Land or Go Around?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remarkable how we all have differing views on events in life. Nothing threatening or wrong with that. We're all human, and this is a human trait. It's called subjectivity. Yet there are things in life where subjectivity has no place. Landing without a clearance is one of them.
If the reader is a low time pilot pondering what the black of night has in store for him and his limited aviation experience, this thread may have raised some difficult questions.
If the reader is a more experienced pilot who recalls his training, recognizes the rules and the right of ATC and no-one else to give a landing clearance, and the sanctity of same, these are not difficult questions.
What I feel is going on in this thread is that some posters are attempting to avoid making the difficult but fundamentally correct decision in a challenging situation.
Look for the light. If you're at 2 miles or 6 miles and Tower are not responding, transmit blind "Tower xxx123, 2 mile final runway xx, confirm cleared to land?"
Assuming the radio does not spark up and the answer to your question is an emphatic no, they'll give you a red light and you have to go-round.
If the answer to your question is yes, the green comes out and you land.
If a light is not brought out to shine at you, you cannot take the matter into your own hands and land the airplane. You as a Captain don't have the authority to do so. You simply don't have the full picture or the legal right to decide on the ability of the runway to accept you and your (280) tonne airplane.
Laws are a wonderful thing.
Before anyone gets on his high horse with "a Captain has the right to secure the safety of his airplane", just think about what that statement means. First and foremost, of course the Captain has that right. I for one am not doubting or disputing that fact.
Yet if there are established procedures for radio failure and what to do when NOT in possession of a clearance to land and a Captain ignores said procedures and lands without a clearance, it would be difficult to argue that action was not taken for reasons other than expediency.
If you don't have a clearance to land, go round and follow up with what you're trained and asked to do (transmit on another frequency, try another radio set, deselect the transmitter in case of an open mike, try another transmitter, try listening on the NDB (how old is that?), squawk 76, use your cell phone, follow the lost comms procedure).
Stick to procedures. Don't be led on by the siren song of those who say it's my plane and I'll do what I consider is right. What's right is right. In the very, very rare case where what's right is not as clear as it could be, even more reason to follow procedure.
Finally, if things become awfully complicated and overwhelming, break whatever you've got down into smaller parts. Take one step at a time. You have this problem, and it won't go away. It is that you're on final without a landing clearance and the radio seems not to be working.
First things first....
If the reader is a low time pilot pondering what the black of night has in store for him and his limited aviation experience, this thread may have raised some difficult questions.
If the reader is a more experienced pilot who recalls his training, recognizes the rules and the right of ATC and no-one else to give a landing clearance, and the sanctity of same, these are not difficult questions.
What I feel is going on in this thread is that some posters are attempting to avoid making the difficult but fundamentally correct decision in a challenging situation.
Look for the light. If you're at 2 miles or 6 miles and Tower are not responding, transmit blind "Tower xxx123, 2 mile final runway xx, confirm cleared to land?"
Assuming the radio does not spark up and the answer to your question is an emphatic no, they'll give you a red light and you have to go-round.
If the answer to your question is yes, the green comes out and you land.
If a light is not brought out to shine at you, you cannot take the matter into your own hands and land the airplane. You as a Captain don't have the authority to do so. You simply don't have the full picture or the legal right to decide on the ability of the runway to accept you and your (280) tonne airplane.
Laws are a wonderful thing.
Before anyone gets on his high horse with "a Captain has the right to secure the safety of his airplane", just think about what that statement means. First and foremost, of course the Captain has that right. I for one am not doubting or disputing that fact.
Yet if there are established procedures for radio failure and what to do when NOT in possession of a clearance to land and a Captain ignores said procedures and lands without a clearance, it would be difficult to argue that action was not taken for reasons other than expediency.
If you don't have a clearance to land, go round and follow up with what you're trained and asked to do (transmit on another frequency, try another radio set, deselect the transmitter in case of an open mike, try another transmitter, try listening on the NDB (how old is that?), squawk 76, use your cell phone, follow the lost comms procedure).
Stick to procedures. Don't be led on by the siren song of those who say it's my plane and I'll do what I consider is right. What's right is right. In the very, very rare case where what's right is not as clear as it could be, even more reason to follow procedure.
Finally, if things become awfully complicated and overwhelming, break whatever you've got down into smaller parts. Take one step at a time. You have this problem, and it won't go away. It is that you're on final without a landing clearance and the radio seems not to be working.
First things first....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4PWs,
I generally do support the idea of going around, especially if you can´t confirm the the rwy is clear and you suspect a temporary loss of comm scenario.....however, there are some circumstances where going around could complicate things as well.
You mentioned that there seem to be 2 lines of thought here. Those who consider the safety and legal aspect of landing without a clearance and those who also consider the problems related to going around. I´ll get back to this in a few minutes.
As I said before, you observe this difference and consider it a natural thing called subjectivity and at the same time make your poing very clear that there can´t be any subjectivities in a situation like the one described. I have a slightly different name for what you call subjectivity. it´s JUDGEMENT. The way I see it you can´t just say "I´ll go around under pretty much every conceivable scenario if I can´t get the clearance I need". I am not going to get in the technical stuff just now. What I am trying to say is that, maybe landing without a clearance is for you as dangerous as thinking in absolutes is for me....especially in aviation. I am perfectly aware that certain things are not open to discussion. Taking off with a NO GO item is a no no, going below your minimums unless in a terribly critical fuel scenario is another big no no...just to give you a few examples...but this situation is just a bit different and precisely what I was looking for when I started this thread was comments, experiences and opinions (yours included) because I am a rule follower just like you, but at the same time I understand that there are some situations where following a procedure, or a rule, may lead to disaster (remember the MD11 of a canadian airline that had smoke in the cabin and proceeded to dump fuel only to burn, lose control and crash ?, they followed the procedures).
Here comes the technical part...
What if that day (or night) your fuel status wasn´t the ideal, plus there was plenty of traffic around, plus a/c are being radar vectored to a final approach and now you go around as published and then have to fly the approach from an initial approach fix located at the outer marker...now everyone is going one direction and you´re in the opposite...I know if you´re under radar contact they´ll see you, but what if they can´t see someone else or what if they just don´t have time to divert everyone...besides, how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn? right turn? what if there´s no radar, mountains all around...I believe ATC expects you to go to your alternate if you go completely lost comm and can´t see a thing, rather than trying a 2nd approach without radios...at least they know what you´ve filed and they´ll keep their eyes open. ATC also expects you to get out of the system as soon as you can, and who can tell me that landing on a clear runway without a clearance is such a fault, considering that the point of absolute safety is on the ground. Taking those passengers back in the air may or may not be the safest couse of action, depending on the circumstances. Again, what if wx conditions are deteriorating and there´s a storm building up fast dead ahead. Also what if this happens after 14 hours of flight, everyone´s tired, human performance is not the same...landing without a clearance is not the same as landing when instructed not to do so, let´s not confuse that..
