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.

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

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.

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

........:ok:

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.

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

You don't like go arounds ?

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.

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

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!

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?