Gatwick Airport plane (allegedly) lands without clearance
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Castaway!!!!!
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline involved was Air Moroc and ATC instructed the aircraft to Go Around roughly at 100 - 200 feet AGL. On the Radio we hear the 50 Rad Alt call from their aircraft when the Air Moroc acknowledged the Go Around instruction however for whatever reason continued and landed
Join Date: May 2010
Location: KSJC
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the UK ever realize that routinely giving landing clearances on short final doesn't promote safety? It creates an expectation that communication from tower on short final will be a landing clearance. In the US if tower is calling you on short final after you were cleared to land 5 miles ago you know something is up.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NZ
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off the point but in the same line..
At what point will you initiate a go around if you do not receive landing clearance. Runway is clear. Controller otherwise occupied.
Reason for question - currently teaching ab-intio ATC and discussing where priorities must lie..
At what point will you initiate a go around if you do not receive landing clearance. Runway is clear. Controller otherwise occupied.
Reason for question - currently teaching ab-intio ATC and discussing where priorities must lie..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel on Draft, I imagine someone listening in alerted the media who then approached NATS for comment
What a joke. Nats blabbing to the media before any investigation. Is that a government organisation?
As a result of this NATS action, I certainly will re-think co-operating with ATC and accepting a "late landing clearance". Vlad shows as little understanding of multi-crew ops as the press tend to with:
I'm all for the pilot having a say now and again but when the man (or woman) in the tall pointy office says "go around", if I was down the back I'd much rather you did.
Ab:
In my (admittedly limited) 15 yrs in UK London aviation I've never heard an ATC instruction to G/A given in other than an utterly authoratative, unmistakable form, typically, "Silverbird 123 GO AROUND!, I SAY AGAIN! GO AROUND!"
This isn't missable, it isn't mistakable, it isn't ignorable.
This isn't missable, it isn't mistakable, it isn't ignorable.
Almost all ATCOs and pilots will have misheard, or misunderstood, an ATC transmission. If NATS at London (LGW/LHR), who I thought were "onside", are going to play out incidents in the press rather than allowing the AAIB/CAA to investigate, I for one am sorely disappointed and will rethink how I fly - particularly in terms of late landing clearances. At LHR, twice I have received a clearance so late even had we gone around we would have touched down in the process. We "knew" we would be cleared, having been forewarned, and the drawn out "XX123 t h e w I n d i s 2 4 0 at 1 5, y o u a rrr eeeee clear to land". Guess in future I'll just GA at 100'
Might one ask for the ATCOs on here to express their disapproval (if they agree) to their management over this "press comment"?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin : I think you misundestood my post., or I did not express myself properly. What you say is absolutely correct, my " scenario" is indeed far-fetched , but was taken to illustrate that there are some situations where the PF/PIC mights decide to fly the aircraft instead of following an ATC instruction. But he will have to explain why afterwards. But maybe he did too, we do not know.
Now that the airline has been named, I think we could add CRM into the list of possible scenarii.
Nigel on draft :
Before throwing stones, I would like to hear what the NATS spokeman ( if indeed that is the one who is quoted by the BBC ) actually said . Not what has been translated into Journospeak.
Now that the airline has been named, I think we could add CRM into the list of possible scenarii.
Nigel on draft :
Might one ask for the ATCOs on here to express their disapproval (if they agree) to their management over this "press comment"?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what point will you initiate a go around if you do not receive landing clearance. Runway is clear. Controller otherwise occupied.
In answer to your question, I would personally leave it until I would otherwise have initiated the flare manoeuvre. That may strike some as a little late - but in the situation you have suggested, I think all party's concerned would agree a go-around is in nobody's interests and just means work, stress, and paperwork for everybody.
Before I reached that point of course, I would have tried to get a call in clarifying the lack of landing clearance. Assuming the frequency was blocked - the scenario you hypothesize? - I would meanwhile be re-iterating the go-around procedure with PM, with my finger poised ominously above/behind the G/A trigger switch.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the UK ever realize that routinely giving landing clearances on short final doesn't promote safety? It creates an expectation that communication from tower on short final will be a landing clearance. In the US if tower is calling you on short final after you were cleared to land 5 miles ago you know something is up.
What if the frequency is blocked on short final and the GA instruction can't be issued?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think all party's concerned would agree a go-around is in nobody's interests and just means work, stress, and paperwork for everybody.
