Go-around below minimums

[oggers]

Originally Posted by misd-agin

Reading 3.10.3 and I didn't see any comment about requiring a go-around by the threshold. It mentions distance between the aircraft.

Yes distance, and it is based on crossing the threshold, not based on touching down. It stands to reason that if the separation does not exist then a go-around is required by the threshold or the separation minima will be busted. If ATC don't issue this instruction by the threshold why wait any longer?

Don't get me wrong; I have continued past the threshold all set for a GA but expecting to get the landing clearance in the next second. Sometimes it is just obvious from what you can see on the ground and hear on the radio that ATC are trying to get the words out. But the OP's question is predicated on the unusual circumstance of getting neither landing clearance nor go-around instruction from ATC whilst you can see the runway is occupied. The question is how long can you wait "legally without landing permission or waiting for the runway to be to clear?" The answer is until no later than the threshold. The rationale is that is the point where separation minima will be busted.

[oggers]

Originally Posted by safelife

It’s actually quite reaonable... crossing the threshold at 50 ft is where the approach ends, and the landing begins.
You were cleared for approach, but not for landing, so go around at this point if you aren’t cleared any further.

Exactly, cleared for the approach but not for landing. Equally "continue approach" does not imply you are cleared to occupy the runway. Cheers.

[poldek77]

In order to continue below minimum you need to have sufficient visual reference for the runway and your aircraft should be in correct configuration and position for normal landing. Landing clearance is required before the wheels touch the runway.
Just remember about performance considerations in case of a go-around.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by oggers

Exactly, cleared for the approach but not for landing. Equally "continue approach" does not imply you are cleared to occupy the runway. Cheers.

See oggers, you are cheating here by having read the actual question.

[oggers]

........

[Dogma]

;-)

as A’s has been stated this thread is mostly nonsense. The Commander can elect to land or go around depending on what he / she considers to be the best course of action

Theyd have to be able to justify that decision. Best to thing about the scenario well in advance

[767 pilot]

Thank you all, especially to oggers for Refs! I apologize for the absence (long flight and I just arrived). And YES may be this question looks like nonsense (to Dogma) but it is exactly about to be able to justify “that decision” (to be more clear: I had line check and during approach in BKK we received landing clearance approximately at 70 ft) unfortunately my Company’s SOP procedure is different from the Boeing’s FCTM recommended procedure (if very briefly: according to my Company’s procedure PF at DA should call: “Landing” or “Go-around”, and Boeing’s recommendation is: “Continue” or “Go-around”) so maybe it is time to change our procedure and one more reason to do this is legal possibility to continue approach below minimum under some circumstances…

[safelife]

You call landing, well that's old fashioned, because it mentally commits you to land. Modern SOP call continue. So you continue below the IFR minima, down to 50 ft. Then it's the next call to continue further or not.

[renard]

Edinburgh airport had a runway incursion when one plane crossed the threshold while the departing aircraft was still on the runway.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-48463972

[AerocatS2A]

Doesn’t matter if you call “landing” or “continue” that’s just some verbal bla bla indicating you are not going around yet. You can always go around, even if you have said “landing”.

[oggers]

Thanks for coming back 767 pilot, I think your question is one that more pilots should be asking themselves.

[NGsim]

This whole thread makes me hate being a pilot. As if I needed more reason.

[sonicbum]

Originally Posted by NGsim

This whole thread makes me hate being a pilot. As if I needed more reason.

You don't like go arounds ?

[FlightDetent]

Funnily, the OP's valid "how far can you legally go without ATC clearance" is answered with the very first reply.

Bail out, while there's life ahead to be had.

[FullWings]

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A

Doesn’t matter if you call “landing” or “continue” that’s just some verbal bla bla indicating you are not going around yet. You can always go around, even if you have said “landing”.

You’d have thought so, wouldn’t you? The HF experts say no, by calling “land” you are mentally more committed to landing (I don’t have any references but studies have been done), whereas “continue” leaves the options a bit more open. Bit like the difference between a green light at a junction and one that’s flashing amber: you can still cross it in either case but you use more caution in the second scenario...

[GlenQuagmire]

Originally Posted by sonicbum

You don't like go arounds ?

I suspect he doesn’t like pedantic bulls**t.

[sonicbum]

Originally Posted by GlenQuagmire

I suspect he doesn’t like pedantic bulls**t.

What You call pedantic bulls##t other people call it brainstorming. Skip the thread. Easy.

[Sepp]

Originally Posted by FullWings

...
Bit like the difference between a green light at a junction and one that’s flashing amber: you can still cross it in either case but you use more caution in the second scenario...

Tell that to the goons who ignore red lights round where I live. Seems to be SOP these days: Green=go. Amber=go NOW. Red=GO GO GO GO!

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A

Doesn’t matter if you call “landing” or “continue” that’s just some verbal bla bla indicating you are not going around yet. You can always go around, even if you have said “landing”.

This forum needs a “like” button. I’ll admit I’m biased because my airline uses the “landing” callout, but let’s play devil’s advocate here.

You get to DA, and call “landing”. At 100ft, an aircraft down the runway starts to cross. Are you going to land the airplane because you said “landing” and are thus mentally prepared to land? As somebody said, I’d like to see some actual evidence to support that claim. If that’s indeed true, we’re in big trouble.

You’re not committed to the landing until the reversers are unlocked, and even then, one can make an argument for sufficiently long runways, but that’s for another day.

[FullWings]

You get to DA, and call “landing”. At 100ft, an aircraft down the runway starts to cross. Are you going to land the airplane because you said “landing” and are thus mentally prepared to land? As somebody said, I’d like to see some actual evidence to support that claim. If that’s indeed true, we’re in big trouble.

I think in obvious, extreme cases then no - it doesn’t matter what you said because there is clear and present danger. Something more subtle like an increasing tailwind, the approach becoming unstable, landing a bit long, etc. The thinking is that even if the difference made by using alternative phraseology is small or even non-existent at times, it is an incremental gain in safety. So why not?