Go-around or land?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mahlangeni
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rainboe,
When I said what I said in my previous post, I under no circumstances wanted to spread the notion that I advocate landing without a clearance.
When I reread my post, I also got the feeling that I could have been misunderstood as saying that landing without a clearance is ok. It certainly is not, but... there are circumstances where it might be necessary. I won't delve into those possibilities as many have been mentioned.
Another point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is the use of 121.5. We all monitor this freq on set 2. It would be quick and easy to regain contact by contacting the tower on 121.5.
I have not yet landed without a landing clearance and don't intend on doing so.
Safe flying,
SL
When I said what I said in my previous post, I under no circumstances wanted to spread the notion that I advocate landing without a clearance.
When I reread my post, I also got the feeling that I could have been misunderstood as saying that landing without a clearance is ok. It certainly is not, but... there are circumstances where it might be necessary. I won't delve into those possibilities as many have been mentioned.
Another point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is the use of 121.5. We all monitor this freq on set 2. It would be quick and easy to regain contact by contacting the tower on 121.5.
I have not yet landed without a landing clearance and don't intend on doing so.
Safe flying,
SL
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
It certainly is not, but... there are circumstances where it might be necessary.
People- Air Traffic Controllers have tried to say it here discreetly. I will say it in your face....DO NOT LAND WITHOUT CLEARANCE except in genuine EMERGENCY. Stop finding ridiculous scenarios where you think it might be a good idea! Unless you have a genuine emergency, your aeroplane insurance will be void and your job on the line, and you may well go to prison if anyone gets hurt through any circumstance. The controller MUST know you are positively landing and going to be on the ground or you may find someone else on top of you (with a crunching sound).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
If you include my 'scenario' above , I didn't ' find it ' , it happened last week in a Boeing in which I too am a Commander- there are others around believe it or not. 
We're getting your opinion loud and clear but it's just one of many, nobody lands without a clearance for fun! By the way there are two(or more)people in on the decision apart from the controller.
Controllers can make mistakes too - I've nearly been wiped out in a 757 by a controllers mistake and at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower e.g. AMS 18R/36L. He/she may well be thinking about seven things at a time (more and more these days) while we are more likely to be covering our own ass.
Stop finding ridiculous scenarios where you think it might be a good idea!
We're getting your opinion loud and clear but it's just one of many, nobody lands without a clearance for fun! By the way there are two(or more)people in on the decision apart from the controller.
Controllers can make mistakes too - I've nearly been wiped out in a 757 by a controllers mistake and at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower e.g. AMS 18R/36L. He/she may well be thinking about seven things at a time (more and more these days) while we are more likely to be covering our own ass.
Last edited by Stan Woolley; 29th May 2005 at 16:31.
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've been at the threshold waiting for take-off completely unable to see a Checker on the runway ahead of me. You are not always aware that the runway hasn't been taken out- maybe the controller cleared a vehicle onto the runway 'after the departing A/C'. Maybe you were missed in all the ATC chaos and suddenly there you are flaring, unable to see the vehicle ahead of you through the plastic windscreen. Unless you have a serious problem, there is no excuse- don't do it!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say go-around. Most places in the EU make you contact the tower @ approx 6 miles on final. Only a few times I found it hard to get my say in but usually it won't be a problem. Is this problem in the US?
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stan Woolley,
If the situation you describe was as tight as that then I would hope the tower controller would send you around and hold the gulfsteam on the runway. I wasn't there, so I can only hazard a guess. If you go around with the Gulfstream taking off it is up to the controller to take charge of the situation and ensure separation. That is his/her job, obviously with help and cooperation from you.
<Controllers can make mistakes too >
Oh yes, we can. There but for the grace....
But we are usually well trained in sorting them out too.
<at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower >
Whilst I agree that may be true, with respect that does not mean that you know everything that is going on on a runway. After all there may be folk on the gound, on other frequencies, working another controller, etc etc who you would not be aware of, and even if not on the runway yet, they may be very soon.
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
If the situation you describe was as tight as that then I would hope the tower controller would send you around and hold the gulfsteam on the runway. I wasn't there, so I can only hazard a guess. If you go around with the Gulfstream taking off it is up to the controller to take charge of the situation and ensure separation. That is his/her job, obviously with help and cooperation from you.