4PWs, once again. I greatly respect your opinion, that comes from your experience and knowledge, but it is my understanding that certain situations may dictate good judgement to be exercised with no delay, and landing without a clearance sure sounds like a terrible thing, but in the end could be just as valid as going around.
To be clear, my tendency would be to go around, but not after having analyzed the pros and cons and having used all my resources to contact them the way I can, and if I ever suspect I´ll endanger my crew and passengers by putting them back in the air inside a deaf, dumb and somehow blind aircraft, I´ll land while I can still see.
Thank you and everyone else for posting and helping me and others become better and SAFER pilots.
Regards,
SW.
I generally do support the idea of going around, especially if you can´t confirm the the rwy is clear and you suspect a temporary loss of comm scenario.....however, there are some circumstances where going around could complicate things as well.
You mentioned that there seem to be 2 lines of thought here. Those who consider the safety and legal aspect of landing without a clearance and those who also consider the problems related to going around. I´ll get back to this in a few minutes.
As I said before, you observe this difference and consider it a natural thing called subjectivity and at the same time make your poing very clear that there can´t be any subjectivities in a situation like the one described. I have a slightly different name for what you call subjectivity. it´s JUDGEMENT. The way I see it you can´t just say "I´ll go around under pretty much every conceivable scenario if I can´t get the clearance I need". I am not going to get in the technical stuff just now. What I am trying to say is that, maybe landing without a clearance is for you as dangerous as thinking in absolutes is for me....especially in aviation. I am perfectly aware that certain things are not open to discussion. Taking off with a NO GO item is a no no, going below your minimums unless in a terribly critical fuel scenario is another big no no...just to give you a few examples...but this situation is just a bit different and precisely what I was looking for when I started this thread was comments, experiences and opinions (yours included) because I am a rule follower just like you, but at the same time I understand that there are some situations where following a procedure, or a rule, may lead to disaster (remember the MD11 of a canadian airline that had smoke in the cabin and proceeded to dump fuel only to burn, lose control and crash ?, they followed the procedures).
Here comes the technical part...
What if that day (or night) your fuel status wasn´t the ideal, plus there was plenty of traffic around, plus a/c are being radar vectored to a final approach and now you go around as published and then have to fly the approach from an initial approach fix located at the outer marker...now everyone is going one direction and you´re in the opposite...I know if you´re under radar contact they´ll see you, but what if they can´t see someone else or what if they just don´t have time to divert everyone...besides, how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn? right turn? what if there´s no radar, mountains all around...I believe ATC expects you to go to your alternate if you go completely lost comm and can´t see a thing, rather than trying a 2nd approach without radios...at least they know what you´ve filed and they´ll keep their eyes open. ATC also expects you to get out of the system as soon as you can, and who can tell me that landing on a clear runway without a clearance is such a fault, considering that the point of absolute safety is on the ground. Taking those passengers back in the air may or may not be the safest couse of action, depending on the circumstances. Again, what if wx conditions are deteriorating and there´s a storm building up fast dead ahead. Also what if this happens after 14 hours of flight, everyone´s tired, human performance is not the same...landing without a clearance is not the same as landing when instructed not to do so, let´s not confuse that..
4PWs, once again. I greatly respect your opinion, that comes from your experience and knowledge, but it is my understanding that certain situations may dictate good judgement to be exercised with no delay, and landing without a clearance sure sounds like a terrible thing, but in the end could be just as valid as going around.
To be clear, my tendency would be to go around, but not after having analyzed the pros and cons and having used all my resources to contact them the way I can, and if I ever suspect I´ll endanger my crew and passengers by putting them back in the air inside a deaf, dumb and somehow blind aircraft, I´ll land while I can still see.
Thank you and everyone else for posting and helping me and others become better and SAFER pilots.
Regards,
SW.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(remember the MD11 of a canadian airline that had smoke in the cabin and proceeded to dump fuel only to burn, lose control and crash ?, they followed the procedures).
What if that day (or night) your fuel status wasn´t the ideal,
Have a look at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247102
I know if you´re under radar contact they´ll see you, but what if they can´t see someone else or what if they just don´t have time to divert everyone...besides, how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn? right turn?
what if there´s no radar, mountains all around...I believe ATC expects you to go to your alternate if you go completely lost comm and can´t see a thing, rather than trying a 2nd approach without radios...at least they know what you´ve filed and they´ll keep their eyes open.
you got TCAS?
Now unless the airport's particular lost comms procedure is "do not proceed to land at this airport and divert"... you follow any lost comms procedure for the airport, and if not, for the region/country.
Even in a non-radar situation, a Lost Comms doesn't mean you can immediately land without clearance. Go-around, 7600 if you must... watch your TCAS, remember the other traffic, then redo the approach under lost comms.
If wx is deteriorating, if you're able to divert, then continue to land at destination, and if unable, divert. In this situation, it depends on the circumstances. If the storm is too near, it wouldn't be wise to continue the approach as if you do go around, you'll be in that wx... If you force the landing, and WX is moving in faster than you anticipated, you'll end up with a broken plane... safer and cheaper for everyone for you to hold or divert.... doesn't take a lost comms to make it different. A fuel situation does...*see above*
besides, how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn? right turn? what if there´s no radar, mountains all around.
It's a go-around unless you must land.. then land. *grin*
PK-KAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well PK-KAR sorry for my mistake about the MD-11.
As for the rest of your quotes, again....I was just sumarizing a set of scenarios that would put the aircraft in a sensitive situation if a go around is executed. My "unideal fuel status" comment didn´t go as far as minimum fuel status that would deserve a notification to ATC, but just maybe a "just enough fuel" scenario (hope I am clearer with this one)
There seems to be a "by the book" response for almost every scenario, but things could go a lot worse than planned and when ingredients start to add up, you and I know the mixture could be "flammable" so to say.
Now pls don´t think I am trying to get a shortcut and just land in order to avoid having to go thru the hassle of following a lost comm procedure....that´s not what I am trying to say. What I am saying is that there´s a combination of situations that in my opinion COULD justify landing.
All your explanations would definitely get very good score in a sim, where you just turn the motion off, but in reality, introducing all the variables possible, different languages, unfamiliar places, no extra fuel, etc. a landing on a visibly clear runway should not be considered a crime. It ´s a measure to get a pontentially conflicting airplane out of the system. And it is my interpretation that if you ´ve lost comm you can remain VMC and land at an appropriate airport and sort things out at 0 knots, with a fuel flow of 0 pph, etc etc etc...you ´re not breaking the law and shouldn´t be hanged for doing that. It´s contemplated in the books too.