What paperwork is involved?
...a 737 has a 2 pilot crew. 1 flying the aircraft, the other handling the RT. A "late landing clearance" can be difficult because you (the ATCO) broadcast your "instruction" to 1 pilot, yet the action required is by the other pilot.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello RobShan,
Yes - a go-around is a routine and practised procedure, however it is not nearly as routine and practised as a straightforward landing - ergo it presents additional risk if only because it is a last-second change of plan, especially in a busy airport environment.
My company requires an explanation for any go-around manoeuvre flown - I think we could all agree it is a useful statistic in trend monitoring.
Yes - a go-around is a routine and practised procedure, however it is not nearly as routine and practised as a straightforward landing - ergo it presents additional risk if only because it is a last-second change of plan, especially in a busy airport environment.
My company requires an explanation for any go-around manoeuvre flown - I think we could all agree it is a useful statistic in trend monitoring.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bruxelles
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company requires an explanation for any go-around manoeuvre flown - I think we could all agree it is a useful statistic in trend monitoring.
When a company (yes, I know many require an explanation) asks us to justify our decisions is when certain decisions that should have been made are not made.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No comment obviously; however several UK phrases might make perfect sense to a UK audience but there may be dilution or misunderstanding to a crew where English is not the first language: "Go Around/ Contact Ground" for instance...and there are other examples of normal [but non-UK] procedures that permit or instruct early frequency change to next agency. Just a red herring...I wasn't there!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless for emergency/flight safety reasons, I suggest it is a dangerous precedent for pilots to overrule/disregard ATC instructions in controlled airspace of any type. There needs to be some order, some system or it'll be more than pilots egos that collide 
At face value with limited info, it sounds like a very last minute call by the controller, which the crew anticipated and interpreted incorrectly, compounded by a scenario of apparently negligible danger that added to their sense of security.
Just my 2c. Will be interesting to see what results, but it needs a systematic review of both ATC procedure or Air Maroc procedure to ensure the next GA isn't because of a 747 on the piano keys.
At face value with limited info, it sounds like a very last minute call by the controller, which the crew anticipated and interpreted incorrectly, compounded by a scenario of apparently negligible danger that added to their sense of security.
Just my 2c. Will be interesting to see what results, but it needs a systematic review of both ATC procedure or Air Maroc procedure to ensure the next GA isn't because of a 747 on the piano keys.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, regardless of the GA instruction - they where not even cleared to land.
That means they would have been forced to do a GA anyways. The interesting question would be WHEN you would go around in case of an expected late landing clearance after passing the OM. I would suspect at the minimum of the approach - 200 ft AGL here.
That means they would have been forced to do a GA anyways. The interesting question would be WHEN you would go around in case of an expected late landing clearance after passing the OM. I would suspect at the minimum of the approach - 200 ft AGL here.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello EARSA,
You don't have to be in the industry very long to realise that aviation safety is almost entirely built upon such statistical analyses. Whether it's regarding the various reasons why a go-around may be initiated, or perhaps the incidence of double engine failure on a twin engine aircraft - whatever - without the intelligent collation and study of such data our ability to recognise/quantify risk would be little better than guesswork.
In the case of my company, data concerning go-arounds might identify a poor company procedure, a higher-risk airport (met, ATC, geography), or deficiencies in crew training. It might also suggest we are actually doing the right thing. All that information can be fed back to manufacturers and regulators, and the industry takes another step forward. The point is, without analysing pretty much everything, we might never know anything other than the obvious.
You don't have to be in the industry very long to realise that aviation safety is almost entirely built upon such statistical analyses. Whether it's regarding the various reasons why a go-around may be initiated, or perhaps the incidence of double engine failure on a twin engine aircraft - whatever - without the intelligent collation and study of such data our ability to recognise/quantify risk would be little better than guesswork.
In the case of my company, data concerning go-arounds might identify a poor company procedure, a higher-risk airport (met, ATC, geography), or deficiencies in crew training. It might also suggest we are actually doing the right thing. All that information can be fed back to manufacturers and regulators, and the industry takes another step forward. The point is, without analysing pretty much everything, we might never know anything other than the obvious.
Last edited by Weary; 8th Jan 2014 at 14:03.
Originally Posted by EARSA
What's the implications of say, unstable approach or just 'plain unhappy' with the approach?