<Controllers can make mistakes too >
Oh yes, we can. There but for the grace....
But we are usually well trained in sorting them out too.
<at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower >
Whilst I agree that may be true, with respect that does not mean that you know everything that is going on on a runway. After all there may be folk on the gound, on other frequencies, working another controller, etc etc who you would not be aware of, and even if not on the runway yet, they may be very soon.
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
<at many airports I will have a better view of the landing runway from the cockpit than a controller miles away in the tower >
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shifting the subject slightly - Just reading con-pilot's comments on the previous page (landing at ORD without clearance). Quote "...the controller informed us that if we had gone around we would have caused a near-miss or worse". Now obviously movements on intersecting runways are closely controlled to avoid any comings-together on the ground, but surely seperation needs to be applied in the situation mentioned too? Is it really the case that a go-around is sometimes not an option (or a less than safe option) when on short final in this scenario?
As a private pilot it's somthing I'm less likely to encounter than you lot, but I've often wondered about. I remember particularly thinking about this whilst watching arrivals and departures knitting neatly together at LaGuadia one day. It was a couple of years later that I read about an accident/incident there between a departure and an aircraft going around (sorry, can't remember the exact details).
Surely, with the controller aware of the 'full picture', the pilot on final should be able to declare a go around (possible for any number of reasons) at any time without putting either his/her own aircraft, or an intersecting one at risk?
I'm not criticising here - just hoping to gain even more insight from an already very interesting discussion.
As a private pilot it's somthing I'm less likely to encounter than you lot, but I've often wondered about. I remember particularly thinking about this whilst watching arrivals and departures knitting neatly together at LaGuadia one day. It was a couple of years later that I read about an accident/incident there between a departure and an aircraft going around (sorry, can't remember the exact details).
Surely, with the controller aware of the 'full picture', the pilot on final should be able to declare a go around (possible for any number of reasons) at any time without putting either his/her own aircraft, or an intersecting one at risk?
I'm not criticising here - just hoping to gain even more insight from an already very interesting discussion.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northerner
It was very tight and an earlier go-around might have been better but if we were to do that every time it looks close I'd do two a week! The bizjet probably wasn't local and I was aware of the Gulfstreams high climb rate as well as our relatively high approach/Go around speeds (738).
Everybody doing their best but just one of those many situations that call for a bit of practical decision making. I am by no means having a go at the controller - he was trying to help us.
I'm just generally trying to make the point that going around regardless might occasionally be a poor call in the real world. Other people have stated that the controller not only agreed with their decision to land, but thanked them for it.
By the way I really think it would be of huge benefit to get controllers back on the jump seat more often.
Rainboe
Time to retire mate! 
It was very tight and an earlier go-around might have been better but if we were to do that every time it looks close I'd do two a week! The bizjet probably wasn't local and I was aware of the Gulfstreams high climb rate as well as our relatively high approach/Go around speeds (738).
Everybody doing their best but just one of those many situations that call for a bit of practical decision making. I am by no means having a go at the controller - he was trying to help us.
I'm just generally trying to make the point that going around regardless might occasionally be a poor call in the real world. Other people have stated that the controller not only agreed with their decision to land, but thanked them for it.
By the way I really think it would be of huge benefit to get controllers back on the jump seat more often.
Rainboe
I've been at the threshold waiting for take-off completely unable to see a Checker on the runway ahead of me.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every take off, be ready to abort.
Every approach, be ready to go around.
Having said that, I have landed without clearance. It was an operational task and the tower controller had lost comms. I made a judgement call based on all available information.
I totally agree with the previous posters on the importance of SA. In some parts of the world are not as competent as here, you can adjust your approach to prevent the potential airmiss on go around. It could also be argued that an early go around could be the safest option, to give more separation. Hanging on to the last minute waiting for a possible clearance isn't always that clever.
Every approach, be ready to go around.
Having said that, I have landed without clearance. It was an operational task and the tower controller had lost comms. I made a judgement call based on all available information.
I totally agree with the previous posters on the importance of SA. In some parts of the world are not as competent as here, you can adjust your approach to prevent the potential airmiss on go around. It could also be argued that an early go around could be the safest option, to give more separation. Hanging on to the last minute waiting for a possible clearance isn't always that clever.
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stan Woolley:
<By the way I really think it would be of huge benefit to get controllers back on the jump seat more often>
I couldn't agree more.