It seems that some of you think that if you land without a clearance you´re completely unprotected or exposed and involved in a legal scandal. I still don´t see why that should happen. I said more than once that I would seriously consider a go around, but I keep saying that would not only consider a go around, but also the other option. As pilots we always have a set of choices and what I´ve been trying to say is that I don´t believe that going around is the ONLY CORRECT choice here for all the possible scenarios and their combinations.
Regards and thank you.
SW.
As for the rest of your quotes, again....I was just sumarizing a set of scenarios that would put the aircraft in a sensitive situation if a go around is executed. My "unideal fuel status" comment didn´t go as far as minimum fuel status that would deserve a notification to ATC, but just maybe a "just enough fuel" scenario (hope I am clearer with this one)
There seems to be a "by the book" response for almost every scenario, but things could go a lot worse than planned and when ingredients start to add up, you and I know the mixture could be "flammable" so to say.
Now pls don´t think I am trying to get a shortcut and just land in order to avoid having to go thru the hassle of following a lost comm procedure....that´s not what I am trying to say. What I am saying is that there´s a combination of situations that in my opinion COULD justify landing.
All your explanations would definitely get very good score in a sim, where you just turn the motion off, but in reality, introducing all the variables possible, different languages, unfamiliar places, no extra fuel, etc. a landing on a visibly clear runway should not be considered a crime. It ´s a measure to get a pontentially conflicting airplane out of the system. And it is my interpretation that if you ´ve lost comm you can remain VMC and land at an appropriate airport and sort things out at 0 knots, with a fuel flow of 0 pph, etc etc etc...you ´re not breaking the law and shouldn´t be hanged for doing that. It´s contemplated in the books too.
It seems that some of you think that if you land without a clearance you´re completely unprotected or exposed and involved in a legal scandal. I still don´t see why that should happen. I said more than once that I would seriously consider a go around, but I keep saying that would not only consider a go around, but also the other option. As pilots we always have a set of choices and what I´ve been trying to say is that I don´t believe that going around is the ONLY CORRECT choice here for all the possible scenarios and their combinations.
Regards and thank you.
SW.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Bagheera at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=283048
Let me tell you a story.....
About 8 years ago I was working as a ground movement controller as part of a team of 5 (Air, Ground, tower assistant, Approach and approach assistant). It was a winter weekend, a quiet day, approaching dusk with a low sun in the sky at the upwind end of the runway.
The Air controller cleared somebody for take off and gave a conditional clearance to an operations vehicle to enter behind for a runway inspection, both clearances were heard and read back. At this time there was an ATP on a closing heading for the localiser about 9miles out, obviously working Approach. The frequency in Tower went quiet.
The ATP was now on a 5 mile final and tower tried to contact with a "xxx123 are you on frequency?" They then turned to me and said "My frequency sounds dead". I selected the tower frequency on receive only and got him to try again. I heard nothing. I switched to transmit and tried....Nothing.
The tower assistant picked up on what was going on and was grabbing for the Aldis lamp and the red and green lenses. Tower told him to attach the red and show it to the operations vehicle on the runway (which was travelling away from us and the landing aircraft) and then to the landing aircraft, now inside 4 miles. Meanwhile I contacted approach and told them if they had the aircraft or re-established contact to sent it around. They transmitted blind as did I on the ground frequency. The aircraft continued to a blocked runway and time started to slow down in that horrible way.
The approach assistant, meantime, got in touch with airfield operations and told them to try the vehicle on the base operations frequency and tell it to vacate immediately.
We saw in tower as the the ops vehicle swerved off the runway on to the grass and clear of the runway strip. The tower assistant switched to the green lens and shone it at the ATP now 2 miles from touchdown. The tower controller had been transmitting blind and now the radio delivered feedback and he confirmed the landing clearance and got a readback.
Whilst taxying in I explained to the aircraft that we had a comms failure and asked if he had seen the lights. The pilot responded that he had believed that it was the aircraft that had the comms failure, that the PNF had been trying to sort it out, that yes he had seen a bright green light but wasnt sure what it meant, he had seen the runway was clear and so elected to land. I asked if he had seen the vehicle on the runway, after a period of silence he said that he had better call in.
The wash up...
If only the JCB hadnt dug through the cables...If only the stanby frequency hadnt taken so long to kick in...If only there wasnt an assumption that the frequency was quiet because it was a quiet day...If only there wasnt an assumption that the problem was on the aircraft...If only the landing aircraft had been on frequency when the ops vehicle was cleared onto the runway...If only the ops vehicle had inspected towards the landing aircraft...If only the setting sun hadnt hidden the ops vehicle from view...If only the PNF hadnt been heads down trying to sort the problem out...If only they knew their light signals and where to look for them...etc etc
These could have been the points I would have been thinking and saying at the subsequent board of enquiry. Fortunately the swiss cheese effect was defeated by good teamwork and maybe a little bit of luck.
Many of our procedures have changed and equipment been upgraded because of this incident. Please do likewise, plug the cheese as early as possible. If no landing clearance, GO AROUND.
The Oz regs state,
AIP ENR 1.1.13.4 A pilot in command must not land unless the specific clearance ‘CLEARED TO LAND’ has been received. (Their bolding, not mine, and no qualifications are attached)
CAR 167 Where aerodrome control is in operation at an aerodrome, the pilot in command of an aircraft forming part of the aerodrome traffic shall:
(a) maintain a continuous listening watch on the radio frequency authorised for communications with aerodrome control service, or, if this is not possible, keep a watch for instructions which may be issued by visual signals; and
(b) obtain, either by radio or visual signals, prior authorisation for any manoeuvre preparatory to or associated with taxi-ing, landing or taking-off.
CAR 169A A pilot in command:
(a) who contravenes regulation 166 or 167; or
(b) who flies an aircraft in contravention of:
(i) a rule specified in subregulation 168 (1); or
(ii) subregulation 169 (1), (2) or (3); or
(iii) a rule specified in subregulation 169 (4) or (5);
is guilty of an offence.
CAR 186 Where radio communication is being used, the pilot in command of an aircraft shall not thereby be relieved of the responsibility of keeping a look out for any instructions which may be issued by visual means.
ERSA EMERG 1.6.4 Note 1. If IMC or uncertain of maintaining VMC – Initial and subsequent actions by the pilot at the time of loss of communications will depend largely on the pilot’s knowledge of the destination aids, the air traffic/air space situation and meteorological conditions en route and at the destination. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PUBLISH PROCEDURES THAT COVER ALL RADIO FAILURE CIRCUMSTANCES. (My bolding)
ERSA EMERG 1.9.1 At a controlled aerodrome if in receipt of directed aerodrome information and/or a landing clearance (eg a green light or voice modulated navigation aid etc) the pilot may continue a runway approach.
ERSA EMERG 1.9.2 If NOT visual at the circling minima, depart for suitable alternate aerodrome. However, if in receipt of directed aerodrome information indicating that a runway approach is available and the runway is available for landing, the the pilot may continue the descent to the appropriate minima and if visual land, otherwise depart for suitable alternate aerodrome.
