Originally Posted by
manstein58
A question I would like to see answered is how often do planes abort their landing approaches because ATC has cleared another aircraft to take off on the same runway. This happened Tuesday at CLT about 0.5 miles from the runway at an altitude of 3-400 feet. Pilot banked the 737 hard to port and pounded the power. When he came back ion the IC to let the PAX know what had happened, he was not a happy pilot.
That is very rare as it is considered the worst go around to have as you now have a plane climbing before the runway with one taking off which puts them into immediate conflict with no good resolution. If an aircraft is just in position it is not as much of a concern as you have no in air conflict just the chance a pilot will miss the go around instruction or be unable to do it in time.
In 10+ years as a controller I have only seen it happen twice with a aircraft in position and never with one rolling. The most common go around do to aircraft on a runway is with landing traffic that the preceding one exited slowly for some reason and was not going to be off the runway in time. In the winter we try and build in extra separation to account that planes will exit slowly and on ILS and RNAV approaches it is easy to do, on visuals not so much.
Originally Posted by
LarryJ
Actually, "cleared to" does not mean direct. It is a change in your clearance limit following that same routing that you were already on. You need the word "direct" in there for it to change the routing.
Isn't that what I said?
Originally Posted by
LarryJ
The FAA puts readback mistakes 100% on the controllers AND 100% on the pilots. ATC's failure to catch a pilot's incorrect readback does not get us off the hook for not following the actual clearance given.
Based on what we have seen that doesn't seem true. We just had one where a mainline pilot did not use their full callsign on a visual approach, proceed to seemingly try and cut the aircraft off that he was following which resulted in a go around as he was way too close and tapes being pulled. The ruling was that since the full call sign was not used the clearance was not issued and visual separation was not applied. We then argued that if no clearance was ever issued that the pilot deviated from control instructions as he turned off of his assigned base leg, that was rejected with the rationale that pilots are not responsible for read backs or any loss of separation that may occur do to them.