Question for the Controllers....

If you are given landing clearance and see a plane, in your way, on the runway, are you still going to land, crash into it, and then say "I had a landing clearance"? Of course not. You would go around and tell the controller you're going around. Even though you had the clearance to land. The controller expects you to do that. He also expects you to take safe actions if you do not yet have a landing clearance. I think they expect you to use your judgement on when to go around if you have no clearance. A foot off the ground is probably not good judgment.

Count me as another that doesn't understand your confusion.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
Still does not satisfy the question of what can or cannot be done without a landing clearance.
The only thing I know for certain is that wheels cannot touch the pavement.
Click to expand...

Kritchlow said:
What is the purpose of “cleared to land”?
I mean, I completely understand “cleared for takeoff”, as you may not have a release for IFR, or there is another aircraft in the way.
But on landing, does that mean don’t touch wheels to pavement? Or don’t fly past the threshold?? I mean, if there’s a traffic on the runway and I don’t get a landing clearance, can I literally do a low pass at five feet? If so, I may hit that traffic on the runway. I understand I may get a “go around” command prior to that, but that doesn’t explain the landing clearance.
Of course common sense dictates if no landing clearance one should query before the threshold, but what exactly does the lack of a clearance mean?

thanks
Click to expand...

Low pass at 5 feet? No. Unless there are no persons, vessels, vehicles or structures within 500 feet, FAR 91.119. Unlikely at an airport. A low approach is the 'go around maneuver.'

LOW APPROACH− An approach over an airport or
runway following an instrument approach or a VFR
approach including the go-around maneuver where
the pilot intentionally does not make contact with the
runway.

So ya oughta git climbing on up to at least 500 AGL.
 
Last edited:
It's said that there's no such thing as a stupid question. I think we've found the exception.
 
I think where @Kritchlow is on this can be described as, and stay with me:

In IFR they say things like Cleared to "somewhere", and "expect further in some amount of time."

Near the airport (even uncontrolled ones, whatever the **** that is) you hear continue approach, or make left traffic, or the like... but wasn't the question where does your continuance or making traffic end if you are not cleared to land?

Is it "over the fence"? Is it "the threshold"? Is it the "displaced threshold"? Is it "the numbers"? Is it the "captain's bars"?

so... how do we know how close (laterally) can you get to a runway without being cleared to land?
 
Lindberg said:
So you're asking if the absence of a landing clearance is equivalent to permission to acting recklessly? There's no such thing as a landing clearance at a non-towered field. Does that mean it's OK to fly into a truck on the runway at a non-towered field? I am really trying to follow the logic of your question. But if your question wasn't answered by Larry's post, I really have no idea what you are asking.

You need a clearance to land at a towered airport. Not having a clearance means you may not land (emergencies notwithstanding). But the lack of a landing clearance is not a permission or prohibition on anything else you might or might not do (other than land).

And oh, BTW, a landing clearance isn't permission to smack the truck on the runway either. You're still the PIC and you're still responsible for where the aircraft goes and what it hits, even after you're cleared to land.
Click to expand...
Oh c’mon... everything I’ve said was in relation to NOT act recklessly.
It doesn’t have to be a huge red truck with flashing lights, but rather something hard to see such as FOD.
My whole point is that instead of a guessing game, it should be stated, for example, “do not cross the threshold on final approach without a landing clearance unless in in go-around mode”.
 
Kritchlow said:
Oh c’mon... everything I’ve said was in relation to NOT act recklessly.
It doesn’t have to be a huge red truck with flashing lights, but rather something hard to see such as FOD.
My whole point is that instead of a guessing game, it should be stated, for example, “do not cross the threshold on final approach without a landing clearance unless in in go-around mode”.
Click to expand...

We do NOT need more regulations and restrictions.
 
smv said:
We do NOT need more regulations and restrictions.
Click to expand...
It would not be another regulation, just a modification of an existing one. Instead of “don’t touch wheels to pavement”, it could be “don’t descend below 50 feet.”
(paraphrasing)
 
This can take you down a rabbit hole. The tower is there to manage traffic. It's their job to make sure they give you a landing clearance with enough time for you to land safely and not question whether in the next several seconds you're going to need to do a go-around due to a lack of a clearance or an unexpected "go around" direction. Do tower controllers make mistakes sometimes? Forget? Call it late? Sure, they're human. But 99+% of the time everything works OK. What would be the real purpose of the "50 feet AGL" or "cross the threshold" addition to the regulation? The tower's job is to clear you or tell you to go around well before that point. The next step would be "the tower didn't clear me to land before I hit 50 feet AGL... wouldn't it make sense if they had to clear you before 100 ft AGL?"