ERSA EMERG 1.9.3 If insufficient fuel is carried to divert to a suitable alternate, the pilot may hold or carry out additional approaches until visual.
So to answer the original question as put, you can not land without a clearance and since you are visual expect a green light. If that is not forthcoming in a timely fashion you are obliged to go around. As you are at 2 miles, and although visual at that point, it may be that the weather is below the circling minima. Now, if the loss of coms is due to a fire in the electronics bay and you become aware of the fact at 1.999999 miles, well ………………..!!!!!!!!
Let me tell you a story.....
About 8 years ago I was working as a ground movement controller as part of a team of 5 (Air, Ground, tower assistant, Approach and approach assistant). It was a winter weekend, a quiet day, approaching dusk with a low sun in the sky at the upwind end of the runway.
The Air controller cleared somebody for take off and gave a conditional clearance to an operations vehicle to enter behind for a runway inspection, both clearances were heard and read back. At this time there was an ATP on a closing heading for the localiser about 9miles out, obviously working Approach. The frequency in Tower went quiet.
The ATP was now on a 5 mile final and tower tried to contact with a "xxx123 are you on frequency?" They then turned to me and said "My frequency sounds dead". I selected the tower frequency on receive only and got him to try again. I heard nothing. I switched to transmit and tried....Nothing.
The tower assistant picked up on what was going on and was grabbing for the Aldis lamp and the red and green lenses. Tower told him to attach the red and show it to the operations vehicle on the runway (which was travelling away from us and the landing aircraft) and then to the landing aircraft, now inside 4 miles. Meanwhile I contacted approach and told them if they had the aircraft or re-established contact to sent it around. They transmitted blind as did I on the ground frequency. The aircraft continued to a blocked runway and time started to slow down in that horrible way.
The approach assistant, meantime, got in touch with airfield operations and told them to try the vehicle on the base operations frequency and tell it to vacate immediately.
We saw in tower as the the ops vehicle swerved off the runway on to the grass and clear of the runway strip. The tower assistant switched to the green lens and shone it at the ATP now 2 miles from touchdown. The tower controller had been transmitting blind and now the radio delivered feedback and he confirmed the landing clearance and got a readback.
Whilst taxying in I explained to the aircraft that we had a comms failure and asked if he had seen the lights. The pilot responded that he had believed that it was the aircraft that had the comms failure, that the PNF had been trying to sort it out, that yes he had seen a bright green light but wasnt sure what it meant, he had seen the runway was clear and so elected to land. I asked if he had seen the vehicle on the runway, after a period of silence he said that he had better call in.
The wash up...
If only the JCB hadnt dug through the cables...If only the stanby frequency hadnt taken so long to kick in...If only there wasnt an assumption that the frequency was quiet because it was a quiet day...If only there wasnt an assumption that the problem was on the aircraft...If only the landing aircraft had been on frequency when the ops vehicle was cleared onto the runway...If only the ops vehicle had inspected towards the landing aircraft...If only the setting sun hadnt hidden the ops vehicle from view...If only the PNF hadnt been heads down trying to sort the problem out...If only they knew their light signals and where to look for them...etc etc
These could have been the points I would have been thinking and saying at the subsequent board of enquiry. Fortunately the swiss cheese effect was defeated by good teamwork and maybe a little bit of luck.
Many of our procedures have changed and equipment been upgraded because of this incident. Please do likewise, plug the cheese as early as possible. If no landing clearance, GO AROUND.
The Oz regs state,
AIP ENR 1.1.13.4 A pilot in command must not land unless the specific clearance ‘CLEARED TO LAND’ has been received. (Their bolding, not mine, and no qualifications are attached)
CAR 167 Where aerodrome control is in operation at an aerodrome, the pilot in command of an aircraft forming part of the aerodrome traffic shall:
(a) maintain a continuous listening watch on the radio frequency authorised for communications with aerodrome control service, or, if this is not possible, keep a watch for instructions which may be issued by visual signals; and
(b) obtain, either by radio or visual signals, prior authorisation for any manoeuvre preparatory to or associated with taxi-ing, landing or taking-off.
CAR 169A A pilot in command:
(a) who contravenes regulation 166 or 167; or
(b) who flies an aircraft in contravention of:
(i) a rule specified in subregulation 168 (1); or
(ii) subregulation 169 (1), (2) or (3); or
(iii) a rule specified in subregulation 169 (4) or (5);
is guilty of an offence.
CAR 186 Where radio communication is being used, the pilot in command of an aircraft shall not thereby be relieved of the responsibility of keeping a look out for any instructions which may be issued by visual means.
ERSA EMERG 1.6.4 Note 1. If IMC or uncertain of maintaining VMC – Initial and subsequent actions by the pilot at the time of loss of communications will depend largely on the pilot’s knowledge of the destination aids, the air traffic/air space situation and meteorological conditions en route and at the destination. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PUBLISH PROCEDURES THAT COVER ALL RADIO FAILURE CIRCUMSTANCES. (My bolding)
ERSA EMERG 1.9.1 At a controlled aerodrome if in receipt of directed aerodrome information and/or a landing clearance (eg a green light or voice modulated navigation aid etc) the pilot may continue a runway approach.
ERSA EMERG 1.9.2 If NOT visual at the circling minima, depart for suitable alternate aerodrome. However, if in receipt of directed aerodrome information indicating that a runway approach is available and the runway is available for landing, the the pilot may continue the descent to the appropriate minima and if visual land, otherwise depart for suitable alternate aerodrome.
ERSA EMERG 1.9.3 If insufficient fuel is carried to divert to a suitable alternate, the pilot may hold or carry out additional approaches until visual.
So to answer the original question as put, you can not land without a clearance and since you are visual expect a green light. If that is not forthcoming in a timely fashion you are obliged to go around. As you are at 2 miles, and although visual at that point, it may be that the weather is below the circling minima. Now, if the loss of coms is due to a fire in the electronics bay and you become aware of the fact at 1.999999 miles, well ………………..!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've raised an interesting point in posting this thread, SW, which is what Tech Log is all about. Well done in setting the tone for this discussion, but you are drifting, friend.
Your last post has added one or two complications to the initial 'we're on a 2 mile final and the radio doesn't seem to be working' post. In the case of the exceedingly unfortunate Swiss (not Canadian) MD-11 crew and their unfortunate punters, I cannot comment other than to say that, where necessary, procedures are changed. In this case, they have been.
For an uncontrollable in-flight fire, everyone, from the most junior of cabin attendants to the most senior pilot, is now acutely aware of the need to get on the ground with uncommon haste. We all were before the MD-11 crash anyway, though not only has this necessity been highlighted through the harsh reality of Swiss Air's experience but procedures have actually changed, where necessary.
