Go-around or land?
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel that one more time we have entered an area that there is no yes or no, right or wrong answer to this question.
I have learned in the 40 plus years that I have been flying that are very few absolutes in the safe and efficient operations of aircraft. In primary and basic flight school one is taught that thou shall never do such and such. Then when operating in the real world one learns that thou shall never do such and such, except in this or that condition. Then the rules change.
I had a situation very similar to that of Captain Airclues happen to me once at Chicago O’Hare (ORD). I was the PIC and PF on a Boeing 727 landing at ORD; it was the middle of the rush hour with minimum spacing, good VMC weather and heavy frequency congestion. I was following a heavy 74 from an Asian country and as he was clearing the runway at the end I was less than a mile final. We had not received a landing clearance and as the 74 was clearing the runway the crew on the 74 started asking the local (tower) controller a series of questions blocking the frequency. Aircraft were departing on two other runways, one parallel the other a diagonal.
I elected to land without a clearance (gasp!) as we were rolling out the local controller apologized for not issuing a landing clearance. After changing to ground control the controller informed us that if we had gone around we would have caused a near-miss or worse.
So in 99% of the time I would agree that one should go around under normal circumstances. However there is one term that no one on this thread has brought up that MUST be considered.
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS! In other words keep track of what is going on around you, especially outside of the cockpit (flight deck if you must). Don’t create an accident or cause an unsafe situation by blindly following some rule.
Thank you.
I have learned in the 40 plus years that I have been flying that are very few absolutes in the safe and efficient operations of aircraft. In primary and basic flight school one is taught that thou shall never do such and such. Then when operating in the real world one learns that thou shall never do such and such, except in this or that condition. Then the rules change.
I had a situation very similar to that of Captain Airclues happen to me once at Chicago O’Hare (ORD). I was the PIC and PF on a Boeing 727 landing at ORD; it was the middle of the rush hour with minimum spacing, good VMC weather and heavy frequency congestion. I was following a heavy 74 from an Asian country and as he was clearing the runway at the end I was less than a mile final. We had not received a landing clearance and as the 74 was clearing the runway the crew on the 74 started asking the local (tower) controller a series of questions blocking the frequency. Aircraft were departing on two other runways, one parallel the other a diagonal.
I elected to land without a clearance (gasp!) as we were rolling out the local controller apologized for not issuing a landing clearance. After changing to ground control the controller informed us that if we had gone around we would have caused a near-miss or worse.
So in 99% of the time I would agree that one should go around under normal circumstances. However there is one term that no one on this thread has brought up that MUST be considered.
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS! In other words keep track of what is going on around you, especially outside of the cockpit (flight deck if you must). Don’t create an accident or cause an unsafe situation by blindly following some rule.
Thank you.
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeGranby,
I've certainly done that myself on occasion, and I know others have too. Not really official though....
Don't want to file a report unless I have to!
Much prefer to simply chat things through and try and understand, learn and educate on all sides.
con-pilot,
you are certainly right about SA, by all means be aware, but beware that your SA may not be the whole picture the whole of the time.
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
I've certainly done that myself on occasion, and I know others have too. Not really official though....
Don't want to file a report unless I have to!
Much prefer to simply chat things through and try and understand, learn and educate on all sides.
con-pilot,
you are certainly right about SA, by all means be aware, but beware that your SA may not be the whole picture the whole of the time.
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick Flying:
I think flying cargo with 150 soles (that you could have gotten into one suitcase only) is not an urgent enough situation to declare 'an emergency' because a frequency is busy! People can wait for their shoes!
I have never landed without a clearance, but I reserve the right as a commander to do so if I have 150 soles on the line. Paperwork I can deal with, mourning relatives I cant.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you should have SA but you have often only been on that frequency for a minute or two before you are cleared to land ( or not 
) hardly enough time to build up the complete picture. The controler has been there for ages and does have the whole picture. Go Around, its not an emergency and the controler can deal with the resulting tangle, thats what he is there for.
) hardly enough time to build up the complete picture. The controler has been there for ages and does have the whole picture. Go Around, its not an emergency and the controler can deal with the resulting tangle, thats what he is there for.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh the English language. You gotta love it.
I meant Soles of the marine variety. Have you ever seen those little blighters kick off in the back. Last thing you want is a Flipper induced oscillation.
I meant Soles of the marine variety. Have you ever seen those little blighters kick off in the back. Last thing you want is a Flipper induced oscillation.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Shoreline
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read thru the whole thread! Very nice discussion here. Having asked some high timers here who might have been thru the same situation, most of them replied: "It depends!". I guess Situational Awareness does come into the picture.
