now don't we all feel better
Amos...NO.
At any airport with more than one runway and separate frequencies for ATC and SMC a go-around is always preferable to a please explain or a funeral, even if you are bigger and faster than the a/c in front.
If your final scans do not include the tower then they should. Just cos you think the coms are OK doesn't always mean they are and as someone said the first thing that gets switched on is the torch.
No clearance to land and no green light...go around.
FLUSH.....
There you go my son!
Now don't we all feel better
Amos...NO.
At any airport with more than one runway and separate frequencies for ATC and SMC a go-around is always preferable to a please explain or a funeral, even if you are bigger and faster than the a/c in front.
If your final scans do not include the tower then they should. Just cos you think the coms are OK doesn't always mean they are and as someone said the first thing that gets switched on is the torch.
No clearance to land and no green light...go around.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing Clearances
Paul Martin wrote
My example wasn't emotional, Paul, it was fact. OTOH your implied involvement of a schoolbus full of kids in an aviation accident is somewhat over the top.
I agree, you're the pilot in command, ultimately responsible for the safe conduct of your flight. Make your decision, but do not make it lightly and without considering all of the circumstances. I suggest that resisting "ANAL RETENTIVENESS" does not cut the mustard.
To be fair I quoted an unfavourable, though real, situation. On the other hand, you have quoted a very favourable one. Most situations in real life will lie somewhere in between. Where do you draw the line? CAVOK can be 8/8 blue and 50km vis. It can also be uniform grey overcast at 5000ft with 10km vis in same coloured grey murk - in fact, that is the more likely "CAVOK" at the airport where I work. What are you going to see in that vis against that background? What if it's 1500 ft ceiling and 5000m - that's VMC - cripes, it's hard enough for us and we're stationary with big windows and binoculars.
As I see it, my landing clearance is a kind of safety contract between you and me. When I issue it, I'm saying to you
"I think it's safe for you to land if you do".
If I didn't think it was safe I wouldn't say it. If you don't think it's safe, you won't accept it.
The absence of my half of the safety contract means there is no contract - for whatever reason I have not been able to assess the safety of the landing area and communicate that assessment to you.
You are correct - what you do then is up to you, as pilot in command. It may indeed be safer for you to land, and if that is your assessment, that's what you should do. If it's not, then clearly you should go round. Easy.
At my workplace either event will result in an incident report. It's not punitive - the purpose is to find out why the landing clearance was not issued and that would be an internal investigation within ATC at my location with feedback into Airservices' safety system.
On the aircrew side, ATSB automatically gets a copy of the incident report and, if your company has a safety information sharing agreement with Airservices, so would they. (We have no discretion in that, the addressing is computer-controlled, automatic and not editable.) If you went around, that's SOP and it's unlikely there'd be follow-up action with you unless you submitted your own report for whatever reason. If you elected to land without the landing clearance, then that would be in the report and ATSB would follow that up and you would be able to explain why landing was safer than a go-round.
I think there's been a fair bit of constructive dialogue, so I think you've achieved you aim, Paul.
I do agree that some of our procedures are restrictive. As in any discipline, you will find people that "work to rule", but I suggest that the more common situation is that a controller will find a rule or procedure or interpretation that enables him to legally work around a restrictive situation if it is safe to do so. Problem is that when he gets busy the extra complication and workload may preclude that option. So yes, I agree, get rid of the cluttering crap.
On this issue of landing clearances, though, I don't think there's any crap in the Aus way - I may be naive, but I can't think of a better way to do it.
I'm not interested in sledging, just the discussion will do. But the Brekky Creek sounds fine, it's just a bit far to drive 
Cheers
AA
Ausatco and others. I will try again to ram home the point of common sense. The conditions you mentioned are not a consideration. No one in their right mind would land off that sort of approach in those conditions without a clearance. I assumed some would get emotional but god almighty this is unreal! Low vis, a/c crossing rwys, a school bus full of kids. Yes go around. What about the following.
It's a CAVOK day unlimited VIS, at 500 feet you can see the rwy and all taxi ways are clear but you can't get a word in or have a radio failure. Why on earth complicate everything with a go around? Some of you are saying that in an emergency it is fine to continue and land. Of course it is. Are you any less liable in an emergency than you are on a normal approach?
To be fair I quoted an unfavourable, though real, situation. On the other hand, you have quoted a very favourable one. Most situations in real life will lie somewhere in between. Where do you draw the line? CAVOK can be 8/8 blue and 50km vis. It can also be uniform grey overcast at 5000ft with 10km vis in same coloured grey murk - in fact, that is the more likely "CAVOK" at the airport where I work. What are you going to see in that vis against that background? What if it's 1500 ft ceiling and 5000m - that's VMC - cripes, it's hard enough for us and we're stationary with big windows and binoculars.
As I see it, my landing clearance is a kind of safety contract between you and me. When I issue it, I'm saying to you
"I think it's safe for you to land if you do".
If I didn't think it was safe I wouldn't say it. If you don't think it's safe, you won't accept it.
The absence of my half of the safety contract means there is no contract - for whatever reason I have not been able to assess the safety of the landing area and communicate that assessment to you.
You are correct - what you do then is up to you, as pilot in command. It may indeed be safer for you to land, and if that is your assessment, that's what you should do. If it's not, then clearly you should go round. Easy.
At my workplace either event will result in an incident report. It's not punitive - the purpose is to find out why the landing clearance was not issued and that would be an internal investigation within ATC at my location with feedback into Airservices' safety system.