Nonetheless, we wouldn't want to go throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is to say if there is ever smoke in the cabin, we should not panic and call Mayday while diving for the ground or mid-ocean without at least attempting to determine whether or not the smoke and/or fire is controllable.
On the subject of minimum fuel at 600' (2 mile final) and no radio contact with Tower whilst battling against poor weather in a tight airspace environment, let me say I admire you are asking us to consider the prospect before it happens. I would add, however, that when faced with such a situation it would rarely if ever be the case that this is presented to you with seconds to decide.
To wit, you would know about your fuel state well before the final descent to land. The awareness would either be from a position enroute; at top of descent from cruise altitude, or when about to exit an extended hold in the terminal area, due traffic or other issues that required the hold in the first place.
If you were not aware of the fuel state earlier, well, I just don't know why a pilot wouldn't be, so let's not debate that one. Assuming you were aware of a low fuel state exiting the LAM hold into Heathrow, for instance, which is at a latter stage of the flight and quite realistic, then yeah, getting into a position at 2 miles final with no contact on Tower frequency is a tough one.
But the answer remains: go around.
If you are at a significantly low fuel state, you would have declared either a PAN or a MAYDAY, depending on your company policy. Incidentally, our policy is to declare a mandatory PAN any time you're looking at or below 30 minutes endurance on landing; a MAYDAY call is mandatory at any time it becomes evident there will be less than or equal to 15 minutes endurance on landing.
So if you're in that state, PAN or MAYDAY, you can be absolutely assured Tower will have a green light waiting for you should ****e turn to trumps and your communications be lost or unachievable. Failure then to obtain a green light is not to be confused with a clearance to land in any less a manner than receiving a RED light under the same circumstances.
If you were given a RED light when in the situation you've described and I've laid out in the above paragraph, surely you'd not land then?
So to the worst of worst cases: indeed, you are at the 2 mile position, you have declared a MAYDAY, you were in contact with Approach but are not in contact with Tower and they HAVE shown you a red light.
You go-round, as you must.
Faced with imminent failure of one or more engines, you reduce your pitch angle, reduce your thrust to that which can be considered minimum, take the gear and landing flaps up, but no more, keep the turn tight so you stay close to the airfield as you conduct a 2 mile wide visual approach by night or by day, in good weather or foul. Not visual? Come on. Let's be reasonable. If you weren't visual you'd not have seen the runway and couldn't land.
You have, after all, declared an emergency. And you have, again, been acknowledged by Approach/Tower as a MAYDAY, one whose comms have now been established by Tower as lost, hence the use of the ALDIS lamp.
In this situation, the answer is again simple enough. You do the circuit. While you're doing said circuit, the runway is cleared. You get onto finals and land, this time with the clearance. To suggest you'll get a second red light is going a bit far. We do need to keep this issue in perspective.
For the case where you've not declared an emergency, or state of urgency, you have most definitely got enough fuel to go-round, enter a hold and carry out the procedure.
I am concerned you might be overly worrying some readers. You have made quite a few odd statements, not least of which are, quote, "from an initial approach fix located at the outer marker...now everyone is going one direction and you´re in the opposite...I know if you´re under radar contact they´ll see you, but what if they can´t see someone else or what if they just don´t have time to divert everyone...besides, how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn? right turn? what if there´s no radar, mountains all around...
I believe ATC expects you to go to your alternate if you go completely lost comm and can´t see a thing, rather than trying a 2nd approach without radios", unquote.
1. The IAF is not at the outer marker, sir.
2. Everyone is not going in the opposite direction, if you enter the hold correctly. This is expected of you if you have an instrument rating.
3. Whether you're under radar or not, entering a hold is entering protected airspace. Doing so in a non-radar environment means little difference to doing so in a radar environment from the perspective of separation. The latter case simply means you will conduct yourself procedurally, which in fact ensures more separation.
4. If under radar control and 'seen', that is to say, you're a target on the radar screen, so are all the other aircraft.
5. 'don't have time to divert everyone' is not the way things work. You, as a declared low fuel-state PAN or MAYDAY, under the added strain of a lost comms scenario, are an absolute priority. All other aircraft will be sequenced calmly and efficiently and in good order. We're talking about professional Air Traffic Controllers here.
6. Not sure what you mean by 'how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn or right turn'. You will do as you should do when following the procedural approach. You cannot ask questions like this if you're to be considered seriously.
7. Quote, "I believe ATC expects you to go to your alternate if you go completely lost comm and can´t see a thing, rather than trying a 2nd approach without radios", unquote....May I ask what it is that makes you think anything? Reason, surely.
Is it reasonable to think your favorite armchair will take up arms and walk away when you try and sit on it? It is no more reasonable to think your chair will do so than it is to think ATC expect you to go to an alternate airport when you 'go completely lost comms'.
ATC expect you not to land without a clearance; to follow the missed approach procedure; to enter and exit the hold accordingly; to commence a second approach under a Lost Communications Procedure in accordance with the dictates of Lost Communciations Procedures.
Keep it real, people, and keep it real simple! By all means let's all ask questions. But let's all avoid positing ridiculous scenarios and any old nonsense that bears little or no semblance to reality.
Your last post has added one or two complications to the initial 'we're on a 2 mile final and the radio doesn't seem to be working' post. In the case of the exceedingly unfortunate Swiss (not Canadian) MD-11 crew and their unfortunate punters, I cannot comment other than to say that, where necessary, procedures are changed. In this case, they have been.
For an uncontrollable in-flight fire, everyone, from the most junior of cabin attendants to the most senior pilot, is now acutely aware of the need to get on the ground with uncommon haste. We all were before the MD-11 crash anyway, though not only has this necessity been highlighted through the harsh reality of Swiss Air's experience but procedures have actually changed, where necessary.
Nonetheless, we wouldn't want to go throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is to say if there is ever smoke in the cabin, we should not panic and call Mayday while diving for the ground or mid-ocean without at least attempting to determine whether or not the smoke and/or fire is controllable.
On the subject of minimum fuel at 600' (2 mile final) and no radio contact with Tower whilst battling against poor weather in a tight airspace environment, let me say I admire you are asking us to consider the prospect before it happens. I would add, however, that when faced with such a situation it would rarely if ever be the case that this is presented to you with seconds to decide.
To wit, you would know about your fuel state well before the final descent to land. The awareness would either be from a position enroute; at top of descent from cruise altitude, or when about to exit an extended hold in the terminal area, due traffic or other issues that required the hold in the first place.
If you were not aware of the fuel state earlier, well, I just don't know why a pilot wouldn't be, so let's not debate that one. Assuming you were aware of a low fuel state exiting the LAM hold into Heathrow, for instance, which is at a latter stage of the flight and quite realistic, then yeah, getting into a position at 2 miles final with no contact on Tower frequency is a tough one.
But the answer remains: go around.