To the same point, someone above mentioned IFR instructions such as "cleared to XXX, expect YYY in ZZZ minutes". Well what if ATC doesn't clear you in ZZZ minutes? Should there be an additional regulation that tells the pilot very specifically what to do if you don't hear back in ZZZ minutes-10 seconds?

The answer to your original question is clear- regs only cover wheels touching the ground. The tower is responsible for making sure you don't overfly the runway at 1 ft because you waited until then to go around due to not receiving a clearance. You're now advocating for a change to the reg, which is a fine argument to have, but you can quit asking for clarification of what the reg says...
 
bflynn said:
Also don't hit nothin'.

And don't come close to doing either.
Click to expand...

Except the runway. :)

If I had to word a question it would be... “At what absolutely lowest altitude must a go around be initiated?”

The best answer I could think up was...

“Whenever the outcome of the safety of the flight is in jeopardy.”

In other words, “PIC Discretion” ... but don’t choose wrong.

Kinda sucks ... but it was the best I could think up in the case of not having a clearance...

And I can think of go-arounds that had a clearance and had already touched down as they were initiated too...
 
denverpilot said:
Except the runway. :)

If I had to word a question it would be... “At what absolutely lowest altitude must a go around be initiated?”

The best answer I could think up was...

“Whenever the outcome of the safety of the flight is in jeopardy.”

In other words, “PIC Discretion” ... but don’t choose wrong.

Kinda sucks ... but it was the best I could think up in the case of not having a clearance...

And I can think of go-arounds that had a clearance and had already touched down as they were initiated too...
Click to expand...
This is the best, albeit “non regulatory” answer so far. That’s pretty much my school of thought as well.
 
Spacedoc said:
This can take you down a rabbit hole. The tower is there to manage traffic. It's their job to make sure they give you a landing clearance with enough time for you to land safely and not question whether in the next several seconds you're going to need to do a go-around due to a lack of a clearance or an unexpected "go around" direction. Do tower controllers make mistakes sometimes? Forget? Call it late? Sure, they're human. But 99+% of the time everything works OK. What would be the real purpose of the "50 feet AGL" or "cross the threshold" addition to the regulation? The tower's job is to clear you or tell you to go around well before that point. The next step would be "the tower didn't clear me to land before I hit 50 feet AGL... wouldn't it make sense if they had to clear you before 100 ft AGL?"

To the same point, someone above mentioned IFR instructions such as "cleared to XXX, expect YYY in ZZZ minutes". Well what if ATC doesn't clear you in ZZZ minutes? Should there be an additional regulation that tells the pilot very specifically what to do if you don't hear back in ZZZ minutes-10 seconds?

The answer to your original question is clear- regs only cover wheels touching the ground. The tower is responsible for making sure you don't overfly the runway at 1 ft because you waited until then to go around due to not receiving a clearance. You're now advocating for a change to the reg, which is a fine argument to have, but you can quit asking for clarification of what the reg says...
Click to expand...
There are IFR rules if no further clearance received by an EFC... if that’s what you are driving at??
 
Kritchlow said:
Oh c’mon... everything I’ve said was in relation to NOT act recklessly.
It doesn’t have to be a huge red truck with flashing lights, but rather something hard to see such as FOD.
My whole point is that instead of a guessing game, it should be stated, for example, “do not cross the threshold on final approach without a landing clearance unless in in go-around mode”.
Click to expand...

So come up with something you think is good. Write the AIM dudes and make your recommendation. How to do it is near the beginning of the AIM. Here's a copy and paste of it.

Comments/Corrections
The office of primary responsibility (OPR) for this manual is:
FAA Headquarters, Mission Support Services
Policy Directorate (AJV−P)
600 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20597
Proposed changes must be submitted electronically, using the following format, to the Policy Directorate
Correspondence Mailbox at 9-AJV-8-HQ-Correspondence@faa.gov.
Notice to Editor
The following comments/corrections are submitted concerning the information contained in:
Paragraph number Title
Page Dated _________________
Name
Street
City State Zip
 
Last edited:
No idea what problem you think you're solving, but enjoy.

I'd expect some complicated rule that nobody understands to be the result. Oh, and no change in terms of safety of flight.

FB34772C-6A20-4CEB-A24B-31E21D8C3168.jpeg
 
Kritchlow said:
My whole point is that instead of a guessing game, it should be stated, for example, “do not cross the threshold on final approach without a landing clearance unless in in go-around mode”.
Click to expand...
Come on man, I'm trying really hard to not make a joke about how there's no "do not land" function on the Airbus FMS, but you're going to push me to do it.
 
