Go Around and SOP's
 

Question for our pilot friends from a controller please.
Following a moment at work today could someone tell me if the SOP's of airliner operators are likely to stipulate a "distance out" on an approach without landing clearance, whereby a go-around becomes mandatory? So let's assume VMC and no landing clearance given by a certain DME to the threshold. Note; I'm not talking about decision height/altitude or anything like that in IMC. I know that if the approach is not stabilised by a certain height (@ 1000' for instrument, 500' for a visual?) then a missed approach must be flown. But inside - say 1nm? Would this change at night or if the controller had stipulated "continue approach, expect late landing clearance" + traffic. If the controller has not called the shots and the departure on the runway has not got himelf going, then clearly the pilot can opt to go around. My question is thus are there rules governing this late call?

Thanks,

Lissart

I think you will find that companies don't try to regulate this, simply a pilots dissection item as it should be.

Cheers, D.L.

Nope, that's why we are paid the big bucks!! ( or not )

We have no rules in our ops manual, but it is a scenario worth thinking about. Go Around at 200ft to 15-20° nose-up with an aircraft taking off on the same runway just ahead, below and slower/accelerating...

Certainly more risky than being 5 knots too fast at 500ft, where a G/A is, in some outfits, probably required because of the Stabilised Approach rules.

We do have a SOP that mandates a go-around if no landing clearance is received by 50ft RA.

Nothing in our SOP's, crew decision. The words "expect late landing clearance" do help, we can reduce speed a bit earlier and we're both kept in the loop with ATC's plan.

Yes. Reversers deployed. Anything before is fair game even if your on the ground. After and your committed to the ground.

Every approach should be a planned and expected Go-around. A landing is simply a bonus.

One of the most screwed up manoeuvres is a "normal" go-around.

I might have to elaborate here. First off, the original question was how far are you allowed to continue below any minimum or a point along the approach path without a landing clearance. I doubt it is anywhere legal nor sensible to continue to touchdown without a landing clearance.

Of course many airlines have quite a few restrictions which require a go-around some technical, some SOP driven.

For example in my outfit a go around is absolutely mandatory if not established at 1000ft (500ft during a circling approach), established means final configuration, power set and all checklists completed. A quite common condition.

And then it was clarified by the company recently that it is legal to continue the approach below minimum if visual conditions are met without having a landing clearance. But a go around should be initiated at 50ft if no landing clearance is received by that point to avoid touching down during the balked landing. Before that we had a lot of go-arounds at minimum even with a warning for late landing clearance.

If a landing clearance is received a landing can be aborted until the thrust reserver is opened, after that we are committed to continue the landing and rollout (reversers can be opened at 10ft RA on the 737, that is not recommended though).

A go-around is of course a completely non-issue and a normal maneuver which any pilot should be capable of during the approach at any time.

We can continue in VMC all the way down to a baulked landing if required. But normally you see the situation developing before then so you never need to get that close.

From a pilots POV, do controllers not like issuing "land after" type clearances?

Horgy

The canadians have some advice on this:

Thanks to all who have responded. This has pretty much given me what I was looking for. A few points to add:

1/. Nitpicker (#3) is quite correct - that's why we are paid (at all - let's leave aside the amount for now....)

2/. Mr Horgy (#9): In the scenario I presented, that would be a "land after the departing" type clearance, which is illegal except where mandated by the CAA. (Can't face looking up the exact reference...) Doubtless Gatwick and Heathrow can do it but I would suspect that the unit MATS2 would stipulate conditions. (Any help GONZO?) Otherwise we'd all put our feet on the desk, say the phrase, be paid the "big bucks" anyway and let the pilot make the hard calls.

3/. Denti (#8):

"And then it was clarified by the company recently that it is legal to continue the approach below minimum if visual conditions are met without having a landing clearance. But a go around should be initiated at 50ft if no landing clearance is received by that point to avoid touching down during the balked landing. Before that we had a lot of go-arounds at minimum even with a warning for late landing clearance."

"Before that" was exactly what I'm talking about, with say a non-precision approach with quite high minimas. It's all going to work - have give the "expect late" bit and departure rolling - but nonetheless too tight for a relaxing life and then the pilot goes around because (despite VMC) he's got to minimas. Say he's at height 500' and only just inside 2 miles out. Should be enough. Given that on a visual approach if unstabilised, a pilot is mandated to go around and the 500' is again just inside the 2nm, I might well be more cautious about issuing "immediate t/o" if the arrival is on a visual. Because you then have the nightmare presented by....

4/. Capn Bloggs in #4:

"Go Around at 200ft to 15-20° nose-up with an aircraft taking off on the same runway just ahead, below and slower/accelerating..."

At that moment - just as you want the departure if not actually airborne or past 80kts - to be instructed to stop,or if airbourne, pass traffic (at least), some vehicle driver calls and blocks the frequency. That is not an easy scenario and should be avoided by prompt action BEFORE it gets there. For an even spicier life, let's say the G/A misses the slow climber but there is a vortex wake issue and the poor unfortunate departure is about to fly right through it.......

5/. So, what would you pilots do in the horrible event that 4/. materialised in front of

you? (You'd have been succoured into a shambolic ATC situation agreed....)

Amicalement,

LISSART

Hi Lissart,

From http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413Supplement.pdf
"‘Land After’ Clearance
A landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft, which has landed, has vacated the runway provided that:
The runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected
It is during daylight hours;
The preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
The controller is satisfied that the flight crew of the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway; and
The flight crew of the following aircraft is warned.
Responsibility for separation rests with the following aircraft."

Once visual and if you don't receive landing clearance by say CAT 1 limits of 200ft, and you've been advised that it will be a late landing clearance - then it's down to your judgement on how the separation looks.

