Late clearences?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late clearences?
Quick question?
How late would you expect to receive a landing clearence.
Yesterday, I was down to 100' and about 250 meters from the threashold without getting a landing clearence. There was nothing on the runway and I asked again for clearence to land and got a negitive in reply. This phased me a bit so I decided to initiate a go around.
What should I have done?
How late would you expect to receive a landing clearence.
Yesterday, I was down to 100' and about 250 meters from the threashold without getting a landing clearence. There was nothing on the runway and I asked again for clearence to land and got a negitive in reply. This phased me a bit so I decided to initiate a go around.
What should I have done?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that heavies into Heathrow and other very busy airports occasionally get clearances in the flare! 
I guess that could be as low as 20-30ft rad alt. Not sure how common that is though! 
I guess that could be as low as 20-30ft rad alt. Not sure how common that is though!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bucks
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of wht you should have done, you did exactly the right thing. In fact, you had no choice - if there is an ATC service then you have to have a definite clearance to land before you touch down - without that (inc. not getting a response) you have to go around.
I guess if the service is just "Radio" or "Information" you could elect to lanbd at your discretion, but it would clearly be irresponsible to do so if you have been advised not to.
I guess if the service is just "Radio" or "Information" you could elect to lanbd at your discretion, but it would clearly be irresponsible to do so if you have been advised not to.
ATC doesn't withhold a landing clearance for the hell of it. Was there an aircraft within the cleared strip width (e.g. vacating but not yet past the holding point) but not actually on the runway? If not, it may be worth having an informal chat with ATC to find out what their procedures are -- it's helpful to understand such things to enable you to keep a firm grasp of the big picture.
Where did this happen?
Where did this happen?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Again, a misconception about the authority of A/G and AFISO services....
Only ATC can give landing clearances. A/G and AFISO can give information only.
Flying Cesspit, you really ought to look up your air law textbook if you don't clearly understand this.
If you are not under ATC, it's your call totally.
CIM
IMHO you did the right thing - delaying your go around further would have been indecisive and making the decision more critical.
If it had been me, I would have been on the telephone to the ATCO asking why the clearance was delayed.
If I was not satisified with the response, I would have wished to talk with his/her supervisor about why causing a late go around is not a wise idea in terms of flight safety.
This is not being needlessy aggressive, ATC would (rightly) expect us to fly their clearances accurately, but they must understand that they have a responsibility to add to flight safety by sensible, early and well communicated decision making; mostly they do in fairness, but aberations should be discussed.
Only ATC can give landing clearances. A/G and AFISO can give information only.
Flying Cesspit, you really ought to look up your air law textbook if you don't clearly understand this.
If you are not under ATC, it's your call totally.
CIM
IMHO you did the right thing - delaying your go around further would have been indecisive and making the decision more critical.
If it had been me, I would have been on the telephone to the ATCO asking why the clearance was delayed.
If I was not satisified with the response, I would have wished to talk with his/her supervisor about why causing a late go around is not a wise idea in terms of flight safety.
This is not being needlessy aggressive, ATC would (rightly) expect us to fly their clearances accurately, but they must understand that they have a responsibility to add to flight safety by sensible, early and well communicated decision making; mostly they do in fairness, but aberations should be discussed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply's.
I don't want to identify the airfield at this point but it is ATC and not A/G
The full senario is as as follows
The airfield was busy with loads of aircraft asking for circuits
CIM: Parked, fan turning, all checks completed, ready to go
Call ATC G-XXXC good morning. expect G-XXXX pass message
ATC: "G-XXXX, taxi to holding point A1 via XXX cleared to cross YYY"
CIM: A bit confused but understand the clearence and start taxi to A1 (I thought that ATC may have known my intentions via telephone from my instructor.) On the way to the holding point...
ATC: "G-XXXX pass your meaasge"
Not expecting anything from ATC until power/take off checks done.