On the aircrew side, ATSB automatically gets a copy of the incident report and, if your company has a safety information sharing agreement with Airservices, so would they. (We have no discretion in that, the addressing is computer-controlled, automatic and not editable.) If you went around, that's SOP and it's unlikely there'd be follow-up action with you unless you submitted your own report for whatever reason. If you elected to land without the landing clearance, then that would be in the report and ATSB would follow that up and you would be able to explain why landing was safer than a go-round.
I am not having a go at any of you people. I just think we could engage in a bit of constructive dialogue and actively pursue some healthy debate about some of our procedures. I don't for one second condone many of the practices o/s. However that said, some places do have some very good procedures and I think we are burying our head in the sand if we think we do it better than everyone else. Whether we like it or not we are far too ANALY RETENTIVE and politically correct for our own good.
I do agree that some of our procedures are restrictive. As in any discipline, you will find people that "work to rule", but I suggest that the more common situation is that a controller will find a rule or procedure or interpretation that enables him to legally work around a restrictive situation if it is safe to do so. Problem is that when he gets busy the extra complication and workload may preclude that option. So yes, I agree, get rid of the cluttering crap.
On this issue of landing clearances, though, I don't think there's any crap in the Aus way - I may be naive, but I can't think of a better way to do it.
Lets keep the debate constructive. If you want to have a sledge I will down at the breaky creek hotel on Fri afternoon so we can discuss it over a beer.
Cheers
AA
Last edited by Ausatco; 17th Feb 2004 at 04:59.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The procedures described in use at CDG Paris DO go wrong, despite earlier posts to the contrary. The US doesn’t use Conditional Clearances per se, but they do use multiple landing clearances – they also go wrong, regularly. UK use “Land After” at some aerodromes (probably more if they didn’t have so many problems), whilst good old Oz, and many others, continue to use outdated ICAO Conditional Clearances, and how they go wrong.
All these capacity enhancing procedures have had the band aid treatment applied over years, as the “experts” (yes, we all know the definition) try to play catch up with aircraft performance and traffic counts. The bottom line is that like everything else in aviation, there is always a down side when we compromise our standards. Safety is, and should always remain the driver. Capacity must come a clear second. The bean counters will tell us that “we agree” whilst pressuring us to keep the numbers up. The spreadsheet in the tower lift showing the performance figures (rate of landings/take offs) ensuring that (not so) subtle pressure is continuously applied. Oh for the gold watch when we retire – yeh, and look out the tooth fairy doesn’t fly in and grab it!
How many more examples are required before it is seen that the days of these type of capacity enhancement techniques are long gone, and there is an urgent need to allow the pilot to fly the airplane, and the controller to do just that. New types require more and more head down time minimising the opportunity to look out the window, sum up the situation, listen to the RT and stay on the ball. Language, cultures, rapid RTF, wide body airplanes with high body angles and so it goes on, continuously reduces the effectiveness of these antiquated procedures.
The top dozen or so aerodromes throughout the world (US) do not use conditional clearances – ATC make the decision and use that rare (become rarer) form of control, called judgement. Ask the guys in Paris how the use of this procedure worked for them. Ask the Sydney guys what a Metro looks like lining up in front of a departing jet at night. Do a little surfing to find untold many more examples, especially at night or in poor viz. Build in a couple of intersection departures, an occasional runway crossing, and multiple line ups, and see how complex it can become. Just hope that it’s not you in the cab, cockpit or cabin when it all turns to ….
Come on guys – put the responsibility for control back where it belongs, and throw away the band-aid box.
All these capacity enhancing procedures have had the band aid treatment applied over years, as the “experts” (yes, we all know the definition) try to play catch up with aircraft performance and traffic counts. The bottom line is that like everything else in aviation, there is always a down side when we compromise our standards. Safety is, and should always remain the driver. Capacity must come a clear second. The bean counters will tell us that “we agree” whilst pressuring us to keep the numbers up. The spreadsheet in the tower lift showing the performance figures (rate of landings/take offs) ensuring that (not so) subtle pressure is continuously applied. Oh for the gold watch when we retire – yeh, and look out the tooth fairy doesn’t fly in and grab it!
How many more examples are required before it is seen that the days of these type of capacity enhancement techniques are long gone, and there is an urgent need to allow the pilot to fly the airplane, and the controller to do just that. New types require more and more head down time minimising the opportunity to look out the window, sum up the situation, listen to the RT and stay on the ball. Language, cultures, rapid RTF, wide body airplanes with high body angles and so it goes on, continuously reduces the effectiveness of these antiquated procedures.
The top dozen or so aerodromes throughout the world (US) do not use conditional clearances – ATC make the decision and use that rare (become rarer) form of control, called judgement. Ask the guys in Paris how the use of this procedure worked for them. Ask the Sydney guys what a Metro looks like lining up in front of a departing jet at night. Do a little surfing to find untold many more examples, especially at night or in poor viz. Build in a couple of intersection departures, an occasional runway crossing, and multiple line ups, and see how complex it can become. Just hope that it’s not you in the cab, cockpit or cabin when it all turns to ….
Come on guys – put the responsibility for control back where it belongs, and throw away the band-aid box.
Islander Jock,
I have too called short finals and have instructed my students to do so too. But I was talking about the times where the radio is way too busy and when there are 10 aeroplanes in the area with another 5 making their way in.....that's when I believed it was ok when taking into consideration all the other factors such as is the runway clear etc etc
I have too called short finals and have instructed my students to do so too. But I was talking about the times where the radio is way too busy and when there are 10 aeroplanes in the area with another 5 making their way in.....that's when I believed it was ok when taking into consideration all the other factors such as is the runway clear etc etc