Gatwick Airport plane (allegedly) lands without clearance
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zonoma, guess I'm wondering if they acknowledged it or read it back, "Maroc ***" vs "Maroc ***, going around". First case could indicate they thought it was a landing clearance, confirmation bias or the like.
Both of them could count as acknowledging the transmission -- depends on how NATS wanted it to appear in the media.
Edit:
Just realized my original post had "cleared to land" in the readback. I meant "go around".
Both of them could count as acknowledging the transmission -- depends on how NATS wanted it to appear in the media.
Edit:
Just realized my original post had "cleared to land" in the readback. I meant "go around".
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not really. VanZanten committed a multitude of sins that day, but intentionally refusing to comply with a corrrectly understood ATC instruction was not one of them.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the transcript provided earlier here by "clearanceoverthekeys" is genuine then I would bet bad CRM is probably where the problem lies.
I would not be surprised tos see 2 captains in front or a huge age difference between PF and PM.
Since we are on the prehistoric stories pre English Level 4, and Tupolev 134s , one has to remember the non-standard phraseology of those days where eeverybody had its own words to describe the same thing : Go-around, Overshoot, Pull up, etc..
I would not be surprised tos see 2 captains in front or a huge age difference between PF and PM.
Since we are on the prehistoric stories pre English Level 4, and Tupolev 134s , one has to remember the non-standard phraseology of those days where eeverybody had its own words to describe the same thing : Go-around, Overshoot, Pull up, etc..
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody here who thinks that in all but the most exceptional circumstances not Going Around when asked to do so by ATC is OK is not really a professional pilot.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I don't doubt the authenticity of the transcript provided in #73, there is something obviously missing. Without any idea of the timescales involved between the transmissions, the transcript is of little meaningful use and merely invites criticism of the non-native pilots involved.
I don't work in tower ATC, but those pilots and controllers who work daily in that environment, trying to squeeze quarts into pint pots, have my admiration. The posts that have said similar things about crowded runways in the TMA are thinking along the right lines, IMO.
I don't work in tower ATC, but those pilots and controllers who work daily in that environment, trying to squeeze quarts into pint pots, have my admiration. The posts that have said similar things about crowded runways in the TMA are thinking along the right lines, IMO.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMGC ; ATC rarely ask you to Go Around. They often order you to do so. In all walks of life, better be armed with a good reason for refusing an order ! I was observer on a big bus into LHR one time when because of the high level of automation, we went to something called mini ground speed (or something like that) when Capt re-selected auto from managed (or something like that - er, I am a simple Boeing driver) ............BUT....... we got awfully close to the preceeding, destroying the immaculate seperation (albeit it tight) by ATC. We got a very clear order.............."AC call sign, GO AROUND, GO AROUND". WE went around.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago when on the takeoff roll in a 747 from a major USA airport we were ordered to stop by ATC. We were about 10 knots short of V1 and chose to ignore the call. We also had in sight ahead a low flying helicopter which was slightly closer than we would have liked it to be but still well clear and we guessed that was the reason. Rejecting the takeoff in a 747 classic at that speed would have meant brakes overheating and many flat tyres.
Once airborne tower said they had ordered us to stop due to a helicopter infringing the zone but as we were airborne contact departure good day. Slavish adherence to ATC who may not understand the nuances and limitations for the particular aircraft you are flying is not necessarily safer. To our mind a rejected takeoff in a jumbo just prior to V1 was more dangerous than getting airborne and having to take evasive action. Stopping after V1 may have resulted in a hull loss and ATC have no way of knowing how close to V1 we are.
One of the posters above stated that if he was a passenger on a plane and he was instructed to goaround he would hope the pilots would do so. If I was on a plane with insufficient fuel for a goaround or a plane with smoke in the flight deck and the pilots could see sufficient runway to stop on I would rather they continue and land. As always we do not know the details and the pilots may have made a serious error. Maybe not.
Once airborne tower said they had ordered us to stop due to a helicopter infringing the zone but as we were airborne contact departure good day. Slavish adherence to ATC who may not understand the nuances and limitations for the particular aircraft you are flying is not necessarily safer. To our mind a rejected takeoff in a jumbo just prior to V1 was more dangerous than getting airborne and having to take evasive action. Stopping after V1 may have resulted in a hull loss and ATC have no way of knowing how close to V1 we are.
