What would/should you do?
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
The thing to do is to follow the circuit. After all the rule of the air require all aircraft in the vicinity of and aerodrome to follow the circuit or avoid it. Orbiting without ATC clearance is not following the circuit.
Approach will have co-ordinated your joining the circuit with the tower in advance. Furthermore, the zone is approach's airspace and that includes the circuit so approach will be aware if the circuit is active.
Flying onto the deadside when cleared to join on base leg is against the rules of the air.
Finally, ATC have no separation responsibility for VFR flights in class D airspace.....the pilot must look out and separate him/herself from other aircraft. ATC will assist with traffic information etc but when on base leg, the responsibility for separation from aircraft on final including B747s making IFR approaches rests with the pilot alone. ATC will provide traffic information and wake avoidance information (recomended spacing). Although this is a minimum and ATC may provide further assistance.
So taking the above, I would have joined base and final and if no landing clearance was received and the converdsation was continuing, I would go-arround at 200ft to make another right hand circuit.
One can not land without clearance except in an emergency.
Thats my $.02 worth.
DFC
Approach will have co-ordinated your joining the circuit with the tower in advance. Furthermore, the zone is approach's airspace and that includes the circuit so approach will be aware if the circuit is active.
Flying onto the deadside when cleared to join on base leg is against the rules of the air.
Finally, ATC have no separation responsibility for VFR flights in class D airspace.....the pilot must look out and separate him/herself from other aircraft. ATC will assist with traffic information etc but when on base leg, the responsibility for separation from aircraft on final including B747s making IFR approaches rests with the pilot alone. ATC will provide traffic information and wake avoidance information (recomended spacing). Although this is a minimum and ATC may provide further assistance.
So taking the above, I would have joined base and final and if no landing clearance was received and the converdsation was continuing, I would go-arround at 200ft to make another right hand circuit.
One can not land without clearance except in an emergency.
Thats my $.02 worth.
DFC
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: Behind You
This is only my opinion and hopefully someone will correct me but orbiting on your own accorod is equally as bad as turning base with traffic on a straight in approach.
I would have called turning base, called final (and distance) and if no further respose (assuming that tower was genuinely 'nattering') asked for a confirmation of landing clearance from the ground freq' telling them that twr was congested etc. chances are these guys are sat next to each other. If no positive response you have got to go round. I would have made a few phone calls after that.
I use the example of calling ground as it is something I did in the states when a student in another aircraft either had a stuck PTT or kept her finger on it. I was outside of class D and wanted to go home.
I would have called turning base, called final (and distance) and if no further respose (assuming that tower was genuinely 'nattering') asked for a confirmation of landing clearance from the ground freq' telling them that twr was congested etc. chances are these guys are sat next to each other. If no positive response you have got to go round. I would have made a few phone calls after that.
I use the example of calling ground as it is something I did in the states when a student in another aircraft either had a stuck PTT or kept her finger on it. I was outside of class D and wanted to go home.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Having read all the previous responses, I think I agree that you should have turned final (after visually checking that no one was on a straight-in), called final, and then gone around from as low level as you were comfortable with if you still hadn't received a landing clearance. You were cleared into the circuit, and therefore should have flown the circuit - the next clearance you were expecting was to land.
BUT - I only came to this conclusion after reading all the other comments, and filtering out the replies that seemed to make the most sense. When I first read your post, my initial reaction was that I had absolutely no idea what I'd have done in a similar situation. You said you were surprised how quickly you had to make the decision, and I can certainly believe that. So well done for handling the situation in an appropriate manner. I think the comments which people are making about orbiting without being told to do so are understandable and correct, but the criticism seems harsh to me.
FFF
--------------
BUT - I only came to this conclusion after reading all the other comments, and filtering out the replies that seemed to make the most sense. When I first read your post, my initial reaction was that I had absolutely no idea what I'd have done in a similar situation. You said you were surprised how quickly you had to make the decision, and I can certainly believe that. So well done for handling the situation in an appropriate manner. I think the comments which people are making about orbiting without being told to do so are understandable and correct, but the criticism seems harsh to me.
