Gatwick Airport plane (allegedly) lands without clearance
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
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?
Lowest point before starting G/A? I agree with previous poster - prior to transitioning to flare. Approx 20'
That said, I remember once flying a Cessna on the stall warner for 300 metres down Lanseria's runway waiting for the jolly chap in the tower to stop wittering to his mate and clear me to touchdown.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowest point before starting G/A? I agree with previous poster - prior to transitioning to flare. Approx 20'.
The latest point to initiate a G/A I have been repeatedly taught is on selection of Reverse Thrust i.e. at that point you are committed to land. A bounced / deep landing is an example...If we repharse the question as to "latest point to GA without landing clearance" I believe it is not defined? (well, it is for us in LVPs). 20' might be an answer, but it depends on what is going to cause NATS to run to the press
Are they going to be upset if you briefly touch down on the GA? If so, then as much as height being important, it is the point at which you reduce thrust - since this determines the spool up time making a touchdown more likely.If NATS are going to get upset by a brief touchdown, then what is the minimum height for them not to be upset? 1'? 5'? 10'? As the BA 744 v bmi 321 @ LHR showed, it might be an aircraft fin in the way.
There is value in learning from this, and really questioning what is being achieved by LHR's (at least) "late landing clearance" sometimes given past the threshold and into the flare. By implication in proceeding to that point, both I and the ATCO have somehow agreed the runway threshold area, at least, is clear - yet no specific R/T calls have established that
Interested in ATCOs' viewpoint on that?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the US ever realise that routinely giving landing clearances whilst aircraft ahead haven't even landed, doesn't promote safety?
...flying a Cessna on the stall warner for 300 metres down Lanseria's runway...
I guess it´s a British thing, like not being able to say "cleared ILS" or
issue RNAV arrivals and departures..., and the strangest of all: "deconfliction service" eh??? what???
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it´s a British thing, like not being able to say "cleared ILS"
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we repharse the question as to "latest point to GA without landing clearance" I believe it is not defined? (well, it is for us in LVPs). 20' might be an answer, but it depends on what is going to cause NATS to run to the press 
Are they going to be upset if you briefly touch down on the GA? If so, then as much as height being important, it is the point at which you reduce thrust - since this determines the spool up time making a touchdown more likely.
Are they going to be upset if you briefly touch down on the GA? If so, then as much as height being important, it is the point at which you reduce thrust - since this determines the spool up time making a touchdown more likely.
Touching down while in the GA might happen in a heavy when the GA ist initiated at the CAT II or even CAT I minimum.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is utterly wrong that any airline should insist on a report for a GA. It might be that the cause of the GA is worthy of a report.
A pilot must never feel that should press on with a landing just because they do not want paperwork to do.
Sometimes not having the stats is safer than the act of obtaining them.
A pilot must never feel that should press on with a landing just because they do not want paperwork to do.
Sometimes not having the stats is safer than the act of obtaining them.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NZ
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So there is a clear case for removing landing clearances all together in some cases. i.e by default you are clear to land. (USA/France style)
Late landing clearance is often just to ensure rules are complied with. Clearly this requires extra concentration in a specific area for a period, for both controller and pilot. - effectively to tick a box.
ATC spend their efforts to ensure that aircraft will achieve the required runway separation so it should be there by the time you get to the runway.
ATC role (for the landing aircraft) would then be to monitor for things going wrong and the only instruction you would expect to hear would be a go around.
Although as humans we are not that good at monitoring, so would this reduce safety?
- we might still have to concentrate on the problem but not "having" to issue a landing clearance might mean we monitor less effectively.
Late landing clearance is often just to ensure rules are complied with. Clearly this requires extra concentration in a specific area for a period, for both controller and pilot. - effectively to tick a box.
ATC spend their efforts to ensure that aircraft will achieve the required runway separation so it should be there by the time you get to the runway.
ATC role (for the landing aircraft) would then be to monitor for things going wrong and the only instruction you would expect to hear would be a go around.
Although as humans we are not that good at monitoring, so would this reduce safety?
- we might still have to concentrate on the problem but not "having" to issue a landing clearance might mean we monitor less effectively.
Technical breakdown of runway separation occurs when the landing aircraft crosses the threshold to land. I would initiate a go around prior to crossing the threshold if I hadn't received a clearance. It's the difference between an occurrence and an incident. If you've already crossed the threshold, the damage is done (although perhaps not literally).
Controllers can issue landing clearances when there is reasonable assurance that separation will exist at the time the landing aircraft crosses the threshold.
In this case it was obviously going to be tight and in my experience controllers tend to wait, unsure of whether it will work and issue the clearance too late. If it's true the 50ft call was heard with the read back, that's too late in my opinion. 100' - 200' is your last chance to make the call.
Controllers can issue landing clearances when there is reasonable assurance that separation will exist at the time the landing aircraft crosses the threshold.
In this case it was obviously going to be tight and in my experience controllers tend to wait, unsure of whether it will work and issue the clearance too late. If it's true the 50ft call was heard with the read back, that's too late in my opinion. 100' - 200' is your last chance to make the call.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1Charlie. I note that you are a PPL so do you have any experience of commercial operations at a busy airfield? The conditions for an aircraft landing behind another are clearly laid down and 99.999% of the time they work OK. The airlines demand high landing rates and ATC works hard to provide them in a safe environment. Inevitably, someone will be slow to clear the runway or not fly precise speeds on final approach resulting in go-arounds. However, when ATC says "Go-around", IMHO only a complete fool would then land. That's because it is only ATC which knows the whole picture and all manner of things are going on which only they know about. I don't recall a pilot landing when told to go-around during my career so it seems to be a fairly rare event.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO only a complete fool would then land
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, when ATC says "Go-around", IMHO only a complete fool would then land. That's because it is only ATC which knows the whole picture and all manner of things are going on which only they know about. I don't recall a pilot landing when told to go-around during my career so it seems to be a fairly rare event.
For an LHR based crew, we have less excuse. Please see above for how out of kilter the UK, and LHR is, with worldwide standards for what a landing clearance is/means.
NoD
I understood that in this instance the GA instruction was acknowledged and ignored. That is bad. If it was acknowledged and not understood, that too is bad.
If it was not acknowledged then there is room for doubt whether it was heard or not. If it was not heard there is a need to find out why.
GA should always be anticipated and planned for, I do; it is not difficult to think about it and having done so, not difficult to execute.
If it was not acknowledged then there is room for doubt whether it was heard or not. If it was not heard there is a need to find out why.
GA should always be anticipated and planned for, I do; it is not difficult to think about it and having done so, not difficult to execute.
HD your condescension is appreciated as always. I note your handle says Director. Do you have any experience flying aircraft?
And yes I have ATC experience at at least one airport very similar to Gatwick. I understand the pressure to move the traffic, but if you're issuing landing clearances / go around instructions crossing the threshold you're running it too tight. Make a call earlier for the go around or expect the unexpected from the pilot. He can't read your mind (thank god)
And yes I have ATC experience at at least one airport very similar to Gatwick. I understand the pressure to move the traffic, but if you're issuing landing clearances / go around instructions crossing the threshold you're running it too tight. Make a call earlier for the go around or expect the unexpected from the pilot. He can't read your mind (thank god)