And in return, you guys should be at towers and radar centres more often too.
(that's a generic you by the way, as for all I know you personally may already be a regular visitor)
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
<By the way I really think it would be of huge benefit to get controllers back on the jump seat more often>
I couldn't agree more.
And in return, you guys should be at towers and radar centres more often too.
(that's a generic you by the way, as for all I know you personally may already be a regular visitor)
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read this thread a week or so ago now. I've skim read the latest posts so apologies if this has been covered already.
Relating to Heathrow and to some extent Capt. Airclues account, verbatim from Jeppesen Heathrow Airport "Use of Runways For Landing" chart:
" 1. "Land After" Procedure
Normally, only one aircraft is permitted to land or take-off on the runway-in-use at any one time. However, when traffic sequence is two successive landing aircraft, the second one may be allowed to land before the first one has cleared the runway-in-use, providing:
a) The runway is long enough;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the second aircraft will be able to see the first aircarft and continuously until it is clear of the runway;
d) the second aircraft has been warned.
"ATC will provide this warning by issuing the second aircraft with the instruction "land after......(first aircraft type " in place of the usual "cleared to land ". Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation between the two aircraft rests with the pilot of the second aircraft"
I appreciate it doesn't relate to the original question but it worthy of mention (if not already).
df1
Relating to Heathrow and to some extent Capt. Airclues account, verbatim from Jeppesen Heathrow Airport "Use of Runways For Landing" chart:
" 1. "Land After" Procedure
Normally, only one aircraft is permitted to land or take-off on the runway-in-use at any one time. However, when traffic sequence is two successive landing aircraft, the second one may be allowed to land before the first one has cleared the runway-in-use, providing:
a) The runway is long enough;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the second aircraft will be able to see the first aircarft and continuously until it is clear of the runway;
d) the second aircraft has been warned.
"ATC will provide this warning by issuing the second aircraft with the instruction "land after......(first aircraft type " in place of the usual "cleared to land ". Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation between the two aircraft rests with the pilot of the second aircraft"
I appreciate it doesn't relate to the original question but it worthy of mention (if not already).
df1
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada and UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If no landing clearance has been received, you MUST go around"... period / full-stop / end of story / shut your mouth.
A statement of absolute certainty like that should stand up to the most extreme analysis. What if you were on very short finals, on a clear day with the runway clearly open and no ground traffic approaching it, without landing clearance, and one of the following situations applied:
1. Your tanks were almost dry due to a fuel leak and a go around would be fatal.
2. There was a raging fire on board.
3. Terrorists were breaking through the flight deck door with an axe.
You'd land without clearance, I hope. Even if you were one of the contributors that said no-way-in-hell should you ever land without landing clearance.
Now, those situations are pretty unrealistic, but the point is this: those who seek to describe the best course of action in terms of an absolute rule that must never be broken are kidding themselves.
Even the die-hards would admit there are some situations (like those above) where it would be better to land, even without clearance - because it would be the safest course of action.
A few years ago, I was flying a 757 on an ILS into Schipol. There were no aircraft ahead on the approach and one had just vacated the runway. Conditions were clear at night. There were no intersecting runways. An open microphone blocked the RT and we had not yet been cleared to land. Now, which would have been more dangerous: to land on the clear runway, or to go-around in very busy airspace with a loss of comms?
I believe we took the safest option!
Smudge
A statement of absolute certainty like that should stand up to the most extreme analysis. What if you were on very short finals, on a clear day with the runway clearly open and no ground traffic approaching it, without landing clearance, and one of the following situations applied:
1. Your tanks were almost dry due to a fuel leak and a go around would be fatal.
2. There was a raging fire on board.
3. Terrorists were breaking through the flight deck door with an axe.
You'd land without clearance, I hope. Even if you were one of the contributors that said no-way-in-hell should you ever land without landing clearance.
Now, those situations are pretty unrealistic, but the point is this: those who seek to describe the best course of action in terms of an absolute rule that must never be broken are kidding themselves.
Even the die-hards would admit there are some situations (like those above) where it would be better to land, even without clearance - because it would be the safest course of action.