If you are at a significantly low fuel state, you would have declared either a PAN or a MAYDAY, depending on your company policy. Incidentally, our policy is to declare a mandatory PAN any time you're looking at or below 30 minutes endurance on landing; a MAYDAY call is mandatory at any time it becomes evident there will be less than or equal to 15 minutes endurance on landing.
So if you're in that state, PAN or MAYDAY, you can be absolutely assured Tower will have a green light waiting for you should ****e turn to trumps and your communications be lost or unachievable. Failure then to obtain a green light is not to be confused with a clearance to land in any less a manner than receiving a RED light under the same circumstances.
If you were given a RED light when in the situation you've described and I've laid out in the above paragraph, surely you'd not land then?
So to the worst of worst cases: indeed, you are at the 2 mile position, you have declared a MAYDAY, you were in contact with Approach but are not in contact with Tower and they HAVE shown you a red light.
You go-round, as you must.
Faced with imminent failure of one or more engines, you reduce your pitch angle, reduce your thrust to that which can be considered minimum, take the gear and landing flaps up, but no more, keep the turn tight so you stay close to the airfield as you conduct a 2 mile wide visual approach by night or by day, in good weather or foul. Not visual? Come on. Let's be reasonable. If you weren't visual you'd not have seen the runway and couldn't land.
You have, after all, declared an emergency. And you have, again, been acknowledged by Approach/Tower as a MAYDAY, one whose comms have now been established by Tower as lost, hence the use of the ALDIS lamp.
In this situation, the answer is again simple enough. You do the circuit. While you're doing said circuit, the runway is cleared. You get onto finals and land, this time with the clearance. To suggest you'll get a second red light is going a bit far. We do need to keep this issue in perspective.
For the case where you've not declared an emergency, or state of urgency, you have most definitely got enough fuel to go-round, enter a hold and carry out the procedure.
I am concerned you might be overly worrying some readers. You have made quite a few odd statements, not least of which are, quote, "from an initial approach fix located at the outer marker...now everyone is going one direction and you´re in the opposite...I know if you´re under radar contact they´ll see you, but what if they can´t see someone else or what if they just don´t have time to divert everyone...besides, how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn? right turn? what if there´s no radar, mountains all around...
I believe ATC expects you to go to your alternate if you go completely lost comm and can´t see a thing, rather than trying a 2nd approach without radios", unquote.
1. The IAF is not at the outer marker, sir.
2. Everyone is not going in the opposite direction, if you enter the hold correctly. This is expected of you if you have an instrument rating.
3. Whether you're under radar or not, entering a hold is entering protected airspace. Doing so in a non-radar environment means little difference to doing so in a radar environment from the perspective of separation. The latter case simply means you will conduct yourself procedurally, which in fact ensures more separation.
4. If under radar control and 'seen', that is to say, you're a target on the radar screen, so are all the other aircraft.
5. 'don't have time to divert everyone' is not the way things work. You, as a declared low fuel-state PAN or MAYDAY, under the added strain of a lost comms scenario, are an absolute priority. All other aircraft will be sequenced calmly and efficiently and in good order. We're talking about professional Air Traffic Controllers here.
6. Not sure what you mean by 'how are you going to proceed to the IAF, left turn or right turn'. You will do as you should do when following the procedural approach. You cannot ask questions like this if you're to be considered seriously.
7. Quote, "I believe ATC expects you to go to your alternate if you go completely lost comm and can´t see a thing, rather than trying a 2nd approach without radios", unquote....May I ask what it is that makes you think anything? Reason, surely.
Is it reasonable to think your favorite armchair will take up arms and walk away when you try and sit on it? It is no more reasonable to think your chair will do so than it is to think ATC expect you to go to an alternate airport when you 'go completely lost comms'.
ATC expect you not to land without a clearance; to follow the missed approach procedure; to enter and exit the hold accordingly; to commence a second approach under a Lost Communications Procedure in accordance with the dictates of Lost Communciations Procedures.
Keep it real, people, and keep it real simple! By all means let's all ask questions. But let's all avoid positing ridiculous scenarios and any old nonsense that bears little or no semblance to reality.
Last edited by 4PW's; 14th Jul 2007 at 08:42.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alright 4PWs, just a few things not to make this an ever lasting thread.
1)When I mentioned the Swiss air MD11 accident it was only to give you an example that blind accpetance of procedures is not always the safest course of action, not to start a discussion on that particular accident, and hey, my big, enormous and deepest apologies for having made a mistake on the airline, everyone made it very clear how wrong I was...
2)I wasn´t trying to say that following rules is something that ONLY works well in a sim...I am disappointed you interpreted that. I am also dissapointed at your "avoid posting ridiculous scenarios" comment.
3)Maybe your definition of "use of judgement" is slightly different than mine in this lost comm case that I presented. Your judgement calls for a mandatory go around under all circumstances no matter what if you can´t get a verbal or visual clearance to land. Mine is "stick to the rules, go around if you can´t get a clearance, but if there´s a safety concern involved with that go around, landing on a visibly clear runway, with no red lights coming from the tower is definitely one possibility, and again, it´s written somewhere.
I perfectly understand there´s no such a thing as "a safety concern with going around" for you. And this is the point I´d like to briefly discuss.
Maybe where you fly, theory and reality are close together. Where I fly, quite a few times you´re on your own, and staying more time in the air than necessary may complicate things and put the airplane in a difficult situation, and I assure you that if faced with a lost comm scenario on final approach having to go back in the air with no radios and all these other local ingredients adding up is a lot more complicated and risky than just confirming rwy is clear and landing. Some examples of that are..untrained ATC personnel, lack of tower lights !!!, lack of radar, lack of suitable alternate airports with sevices nearby, and political issues. In general I´d go around but I wouldn´t blindly go around without also considering the problems associated with that.
Thank you once again for replying, Sir.
SW.
1)When I mentioned the Swiss air MD11 accident it was only to give you an example that blind accpetance of procedures is not always the safest course of action, not to start a discussion on that particular accident, and hey, my big, enormous and deepest apologies for having made a mistake on the airline, everyone made it very clear how wrong I was...
2)I wasn´t trying to say that following rules is something that ONLY works well in a sim...I am disappointed you interpreted that. I am also dissapointed at your "avoid posting ridiculous scenarios" comment.
3)Maybe your definition of "use of judgement" is slightly different than mine in this lost comm case that I presented. Your judgement calls for a mandatory go around under all circumstances no matter what if you can´t get a verbal or visual clearance to land. Mine is "stick to the rules, go around if you can´t get a clearance, but if there´s a safety concern involved with that go around, landing on a visibly clear runway, with no red lights coming from the tower is definitely one possibility, and again, it´s written somewhere.
I perfectly understand there´s no such a thing as "a safety concern with going around" for you. And this is the point I´d like to briefly discuss.
