Go-around below minimums
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, cleared for the approach but not for landing. Equally "continue approach" does not imply you are cleared to occupy the runway. Cheers.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Just remember about performance considerations in case of a go-around.
Only half a speed-brake
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
;-)
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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…
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-48463972
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”.
Only half a speed-brake
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.
Bail out, while there's life ahead to be had.
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...
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.