A few years ago, I was flying a 757 on an ILS into Schipol. There were no aircraft ahead on the approach and one had just vacated the runway. Conditions were clear at night. There were no intersecting runways. An open microphone blocked the RT and we had not yet been cleared to land. Now, which would have been more dangerous: to land on the clear runway, or to go-around in very busy airspace with a loss of comms?
I believe we took the safest option!
Smudge
Naughty but Nice
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triple smidge,
With respect, at the risk of inflaming (enflaming ?grammar/spelling...) the argument again, what you are describing are two different situations.
In any of your 1,2, or 3 you are, without doubt, in an emergency, and as I have said before, in an emergency anything goes and of course you land, and no-one would question that. That goes whether or not we know of the emergency, although certainly with the first two I would hope that ATC would have been given some warning before you were 200ft from touchdown but I accept that maybe that's not possible all the time. In the subsequent inquiry we would find out your emergency, and so, anything goes.
Landing without clearance and not going around in a serviceable aircraft because of a blocked mike/controller too busy/any multitude of reasons which you may or may not be aware of just because the go-around would take you into busy airspace is NOT the correct course of action. I'm sorry, but it's not. I work in TMA airpace, there are procedures for go-arounds, and they are there for a reason!
You think you chose the safest option, we will never know the full particulars, but at the risk of provoking you, perhaps you took the easiest or possibly even the laziest option?
I applaud Pilot's discretion, generally I find you all to be an incredibly professional lot and it is a pleasure to work with you guys. Let's work together hey?
Fly safe!
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
With respect, at the risk of inflaming (enflaming ?grammar/spelling...) the argument again, what you are describing are two different situations.
In any of your 1,2, or 3 you are, without doubt, in an emergency, and as I have said before, in an emergency anything goes and of course you land, and no-one would question that. That goes whether or not we know of the emergency, although certainly with the first two I would hope that ATC would have been given some warning before you were 200ft from touchdown but I accept that maybe that's not possible all the time. In the subsequent inquiry we would find out your emergency, and so, anything goes.
Landing without clearance and not going around in a serviceable aircraft because of a blocked mike/controller too busy/any multitude of reasons which you may or may not be aware of just because the go-around would take you into busy airspace is NOT the correct course of action. I'm sorry, but it's not. I work in TMA airpace, there are procedures for go-arounds, and they are there for a reason!
You think you chose the safest option, we will never know the full particulars, but at the risk of provoking you, perhaps you took the easiest or possibly even the laziest option?
I applaud Pilot's discretion, generally I find you all to be an incredibly professional lot and it is a pleasure to work with you guys. Let's work together hey?
Fly safe!
Cheers,
N
"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."
Last edited by Northerner; 5th Jun 2005 at 17:51.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found out the technical name for a 'blocked mike' the other day - it's called a 'heterodyne' (sp?).
I was watching a National Geographic Channel programme about the 1977 Tenerife accident where a heterodyne (good, isn't it?) was certainly a contributory factor. Interesting to draw parallels between that accident and the discussion here, I think.
Although, I must say, I personally believe that there are no hard & fast rules, and agree with smidge's sentiment.
As my old Grandma used to say: "Flexibility is the key to Air Power"
I was watching a National Geographic Channel programme about the 1977 Tenerife accident where a heterodyne (good, isn't it?) was certainly a contributory factor. Interesting to draw parallels between that accident and the discussion here, I think.
Although, I must say, I personally believe that there are no hard & fast rules, and agree with smidge's sentiment.
As my old Grandma used to say: "Flexibility is the key to Air Power"
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents...
Here's a real life situation that happened last winter;
A320 on radar vectors for rwy 18L, on base leg 2000'agl, indicated wind 80kts and mod to severe turbulence (one of those days when it's hard to even read the instruments). ATIS wind is 230/30G55, CAVOK, windshear all rwys.
Preceding traffic is 2,5NM ahead. After short-cut for final (given by ATC), separation is reduced to 2NM.
Over the threshold at around +/-30ft, still no landing clearence. Preceding aircraft is half way into the taxiway, rolling out of the runway.
What to do at this point?????
Is it safer to land without clearence knowing that by the time the nose gear is down the runway will be clear , or, go-around under those highly adverse conditions?...
Waiting for everyone's opinion and I will let you know how it ended.
Here's a real life situation that happened last winter;
A320 on radar vectors for rwy 18L, on base leg 2000'agl, indicated wind 80kts and mod to severe turbulence (one of those days when it's hard to even read the instruments). ATIS wind is 230/30G55, CAVOK, windshear all rwys.