G'day RRR,

Your link is for the "Land after" procedure, with which I am quite familiar. But I say again that the scenario as I originally posted has nothing to do with a land after, which is specific to No2 landing behind No1 arriving. What we are looking at in my example is clearly a "land after the departing" which is totally different. No2 lands behind no1 departing/roling. I re-state that this is NOT approved at all but a few places. Have a look at this archive link:

Land After Procedure [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Lissart

Hi Lissart,

Sorry - I didn't read the your question properly.
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2010-08-26.pdf

3.8.4 Special Landing Procedures at London Gatwick and London Stansted Airports
3.8.4.1 Special landing procedures may be in force at London Gatwick (except for Runway 08L/26R) and London Stansted (Land after
Departure only) in conditions shown hereunder, when the use will be as follows:
a. When the runway-in-use is temporarily occupied by other traffic, landing clearance will be issued to an arriving aircraft provided
that at the time the aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway-in-use the following separation distances will exist:
London Gatwick
i. Landing following landing - The preceding landing aircraft will be clear of the runway-in-use or will be at least 2500 m from
the threshold of the runway-in-use.
ii. Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2000 m from the threshold of the runwayin-use, or if not airborne, will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
London Stansted
Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2000 m from the threshold of the runway-inuse, or if not airborne, will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
b. Reduced separation distances as follows will be used where both the preceding and succeeding landing aircraft or both the
landing and departing aircraft are propeller driven and have a maximum total weight authorised not exceeding 5700 kg:
London Gatwick
i. Landing following landing - The preceding aircraft will be clear of the runway-in-use or will be at least 1500 m from the
threshold of the runway-in-use.
ii. Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne or will be at least 1500 m from the threshold of the
runway-in-use.
London Stansted
Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 1500 m from the landing threshold, or if not
airborne, will be at least 1500 m from the landing threshold.
Note: The reduced distances do not apply to those jets which are 5700 kg MTWA or less.
c. Conditions of Use. The procedures will be used by DAY only under the following conditions:
London Stansted
i. When the reported meteorological conditions are equal to or better than a visibility of 6 km and a cloud ceiling of 1000 ft
and the Air Controller is satisfied that the pilot of the next arriving aircraft will be able to observe continuously the relevant
traffic
ii. When both the preceding and succeeding aircraft are being operated in the normal manner. (Pilots are responsible for
notifying ATC if they are operating their aircraft in other than the normal manner; eg final approach speed greater than 160 kt).
iii. When the runway is dry and free of all precipitants such that there is no evidence that the braking action may be adversely
affected.
iv. When the Air Controller is able to assess the separation either visually or by means of Aerodrome Traffic Monitor.
London Gatwick
i. When 26L/08R is in use;
ii. When the controller is satisfied that the pilot of the next arriving aircraft will be able to observe the relevant traffic clearly
and continuously;
iii. When the pilot of the following aircraft is warned;
iv. When there is no evidence that the braking action may be adversely affected;
v. When the controller is able to assess separation visually or by radar derived information.
d. When issuing a landing clearance following the application of these procedures ATC will issue the second aircraft with the
following instructions:
London Gatwick
....... (call sign) ....... after the landing/departing ....... (Aircraft Type) cleared to land Runway ....... (Designator).
London Stansted
....... (call sign) ....... after the departing ....... (Aircraft Type) cleared to land Runway ........ (Designator).

Sorry about the formatting.

I'd probably land. And I might even do the do the same (again) if I didn't get a clearance because the Tower couldn't get a word in edgeways. The last time I did that I received, presumably for the benefit of a tape somewhere, an "ABC 123, just to confirm you were cleared to land" which I though was pretty good.

PM

I (once) landed without a landing clearance. It's probably not legal and normally not safe. But the situation didn't look like a go around, so I decided that we touched down.

It was a perfect sunny day but with lots of traffic on an international airport. TWR was giving everyone clearances but he was continously talking, so we couldn't interrupt him for a hint to issue the landing clearance. There was no traffic on our runway and it looked like there wasn't any on our go around path. After vacating he ordered us to change to GND freq and it looked like he hadn't realized that he didn't give as the landing clearance. I didn't fill out a report.

So I would say I don't do a go around if it doesn't seem to be appropriate but remain cautious. If you are in doubt, do a go around.

Late landing clearances are pretty common in nowadays busy ATC environment. I estimate I have received a few dozens of landing clerances between 200 and 50 ft. I've never heard that there is a hard minimum for the landing clearance.

Dani

Piltdown and Dani, by choosing to land without a clearance you are bypassing one of the fundamental safeguards of our operation. Because the radio is busy is no excuse.

As for the GA manoeuvre, would it be the same as at flight-school: zigzag/sidestep at below 500ft to establish some lateral separation from the departing aircraft and so you can keep an eye on him? Who's the PF? Go left or right? An interesting predicament and probably one not discussed often.

Isn't going around below your DA/DH also bypassing one of the fundamental safeguards of our operation? Compromises your obstacle clearance doesn't it?

Our SOP is to GA if no clearance to land prior to 100AGL.

I doubt it, given you're Visual and on the runway centreline so DA/DH are irrelevant. Follow your Engine Out takeoff procedure if a engine stops at the wrong time. Anyway, it must be OK if you guys can GA not below 100ft...

I agree that it is not completly safe but a go around at the wrong time is not safer. Landing without clearance should always be a very rare special case, not a procedure.

What most people do wrong imho that when they receive a very very late clearance, they try to read back or even recapitulate the landing check list or whatever procedure you have (starting a challenge/response wording). At this moment you fully concentrate on the landing, no word spoken (unless relevant to the landing or the go around).