Maybe where you fly, theory and reality are close together. Where I fly, quite a few times you´re on your own, and staying more time in the air than necessary may complicate things and put the airplane in a difficult situation, and I assure you that if faced with a lost comm scenario on final approach having to go back in the air with no radios and all these other local ingredients adding up is a lot more complicated and risky than just confirming rwy is clear and landing. Some examples of that are..untrained ATC personnel, lack of tower lights !!!, lack of radar, lack of suitable alternate airports with sevices nearby, and political issues. In general I´d go around but I wouldn´t blindly go around without also considering the problems associated with that.
Thank you once again for replying, Sir.
SW.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SuddenWinds,
Dun worry mate, I enjoy this discussion, it explores the possibilities of when one has to go by something else than the book... My answers does not mean that one has to go by those answers... as some have said here, it all depends on the situation on that day... The answers, ranging from the right to the wrong, are very useful for one to expand oneself and start thinking... coz when the scenario happens, they'd be better prepared. However, the regs are regs. Unless for safety reasons beyond doubt, the regs are there for a reason...
1. We're not killing you for misidentifying the airline... Blind acceptance of the procedures is not wise, one should know the logic behind why emergency procedures are made as such. Procedures are there so you take the right actions... if the procedures are wrong, it's not your fault, misidentifying or not carrying out the right procedure in response to the emergency, IS.
2. Sorry, but I am disappointed in "where you just turn the motion off" part of that sentence.
Different languages? You're in lost comms, the lingo don't matter anymore... the lost comms procedure for that airport/tma/fir are written in their lingo AND English...
Unfamiliar place? You got the approach chart? Follow it.
No extra fuel? Low on fuel? Why didn't you declare it beforehand? As said by 4PWs, you do not wait until you're on a 2NM final to declare you're low on fuel (unless your tanks or fuel lines suddenly develop major leak at a 2NM final)... EFOBs on the FMC, fuel tank and fuel flow gauges, and reference fuel consumption tables are there for a reason... to prevent you from being in this situation without knowing about the dire situation beforehand! You calculate your landing weight to get your approach speed right? Landing weight - dry weight = fuel on board...
Good scores in the sim, and it keeps you alive.
3. "Mine is "stick to the rules, go around if you can´t get a clearance, but if there´s a safety concern involved with that go around, landing on a visibly clear runway," means you're in an emergency and not able to contact the tower. This is different from a "2NM tower, visual with the runway, call the tower for clearance and you hear nothing." With no emergency, judgement calls for a mandatory go-around.
Untrained ATC personnel? I would go around! If they're as bad as I think you're saying, I'd be having a higher risk of running into something on the runway with or without clearance than going around. On a landing roll, the options to avoid something in your way is more limited than in the air (Single point entry/exit airports and mountains exempted).
Lack of tower lights still means go around, and come back in under a lost comms.
Lack of radar again, is a non-issue, unless the traffic is overflowing and you get pilots regularly not obeying ATC instructions... but then, again, it's easier to safely avoid another plane in the air than a stationary goat on the runway while you're on a landing roll!
Lack of suitable alternate airports = you should land with ample fuel to do the go around and come back in under lost comms. Do you guys have a rule for fuel requirements for "destination without a suitable alternate" ?
Political issues? What kind? The ones that will shoot your plane if you go around or the ones that will yield troops visiting your plane if you land without a landing clearance? Or where mobs will invade the ramp when they know you're coming if you do make a go-around? (If the last one, then yeah, I wouldn't go around... coz in such a situation, the regs are just a formality).
A few months ago here, 1 jet was on very short finals, got another one about 5 miles behind, and another one heading to the IAF... called the tower, nothing, 1st jet went around, called tower again, no response, each aircraft transmitted blindly stating their intentions. 1st and 2nd plane did their own separation, 3rd airplane went in under lost comms. A 4th, diverted. Visibility was 8000m, though a nice thundery cloud was coming towards the field, albeit a go-around would still be away from the cloud.
What happened? The airport lost power and the emergency gens couldn't get started.
Another case, a lightning strike hit the airport's power supply, killed all beacons, lights radios at the airport. What happened? the guy on finals and everyone else diverted.
In both cases, the crew of all the aircraft followed the regs correctly.
PK-KAR
Dun worry mate, I enjoy this discussion, it explores the possibilities of when one has to go by something else than the book... My answers does not mean that one has to go by those answers... as some have said here, it all depends on the situation on that day... The answers, ranging from the right to the wrong, are very useful for one to expand oneself and start thinking... coz when the scenario happens, they'd be better prepared. However, the regs are regs. Unless for safety reasons beyond doubt, the regs are there for a reason...
1. We're not killing you for misidentifying the airline... Blind acceptance of the procedures is not wise, one should know the logic behind why emergency procedures are made as such. Procedures are there so you take the right actions... if the procedures are wrong, it's not your fault, misidentifying or not carrying out the right procedure in response to the emergency, IS.
2. Sorry, but I am disappointed in "where you just turn the motion off" part of that sentence.
Different languages? You're in lost comms, the lingo don't matter anymore... the lost comms procedure for that airport/tma/fir are written in their lingo AND English...
Unfamiliar place? You got the approach chart? Follow it.
No extra fuel? Low on fuel? Why didn't you declare it beforehand? As said by 4PWs, you do not wait until you're on a 2NM final to declare you're low on fuel (unless your tanks or fuel lines suddenly develop major leak at a 2NM final)... EFOBs on the FMC, fuel tank and fuel flow gauges, and reference fuel consumption tables are there for a reason... to prevent you from being in this situation without knowing about the dire situation beforehand! You calculate your landing weight to get your approach speed right? Landing weight - dry weight = fuel on board...
Good scores in the sim, and it keeps you alive.
3. "Mine is "stick to the rules, go around if you can´t get a clearance, but if there´s a safety concern involved with that go around, landing on a visibly clear runway," means you're in an emergency and not able to contact the tower. This is different from a "2NM tower, visual with the runway, call the tower for clearance and you hear nothing." With no emergency, judgement calls for a mandatory go-around.
Some examples of that are..untrained ATC personnel, lack of tower lights !!!, lack of radar, lack of suitable alternate airports with sevices nearby, and political issues. In general I´d go around but I wouldn´t blindly go around without also considering the problems associated with that.
Lack of tower lights still means go around, and come back in under a lost comms.
Lack of radar again, is a non-issue, unless the traffic is overflowing and you get pilots regularly not obeying ATC instructions... but then, again, it's easier to safely avoid another plane in the air than a stationary goat on the runway while you're on a landing roll!
Lack of suitable alternate airports = you should land with ample fuel to do the go around and come back in under lost comms. Do you guys have a rule for fuel requirements for "destination without a suitable alternate" ?
Political issues? What kind? The ones that will shoot your plane if you go around or the ones that will yield troops visiting your plane if you land without a landing clearance? Or where mobs will invade the ramp when they know you're coming if you do make a go-around? (If the last one, then yeah, I wouldn't go around... coz in such a situation, the regs are just a formality).