I'm now a bit confused. R/T busy at this point
CIM: "G-XXXX I didn't call"
ATC: "G-XXXX, I'm calling you! Pass your message"
I now realise that ATC want my details and intentions
CIM: details passed
All else as per the book, power checks complete, take off clearence given, take off and complete about 3 or 4 touch and go's. Circuit is busy with 4 or 5 others doing the same thing. (plus heli's on the other side) Round and round we go, happy as sand boys
Circuit in question:
CIM: "G-XXXX , downwind XX for touch and go"
ATC: "G-XXXX, number 3 to a YYY on final and ZZZ late downwind, follow ZZZ in front"
CIM: " Number 3, follow ZZZ"
Another aircraft G-AAAA turns downwind
G-AAAA: "G-AAAA, downwind XX for touch and go"
ATC: "G-AAAA, number 4 to a YYY,ZZZ,PA28 (CIM) follow PA28 in front.
G-AAAA: "Number 4 follow PA28"
Downwind and Base uneventfull , YYY cleared and lands, ZZZ turns base then final and reports. CIM turns final and reports
CIM: "G-XXXX, final for runway XX"
ATC: "G-XXXX. number 2 ,continue approach"
CIM: "G-XXXX, number 2 , continue approach"
ATC: "ZZZ, surface wind xxxx, cleared to land"
ZZZ: "G-ZZZZ, cleared to land"
G-AAAA: "G-AAAA, final for runway XX"
ATC: "G-AAAA, continue approach"
G-AAAA: "Continue approach"
ZZZ does his touch and go. CIM now at 300' on approach and expects clearence. No such luck.
The next transmission took me by suprise!!!!!
ATC: "G-AAAA, surface wind xxx, cleared to land runway xx"
G-AAAA: " G-AAAA, cleared to land, runway XX"
CIM is now confused and at 100'
CIM: " G-XXXX, does G-XXXX have clearence to land"
ATC: " G-XXXX, negitave"
At this point I decided that it was time for some positive action on my part and initiated a go around. Got the aircraft climbing and configured for the go around
CIM: "G-XXXX, going around"
ATC: "G-XXXX , garbel, garbel"
CIM: " G-XXXX, say again"
ATC: "G-XXXX, garbel, garbel"
CIM: "G-XXXX, say again, I don't understand"
No further communication between CIM and ATC until next downwind when all went by the book.
I don't understand why the aircraft behind me was cleared to land before me and I don't know why there was no reply to my last transmission. I can only summise that as the field was busy that the ATC got 2 aircraft mixed up??????
I don't want to identify the airfield at this point but it is ATC and not A/G
The full senario is as as follows
The airfield was busy with loads of aircraft asking for circuits
CIM: Parked, fan turning, all checks completed, ready to go
Call ATC G-XXXC good morning. expect G-XXXX pass message
ATC: "G-XXXX, taxi to holding point A1 via XXX cleared to cross YYY"
CIM: A bit confused but understand the clearence and start taxi to A1 (I thought that ATC may have known my intentions via telephone from my instructor.) On the way to the holding point...
ATC: "G-XXXX pass your meaasge"
Not expecting anything from ATC until power/take off checks done.
I'm now a bit confused. R/T busy at this point
CIM: "G-XXXX I didn't call"
ATC: "G-XXXX, I'm calling you! Pass your message"
I now realise that ATC want my details and intentions
CIM: details passed
All else as per the book, power checks complete, take off clearence given, take off and complete about 3 or 4 touch and go's. Circuit is busy with 4 or 5 others doing the same thing. (plus heli's on the other side) Round and round we go, happy as sand boys
Circuit in question:
CIM: "G-XXXX , downwind XX for touch and go"
ATC: "G-XXXX, number 3 to a YYY on final and ZZZ late downwind, follow ZZZ in front"
CIM: " Number 3, follow ZZZ"
Another aircraft G-AAAA turns downwind
G-AAAA: "G-AAAA, downwind XX for touch and go"
ATC: "G-AAAA, number 4 to a YYY,ZZZ,PA28 (CIM) follow PA28 in front.
G-AAAA: "Number 4 follow PA28"
Downwind and Base uneventfull , YYY cleared and lands, ZZZ turns base then final and reports. CIM turns final and reports
CIM: "G-XXXX, final for runway XX"
ATC: "G-XXXX. number 2 ,continue approach"
CIM: "G-XXXX, number 2 , continue approach"
ATC: "ZZZ, surface wind xxxx, cleared to land"
ZZZ: "G-ZZZZ, cleared to land"
G-AAAA: "G-AAAA, final for runway XX"
ATC: "G-AAAA, continue approach"
G-AAAA: "Continue approach"
ZZZ does his touch and go. CIM now at 300' on approach and expects clearence. No such luck.
