BA 747 off the RW in MIA

[Carnage Matey!]

Any go around requires a report in BA, but its no big deal and takes about 5 minutes to produce.

[bomarc]

misd again

sorry, I won't list all of the airlines that require some sort of form to be filled out regarding go arounds below 1000' afe.

mine does and it is a very large carrier that begins with a vowel...very few airlines are really different in these things...

and yes it only takes about 5 minutes, but 5 minutes without being paid.

but for the atc people that the comment was aimed at: continue the approach is fine, but be super duper on top of things and say: expect landing clearance on very short final...that way if you get busy or the freq is blocked at the last second we can go ahead and land instead of going around ( all other factors being considered)

I really hate negotiating for a landing clearance while in the flare...it spoils my grease jobs ;-)



all the best

[paulthornton]

Now forgive me for wading in here, as I'm just a lowly PPL causing some thread creep, but:

Originally Posted by bomarc

misd again
...that way if you get busy or the freq is blocked at the last second we can go ahead and land instead of going around ( all other factors being considered)

I'd never land without a positive landing clearance from ATC. There have been several threads about this here in the past with people wading in on one hand saying "Yes, but its CAVOK and the runway is 4000m and there are no other aircraft around; so the landing is safe" and others saying "be that as it may, its not legal."

I've been in plenty of busy fields where I've been told to expect a late landing clearance, and sometimes been told "Don't acknowledge, clear to land" on very short final - but the point surely remains that if you plonk the wheels down on the runway without being cleared to do so you might have a lot of explaining to do if all didn't turn out quite as expected.

Paul.

[christn]

If you are awaiting a late landing clearance you should be aware of the reason (a/c ahead, a/c crossing etc). If the frequency is then blocked/busy and you cannot get the clearance, provided you are certain that there is no longer a confliction I believe it would acceptable to land. Better get it safely on the ground and then sort it out than go-around into busy airspace with minimal fuel and a tired crew after a 13 hr flight.

Obviously if any doubt about the safety (not legality!) of landing - go-around!

[Dream Land]

Never heard anyone demand a landing clearance but I don't have the vast amount of ATC experience that some people have, "continue approach" is even heard more frequently in Asia where 10 miles used to be the normal separation but that now seems to be changing.

[bomarc]

paul thorton

by all means do what you think is safest for you and your plane, but:

you mentioned you were a PPL. You might not have an instrument rating. I offer this.

If you are cleared to land, you are cleared to land.

If you are told to continue the approach and do not receive landing clearance, you must not land (unless using far part 61.3)


HOWEVER in the world of IFR flight, when one is told to "expect clearance" and then does not receive it, and you can reasonably determine that the clearance would have been issued except for some problem like stuck mic on freq, or something else along those lines (and there may be many things), then you could act in accordance with the expected clearance.

Indeed the whole lost communications regulations includes the concept of "expected clearance".

now you might be in the UK or another country, check your nation's regs, but they might be close.

and of course if you are not operating IFR, then VFR would determine your fate.

and welcome to the world of decision making.

AND after all of this, talk it over with an aviation lawyer and try to figure it all out...and that's why I would ask/request for "an expected clearance to land by ( fill in the blank: middle marker, threshold, etc)


no harshness, nor real advice is intended...just food for thought.

[paulthornton]

Bomarc,

I was thinking VFR at the time of my post, yes, at fields where a go-around followed by a quick visual circuit is no issue. What you say makes perfect sense out there in the IFR world.

Of course, it seems that these days even if you follow accepted procedures, and something happens, you can end up with an uncomfortable time (I'm thinking of the brazil midair here, but that is very much another thread).

Thanks for the input - was indeed food for thought.

Paul.

[bomarc]

dear paul thorton

as you know, the world of airliners is IFR. I am truly glad we had a chance to share our perspectives, and yes, maybe IF I was back in my piper cherokee ( 32 years ago, pa28 140 was my first solo , N41949) at my small airport near San Francisco I would go around too.

now of course, with all the CRAP an airline pilot has to put up with, better to yell at ATC, then to be yelled at by the chief pilot for not writing up a goaround report.

and I will bet both of us are glad we live and fly in aviation's first world and not the third!

[toothpic]

Two's in wrote:

Let me try to guess the "Sun" headline;

Daring Blair in British Air late flare scare after using rare cheap rate fare - inspection at MIA reveals only fair wear and tear.

Here for sun and sea on a freeby from a Bee Gee,but left early as Saddam dangly!!