A few months ago here, 1 jet was on very short finals, got another one about 5 miles behind, and another one heading to the IAF... called the tower, nothing, 1st jet went around, called tower again, no response, each aircraft transmitted blindly stating their intentions. 1st and 2nd plane did their own separation, 3rd airplane went in under lost comms. A 4th, diverted. Visibility was 8000m, though a nice thundery cloud was coming towards the field, albeit a go-around would still be away from the cloud.
What happened? The airport lost power and the emergency gens couldn't get started.
Another case, a lightning strike hit the airport's power supply, killed all beacons, lights radios at the airport. What happened? the guy on finals and everyone else diverted.
In both cases, the crew of all the aircraft followed the regs correctly.
PK-KAR
PK-KAR:
Are you stating that #1 and #2 were better off providing their "own separation" were safer than if they just landed with 5 miles separation? And safer than the one that landed under "lost coms"? If you believe you have lost comm AND are VMC, I submit landing, IF the runway is clear. If VMC is assured in the circuit, a go-around and trip around it is certainly the best answer, but returning to the clag, following the missed procedure seems to hold more risk than just landing, clear runway, of course. It does have elements of judgment, not being pedantic.
Interesting problem, though. Tying the JFK thread together, anyone for flying a missed approach and finding their way back to CRI, NORDO, for a second VOR 13L/R approach on any Friday night. Of course, if you got the freq wrong, selecting the approach freq should solve the problem quickly. Or not.
GF
Are you stating that #1 and #2 were better off providing their "own separation" were safer than if they just landed with 5 miles separation? And safer than the one that landed under "lost coms"? If you believe you have lost comm AND are VMC, I submit landing, IF the runway is clear. If VMC is assured in the circuit, a go-around and trip around it is certainly the best answer, but returning to the clag, following the missed procedure seems to hold more risk than just landing, clear runway, of course. It does have elements of judgment, not being pedantic.
Interesting problem, though. Tying the JFK thread together, anyone for flying a missed approach and finding their way back to CRI, NORDO, for a second VOR 13L/R approach on any Friday night. Of course, if you got the freq wrong, selecting the approach freq should solve the problem quickly. Or not.
GF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF,
That reasoning is just about what I´ve been trying to explain unsuccessfully. There are certain situations that do justify landing, the way I see it.
I respect 4pws and pk kar as their posts reflect a huge amount of experience and knowledge, but I still disagree on the "go around under all circumstances" concept.
The "where you just turn the motion off" part of the sentence is clarified in a later post, where I explain that there are certain flying regions where theory and reality aren´t that close together, and previous knowledge of certain permanent conditions, sometimes can give you some more elements to choose what you could consider a better option...Didn´t mean to be disappointing..white flag waved...
Untrained ATC personnel? Yes, with questionable ability to handle the traffic they can talk to while someone else is trying to land with their radios inop, especially those not speaking that country´s language.
Lack of tower lights, you´ll never get the green light you ´ll be willing to wait for till you start using rsv fuel.
Lack of radar, even if you follow procedures, it´s not the same.
That´s how I see it, you don´t have to agree. For the tenth time I´ll say that I DO !!! support the idea of a go around, but I´d not blindly do that without also considering the risks involved in going back into the air and having to follow a procedure that requires everyone involved to know what they´re doing, when I have reasons to suspect some of them may not know what to do.
Best Regards and thank you.
SW.
PS: 4pws, so you´ve never seen an Initial approach fix over the outer marker, where you just cross the fix, fly outbound for a while, then do a procedure turn and then come back in? It´s full of them in the States.
That reasoning is just about what I´ve been trying to explain unsuccessfully. There are certain situations that do justify landing, the way I see it.
I respect 4pws and pk kar as their posts reflect a huge amount of experience and knowledge, but I still disagree on the "go around under all circumstances" concept.
The "where you just turn the motion off" part of the sentence is clarified in a later post, where I explain that there are certain flying regions where theory and reality aren´t that close together, and previous knowledge of certain permanent conditions, sometimes can give you some more elements to choose what you could consider a better option...Didn´t mean to be disappointing..white flag waved...
Untrained ATC personnel? Yes, with questionable ability to handle the traffic they can talk to while someone else is trying to land with their radios inop, especially those not speaking that country´s language.
Lack of tower lights, you´ll never get the green light you ´ll be willing to wait for till you start using rsv fuel.
Lack of radar, even if you follow procedures, it´s not the same.
That´s how I see it, you don´t have to agree. For the tenth time I´ll say that I DO !!! support the idea of a go around, but I´d not blindly do that without also considering the risks involved in going back into the air and having to follow a procedure that requires everyone involved to know what they´re doing, when I have reasons to suspect some of them may not know what to do.
Best Regards and thank you.
SW.
PS: 4pws, so you´ve never seen an Initial approach fix over the outer marker, where you just cross the fix, fly outbound for a while, then do a procedure turn and then come back in? It´s full of them in the States.
Last edited by sudden Winds; 15th Jul 2007 at 09:40.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SuddenWinds,
In that case, "area familiarity" is thrown into the equation, and that can throw a lot of things from the book to go out of the window... If one is unfamiliar with the place, unless the company notes say "at airport X, land at first opportunity despite lost comms", do the go-around and the required procedures.
If the question is phrased as such and only such... go-around.
Putting the following:
In the the original question:
Would yield a different answer... so, let's modify the question into:
In this particular instance, I'd land.. only if going-around would beyond doubt put me in greater risk regardless of how good the crew's airmanship is.
If you'd explained all these in the original question... we would have finished this discussion sometime ago.
PK-KAR
In that case, "area familiarity" is thrown into the equation, and that can throw a lot of things from the book to go out of the window... If one is unfamiliar with the place, unless the company notes say "at airport X, land at first opportunity despite lost comms", do the go-around and the required procedures.
2 mile final, rwy in sight, a big jet. You´re on Tower frequency, call for clearance, nothing, no response whatsoever, nothing on the radio...land or go around?
Putting the following:
I explain that there are certain flying regions where theory and reality aren´t that close together, and previous knowledge of certain permanent conditions, sometimes can give you some more elements to choose what you could consider a better option...Didn´t mean to be disappointing..white flag waved...
2 mile final, rwy in sight, a big jet. You´re on Tower frequency, call for clearance, nothing, no response whatsoever, nothing on the radio...land or go around?
2 mile final back to homebase, rwy in sight, a big jet. You´re on Tower frequency, call for clearance, nothing, no response whatsoever, nothing on the radio, seems that the guy at the tower is listening to his MW radio again, two other traffic in vicinity known to be reckless and has given me near collisions in the past, and no one seems to care about the regs...land or go around?
If you'd explained all these in the original question... we would have finished this discussion sometime ago.
PK-KAR