The next transmission took me by suprise!!!!!
ATC: "G-AAAA, surface wind xxx, cleared to land runway xx"
G-AAAA: " G-AAAA, cleared to land, runway XX"
CIM is now confused
and at 100'CIM: " G-XXXX, does G-XXXX have clearence to land"
ATC: " G-XXXX, negitave"
At this point I decided that it was time for some positive action on my part and initiated a go around. Got the aircraft climbing and configured for the go around
CIM: "G-XXXX, going around"
ATC: "G-XXXX , garbel, garbel"
CIM: " G-XXXX, say again"
ATC: "G-XXXX, garbel, garbel"
CIM: "G-XXXX, say again, I don't understand"
No further communication between CIM and ATC until next downwind when all went by the book.
I don't understand why the aircraft behind me was cleared to land before me and I don't know why there was no reply to my last transmission. I can only summise that as the field was busy that the ATC got 2 aircraft mixed up??????
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh, another thread based on the conception that aircraft are kept in the air by radio waves, and so soon after the last one.
Going around was the right answer, although speaking for myself I would have gone around from something like 300 feet. As for ATC, either (1) the Controller judged that there was insufficient spacing between you and the aircraft just landed or (2) he made a mistake, being, er, human. In either case, ranting phone calls or letters to his boss would achieve nothing. Can't we leave the culture of complaint to nimbies and Ryanair passengers etc?
Going around was the right answer, although speaking for myself I would have gone around from something like 300 feet. As for ATC, either (1) the Controller judged that there was insufficient spacing between you and the aircraft just landed or (2) he made a mistake, being, er, human. In either case, ranting phone calls or letters to his boss would achieve nothing. Can't we leave the culture of complaint to nimbies and Ryanair passengers etc?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CIM
Sounds like you did exactly the right thing to me. Very strange, though. And did you ever find out what the "garbel garbel" was?
FNG
If the controller thought there was insufficient spacing, surely he'd have told CIM to go around?
F3G
You said "Only ATC can give landing clearances. A/G and AFISO can give information only." I agree. However, if an A/G or AFISO advises me not to land, although I have no legal duty to do as they say, I would still go around (unless I felt it wasn't safe to do so, which would be very unusual). Maybe they've seen something that I haven't?
(Incidentally, I've only seen this happen once. The fire crew at the airfield became temporarilly unavailable. An airfield can't be licensed without fire cover, therefore they were now temporarilly unlicensed. Solo student was on short final. It's illegal for a solo student to land at an un-licensed airfield, so A/G operator "suggested" that solo student might like to go around. By the time the next circuit was completed, airfield was licensed again. Not at all relevant to CIM's question, but just one example of when the A/G operator may have information which you don't have, and why it's a good idea to listen to him/her even though you don't legally have to.)
Sounds like you did exactly the right thing to me. Very strange, though. And did you ever find out what the "garbel garbel" was?
FNG
If the controller thought there was insufficient spacing, surely he'd have told CIM to go around?
F3G
You said "Only ATC can give landing clearances. A/G and AFISO can give information only." I agree. However, if an A/G or AFISO advises me not to land, although I have no legal duty to do as they say, I would still go around (unless I felt it wasn't safe to do so, which would be very unusual). Maybe they've seen something that I haven't?
(Incidentally, I've only seen this happen once. The fire crew at the airfield became temporarilly unavailable. An airfield can't be licensed without fire cover, therefore they were now temporarilly unlicensed. Solo student was on short final. It's illegal for a solo student to land at an un-licensed airfield, so A/G operator "suggested" that solo student might like to go around. By the time the next circuit was completed, airfield was licensed again. Not at all relevant to CIM's question, but just one example of when the A/G operator may have information which you don't have, and why it's a good idea to listen to him/her even though you don't legally have to.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
FFF
I'm not suggesting that one should ignore information from A/G or AFISO services - in fact, a responsible a/c commander will factor all available information into a decision.
If you read Cesspit's post again, it infers that A/g and AFIS can "advise" on a course of action ... in other words give a clearance.
