Cleared to land, do what you want, touch n go, etc???I h

[RobertGary1]

I had a pilot argue that you really never need a clearance for the option or touch n go because the landing clerance allows you to go around and nothing says you can't go around from a near stop. Practical arguments aside, is there any FAR or even AIM guidance that disagrees with his assertion? He's saying you couldn't be busted by the FSDO for doing touch-n-go's when only cleared to land.

Im surprised I'm not even seeing an FAA handbook that clearly disagrees with that.

-Robert

[carusoam]

There are some things you can do... if you have to.

At a towered airport, It would be Best to announce your attentions, or at least share them with the tower...

Doing things unexpected can cause challenges for somebody else...

We have a few ATC people on MS... See if they can chime in...

Best regards,

-a-

[N201MKTurbo]

While your friend is correct, it is just common curtesy to let the tower know what you want to do. It makes everybody’s life easier. 

[smwash02]

I believe your friend is incorrect. AIM 4-03-14 discusses it. This ATC manual reads the same way.

The way i read it is that if you're 'cleared to land' you can land or go around so long as you've not 'landed' because you weren't given clearance to take off again.

If you're cleared 'for the option' per the AIM explicitly you're cleared for 'the option' to touch and go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop.

Edited August 17, 2019 by smwash02

[N201MKTurbo]

11 minutes ago, smwash02 said:

I believe you friend is incorrect. AIM 4-03-14 discusses it. This ATC manual reads the same way.

The way i read it is that if you're 'cleared to land' you can land or go around so long as you've not 'landed' because you weren't given clearance to take off again.

If you're cleared 'for the option' per the AIM explicitly you're cleared for 'the option' to touch and go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop.

We are splitting hairs here, but who decides when you are “landed”. I’m not saying you should do what ever you want, but if they gave you any grief about it, you can just say an animal ran out on the runway and you had to do it. Besides, the Aim isn’t the FARs, but you won’t get a ticket by doing what it says in the AIM.

[Shadrach]

Your friend is correct. When cleared to land the aircraft is cleared for the entire landing sequence. A go around can occur at any time in that sequence (I do not believe that commercial jets will initiate a go around after brakes and or TRs have been used). Larger aircraft sometimes touchdown briefly even when a go around has been initiated on short final.

All of the above being said, if it’s descovered that a pilot is deliberately not communicating intentions there’s a case to be made for a  violation under 91.13 careless or reckless.

[midlifeflyer]

A pilot is well within his or her rights to go-around in any landing and I would not expect the pilots decision to go around to be questioned.

But... the argument that you can do a touch and go is really just a subset of the argument about whether a touch and go and a go around are the same. 

I've always taken the view that a touch and go and a go-around are two completely different things. A touch and go is an in-advanced plan to perform the landing of one's choice, reconfigure the airplane on post-landing roll-out, and perform the takeoff of one's choice.  It is more like a stop and go than a go-around, differentiated only by the speed of the rollout.

Would one get dinged for an unauthorized touch and go? Give it a try at a busy towered airport and see. How about your local Bravo or Charlie during push times? Better yet, make it on a crosswind runway where the Go takes you over the main runway(s) and affects the flow of other traffic. Make sure it's clearly a touch and go. Go slowly, take your time in the rollout to reset flaps and trim. When questioned after interfering with the pattern, don't forget to say, "well, it was my airspace, and I decided to do a touch and go."

[Yetti]

Since the tower is working to sequence things I believe it would be common courtesy to let them know what you are doing.   Unless of course you like extended finals and being sent to a penalty hold for a long time.

[Tom]

I'm reminded of all these sovereign citizen folks who question the authority of the police while getting pulled over, stating that XYZ isn't specifically forbidden under the constitution or something.  Consider reminding the friend that FAA maintains the right to re-examine his ticket even without charging a specific infraction.

49 U.S. Code § 44709 grants FAA the right to re-examine a pilot if:
"the Administrator decides after conducting a reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require that action"

 

 

 

 

[Bob - S50]

Keep in mind that the AIM is not regulatory but the FAR's are.

While I cannot find a formal definition of "landing", "touch and go", "stop and go", or "low approach"; the terms are used fairly frequently in the AIM.  Additionally, the AIM talks about the "option" several times and in doing so it references full stop, stop and go, touch and go, low approach, and missed approach.  So it appears to me that the AIM (and likely the FAA) view them as different operations.

I cannot find anything in the FAR's that give definitions of any of those terms.