One of the posters above stated that if he was a passenger on a plane and he was instructed to goaround he would hope the pilots would do so. If I was on a plane with insufficient fuel for a goaround or a plane with smoke in the flight deck and the pilots could see sufficient runway to stop on I would rather they continue and land. As always we do not know the details and the pilots may have made a serious error. Maybe not.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the posters above stated that if he was a passenger on a plane and he was instructed to goaround he would hope the pilots would do so. If I was on a plane with insufficient fuel for a goaround or a plane with smoke in the flight deck and the pilots could see sufficient runway to stop on I would rather they continue and land. As always we do not know the details and the pilots may have made a serious error. Maybe not.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assumption is the mother of all .…ups!
One of the posters above (me) assumed that it was understood that his (my) statement regarded a pilot in a perfectly working aircraft. Obviously if you are the pilot of an aircraft with any malfunction, fuel emergency, etc. (which you probably have declared an emergency for) then you are required to asses the situation and make your decision to either comply with ATC or say “unable”. In this case you would also have your arguments readily available afterwards when asked to explain why you chose to ignore the order.
What I referred to as unacceptable (not professional) is the decision to ignore the instruction from ATC based on the fact that you A) did not understand the language of the controller, B) found it inconvenient, C) considered a Go Around an emergency manoeuvre.
I also agree that during the take-off roll, there is a certain point where the decision to abort is more risky then the decision to continue, and that ATC does not have the ability to judge how far in the take-off process you are (when close to V1 speed), however a landing situation (Go Around) is a different story.
What I referred to as unacceptable (not professional) is the decision to ignore the instruction from ATC based on the fact that you A) did not understand the language of the controller, B) found it inconvenient, C) considered a Go Around an emergency manoeuvre.
I also agree that during the take-off roll, there is a certain point where the decision to abort is more risky then the decision to continue, and that ATC does not have the ability to judge how far in the take-off process you are (when close to V1 speed), however a landing situation (Go Around) is a different story.
The go around instruction in post 73 is the same phraseology as used by the controller in the BA038 incident at Heathrow.
If you listen to that recording on Youtube and this one was similar it is hard to imagine how the instruction (or the urgency) could be misunderstood.
Certainly the Gulf Air pilot got it in one.
If you listen to that recording on Youtube and this one was similar it is hard to imagine how the instruction (or the urgency) could be misunderstood.
Certainly the Gulf Air pilot got it in one.
Cancelling take-off clearance is already covered in the UK MATS Part 1 i.e.13 Cancelling Take-off Clearance
13.1 If take-off clearance has to be cancelled before the take-off run has commenced, the pilot shall be instructed to hold position and to acknowledge the instruction.
13.2 In certain circumstances the aerodrome controller may consider that it is necessary to cancel take-off clearance after the aircraft has commenced the take-off run. In this event the pilot shall be instructed to stop immediately and to acknowledge the instruction.
13.3 The cancellation of a take-off clearance after an aircraft has commenced its take-off roll should only occur when the aircraft will be in serious and imminent danger should it continue. Controllers should be aware of the potential for an aircraft to overrun the end of the runway if the take-off is abandoned at a late stage; this is particularly so with large aircraft or those operating close to their performance limit, such as at maximum take-off mass, in high ambient temperatures or when the runway braking
action may be adversely affected. Because of this risk, even if a take-off clearance is cancelled, the commander of the aircraft may consider it safer to continue the takeoff than to attempt to stop the aircraft.
13.4 As the aircraft accelerates, the risks associated with abandoning the take-off increase significantly. For modern jet aircraft, at speeds above 80kt flight deck procedures balance the seriousness of a failure with the increased risk associated with rejecting the takeoff.
For example, many system warnings and cautions on the flight deck may be inhibited during the take-off roll, and between 80kt and V1 most aircraft operators define a limited number of emergency conditions in which the take-off will be rejected. Consequently, at speeds above 80kt, the take-off clearance should normally only be cancelled if there is a serious risk of collision should the aircraft continue its take-off, or if substantial debris is observed or reported on the runway in a location likely to result in damage to the aircraft.