The incident you quote was an example of an A/G operator passing high quality information in an efficient manner and "suggesting" a sensible course of action. A pedantic zealot may point out that this is beyond the remit of these services, but I am not such a person. (And I bet the conversation wasn't held at 100'agl!!)
FNG
I respect your opinion, but fundamentally do not agree with it.
I would have called the ATCO - if he/she had said "sorry, I forgot you", I would accept that on the basis of human frailties and the matter would have ended there and then. One should also note that this is often the end of uncleared incursions into controlled airspace by pilots after talking to controllers who are usually reasonable people too.
However, if I really was not happy with the outcome, I would escalate to the supervisor.
The last time I did this was back in the mid 90s following a nasty incident on final and the subsequent investigations revealed a "blind spot" on part of the glidepath at a largish airfield.
Result, a CCTV was fitted in the tower curing the problem by helping the ATCOs to maintain situational awareness - not a bad outcome.
I'm not suggesting that one should ignore information from A/G or AFISO services - in fact, a responsible a/c commander will factor all available information into a decision.
If you read Cesspit's post again, it infers that A/g and AFIS can "advise" on a course of action ... in other words give a clearance.
The incident you quote was an example of an A/G operator passing high quality information in an efficient manner and "suggesting" a sensible course of action. A pedantic zealot may point out that this is beyond the remit of these services, but I am not such a person. (And I bet the conversation wasn't held at 100'agl!!)
FNG
I respect your opinion, but fundamentally do not agree with it.
I would have called the ATCO - if he/she had said "sorry, I forgot you", I would accept that on the basis of human frailties and the matter would have ended there and then. One should also note that this is often the end of uncleared incursions into controlled airspace by pilots after talking to controllers who are usually reasonable people too.
However, if I really was not happy with the outcome, I would escalate to the supervisor.
The last time I did this was back in the mid 90s following a nasty incident on final and the subsequent investigations revealed a "blind spot" on part of the glidepath at a largish airfield.
Result, a CCTV was fitted in the tower curing the problem by helping the ATCOs to maintain situational awareness - not a bad outcome.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds as if the controller forgot you were there; we're all fallible. My view, a quick phone call, clarify the source of confusion and have a mutual tree hug.
As far as your actions are concerned, going around was the only solution. The visul cct is dead safe if ATC are not talking, no one gets to use the runway!
Just an observation, but do you think you descended too low in the expectation of a clearance?
As far as your actions are concerned, going around was the only solution. The visul cct is dead safe if ATC are not talking, no one gets to use the runway!
Just an observation, but do you think you descended too low in the expectation of a clearance?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying Cesspit
Yes, I did read what you posted, you wrote ....
A/G and AFIS are not qualified to advise an a/c commander on any airborne action, so your generalisation that it would be clearly irresponsible to land is based on a false premise.
If you crashed on the subsequent go around, you would receive little sympathy at the board of enquiry for having followed the recommendation of a perosn exceeding the priviliges of their licence.
Yes, I did read what you posted, you wrote ....
I guess if the service is just "Radio" or "Information" you could elect to lanbd at your discretion, but it would clearly be irresponsible to do so if you have been advised not to.
If you crashed on the subsequent go around, you would receive little sympathy at the board of enquiry for having followed the recommendation of a perosn exceeding the priviliges of their licence.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late clearances
Hi CIM,
From your description, I think I know where the airfield is. I think the controllers there do a wonderful job integrating VFR and IFR training, together with transiting traffic getting a FIS, visiting traffic and dealing with fixed wing props, jets and helicopters. All without radar. On some days, I reckon the controller's load is verging on the ridiculous. He/she still stays remarkably calm. You should hear the controllers at Fort Lauderdale Executive on a busy day, mixing Lears with 152's and running left and right hand circuits simultaneously, and sometimes using two runways. They've got the benefit of radar, but they still sometimes blow a fuse.
I reckon that you were the victim of a simple human error, and you did precisely the right thing. A nuisance, but safe. Well done. Don't bother ATC with a complaint or a question. Chalk it up to experience.