FFF
--------------
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Me..I would have continued, turned final, called final (assuming safe of course), requested permission to land, then gone around (and probably been sarcastic on thr radio
). As Chilli Monster mentioned, some of the 'bigger' airports do not have a circuit laid down, even though it says in the Botlang manual. Example is Bournemouth, where aircraft arrive from the North, South, ILS, NE, SE, NW, SW blah blah but NOT overhead (as in VFR join)....Also its worth remembering if you fly into an airport with parallel runways, where you don't want to overshoot the extened ctr line.
Cheers
EA
). As Chilli Monster mentioned, some of the 'bigger' airports do not have a circuit laid down, even though it says in the Botlang manual. Example is Bournemouth, where aircraft arrive from the North, South, ILS, NE, SE, NW, SW blah blah but NOT overhead (as in VFR join)....Also its worth remembering if you fly into an airport with parallel runways, where you don't want to overshoot the extened ctr line.Cheers
EA
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
Strake,
I have to agree with FFF, in that, my opinion has changed from reading the responses here.
First thoughs were.....what the Fu...!!! I'd probably have orbited too...but in the panic of having to make a quick decision, i would probably had done it on the end of base leg, where I would avoid someone on a staight in approach.
Congrats for having the presence of mind to quickly think of another option, and do it on the dead side (if it was indead dead!).
But having read the other responses I think correct action would have been to turn final and announance, followed by a go-around.
I guess that's what they mean by learing from someone else's mistakes!!
Thanks for posting it here.
I have to agree with FFF, in that, my opinion has changed from reading the responses here.
First thoughs were.....what the Fu...!!! I'd probably have orbited too...but in the panic of having to make a quick decision, i would probably had done it on the end of base leg, where I would avoid someone on a staight in approach.
Congrats for having the presence of mind to quickly think of another option, and do it on the dead side (if it was indead dead!).
But having read the other responses I think correct action would have been to turn final and announance, followed by a go-around.
I guess that's what they mean by learing from someone else's mistakes!!
Thanks for posting it here.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: Box Hill or Bust
I do not believe that there is actually a 'right' answer, there are circumstances where taking either option, continuing to final or orbiting on base leg may cause problems. However, the simple fact is it is the Aerodrome Controller's responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic in the circuit, if necessary by exercising positive control over traffic under their jurisdiction. In this scenario this has not been achieved, the pilot has not been given enough information to decide what would be the best course of action. Therefore, if anything untoward was to happen I believe the responsibilty would lie on the shoulders of the controller.
Secondly a number of people have suggested continuing dowm to 200-300ft before commencing a go-around. Not a good idea, if the controller is not prioritising properly there is a possiblity that there may be vehicles or personnel on the runway which have also been 'forgotten' about. If you descend below 500ft over the top of these you could yourself be in breach of the low flying regulations. It is always best in these situations to be as squeaky clean yourself as is possible, especially if you wish to take the matter further.
Secondly a number of people have suggested continuing dowm to 200-300ft before commencing a go-around. Not a good idea, if the controller is not prioritising properly there is a possiblity that there may be vehicles or personnel on the runway which have also been 'forgotten' about. If you descend below 500ft over the top of these you could yourself be in breach of the low flying regulations. It is always best in these situations to be as squeaky clean yourself as is possible, especially if you wish to take the matter further.
Last edited by Hooligan Bill; 15th August 2002 at 10:30.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Hooligan, a couple of points:
I'm sure that's technically correct, but it's not much comfort to anyone concerned if a mid-air results. The final responsibility for safety always lies with the pilot, and there's a good reason for that.
I don't think that would apply here, since low-flying rules don't apply when you're making an approach to land. It's not unusual to get a clearance very late (even though it's unusual to be ignored until this point), so I think strake would have been quite justified in continuing his approach as normal, with the expectation of being cleared to land. Interesting to hear what other think on this one, though - as you say, certainly doesn't harm to do things by the book if matters are going to be taken further.
FFF
-----------
Therefore, if anything untoward was to happen I believe the responsibilty would lie on the shoulders of the controller
If you descend below 500ft over the top of these you could yourself be in breach of the low flying regulations
FFF
-----------
PPruNaholic!