On the other hand, FAR 91.123 requires compliance with ATC instructions except when a pilot exercises their emergency authority.  FAR 91.129.i also requires Tower clearance to taxi, takeoff, or land.

I think most people understand "cleared to land" to mean full stop.  I would think that doing a touch and go when you were cleared to land might be construed as failure to comply with and ATC instruction.

If I were a betting man, if a pilot was 'cleared to land' and they did anything different than a full stop, I'd guess that at the least they would be given a tongue lashing or a number to call after they landed.  Repeated failure to comply would probably result in a violation and I think the FAA would agree.

If a pilot claimed they 'had to go around' after they landed, I'm thinking they might be asked to explain in writing what event happened that forced them to use their emergency authority to deviate and go around after they had landed.

Such an operation is rude, potentially screws up a controller's planning, and possibly results in a loss of inflight separation.

While we all make errors while we fly, in my opinion there is no place in aviation for a pilot like the one Robert referred to.  While I could understand an error being the result of inexperience from a student pilot, intentionally pushing the limits on the rules based on a technicality endangers us all and invites the creation of new restrictions.

Rant off.

[bob865]

IMHO, Regulations and FAA guidance aside, it's a dick move to request a landing and do a touch and go.  Just becuase you can, doesn't mean you should.

[Austintatious]

I am about as anti authority as one can be and still be rational....  and I really really dont see why anyone would play this stupid game.  There is most certainly a stupid prize to be awarded for it.

If you are cleared to LAND and there is no real reason to lift back off after you touch, then dont do it...

If you want to do a TnG /OPTION then request the TnG/OPTION.

You are not the only person in the sky.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Austintatious

[Tom]

22 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

If a pilot claimed they 'had to go around' after they landed, I'm thinking they might be asked to explain in writing what event happened that forced them to use their emergency authority to deviate and go around after they had landed.

Agreed that this exercise of "emergency authority to maintain safety" is the only logical out such a pilot would have in writing an explanation.  We've all been there, and go there on occasion (using emergency authority).  But the guy who finds himself too-routinely in "unsafe conditions" that everyone else doesn't have a problem with is begging for a check-ride.

[jaylw314]

I recall as a student pilot I was flying solo and cleared to land at a towered airport.  I landed a little sideways, so I opted to go around.  It was a busy moment, and my brain was at its limit during the go-around, so I finally called the tower once I was already a few hundred feet up.

"Cherokee, on the go around"

pause

"Yes, we can see that" 

 

[kris_adams]

11 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

While your friend is correct, it is just common curtesy to let the tower know what you want to do. It makes everybody’s life easier. 

^^This.  I agree.  We can all go around but it's helpful to let them know as soon as possible in case their eyes aren't on us.

[N201MKTurbo]

There has been more than a few times I was out doing BFRs, or just being abused by my CFI friend Rene when we were cleared to land, I did a beautiful landing on the numbers when he starts shouting "Deer on the runway! go around!". The tower never gave us any grief about it. I would always key the mike as soon as I added power and say " 1MK going around". 

Training for stuff like that is much more effective if you don't know it is coming.

FWIW, I was landing a 310 at P08 a while back. I was a bit long and he yells that after I touched down. I looked over at him and said "No F****** WAY"... He said I passed the test.

[RobertGary1]

23 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There has been more than a few times I was out doing BFRs, or just being abused by my CFI friend Rene when we were cleared to land, I did a beautiful landing on the numbers when he starts shouting "Deer on the runway! go around!". The tower never gave us any grief about it. I would always key the mike as soon as I added power and say " 1MK going around". 

Training for stuff like that is much more effective if you don't know it is coming.

FWIW, I was landing a 310 at P08 a while back. I was a bit long and he yells that after I touched down. I looked over at him and said "No F****** WAY"... He said I passed the test.

But would you do it from a near stop on the runway?

I did have the tower call one time because a student did a go around at 200 feet because he didn't feel he was lined up. Controller was upset and was asking if we were sure he should solo if he has to mess up his pattern with go arounds.

-Robert

[Bob - S50]

As for the old animal on the runway excuse, it would take a pretty precise combination of aircraft speed/configuration and animal location to make a go around a better option than stopping.  I would have to be fast enough that I could get airborne in less runway than it would take to stop, the animal would have to be too close to me to stop and far enough away to be able to get airborne and clear them.  If I can't stop or get airborne I'd rather hit the animal at 20 knots trying to stop than 60 knots trying to get airborne.