FTD
From your description, I think I know where the airfield is. I think the controllers there do a wonderful job integrating VFR and IFR training, together with transiting traffic getting a FIS, visiting traffic and dealing with fixed wing props, jets and helicopters. All without radar. On some days, I reckon the controller's load is verging on the ridiculous. He/she still stays remarkably calm. You should hear the controllers at Fort Lauderdale Executive on a busy day, mixing Lears with 152's and running left and right hand circuits simultaneously, and sometimes using two runways. They've got the benefit of radar, but they still sometimes blow a fuse.
I reckon that you were the victim of a simple human error, and you did precisely the right thing. A nuisance, but safe. Well done. Don't bother ATC with a complaint or a question. Chalk it up to experience.
FTD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the replies.
For those who wish to know the airfield is EGTC (Cranfield)
FTD / SZF
I agree, the controllers at EGTC do an excellent job keeping us all in step. Thanks guys/girls.
I have no intention of formally complaining and it's all part of learning which I accept
Whipping Boy's SATCO
I have had several instances at EGTC where I have been told to expect a late clearence and got it on very short final, but this time not. I was still expecting a clearence up until the time I heard the clearence for the aircraft behind me. When I asked and got a negitive in reply then I decided to go around.
Question
I
What is a good decision hight in perfect visability?
For those who wish to know the airfield is EGTC (Cranfield)
FTD / SZF
I agree, the controllers at EGTC do an excellent job keeping us all in step. Thanks guys/girls.
I have no intention of formally complaining and it's all part of learning which I accept
Whipping Boy's SATCO
I have had several instances at EGTC where I have been told to expect a late clearence and got it on very short final, but this time not. I was still expecting a clearence up until the time I heard the clearence for the aircraft behind me. When I asked and got a negitive in reply then I decided to go around.
Question
I
What is a good decision hight in perfect visability?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is a good decision hight in perfect visability?
Reading what you posted, I think you were fine.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like you done good!!
Ultimatley even if the ATCO was forgetful then safety wasn't comprimised so no issue. You did your bit well so no harm done (apart from 10 quid to go around the circuit!!)
As for decision height. If I'm happy with the approach, but don't get a clearance then I'll happily wait until 20ft agl before going around (late clearances are par for the course at EGKA - if we went around if we didn't get a clearance at 200ft we'd all still be up there now!).
However if it's a dodgy approach (you know - upside down on finals that kind of thing) the 200ft is about bang on.
Ultimatley even if the ATCO was forgetful then safety wasn't comprimised so no issue. You did your bit well so no harm done (apart from 10 quid to go around the circuit!!)
As for decision height. If I'm happy with the approach, but don't get a clearance then I'll happily wait until 20ft agl before going around (late clearances are par for the course at EGKA - if we went around if we didn't get a clearance at 200ft we'd all still be up there now!).
However if it's a dodgy approach (you know - upside down on finals that kind of thing) the 200ft is about bang on.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When i've been in to Shoreham then my final call (at 500 feet or so) has always been acknowledged with something along the lines of "G-CD, continue approach". That's fine. Actual clearance can come quite late, I agree.
It's just "G-CD, standby" or no response at all that make me start to think about what to do next. Had both at an ATC airfield, but both times clearance came in time to avoid the go around.
It's just "G-CD, standby" or no response at all that make me start to think about what to do next. Had both at an ATC airfield, but both times clearance came in time to avoid the go around.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CIM,
Just getting back to your original question about how late you would/could accept a landing clearance.
Depends what you are flying - in a "simple" single, lower than in an assymetric complex multi.
How much height does your aircraft lose "cleaning-up" and climbing away?
Then add some to that for reaction-time, less than perfect performance, higher temperature/altitude etc.
This sort of 'decision height' (AKA commital height) you need to have in mind all the way down final approach if you haven't already been cleared for the landing.
I don't think there's one answer suits all
Just getting back to your original question about how late you would/could accept a landing clearance.
Depends what you are flying - in a "simple" single, lower than in an assymetric complex multi.
How much height does your aircraft lose "cleaning-up" and climbing away?
Then add some to that for reaction-time, less than perfect performance, higher temperature/altitude etc.
This sort of 'decision height' (AKA commital height) you need to have in mind all the way down final approach if you haven't already been cleared for the landing.
I don't think there's one answer suits all