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
From: Buckinghamshire
G'day Hooligan, not sure I fully agree with your concerns re- the vehicles etc. because:
a) Presuming we're visual with the RWY (we're talking VFR, right?) then we can see if the RWY is clear and if not obviously should not descned that low. But if clear you could descend to 1ft if you chose... (I'm not promoting that idea, just making the point) then go around; and
b) I think the 500' rule does not apply when approaching to land (but ready to be told otherwise by this august body)
Fabulous thread - best that we all think these things through before they happen, eh!
Edited to say: Bugg*r! - I see FFF has beaten me to it
a) Presuming we're visual with the RWY (we're talking VFR, right?) then we can see if the RWY is clear and if not obviously should not descned that low. But if clear you could descend to 1ft if you chose... (I'm not promoting that idea, just making the point) then go around; and
b) I think the 500' rule does not apply when approaching to land (but ready to be told otherwise by this august body
)Fabulous thread - best that we all think these things through before they happen, eh!
Edited to say: Bugg*r! - I see FFF has beaten me to it
Not so N, but still FG
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
What's all this about being "cleared" to turn final?
You have been given permission to enter the ATZ, and to join the traffic pattern. You don't need a clearance to fly each separate leg of the circuit.
I would turn final and either (1) call "final and going around at circuit height" (ie not descending) or (2) continue descending on final for a time but, if not cleared to land by, say, 300 feet agl, go around from there, calling it as you do so. All of this of course subject to the position of other traffic.
I would prefer going around to orbiting on or near base, as if going around you are moving through the circuit pattern in a manner which is predictable to other traffic and to the controller. Being in a place where people don't expect aircraft to be increases the likelihood of not being seen by other aircraft. OK everyone in the vicinity should be looking out and listening out, but we all know that not everyone does, and even the most alert can still miss things.
I don't think that landing without clearance would be a good option at a full ATC field (absent an emergency).
Also, why any need for sarcastic R/T calls, or even any post-landing chats with controllers? There might be all sort of good reasons why the controller can't talk to you. So maybe you had to go around, but that's surely no big deal.
edit: I posted before reading through all of the contributions from FF, DFC, Aussie Andy and others and so have repeated some of what they said.
You have been given permission to enter the ATZ, and to join the traffic pattern. You don't need a clearance to fly each separate leg of the circuit.
I would turn final and either (1) call "final and going around at circuit height" (ie not descending) or (2) continue descending on final for a time but, if not cleared to land by, say, 300 feet agl, go around from there, calling it as you do so. All of this of course subject to the position of other traffic.
I would prefer going around to orbiting on or near base, as if going around you are moving through the circuit pattern in a manner which is predictable to other traffic and to the controller. Being in a place where people don't expect aircraft to be increases the likelihood of not being seen by other aircraft. OK everyone in the vicinity should be looking out and listening out, but we all know that not everyone does, and even the most alert can still miss things.
I don't think that landing without clearance would be a good option at a full ATC field (absent an emergency).
Also, why any need for sarcastic R/T calls, or even any post-landing chats with controllers? There might be all sort of good reasons why the controller can't talk to you. So maybe you had to go around, but that's surely no big deal.
edit: I posted before reading through all of the contributions from FF, DFC, Aussie Andy and others and so have repeated some of what they said.
Last edited by FNG; 15th August 2002 at 10:57.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
From: behind the lens
I fly at an International Airport. You were cleared to base - you were not asked to report ready for base.
Therefore, once on base, nobody ever asks when you are ready to turn final - that turn you make of your own accord. (Exception maybe needed on an ILS to lose more ht. and dogleg etc to capture the glide).
So, methinks you turn final and confirm you are finals to land.
Let's face it, he / she was probably looking at you on a screen, but a little communication would have helped!
Take it you were in a single as no ref to a decision ht?
Agree with last poster - beating up the field at low level does one no favours - Go Around from a sensible ht.
Therefore, once on base, nobody ever asks when you are ready to turn final - that turn you make of your own accord. (Exception maybe needed on an ILS to lose more ht. and dogleg etc to capture the glide).
So, methinks you turn final and confirm you are finals to land.
Let's face it, he / she was probably looking at you on a screen, but a little communication would have helped!
Take it you were in a single as no ref to a decision ht?
Agree with last poster - beating up the field at low level does one no favours - Go Around from a sensible ht.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
From: Dorset, UK
I think my preference, (with the benifit of 20/20 hindsight!) would have been:-
Call each part of the circuit, each time I was told to "Standby" just to inform other traffic of my position, eg
"G-ABCD downwind, left hand circuit for Runway 26"
"G-ABCD left base for Runway 26"
"G-ABCD final for Runway 26"
Then:-
- continue approach to about 300ft,
- go-around into left hand circuit
"G-ABCD going around into left hand circuit, due to no landing clearance received (in irritated tone!)"
Call each part of the circuit, each time I was told to "Standby" just to inform other traffic of my position, eg
"G-ABCD downwind, left hand circuit for Runway 26"
"G-ABCD left base for Runway 26"
"G-ABCD final for Runway 26"
Then:-
- continue approach to about 300ft,
- go-around into left hand circuit
"G-ABCD going around into left hand circuit, due to no landing clearance received (in irritated tone!)"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Repeating earlier posts a bit but from what you say you were cleared to join the circuit on base leg without any additional restriction. I would expect you to join on that leg and continue around the circuit as you would normally making the appropriate calls. If you don't get a landing clearance - for any reason - then go around.
That's the easy answer but, as was pointed out earlier, it's a situation that really shouldn't arise. I don't think anyone has suggested that this was anything other than very poor practice - have you taken it up with the airport authority? Perhaps a letter to the Airport Manager, copied to the CAA, might get you a decent response.
Whatever you do, some of the comments being made are in the thread are rather worrying and show some basic misunderstandings about ATC. Not wishing to pick on sharpshot particularly, but
* the idea of having to do a dog leg to lose height and get on the glidepath means that some other procedure hasn't been followed correctly,
* TWR controllers may have a screen in front of them (these days they probably have a multitude of the darn things), but these are aids to controlling the traffic. It's mainly done by looking out ou the windows. - that's why they're so big.
* decision height is nothing to do with the type of aircraft but is associated with precision instrument approach procedures. Having said that, it is good airmanship to have a height in mind at which you will go around if no landing clearance is received.
That's the easy answer but, as was pointed out earlier, it's a situation that really shouldn't arise. I don't think anyone has suggested that this was anything other than very poor practice - have you taken it up with the airport authority? Perhaps a letter to the Airport Manager, copied to the CAA, might get you a decent response.
Whatever you do, some of the comments being made are in the thread are rather worrying and show some basic misunderstandings about ATC. Not wishing to pick on sharpshot particularly, but
* the idea of having to do a dog leg to lose height and get on the glidepath means that some other procedure hasn't been followed correctly,
* TWR controllers may have a screen in front of them (these days they probably have a multitude of the darn things), but these are aids to controlling the traffic. It's mainly done by looking out ou the windows. - that's why they're so big.
* decision height is nothing to do with the type of aircraft but is associated with precision instrument approach procedures. Having said that, it is good airmanship to have a height in mind at which you will go around if no landing clearance is received.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
I think the collective minds of PPRuNe have come to the right answer!
Approach "cleared" you to join the circuit at left base. The Tower didn't tell you to "call before turning final", so you can do that, too.
I fly at an airfield with Approach and Tower, and it's not at all unusual to turn finals and be told "continue approach". Usually, I can see the aircraft ahead or on the runway - either about to turn off, or about to takeoff. Sometimes, I can't see any reason for not getting the landing clearance - then the little tractor nips across the runway.
Even though we're all supposed to know the answer to this one already, I feel happier now and know what I'll do if it happens to me. Thanks for the question!
Approach "cleared" you to join the circuit at left base. The Tower didn't tell you to "call before turning final", so you can do that, too.
I fly at an airfield with Approach and Tower, and it's not at all unusual to turn finals and be told "continue approach". Usually, I can see the aircraft ahead or on the runway - either about to turn off, or about to takeoff. Sometimes, I can't see any reason for not getting the landing clearance - then the little tractor nips across the runway.
Even though we're all supposed to know the answer to this one already, I feel happier now and know what I'll do if it happens to me. Thanks for the question!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
From: behind the lens
Spitoon - We have big planes on release from airways and occasionally they cannot lose the ht to intercept the glide.......hence my reference to a dogleg.......taking them through the loc. and coming back on........all under radar headings
I was only offering it as a potential reason for not actually turning on to final app. We can't all sideslip.......