But with all things considered, I think it would be better to execute a Go Around and explain my actions to the pax ("Tower is to blame!" luvya tower guys! Just had to blame somebody so pax doesn't blame me!) and also to the management (who espouses SAFETY over schedule! Bless them!). But bear in mind that even up to a 100' RA, mindset is for the go around in case no clearance comes my way. The landing is just prepped at the back of my mind.
Rainboe,
haha haha haha
But with all things considered, I think it would be better to execute a Go Around and explain my actions to the pax ("Tower is to blame!"
luvya tower guys! Just had to blame somebody so pax doesn't blame me!) and also to the management (who espouses SAFETY over schedule! Bless them!). But bear in mind that even up to a 100' RA, mindset is for the go around in case no clearance comes my way. The landing is just prepped at the back of my mind. Rainboe,
haha haha haha
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Age: 43
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said many a-time (but I think is appropriate here)
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."
The problem arises when the latter think they are the former.
Rainboe
Maybe he had 75 people on board hence the 150 soles.
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."
The problem arises when the latter think they are the former.
Rainboe
Maybe he had 75 people on board hence the 150 soles.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant Soles of the marine variety. Have you ever seen those little blighters kick off in the back. Last thing you want is a Flipper induced oscillation.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rule in BA and several other airlines is that, in IMC, a go-around is mandatory if landing clearance has not been given by 200ft aal. To me that rule is inviolable as I have no idea what is on the runway or the adjacent taxiways.
Airclues
Airclues
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD:
By the comment about being in charge of the runway I simply meant that I don't try to do your job (well, not most of the time ) and as such I don't expect you to do mine.
"Looking out and listening, to me, is much safer than having a clearance."
Personally I'm a huge advocate of both!
Ultimately you are in command of your aircraft and if your decision is that you land then so be it, as long as you are aware that you may not always have the full picture, and that you might meet up with a slightly disgruntled ATCO, not necessarily an apologetic one!
Rules are there for a reason, which is why most of us follow them most of the time. I particularly like PIGDOG's comment in that respect.
Fly safe and keep a good lookout then.
Cheers,
N
P.S. Should point out that I'm not a tower ATCO, although I did have the rating once....
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
By the comment about being in charge of the runway I simply meant that I don't try to do your job (well, not most of the time
) and as such I don't expect you to do mine."Looking out and listening, to me, is much safer than having a clearance."
Personally I'm a huge advocate of both!
Ultimately you are in command of your aircraft and if your decision is that you land then so be it, as long as you are aware that you may not always have the full picture, and that you might meet up with a slightly disgruntled ATCO, not necessarily an apologetic one!
Rules are there for a reason, which is why most of us follow them most of the time. I particularly like PIGDOG's comment in that respect.
Fly safe and keep a good lookout then.
Cheers,
N
P.S. Should point out that I'm not a tower ATCO, although I did have the rating once....
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are 100% right on that Captain A. When IMC there is no other choice but to go around and trust in God and TCAS.
Unless one out of fuel and then you shouldn't be there anyway.
Unless one out of fuel and then you shouldn't be there anyway.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain A- you have pointed out the IFR rules for landing. Even if you were in VMC, were you to land intentionally without an ATC clearance and even because the frequency was busy, you would be disciplined, and possibly even sacked.
You do not land without an ATC clearance unless you have a genuine emergency. A 'genuine' emergency is not a momentarily congested frequency. You cannot 'step' on transmissions already being made. If you can't cut in and interrupt, you have but one option, and that is go-around. I hope that is clear and I hope people can see that is good airmanship. Anybody encouraging landing anyway should make clear they are encouraging breaking the rules and exposing the pilot to disciplinary action and potential loss of their job!
Is that clear enough to all?
You do not land without an ATC clearance unless you have a genuine emergency. A 'genuine' emergency is not a momentarily congested frequency. You cannot 'step' on transmissions already being made. If you can't cut in and interrupt, you have but one option, and that is go-around. I hope that is clear and I hope people can see that is good airmanship. Anybody encouraging landing anyway should make clear they are encouraging breaking the rules and exposing the pilot to disciplinary action and potential loss of their job!
Is that clear enough to all?
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
You are absolutely correct. However, sometimes in life, circumstance conspire to produce a situation where, to some people, things are not so simple. When faced with a go-around into solid thunderstorms with a blocked frequency, a long clear runway can be very tempting. I realise that you would have gone around and I respect you for that. You would have been absolutely correct.