Kritchlow said:
It would not be another regulation, just a modification of an existing one. Instead of “don’t touch wheels to pavement”, it could be “don’t descend below 50 feet.”(paraphrasing)
Click to expand...
What problem are you trying to solve? IMO, an imaginary problem.

When a controller has a conflict which prevents the issuance of a landing clearance they don't ignore it and wait to see what the pilot will do. They issue go-around instructions and (except for Air Canada) the pilots go-around.

If you are approaching the runway without a landing clearance it is very likely that the controller forgot. Start a little earlier with asking for the clearance, i.e. 500'-700', as I suggested above. That's a minute, or more, from touchdown in a GA airplane. If you are getting close to the runway without a clearance, do sometime reasonable. i.e. go-around. If the controller is expecting to withhold clearance until very late in your approach he will tell you that and tell you when to expect landing clearance.

Just for context, how much experience do you have operating out of airports with operating control towers?
 
Larry in TN said:
What problem are you trying to solve? IMO, an imaginary problem.

When a controller has a conflict which prevents the issuance of a landing clearance they don't ignore it and wait to see what the pilot will do. They issue go-around instructions and (except for Air Canada) the pilots go-around.

If you are approaching the runway without a landing clearance it is very likely that the controller forgot. Start a little earlier with asking for the clearance, i.e. 500'-700', as I suggested above. That's a minute, or more, from touchdown in a GA airplane. If you are getting close to the runway without a clearance, do sometime reasonable. i.e. go-around. If the controller is expecting to withhold clearance until very late in your approach he will tell you that and tell you when to expect landing clearance.

Just for context, how much experience do you have operating out of airports with operating control towers?
Click to expand...
He's a professional pilot. Citation or Pilatus I think.
 
Kritchlow said:
It would not be another regulation, just a modification of an existing one. Instead of “don’t touch wheels to pavement”, it could be “don’t descend below 50 feet.”
(paraphrasing)
Click to expand...
The term "micromanagement" come to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smv
Palmpilot said:
The term "micromanagement" come to mind.
Click to expand...

In a world where everything you do every minute of every day gets broadcast to all of your "friends" and peer approval is the most important metric, independent free thought and actions are scary. Without continually being told what to do and how to think, kids these days simply break down and cannot function.

Oh yah, while you are at it, get off my lawn! :yikes:
 
kayoh190 said:
Airbus.
Click to expand...
That's what I had thought. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks.

Back in December we had situation landing DEN after a red-eye from Anchorage. We were cleared to land on 16L following another 737. At that time of morning, the Local controller was working multiple, if not all, of the runways. He was busy talking to someone else on another runway when we noticed that the preceding 737 did not clear the runway at the expected taxiway. The controller didn't notice and continued talking to flights on the other runway.

When it was obvious that the preceding aircraft would not be clear when we reached the threshold so we initiated the go-around. I don't remember exactly where we were at the time but I'd guess in the 300'-500' range. Still had plenty of time but there was no point in continuing once it was obvious that we wouldn't be able to land. They brought us back around to 16R fairly quickly and, when we returned to the tower frequency, it was a new voice. As we cleared the runway the new voice apologized and said that it would be taken care of. We both filed ASAP reports.

I'm telling this story because it was another situation where there wasn't very specific instructions in the regulations on how to handle the problem. I knew that 7110.65 required that the controller send us around if the runway was not going to be clear when we reached the threshold. I also knew that it wasn't going to be clear. No point in waiting.

BTW, a couple nights before Christmas eve, I'm sitting in the hotel lobby in Anchorage waiting for the van to the airport for the red-eye. Do you know what was playing on the background music in the lobby? Mele Kalikimaka! Geez! Add insult to injury, why don't ya!
 
Larry in TN said:
I'm telling this story because it was another situation where there wasn't very specific instructions in the regulations on how to handle the problem.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the regulations do have something to say about crashing into other aircraft on the runway.

The premise of this topic seems to be that clearances are instructions on how to fly your plane and the absence of a clearance means not knowing what to do. But that's just silly.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm pretty sure the regulations do have something to say about crashing into other aircraft on the runway.
Click to expand...
It is a 12,000' runway. There was no danger of crashing into the proceeding aircraft.

The regulations lack the same specifics for my situation that they do in the situation about which Kritchlow is asking. My point was that this lack of specificity in the regulations is common. There is an expectation that pilots can evaluate unanticipated situations and make reasonable decisions that are consistent with regulations and other official guidance.
 
I was taught that the PIC always has the option of going around. I'm not aware of a specific reg to that effect, other than 14 CFR 91.3.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm pretty sure the regulations do have something to say about crashing into other aircraft on the runway.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Made me look.

Just because this thread is so pedantic and it’s funny, I honestly don’t think other than the “careless and reckless” catch-all that there’s any law against playing bumper airplanes. LOL.

There’s right of way stuff but if you mess that one up, nothing says it’s illegal to crash. Hahaha.

I didn’t look real hard...
 
This whole conversation is ridiculous. It’s like arguing about whether “above ground level” includes the height of the vegetation or not, and then wanting the FAA to define “tree” so that we can comply with not hitting one.
 
kath said:
This whole conversation is ridiculous. It’s like arguing about whether “above ground level” includes the height of the vegetation or not, and then wanting the FAA to define “tree” so that we can comply with not hitting one.
Click to expand...

FAA defines all trees and obstacles as 50’ already!!!

LOL LOL LOL

There are no 100’ obstacles around airports don’t-cha-know?! :)
 
denverpilot said:
Hmmm. Made me look.

Just because this thread is so pedantic and it’s funny, I honestly don’t think other than the “careless and reckless” catch-all that there’s any law against playing bumper airplanes. LOL.

There’s right of way stuff but if you mess that one up, nothing says it’s illegal to crash. Hahaha.

I didn’t look real hard...
Click to expand...
What do you think the "right of way stuff" means?
 
kath said:
This whole conversation is ridiculous. It’s like arguing about whether “above ground level” includes the height of the vegetation or not, and then wanting the FAA to define “tree” so that we can comply with not hitting one.
Click to expand...

Well, they do use a default height of 200 feet for ‘vegetation’ and other uncharted stuff when plotting out MEF’s, and I think OROCA to. Beware of flying over Redwoods. Ok, I’m done now....
 
Larry in TN said:
What problem are you trying to solve? IMO, an imaginary problem.

When a controller has a conflict which prevents the issuance of a landing clearance they don't ignore it and wait to see what the pilot will do. They issue go-around instructions and (except for Air Canada) the pilots go-around.

If you are approaching the runway without a landing clearance it is very likely that the controller forgot. Start a little earlier with asking for the clearance, i.e. 500'-700', as I suggested above. That's a minute, or more, from touchdown in a GA airplane. If you are getting close to the runway without a clearance, do sometime reasonable. i.e. go-around. If the controller is expecting to withhold clearance until very late in your approach he will tell you that and tell you when to expect landing clearance.

Just for context, how much experience do you have operating out of airports with operating control towers?
Click to expand...
To your last question. Roughly 20,000 hours..??
 
Also please read my earlier post. This cane into a question while on a CAT II approach. Just how low do you take it without a clearance when you cannot see anything?
 
kath said:
This whole conversation is ridiculous. It’s like arguing about whether “above ground level” includes the height of the vegetation or not, and then wanting the FAA to define “tree” so that we can comply with not hitting one.
Click to expand...
Obviously you have no idea just what the question is.
 
Lindberg said:
What do you think the "right of way stuff" means?
Click to expand...

Exactly what it says. You can be cited for not giving way, but there’s no rule saying anything about hitting them. LOL.

They probably figure you have worse problems at that point and whatever book they throw at you in the hospital bed won’t matter too much. :)

Obviously this can go on forever. There’s no law about chopping your secret girlfriend’s arm off with a prop in Vegas either, but it’s happened. Hahaha.

With the book already being three inches thick and basically the same accidents happening over and over for a few decades now, we all know making the book thicker with poorly written rules, really isn’t really useful or effective.

But it gives a solid multiple nights of reading where one can infer multiple ways to avoid death and as a bonus can cure insomnia. :)
 
Kritchlow said:
Thank you... I mean that sincerely, as now I think you understand what I’m driving at.
Click to expand...
Yes, the real-life example puts things into perspective.

All I can say is, I trust your judgment on when a go-around (or a question to ATC) is warranted!
 
Palmpilot said:
Yes, the real-life example puts things into perspective.

All I can say is, I trust your judgment on when a go-around (or a question to ATC) is warranted!
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Kritchlow said:
Also please read my earlier post. This cane into a question while on a CAT II approach. Just how low do you take it without a clearance when you cannot see anything?
Click to expand...
It doesn't change any of the answers. You can't land without a clearance. But you don't need a clearance to do anything else. So do something else. If on an IFR approach, presumably you'd just go missed.
 
Lindberg said:
It doesn't change any of the answers. You can't land without a clearance. But you don't need a clearance to do anything else. So do something else. If on an IFR approach, presumably you'd just go missed.
Click to expand...
Whatever.... agree can’t land.
I give up .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top