I was only offering it as a potential reason for not actually turning on to final app. We can't all sideslip.......
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 326
Likes: 2
From: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Good thread guys, lots of interesting opinions.
For me, the most important point highlighted was the time factor involved. A decision was required pdq. A decision was made and it worked.
Spitoon - are you ex crab spitoon?? This is Tam.
Keef - no-one would fail a flight test for sarcasm, they would, however, be penalised if sarcasm was used in lieu of a decision at a critical point such as described by Strake. You can write to as many agencies as you like, sarcasm cannot be used as a substitute for airmanship and captaincy.
For me, the most important point highlighted was the time factor involved. A decision was required pdq. A decision was made and it worked.
Spitoon - are you ex crab spitoon?? This is Tam.
Keef - no-one would fail a flight test for sarcasm, they would, however, be penalised if sarcasm was used in lieu of a decision at a critical point such as described by Strake. You can write to as many agencies as you like, sarcasm cannot be used as a substitute for airmanship and captaincy.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
From: South of France
Well thanks for all the replies...it's been useful to read other peoples thoughts.
On reflection, it probably would have been correct to continue and keep calling on finals then go around if necessary. However, it did seem a bit of a strange situation at the time and so unlike normal operations at the airfield.
A couple of people have responded to responses to responses etc and I think a bit of Chinese Whispers has crept in.
To repeat, we flipflopped back to Approach to tell them what was going on and that we were crossing the extended centreline to deadside. He "rogered" and told us to go back to TWR. Within seconds, TWR had cleared us in. We did not actually do an orbit....but, I admit we probably would have when further away.
A lot of people seem to be bristling with rage about sarcasm etc. We did not say anything while in the air and I don't believe that ever achieves anything anyway. The purpose of my question was not to apportion blame to TWR or anyone else (especially me... ), I just wanted to find out what other peole would do....and now I know!
On reflection, it probably would have been correct to continue and keep calling on finals then go around if necessary. However, it did seem a bit of a strange situation at the time and so unlike normal operations at the airfield.
A couple of people have responded to responses to responses etc and I think a bit of Chinese Whispers has crept in.
To repeat, we flipflopped back to Approach to tell them what was going on and that we were crossing the extended centreline to deadside. He "rogered" and told us to go back to TWR. Within seconds, TWR had cleared us in. We did not actually do an orbit....but, I admit we probably would have when further away.
A lot of people seem to be bristling with rage about sarcasm etc. We did not say anything while in the air and I don't believe that ever achieves anything anyway. The purpose of my question was not to apportion blame to TWR or anyone else (especially me... ), I just wanted to find out what other peole would do....and now I know!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
From: Blackpool, UK
Good posts. I learned from it. I'd have been a bit nervous about turning final as well, but the go-around option is definately the way to go...
For my two-penneth, don't try orbiting dead-side at Blackpool as you might meet an R22 head-on.. they tend to use the deadside for helo circuits (that's when we HAVE to do circuits )
For my two-penneth, don't try orbiting dead-side at Blackpool as you might meet an R22 head-on.. they tend to use the deadside for helo circuits (that's when we HAVE to do circuits
)
Last edited by RotorHorn; 15th August 2002 at 15:35.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 326
Likes: 2
From: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Strake - the criticism of sarcasm crept in as a by-product of your initial question, that's all. My points were directed at those who felt it would have been an acceptable option.
Good thread! Scary isn't it, when you know you have to do something, but you're not really sure what.
Good thread! Scary isn't it, when you know you have to do something, but you're not really sure what.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
From: South of France
hihover
On looking at the posts, it appears I am having a go at you re critisism 'coz your post is above mine....I'm not. I think your post came while I was writing. I was actually refering to a couple that came in yesterday.
Yes, most situations allow for a bit of thought-time this one didn't...maybe I should take up rotary-wing.....
On looking at the posts, it appears I am having a go at you re critisism 'coz your post is above mine....I'm not. I think your post came while I was writing. I was actually refering to a couple that came in yesterday.
Yes, most situations allow for a bit of thought-time this one didn't...maybe I should take up rotary-wing.....