BTW. I phoned the controller to thank her for being so quick with the clearance and she was very friendly and supportive, but then it was probably a different world then (early 90's).
Airclues
You are absolutely correct. However, sometimes in life, circumstance conspire to produce a situation where, to some people, things are not so simple. When faced with a go-around into solid thunderstorms with a blocked frequency, a long clear runway can be very tempting. I realise that you would have gone around and I respect you for that. You would have been absolutely correct.
BTW. I phoned the controller to thank her for being so quick with the clearance and she was very friendly and supportive, but then it was probably a different world then (early 90's).
Airclues
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
Funny how it's so black and white with this issue yet you're totally happy with crew discretion on the B744 engine out thread?Would that skipper have gone around in these circumstances, after all his 'Mayday' was only precautionary?
Perhaps B744 pilots should be excluded from this thread as they do not have enough experience of approach and landings to have a valid opinion?
Funny how it's so black and white with this issue yet you're totally happy with crew discretion on the B744 engine out thread?Would that skipper have gone around in these circumstances, after all his 'Mayday' was only precautionary?
Perhaps B744 pilots should be excluded from this thread as they do not have enough experience of approach and landings to have a valid opinion?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see where raising the other incident has any effect on the point we are trying to talk about. I do not see what that has to do with landing without a clearance. Are you trying to make some weird convoluted point? That crew followed agreed procedures and rules to a 'T' and they do not need to suffer criticism from you.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought my point was obvious and the tone of your last post patronising and pompous.
Sorry I'll spell it out for you, the 744 flight and landing without a clearance are similar because they are both judgement calls.
I didn't actually criticise the crew in this thread but the question is still valid - would he have gone around?
Sorry I'll spell it out for you, the 744 flight and landing without a clearance are similar because they are both judgement calls.
I didn't actually criticise the crew in this thread but the question is still valid - would he have gone around?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, they are not both judgement calls. Both are actually following rules and regulations and agreed procedures- do not land without clearance unless in a genuine emergency situation, and the flight continuation policy is agreed and confirmed with the licensing authority and in full agreement of the crews involved who have been applying it for umpteen years where appropriate, and quite happy with it as well. It is quite clear. Mixing them up is clouding the discussion.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
The other day we found ourself at three miles 'continuing approach' while a Gulfstream backtracked for takeoff. It was always going to be tight and at two hundred feet I said to the other pilot I would land as long as the Gulfstream got airborne ie with or without clearance because to fly a published go around was asking for a mid-air .
We touched down with a clearance (just) as the all too visible Gulfstream raised its gear maybe a kilometre ahead. The other guy said he'd seen tighter but if I have I don't remember when.
One of probably dozens of scenarios where the rules don't cover real life and I have to make a judgement that I would be prepared to defend in court. Was it a genuine emergency situation and if so who was to blame?
The other day we found ourself at three miles 'continuing approach' while a Gulfstream backtracked for takeoff. It was always going to be tight and at two hundred feet I said to the other pilot I would land as long as the Gulfstream got airborne ie with or without clearance because to fly a published go around was asking for a mid-air .
We touched down with a clearance (just) as the all too visible Gulfstream raised its gear maybe a kilometre ahead. The other guy said he'd seen tighter but if I have I don't remember when.
One of probably dozens of scenarios where the rules don't cover real life and I have to make a judgement that I would be prepared to defend in court. Was it a genuine emergency situation and if so who was to blame?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stan, so you had a close approach with one taking off. Who is to say which is the most hazardous? You were close together- what if you had plonked it down without clearance just as he ran into birds, lost engines and also plonked it down? Would that have been safer than doing a go around behind him just airborne (and probably at the same speed as you- maintaining horizontal separation)? A controller would see the hazard and control you and the Gulfstream immediately. Probably safer than landing without clearance- remember the controller may be delaying it to the last moment until he is satisfied it is safe for you to land. Who would have been in big trouble then? And marched into the FMs office? So not a very valid scenario I think.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: KUWAIT
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is an interresting situation ,
i didn't have the time to read all the replies but i would state my action
i would excute a go-around if no landing clearence , but if my approach was for an emergency situation (fire, rev deployed, .... etc) i would land prvided VMC conditions and saftey of the landing area is visiable to me
respecting all opinions
regards
i didn't have the time to read all the replies but i would state my action
i would excute a go-around if no landing clearence , but if my approach was for an emergency situation (fire, rev deployed, .... etc) i would land prvided VMC conditions and saftey of the landing area is visiable to me
respecting all opinions
regards