Preceding traffic is 2,5NM ahead. After short-cut for final (given by ATC), separation is reduced to 2NM.
Over the threshold at around +/-30ft, still no landing clearence. Preceding aircraft is half way into the taxiway, rolling out of the runway.
What to do at this point?????
Is it safer to land without clearence knowing that by the time the nose gear is down the runway will be clear , or, go-around under those highly adverse conditions?...
Waiting for everyone's opinion and I will let you know how it ended.
If you can't get a landing clearance because of a blocked frequency, remember to look at the control tower before going around - you might just get a steady green light. It happened at my airfield this evening!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Around
I have just come back from the States where a local flying school (PAN AM) with stacks of planes constantly filled the pattern to overflowing. With non English speaking pilots struggling with American English (yes it is different !!??).
I had this happen soooooo many times . Do I go around ? Have I been cleared ? The tower would tell me quite often give clearance 10ft from the ground in the end , sometimes not at all. The answer is the following
1. In controlled airspace you are positioned 1 / 2 / 3 etc. So they are expecting you to land 1 /2/ 3 - you should do it.
2. Going around may upset the whole cart if there is no way of getting in that transmission 'GOING AROUND' coz of non stop chatter. You end up Upwind with other traffic crossing
3. Use common sense . Do not land if there is someone on the active and always keep you eyes open !
Be this in VRF flight , can't say I would do the same IMC.
I had this happen soooooo many times . Do I go around ? Have I been cleared ? The tower would tell me quite often give clearance 10ft from the ground in the end , sometimes not at all. The answer is the following
1. In controlled airspace you are positioned 1 / 2 / 3 etc. So they are expecting you to land 1 /2/ 3 - you should do it.
2. Going around may upset the whole cart if there is no way of getting in that transmission 'GOING AROUND' coz of non stop chatter. You end up Upwind with other traffic crossing
3. Use common sense . Do not land if there is someone on the active and always keep you eyes open !
Be this in VRF flight , can't say I would do the same IMC.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Odlix... my 2-cents worth for your scenario. For me, there are 4 issues :-
1. The preceding aircraft is still half on the runway; and
2. Your approach speed is going to be higher than normal, as a defence against the windshear, so you're going to eat up more runway than usual during the landing.
3. If the decision is to go around, will I still have enough airspeed to give me afighting chance with the windshear?
4. If the decision is to go around, what other traffic is likely to get screwed up? And will this action lead to a separation breakdown, or worse?
So, is that taxyway... the one where the preceding aircraft is only half on... at or near the end of the runway? Will there be enough room left, before the intersection with that taxyway, to stop your aircraft if the preceding aircraft comes to an unexpected stop while still only halfway on the taxyway?
The balancing of these considerations is just one of the reasons why command judgement is so vital.
On balance, I think that I'd prefer to land and hope to be able to avoid the preceding aircraft if it stops before fully exiting. I base this on the consideration of the severe windshear, the effect on the pax of a late go-around and the very high possibility that the preceding aircraft won't stop unexpectedly. So, yes, I'd rather land and debate the issue with ATC after that - always easier to seek forgiveness afterwards!
1. The preceding aircraft is still half on the runway; and
2. Your approach speed is going to be higher than normal, as a defence against the windshear, so you're going to eat up more runway than usual during the landing.
3. If the decision is to go around, will I still have enough airspeed to give me afighting chance with the windshear?
4. If the decision is to go around, what other traffic is likely to get screwed up? And will this action lead to a separation breakdown, or worse?
So, is that taxyway... the one where the preceding aircraft is only half on... at or near the end of the runway? Will there be enough room left, before the intersection with that taxyway, to stop your aircraft if the preceding aircraft comes to an unexpected stop while still only halfway on the taxyway?
The balancing of these considerations is just one of the reasons why command judgement is so vital.
On balance, I think that I'd prefer to land and hope to be able to avoid the preceding aircraft if it stops before fully exiting. I base this on the consideration of the severe windshear, the effect on the pax of a late go-around and the very high possibility that the preceding aircraft won't stop unexpectedly. So, yes, I'd rather land and debate the issue with ATC after that - always easier to seek forgiveness afterwards!