Go-around below minimums
 

Hello! Typically, the list of reasons to initiate go-around includes such reasons as the runway is occupied or landing permission is not received. But I could not find any information about minimum altitude when go-around should be initiated if the runway is occupied or landing permission is not received. Can anyone help me with the answer to the question: to what altitude (DA/DDA or below) it is possible descend legally without landing permission or waiting for the runway to be to clear? Thank U!

Unless otherwise stated, crossing the threshold is the limit without clearance to land. Ref PANS ATM.

From what I've been told by a controller (FAA), as long as your wheels aren't on the ground, there's still separation.

I've seen ORD operate where the first plane is rotating while the second is in the flare. Closer than I'd like, for sure, but at busy airports here, it's not unheard of to still have the runway occupied as you descend below mins.

Depends upon the country? I've gone around just prior to the flare as the previous aircraft missed their second or third exit.

Looks like the 3-10-3 section of the U.S. controllers manual requires 2,500'(??). https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf

no permission to land before minimum, that is easy...GA. follow what is on the chart.

a GA or balked below minimums is an emergency procedure...therefore, there are no rules.

Agreed with a caveat- terrain clearance is based on a go-around from the minima. For a go-around below minima you may need to be mindful of any special take-off procedure.

To answer the OP, in my company we would GA at alert height (200R on my type) if < CAT I and not in receipt of a landing clearance. In any other situation it’s up to the crew to decide...

An interesting one on the landing clearance bit: What about on an approach into CDG where you are cleared to land being number three on the approach?

I have done a few below minimums, the closest being as I was waiting for the wheels to touch and ATC said "XYZ Go around, er... can you make a go around from there?" By the time he had finished his transmission we were already climbing! He had spotted another aeroplane that had missed a taxiway turn and was about to infringe our runway. A formal 'thanks' was sent by our airline to the ATC unit.

Another landing that I did with a very late landing clearance was when, on a CAVOK day, a departing ahead was asked if he could expedite, said he could, was cleared to line up and take off, then 'dithered' (one of the 'legacy' airlines). We continued below 'minimums' as the go-around routing would have taken us straight into his climb-out with him being below our nose; using parkfell's 'point 2' we continued with a landing clearance as his wheels lifted off and we were near touching. We got a 'thanks' from ATC as we turned off the runway.

Quoted for thruth...

Flying on very short gravel strips in windy conditions teach you that quite fast. A go around is always an option.... all the way down to the ground, and sometimes a little longer (if you don't have thrustreversers and liftdumping devices)

Whether or not to land, that is in the end the decision of the pilot in command.... noone else.... even I as a ATCO can instruct a "go-around", if the pilot deems it safer to land.... he is in his right to do so (I've done my part).

A reminder of the question:

The answer is go-around by the time you cross the threshold if landing clearance is not recieved. Refs are PANS ATM 7.10.2, FAA Order JO 7110.65X 3.10.3, CAP 493 2.1.19, amongst others. I dare say most pilots have continued an approach past the threshold in anticipation that the overworked controller will imminently blurt out your landing clearance. Nonetheless you should understand that the separation minima for a runway does not depend on whether you have touched down, it depends on whether you have passed the threshold.

Wow. Competition is admittedly pretty stiff, but this has to be a contender for the title of "biggest load of bollocks ever written on PPRUNE".

Next time we hear somebody on frequency declaring an emergency because of a go around we will know who to look for ;-)

oggers has it right. Runway threshold, or 50 ft above the runway, if you're looking for a vertical minimum.
Official solution in my company (operator of considerable size in Europe) after lengthy discussions.

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.

Thankyou for reading and understanding the question.

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.

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?