Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 18, 2014, 07:42:57 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Aviation
| |-+  Pilot/Controller Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Cleared for the option
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Cleared for the option  (Read 9707 times)
swa4678
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2014, 05:06:59 PM »

Ah, I see. Apparently I had skimmed too much and missed that scenario setup.

In that case, my vote definitely goes for "going around" since "going missed" sounds too much like "I am executing missed approach procedures" which isn't something I think of when you say VFR (it's not even allowed if you're VFR and have received approval for a practice IAP - you have to receive additional clearance to fly the missed approach procedures).

EDIT: It's a similar distinction I would probably make for an IFR aircraft executing a visual approach versus one executing some other IAP. If you're on an ILS approach, for example, and decide to abandon the approach, I'd expect to hear "going missed" or, perhaps even more verbosely, "going missed as published" (since an approach clearance for IFR automatically authorizes the missed approach procedures as well). Here, ATC could simply reply with "Roger" and say nothing else until he's worked on a new plan for you. You're still following your last clearance (the approach clearance).

Same aircraft and flight rules, but now let's assume it's a visual approach. There is no such thing as a "missed approach procedure" to be executed if you decide to abandon the approach. You're in a situation where you can't comply with your last clearance (the visual approach) and need new instructions. Thus, I'd expect to hear "going around" which is hopefully met with new instructions.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 05:15:08 PM by swa4678 » Logged
falstro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2014, 02:14:50 AM »

EDIT: It's a similar distinction I would probably make for an IFR aircraft executing a visual approach versus one executing some other IAP. If you're on an ILS approach, for example, and decide to abandon the approach, I'd expect to hear "going missed" or, perhaps even more verbosely, "going missed as published" (since an approach clearance for IFR automatically authorizes the missed approach procedures as well). Here, ATC could simply reply with "Roger" and say nothing else until he's worked on a new plan for you. You're still following your last clearance (the approach clearance).

Actually, the ICAO standard phraseology for this is "going around", so if you're on an instrument approach, "going around" means you're heading for the missed approach, and if you're visual you're heading for another lap in the pattern. This is analogous to the ATC instruction "go around", ATC will never tell you to "go missed" (unless you're on a PAR, in which case he'll tell you to "execute missed approach"). I can't find any appropriate FAA document specifying the use of "going around" though, the 7110.65 only mentions the "go around" instruction, not the appropriate response, so feel free to correct me on phraseology specific to the US. That said, I often hear "going missed", or "missed approach" (the second I suppose would be appropriate when checking back in with approach or center, not tower, no?).

Either way, you are always cleared to go around. Even if you get "unable low approach, cleared to land", if you don't like the way things are unfolding, you are indeed cleared to go around. Same with LAHSO. You might have to explain yourself, but the controller may never ever rob you of the option to go around if he clears you to land. So saying you're cleared for the option (including to land, touch and go, whatever), you are also cleared to go around, and berating someone for saying "going around" when doing a low approach, which is effectively the same, just seems dumb to me. Perhaps we're missing part of the picture?
Logged
InterpreDemon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2014, 10:06:09 AM »

Agreed... if cleared for the option you are also cleared to land, thus to go around and enter the pattern. That's handy, because if you run out of runway before seeing the pump prices, they look good but no room to stop, you can go around again for your top-up.
Logged

Feed Purveyor:
KJFK ARINC
KHPN ATIS
(KJFK) NY DEP Liberty East
HF CAR-A  3455/5550/6577/8846/11396
HF ARINC LDOC  6640/8933
HF NY VOLMET  6604

Complaints should be addressed to: City Hall
notaperfectpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 237


Student pilot


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2014, 11:01:34 AM »

Agreed... if cleared for the option you are also cleared to land, thus to go around and enter the pattern. That's handy, because if you run out of runway before seeing the pump prices, they look good but no room to stop, you can go around again for your top-up.

unless your at LWB where they don't advertise the prices anywhere... shocked
Logged
jermscentral
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2014, 09:39:52 PM »

Could you comment on whether "going missed" is something you can reasonably expect a VFR pilot to report, and whether that's accurate for a VFR pilot who is not on an instrument approach?  The average low time VFR pilot may not even know what a "missed approach" is if they have not been exposed to IFR procedures?  In my experience the report for a VFR go-around is "on the go" or "going around".  And we do appreciate you checking the runway since there may in fact be something there that caused the go-around.

Reasonably, if I have a VFR guy come into my B airspace for approaches, the pilot has typically been talking to the TRACON, though I have had a couple of calls from folks off an adjacent airport. If the approach controller hadn't already called me on the interphone to tell me, I'll ask the pilot, "How will this approach terminate?" before I ever clear you for anything so I know what to expect. I'd rather pre-plan and get you taken care of and not have to talk to you again until you're on the next (closed traffic) approach or departing the airspace. The fewer transmissions I make, the better. I'd rather say, "N12345, runway 11, cleared for the option. After the option, make right closed traffic," or, "N12345, runway 11, cleared for the option. After the option, climb and maintain 3000, turn right heading 170," than keep talking to you after everything. If you call up and say you're on the missed approach, I'll restate the instructions.

When I worked at a Class D tower, I always heard pilots call "on the go". To me, it doesn't really matter what you say; I'll be responding either way.
Logged

STL ATC
n07cfi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2014, 01:04:20 PM »

Just revisiting this forum - memory is now a bit hazy after this time, but here are the relevant details.

* Class D towered
* VFR for the pilot in question
* Mix of VFR and practice IFR traffic (I was practicing an IFR approach with a student when I heard the conversation between tower and pilot)
* Pilot originally received touch and go clearance, pilot requested an option instead, pilot granted option clearance
* Pilot announced on the final approach that he was "going around"
* Tower advised pilot that go-around is not an approved procedure for an option clearance

One potential additional detail.  The pilot may have come in from outside the airspace intending to do the pattern (as opposed to already being in the pattern).  Maybe tower was annoyed ... "I gave him an option clearance when he could have just kept the touch and go"...

Regardless, my fundamental issue with this is that a go-around is a pilot's prerogative exclusive of what the tower wants or expects.  But according to the FAA tower ops advisory, the controller was technically right stating that go-around is not approved.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 01:07:30 PM by n07cfi » Logged
Immelman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2014, 04:11:34 AM »

A clearance to land is just that a "clearance" not a mandate. If for whatever reason the pilot needs to abort the landing and "go-around" he can, therefore the tower should always be prepared for that possibility. I think we as pilots should be careful not to over use "the option". If you know what your going to do say so, especially in a busy pattern.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!