The critical speed will be dependent on the aircraft type and configuration, environmental conditions and a range of other factors but, as a general rule, for modern jet aircraft, it will be in the region of 80kt airspeed.
The typical distance at which a jet aircraft reaches 80kt is approximately 300m from the point at which the take-off roll is commenced.
The unit MATS Part 2 shall contain further guidance on the likely position on the runway at which those aircraft types commonly using the aerodrome typically reach 80kt.
13.5 Controllers should also be aware of the possibility that an aircraft that abandons its take-off may suffer overheated brakes or another abnormal situation and should be prepared to declare the appropriate category of emergency or to provide other suitable assistance.
13.1 If take-off clearance has to be cancelled before the take-off run has commenced, the pilot shall be instructed to hold position and to acknowledge the instruction.
13.2 In certain circumstances the aerodrome controller may consider that it is necessary to cancel take-off clearance after the aircraft has commenced the take-off run. In this event the pilot shall be instructed to stop immediately and to acknowledge the instruction.
13.3 The cancellation of a take-off clearance after an aircraft has commenced its take-off roll should only occur when the aircraft will be in serious and imminent danger should it continue. Controllers should be aware of the potential for an aircraft to overrun the end of the runway if the take-off is abandoned at a late stage; this is particularly so with large aircraft or those operating close to their performance limit, such as at maximum take-off mass, in high ambient temperatures or when the runway braking
action may be adversely affected. Because of this risk, even if a take-off clearance is cancelled, the commander of the aircraft may consider it safer to continue the takeoff than to attempt to stop the aircraft.
13.4 As the aircraft accelerates, the risks associated with abandoning the take-off increase significantly. For modern jet aircraft, at speeds above 80kt flight deck procedures balance the seriousness of a failure with the increased risk associated with rejecting the takeoff.
For example, many system warnings and cautions on the flight deck may be inhibited during the take-off roll, and between 80kt and V1 most aircraft operators define a limited number of emergency conditions in which the take-off will be rejected. Consequently, at speeds above 80kt, the take-off clearance should normally only be cancelled if there is a serious risk of collision should the aircraft continue its take-off, or if substantial debris is observed or reported on the runway in a location likely to result in damage to the aircraft.
The critical speed will be dependent on the aircraft type and configuration, environmental conditions and a range of other factors but, as a general rule, for modern jet aircraft, it will be in the region of 80kt airspeed.
The typical distance at which a jet aircraft reaches 80kt is approximately 300m from the point at which the take-off roll is commenced.
The unit MATS Part 2 shall contain further guidance on the likely position on the runway at which those aircraft types commonly using the aerodrome typically reach 80kt.
13.5 Controllers should also be aware of the possibility that an aircraft that abandons its take-off may suffer overheated brakes or another abnormal situation and should be prepared to declare the appropriate category of emergency or to provide other suitable assistance.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Age: 56
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FMGC,
From the last line of your quote methinks that your company may have a problem with its 'Just Culture' and the level of trust of company management.
We report GA's confidentially to our Flight Safety Dept and include whether it was weather related/ATC related/unstable approach etc. The "Management" do not get any details. This contributes to the Safety Assurance of our SMS as repeated instances of GA's at certain airports or at certain times of the day can show whether there are issues with an individual ATCO's performance or training (we're also responsible for the ATC at our base), a poorly designed approach and so on. A go-around may be the pilot's decision, but that does not make it the pilot's fault.
If a pilot feels he'd rather risk the passengers, crew and airframe by landing when he should go-around because he has such a big issue with a few lines on a page, what other paperwork relating to the flight could he not be bothered to take seriously?
Our pilots know the reasoning behind the report, trust the organizational culture and believe that sharing their experience can enhance safety for all their colleagues.
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
We report GA's confidentially to our Flight Safety Dept and include whether it was weather related/ATC related/unstable approach etc. The "Management" do not get any details. This contributes to the Safety Assurance of our SMS as repeated instances of GA's at certain airports or at certain times of the day can show whether there are issues with an individual ATCO's performance or training (we're also responsible for the ATC at our base), a poorly designed approach and so on. A go-around may be the pilot's decision, but that does not make it the pilot's fault.