[Skates97]

13 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

As for the old animal on the runway excuse, it would take a pretty precise combination of aircraft speed/configuration and animal location to make a go around a better option than stopping.  I would have to be fast enough that I could get airborne in less runway than it would take to stop, the animal would have to be too close to me to stop and far enough away to be able to get airborne and clear them.  If I can't stop or get airborne I'd rather hit the animal at 20 knots trying to stop than 60 knots trying to get airborne.

What's that on the runway

When I was doing my PPL we were doing touch and goes at KCNO. Runway 26L is 7,000' long and 150' wide. On consecutive trips around the pattern there was a coyote that we rolled past on the opposite side of the centerline before applying power and taking off again, and then the next time around there was about a 5-6' snake right on the centerline. We were too fast to stop or swerve at that point, too slow to get off the ground, so he went "bump, bump" under the tires before we lifted off again.

[EricJ]

9 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

What's that on the runway

When I was doing my PPL we were doing touch and goes at KCNO. Runway 26L is 7,000' long and 150' wide. On consecutive trips around the pattern there was a coyote that we rolled past on the opposite side of the centerline before applying power and taking off again, and then the next time around there was about a 5-6' snake right on the centerline. We were too fast to stop or swerve at that point, too slow to get off the ground, so he went "bump, bump" under the tires before we lifted off again.

Bummer.   :'(

I learned to fly at a 2200' field in Germany that was actually a US Army helicopter post at the time.   They contracted to a local shepherd to graze the entire field, and the sheep dogs (the shepherd usually had 2 or 3) would sleep in a pile on the warm pavement in the middle of the runway.   They were seriously lazy and once in a while you'd have to drag them pretty low to get them to move.   Always had to keep an eye on them.   The sheep were seldom a problem since there wasn't any grass on the runway.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by EricJ

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There has been more than a few times I was out doing BFRs, or just being abused by my CFI friend Rene when we were cleared to land, I did a beautiful landing on the numbers when he starts shouting "Deer on the runway! go around!". The tower never gave us any grief about it. I would always key the mike as soon as I added power and say " 1MK going around". 

Training for stuff like that is much more effective if you don't know it is coming.

FWIW, I was landing a 310 at P08 a while back. I was a bit long and he yells that after I touched down. I looked over at him and said "No F****** WAY"... He said I passed the test.

They may not have given you any grief, but your example is precisely what requesting the "option" is for. See AIM 4-3-22. It is beneficial for exactly this kind of "training situation in that neither the student pilot nor examinee would know what maneuver would be accomplished. The pilot should make a request for this procedure (Option Approach) passing the final approach fix inbound on an instrument approach or entering downwind for the VFR pattern." 

Edited August 15, 2019 by kortopates

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

But would you do it from a near stop on the runway?

I did have the tower call one time because a student did a go around at 200 feet because he didn't feel he was lined up. Controller was upset and was asking if we were sure he should solo if he has to mess up his pattern with go arounds.

-Robert

Tower guys/gals are humans too. They have good days and bad days. Just because they yell at you doesn’t mean that you are breaking some regulation, it may just mean that you annoyed them.

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, kortopates said:

They may not have given you any grief, but your example is precisely what requesting the "option" is for. See AIM 4-3-22. It is beneficial for exactly this kind of "training situation in that neither the student pilot nor examinee would know what maneuver would be accomplished. The pilot should make a request for this procedure (Option Approach) passing the final approach fix inbound on an instrument approach or entering downwind for the VFR pattern." 

But you would know that something was coming up. 

FWIW, this has never happened when it was the least bit busy. 

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

 

Training for stuff like that is much more effective if you don't know it is coming.

FWIW, I was landing a 310 at P08 a while back. I was a bit long and he yells that after I touched down. I looked over at him and said "No F****** WAY"... He said I passed the test.

That’s why I always request the option so students don’t know. However it is often denied which tells me a go around isn’t simple for them. 

If you were given a single engine approach in a light twin and the examiner asked you to go around he’d probably fail you if you did. Go around in light twins with an engine failure are considered less preferable to just crashing on the field. And less survivable. 

-Robert 

[N201MKTurbo]

10 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

That’s why I always request the option so students don’t know. However it is often denied which tells me a go around isn’t simple for them. 

If you were given a single engine approach in a light twin and the examiner asked you to go around he’d probably fail you if you did. Go around in light twins with an engine failure are considered less preferable to just crashing on the field. And less survivable. 

-Robert 

But you know with single engine training that other engine will come back to life with a push of the lever! (-: