About to cross the numbers: not cleared to land yet

cessnajockey454

cessnajockey454

Well-Known Member
Landing at a small airport with a new tower, I was told to report 2 mile final for 17.

When I got to the 2 mile point, the Controller was busy talking to a couple of military jets - one on final for 12, doing T&G's with a departure leg that crosses the departure leg of 17, and one approaching the airport from the South with an intention of landing on 12.

There was finally a pause on the radio at about a one mile final and she asked my position. I told her where I was and she went on a long diatribe about the other traffic as I'm approaching the numbers to the runway.

When she was finished talking, I was about to cross the numbers - so I just rattled off my N number, cleared to land 17?

So she informs me that she hasn't given me clearance to land yet. Now, I really wanted to land as opposed to launching off into the path of the jet approaching 12 for his T&G - this would have put him behind me for a short time before I would be able to break left.

So I put in lots of flaps, slowed down over the runway and asked "Are you going to clear me to land on 17?" She finally did and I touched down 1/2 of the way down the 5,000 runway and was told to hold short of 12 after clearing 17 which I did.

My question is how should I have handled this differently? What do you when the controller is busy or extremely wordy and you need to get a clearance to land? And why didn't she just confirm 'cleared to land 17' when I asked and needed it since she was about to do it anyway...instead of arguing about it?
 
Do whatever you must to safely complete the flight. Ask questions later.
 
Call the tower on the phone, speak to the supervisor, describe the scenario exactly as you posted it here and ask him/her what you should have done.
 
Interesting situation. Could you see the other traffic? If so, then I think I would have gone around. That said, I understand your rationale for not wanting to. I would add a +1 to what another person said: Contact the tower and explain it just as you have here. Oh, and file a NASA/ASRS report.
 
You're the Captain of the ship. Do what is safe. IMO, it's not good practice to fly halfway down the runway for a reason that was not briefed. Today, it worked. Tomorrow, it may not. Have an approach plan and a missed approach plan and keep your touchdowns in the touchdown zone unless you brief a safe long landing. I would say you had a good reason to be uncomfortable. If it were me, I would have gone around and stayed clear of the other traffic as best as I could. Make a clear call on the frequency about your exact position and that you are going around. Make left traffic if you can and most importantly, follow the local instructions for traffic pattern altitude for your type aircraft.

I had it out with a stubborn controller one time because I elected to go around when I decided a safe, legal landing could no longer be made. The controller asked "do you plan on landing here sometime??" When we did land, I made it a point to call and touch base with him. He was notably frustrated with the busy traffic and I made it clear that I respected his job. I also wanted to make it clear that his job didn't entail commanding me to land. He should have more than one plan, also. We can't always make each other happy, but we can operate safely if we respect each others' needs.
 
I'm not going to do slow flight over the runway because the tower is screwing things up. I would have gone around.
 
Don't land without a clearance brother.......if you don't have enough gas to make it around the pattern again (or missed approach if IMC), then drop the E word and apologize later. Was bouncing at MCAS Miramar a couple weeks back; couldn't get a word in edgewise between the tower trying to establish comms with our LSO and incoming traffic calling inital/break/etc. Waved it off, went around, no heartache required. It may seem like a formality at times (you are #1 on final, you have already been talking to them, they have to see you), but better safe than sorry. No need to press a bad situation to save a landing......you would have gone around had the approach looked bad or the winds been unsafe......at a towered airport, no comms is yet another reason to take a safe go around and try it again. I don't think you did anything wrong, but it would have probably been easier on you to just suck it up and try again.

Edit: was this victoria by chance?
 
I was actually shocked when I told tower that I was going around and they asked me why. I told them because there still was an aircraft on the runway. They told me that it wasn't a problem because the aircraft was more then 4,000(I think this was the distance) down the runway. Never knew this could happen.

As for what the others said go around. Maintain visual sep w/ the other aircraft any means possible.
 
jhugz said:
I was actually shocked when I told tower that I was going around and they asked me why. I told them because there still was an aircraft on the runway. They told me that it wasn't a problem because the aircraft was more then 4,000(I think this was the distance) down the runway. Never knew this could happen.

As for what the others said go around. Maintain visual sep w/ the other aircraft any means possible.
Click to expand...

It depends on the aircraft involved, but yes, there can be more than one aircraft on the runway at one time. If both are props, single engine, and 12,500 lbs or less max certified takeoff weight, then as long as the first a/c is 3,000 ft down the runway (and airborne if the first a/c was a takeoff), there can be 2 on the runway at the same time.
 
It was VCT...the lady controller seems to be a real tool...most people around the airport complain about her...the nicest thing I've heard about her was that "she is a meanie'.

Doing a go-around just seemed like the more dangerous of the two choices - I couldn't see the inbound jet traffic from the south, but he was close and probably fast, and would have been taking off into his projected path and although I had positive contact with the jet approaching 12, doing a go-around would have diverted my attention away from him.

I wasn't sure how prepared the controller was or how well the military students/instructors were paying attention since they all seemed to have their plates full at the time.

Allot of the radio chatter is the controller tying to figure out what the military guys are requesting - they like to do some strange stuff (at least it sounds that way to a civilian) and seem to have their own lingo for it.
 
cessnajockey454 said:
I wasn't sure how prepared the controller was or how well the military students/instructors were paying attention since they all seemed to have their plates full at the time.

Allot of the radio chatter is the controller tying to figure out what the military guys are requesting - they like to do some strange stuff (at least it sounds that way to a civilian) and seem to have their own lingo for it.
Click to expand...

More than likely they were T-45's from Kingsville. Yeah, I know what you mean about the non-standard stuff.....formation ops sometimes throw unsuspecting/inexperienced civilian controllers for a loop. That said, I'm sure the IP's in the back seat were very much aware of what was going on around them. Not their first rodeo so to speak.

My question is, did you eat the chicken fried steak after you landed? :)
 
If I don't get a landing clearance on a 1/2 mile final on a 3000 foot runway, I'm taking the flaps up and adding power to do a go around. If it is a 6000-8000 foot runway, I can plan to float and get off the last taxiway exit on the runway. It really depends on your experience level and how comfortable you are doing stuff like this but when in doubt, go around. If you can't climb straight up after a go around due to conflicting traffic, you can side step to the right (or left) of the runway.
 
cessnajockey454 said:
It was VCT...the lady controller seems to be a real tool...most people around the airport complain about her...the nicest thing I've heard about her was that "she is a meanie'.

Doing a go-around just seemed like the more dangerous of the two choices - I couldn't see the inbound jet traffic from the south, but he was close and probably fast, and would have been taking off into his projected path and although I had positive contact with the jet approaching 12, doing a go-around would have diverted my attention away from him.

I wasn't sure how prepared the controller was or how well the military students/instructors were paying attention since they all seemed to have their plates full at the time.

Allot of the radio chatter is the controller tying to figure out what the military guys are requesting - they like to do some strange stuff (at least it sounds that way to a civilian) and seem to have their own lingo for it.
Click to expand...


I actually discussed a scenario like with with a captain I was flying with once.

His stance: The radio freq is jammed, and you can't get a word in edgewise, and/or you've been forgotten about.

Under IFR rules, if you go NORDO, you're expected to track the expected path based Filing, Vector, or Expected clearances, etc. In this case, while not IFR (if I read that right) you were following given clearances with implied vectors to a given expectation, ie, a landing clearance.

Since the controller wasn't communicating, and also blocking the frequency by not allowing you a chance to call, following the safest and *most expected* course of action at this point would seem prudent.

In other words, as you stated in your opinion, landing presented the safest, least potentially hazardous scenario possible. As FAR 91 allows for pilots deviate from clearances (or lack of clearances) in order to preserve safety of the flight, there's your CYA. It's not your fault the controller failed to issue a clearance in a timely fashion.

I dunno about slow flight down the strip- a descent, approach, and touchdown is required by FAR during a landing scenario. Busting out a non-standard maneuver to give the controller more time to wave you in is something I personally would not have done.

Personally, I think the "Safety of Flight override of clearance" is more than enough to CYA. If complication of airspace and potential loss of separation is really an issue, going around actually decreases overall safety AND increases controller workload, potentially causing other problems in the process.

Trump card: Just key the mike and step on the tranmitter and yell into the mike if you really feel the need. Beyond that- use your #2 radio on 121.5. Towers monitor Guard continuously on a stand-alone receiver, and the controller would have heard that as a unique tone, if I understand that correctly. You could also try a hoot on the ground control radio on the #2 transmitter (assuming you have one.)


Disclaimer: I'm not a CFI, and don't in any way represent the FAA or whatever. If anybody else has a better take on this, please, by all means weigh in.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I actually discussed a scenario like with with a captain I was flying with once.

His stance: The radio freq is jammed, and you can't get a word in edgewise, and/or you've been forgotten about.

Under IFR rules, if you go NORDO, you're expected to track the expected path based Filing, Vector, or Expected clearances, etc. In this case, while not IFR (if I read that right) you were following given clearances with implied vectors to a given expectation, ie, a landing clearance.

Since the controller wasn't communicating, and also blocking the frequency by not allowing you a chance to call, following the safest and *most expected* course of action at this point would seem prudent.

In other words, as you stated in your opinion, landing presented the safest, least potentially hazardous scenario possible. As FAR 91 allows for pilots deviate from clearances (or lack of clearances) in order to preserve safety of the flight, there's your CYA. It's not your fault the controller failed to issue a clearance in a timely fashion.

I dunno about slow flight down the strip- a descent, approach, and touchdown is required by FAR during a landing scenario. Busting out a non-standard maneuver to give the controller more time to wave you in is something I personally would not have done.

Personally, I think the "Safety of Flight override of clearance" is more than enough to CYA. If complication of airspace and potential loss of separation is really an issue, going around actually decreases overall safety AND increases controller workload, potentially causing other problems in the process.

Trump card: Just key the mike and step on the tranmitter and yell into the mike if you really feel the need. Beyond that- use your #2 radio on 121.5. Towers monitor Guard continuously on a stand-alone receiver, and the controller would have heard that as a unique tone, if I understand that correctly. You could also try a hoot on the ground control radio on the #2 transmitter (assuming you have one.)


Disclaimer: I'm not a CFI, and don't in any way represent the FAA or whatever. If anybody else has a better take on this, please, by all means weigh in.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but the OP did say that ATC specifically told him he did not have a landing clearance. I understand the FAR's, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to have to explain why I did it anyway, even when being told I didn't have a clearance.

Not all towers moniter the emergency frequency, especially contract towers. Also, on a half mile final is not where I am about to try to tune in ground control (which the local controller may have very well been working as well, so that would not have done any good anyway), I'm going around. Generally there is a reason why the controller will not issue a clearance. If she could have issued it when he asked, she probably would have. There can be reasons why a clearance cannot be given at a certain point in time. I personally would have gone around.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I actually discussed a scenario like with with a captain I was flying with once.

His stance: The radio freq is jammed, and you can't get a word in edgewise, and/or you've been forgotten about.

Under IFR rules, if you go NORDO, you're expected to track the expected path based Filing, Vector, or Expected clearances, etc. In this case, while not IFR (if I read that right) you were following given clearances with implied vectors to a given expectation, ie, a landing clearance.

Since the controller wasn't communicating, and also blocking the frequency by not allowing you a chance to call, following the safest and *most expected* course of action at this point would seem prudent.

In other words, as you stated in your opinion, landing presented the safest, least potentially hazardous scenario possible. As FAR 91 allows for pilots deviate from clearances (or lack of clearances) in order to preserve safety of the flight, there's your CYA. It's not your fault the controller failed to issue a clearance in a timely fashion.

I dunno about slow flight down the strip- a descent, approach, and touchdown is required by FAR during a landing scenario. Busting out a non-standard maneuver to give the controller more time to wave you in is something I personally would not have done.

Personally, I think the "Safety of Flight override of clearance" is more than enough to CYA. If complication of airspace and potential loss of separation is really an issue, going around actually decreases overall safety AND increases controller workload, potentially causing other problems in the process.

Trump card: Just key the mike and step on the tranmitter and yell into the mike if you really feel the need. Beyond that- use your #2 radio on 121.5. Towers monitor Guard continuously on a stand-alone receiver, and the controller would have heard that as a unique tone, if I understand that correctly. You could also try a hoot on the ground control radio on the #2 transmitter (assuming you have one.)


Disclaimer: I'm not a CFI, and don't in any way represent the FAA or whatever. If anybody else has a better take on this, please, by all means weigh in.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I buy the argument that a go-around is not the "most expected" course of action. Clearance to land, to low approach, or for the "option" always includes clearance for the missed approach. I'm not an ATC'er, but I think that this fact negates the argument that you are doing something "unexpected" when you take an aircraft missed/go around. It may be slightly uncommon, but a missed/go-around should be something that the tower has a reasonable expectation of every time they clear you to land, since they know that landing clearance includes missed approach/go-around clearance if required. Basically, they should be ready for the missed/go around at all times, since they are the ones who cleared you for it (by clearing you to land).

Of course, in this example, they DIDN'T clear him, and that was the whole problem. To me, that makes an even stronger case for the go-around/missed approach rather than the landing. They haven't cleared him to land, which means that he should be going around.

I suppose the "safety of flight" get out of jail free card would be adequate CYA, but only assuming the pilot's knowledge of the situation were correct. Then he could easily say he was trying to avoid an unsafe situation from the traffic that he knew or thought would be a conflict to his go-around flight path. If on the other hand his landing were to CAUSE a conflict with someone, then the tower would be correct in arguing that the pilot's disregarding procedures and clearances was causal to the accident.

Or to put it simpler: It's only good CYA if nothing bad happens, which makes it less than ideal CYA. If violating a clearance to avoid potential mishap A leads to actual mishap B, your ass ain't covered, so use sparingly and with a healthy dose of discretion.

As for the slowing down on short final/over the runway, or landing halfway down the runway... those questions really are fairly airplane and pilot specific. What works in a small Cessna won't work in a 747, and vice-versa. It's probably not an ideal course of action, but it wasn't an ideal situation in the first place. If it's within the airplane's capabilities, the pilot's abilities, and legal according to the FAR's I can't find too much fault with it, even if it is a less than ideal solution to the problem. Of course, that's a HUGE disclaimer, even though it doesn't really sound like one!

Just my thoughts.
 
///AMG said:
Don't land without a clearance brother.......if you don't have enough gas to make it around the pattern again (or missed approach if IMC), then drop the E word and apologize later.
Click to expand...

Don't do it! If it is a long runway, just fly over it a 50' and wait until you can get a word in. Hard not to notice you when you are crossing the numbers.

Is it cool for a glider to land without a clearance (assuming you get cleared into the airspace)? It isn't like the glider can go around... What I've seen is land the glider on the grass next to the runway if there is traffic.

My biggest fear in cross country soaring is choosing between a perfectly good runway I can make, and a farm field I'm not sure about. (It is a lot easier to retrieve a glider from an airport)
 
jhugz said:
I was actually shocked when I told tower that I was going around and they asked me why. I told them because there still was an aircraft on the runway. They told me that it wasn't a problem because the aircraft was more then 4,000(I think this was the distance) down the runway. Never knew this could happen.

As for what the others said go around. Maintain visual sep w/ the other aircraft any means possible.
Click to expand...

SAME exact thing happened to me when landing at TYR last year, commenced a go-around and informed tower there was an aircraft on the runway. Tower explained the 4000' rule to me, it was something I never knew existed up until then!
 
Given the situation, I personally would have gone around and announced "Going around off 17, traffic off of 12 in sight" so everyone knows what I'm doing and where to find me.

But I'm not trying to say what you did was wrong. I can totally understand why you'd be second-guessing a go-around in that situation.

One time I was told to continue behind a PC-12, he landed, cleared the runway, and I was on a 3 mile final. At 2 miles I called "Request sequence" as a hint that I should be #1 and I'm almost down. At 1 mile I called "confirm cleared to land". Both these calls went unanswered. I continued right until it was time to flare then I just jammed the throttle and went around, right after I established a climb, ATC finally came on and told me "affirm clear...err...make right traffic 30".

I've never had any problems with that controller before at my local airport so I didn't make a big deal about it or anything, a go-around in a 172 is no big deal. But I didn't want to float along the runway waiting for a call that might not come, so I decided to go around and I was cleared to land this time as I turned cross-wind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top