If a pilot feels he'd rather risk the passengers, crew and airframe by landing when he should go-around because he has such a big issue with a few lines on a page, what other paperwork relating to the flight could he not be bothered to take seriously?
Our pilots know the reasoning behind the report, trust the organizational culture and believe that sharing their experience can enhance safety for all their colleagues.
If you for any reason consider a Go Around in a functioning airplane, anything else then a routine manoeuvre, regardless of the type of aircraft you are flying, seat position upfront, company etc., then sorry, but you should not be there in the first place.
In several decades of flying, except when training, I have probably had to go around less than ten times. So hardly routine, at least for me.
What are other peoples experiences with Go Arounds? Done hundreds of them? Or once every three or four years? I'm curious now.
The issuing of late landing clearances is, in my opinion, not good practice. I find it preferable in places such as Paris CDG where you are cleared even with one or two aircraft in front of you, and the decision to land is back with the crew.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFFICIAL GUIDANCE?
Read this yesterday consequent to a renewed CAA instruction:
At the initiation of any go around manoeuvre, especially one near to or even in contact with the runway, workload is significantly increased so that they are likely to be functioning much nearer their mental capacity than during the approach phase. Notwithstanding their need to communicate with aircraft making a go around to assure traffic separation, Air Traffic Control, need to recognise that this is a time to keep communication to a minimum commensurate with safety. The only additional communication which will be helpful to pilots beyond instructions essential for separation are those which simplify the go around being flown - for example by increasing the stop altitude or issuing a radar heading in place of a complex tracking sequence. The message is that ATC can make an important contribution to go-around safety.
SKYbrary - Go-around Execution
Seems that ATC should not give routine, only emergency instructions at a late phase in landing. It also suggests that the capacity to decipher transmissions at that time might be diminished.
At the initiation of any go around manoeuvre, especially one near to or even in contact with the runway, workload is significantly increased so that they are likely to be functioning much nearer their mental capacity than during the approach phase. Notwithstanding their need to communicate with aircraft making a go around to assure traffic separation, Air Traffic Control, need to recognise that this is a time to keep communication to a minimum commensurate with safety. The only additional communication which will be helpful to pilots beyond instructions essential for separation are those which simplify the go around being flown - for example by increasing the stop altitude or issuing a radar heading in place of a complex tracking sequence. The message is that ATC can make an important contribution to go-around safety.
SKYbrary - Go-around Execution
Seems that ATC should not give routine, only emergency instructions at a late phase in landing. It also suggests that the capacity to decipher transmissions at that time might be diminished.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CFE
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
207592:
I agree, ATC emergency messages should be just that and not combined with other information.
Message should be clear and brief.
A message such as "EZ 123: cancel take-off clearance" is not clear and does not convey a sens of urgency
Why not say something like "EZ 123: STOP AND HOLD NOW" repeated twice
Same for go arounds': "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW" "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW"
when crew acknowledges, ATC can go on with further instructions: "EZ 123: maintain 3000 heading 180...." or "EZ 123: take-off clearance runway 27..."
I agree, ATC emergency messages should be just that and not combined with other information.
Message should be clear and brief.
A message such as "EZ 123: cancel take-off clearance" is not clear and does not convey a sens of urgency
Why not say something like "EZ 123: STOP AND HOLD NOW" repeated twice
Same for go arounds': "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW" "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW"
when crew acknowledges, ATC can go on with further instructions: "EZ 123: maintain 3000 heading 180...." or "EZ 123: take-off clearance runway 27..."
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 285ft agl
Age: 35
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A message such as "EZ 123: cancel take-off clearance" is not clear and does not convey a sens of urgency
If the aircraft has commenced its roll then 'Stop Immediately' x2 is used which does give a sense of urgency. What is more important though is the way it is given to the pilot so the urgency really comes from the voice of ATC and not the wording.
I agree with you that further instructions after a Go Around should only be given once the aircraft is in positive climb unless there are overriding safety implications.