5 ms·

"ATC should have ordered a go around" implies some authority that is not there. The commander (captain) has final responsibility for the safety of the aircraft.

"ATC should have ordered a go around" implies some authority that is not there. The commander (captain) has final responsibility for the safety of the aircraft. ATC effectively has an advisory role; they issue instructions rather than orders and the commander can ignore any ATC instruction if they believe it to be necessary for the safe performance of the flight.

goodcanadian 6y ago
Perhaps, "order" was the wrong word, but ATC absolutely has authority over the airspace unless and until an emergency is declared.
- anon102010 6y ago
  That’s not how ATC works - atc ALREADY went beyond what you normally see w their suggestions for a go around. ATC is focused on traffic (keeping it separated), pilots are in charge of flying their planes. In fact communicating with ATC is low on list of things to do when their are problems. Priority is aviate, navigate then communicate. And these controllers went above and beyond w their warnings already
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    The accident report indicates that ATC also didn't follow procedures, so no, ATC did not go above and beyond. The main criticism in the report seems to be that they did not report the lack of landing gear or the subsequent engine strike back to the aircraft. My criticism, having listened to some of the recording, is that ATC were not more insistent in their instructions. Every other ATC recording I've listened to, ATC instructs and pilots obey. In the rare cases where pilots disobey without immediate good reason, ATC usually gets quite heated. They don't generally just acquiesce. So, don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but pilots and ATC are a team, and ATC didn't do a great job either.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      The crew was never in contact with the tower controller that was in a position to see that gear were not down, or that the aircraft had landed on its engines. For reasons that are not clearly explained (probably everything happening too fast and muddled), they remained in contact with approach during the landing after the approach controller got their landing clearance from tower on the phone. Tower did report the gear-up landing to approach, but approach did not relay to the crew.
      - goodcanadian 6y ago
        Yes, it sure sounds like things got screwed up. Which is my entire point in this surprisingly controversial thread.
    - anon102010 6y ago
      ATC get's bothered if you put other planes / people at risk (entering class B airspace without clearance, not maintaining separation etc etc). That is ATC responsibility. And yes, they will punish you with a notice of pilot deviation and then action on your license. They don't bother you in terms of how you fly your own plane. That's captains responsibility in the US at least. The controller was getting into the go around game here (too high / too fast stuff). The CAPTAIN is supposed to monitor and establish the stabilized approach.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
FabHK 6y ago
What do you mean? If I approach KORD in my Cessna 172 (as I've done), and ATC instructs me to go around, I would. Of course the pilot is the ultimate authority and can deviate from any instruction in an emergency, but ATC can, in my understanding, instruct an aircraft to go around for any number of reasons that the pilot of the aircraft is not privy to. In this case, according to the preliminary report, `“Karachi Approach” advised repeatedly (twice to discontinue the approach`. Had the cowboy pilots followed that instruction, the unnecessary deaths might have been avoided.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  Yes, they can instruct. They don't issue orders, though. In your example, as the commander of your aircraft, if you felt that going around would compromise the safety of your flight (unlikely, but you can imagine some scenarios), you can and should disregard the instruction.
  - FabHK 6y ago
    I think we're on the same page. In the case here, approach instructed them to abort the approach, and the pilots should have. Well, they paid the ultimate price for their mistakes, taking many people with them.

goodcanadian 6y ago

Perhaps, "order" was the wrong word, but ATC absolutely has authority over the airspace unless and until an emergency is declared.

anon102010 6y ago
That’s not how ATC works - atc ALREADY went beyond what you normally see w their suggestions for a go around. ATC is focused on traffic (keeping it separated), pilots are in charge of flying their planes. In fact communicating with ATC is low on list of things to do when their are problems. Priority is aviate, navigate then communicate. And these controllers went above and beyond w their warnings already
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  The accident report indicates that ATC also didn't follow procedures, so no, ATC did not go above and beyond. The main criticism in the report seems to be that they did not report the lack of landing gear or the subsequent engine strike back to the aircraft. My criticism, having listened to some of the recording, is that ATC were not more insistent in their instructions. Every other ATC recording I've listened to, ATC instructs and pilots obey. In the rare cases where pilots disobey without immediate good reason, ATC usually gets quite heated. They don't generally just acquiesce. So, don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but pilots and ATC are a team, and ATC didn't do a great job either.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    The crew was never in contact with the tower controller that was in a position to see that gear were not down, or that the aircraft had landed on its engines. For reasons that are not clearly explained (probably everything happening too fast and muddled), they remained in contact with approach during the landing after the approach controller got their landing clearance from tower on the phone. Tower did report the gear-up landing to approach, but approach did not relay to the crew.
    - goodcanadian 6y ago
      Yes, it sure sounds like things got screwed up. Which is my entire point in this surprisingly controversial thread.
  - anon102010 6y ago
    ATC get's bothered if you put other planes / people at risk (entering class B airspace without clearance, not maintaining separation etc etc). That is ATC responsibility. And yes, they will punish you with a notice of pilot deviation and then action on your license. They don't bother you in terms of how you fly your own plane. That's captains responsibility in the US at least. The controller was getting into the go around game here (too high / too fast stuff). The CAPTAIN is supposed to monitor and establish the stabilized approach.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

FabHK 6y ago

What do you mean? If I approach KORD in my Cessna 172 (as I've done), and ATC instructs me to go around, I would. Of course the pilot is the ultimate authority and can deviate from any instruction in an emergency, but ATC can, in my understanding, instruct an aircraft to go around for any number of reasons that the pilot of the aircraft is not privy to. In this case, according to the preliminary report, `“Karachi Approach” advised repeatedly (twice to discontinue the approach`. Had the cowboy pilots followed that instruction, the unnecessary deaths might have been avoided.

_-___________-_ 6y ago
Yes, they can instruct. They don't issue orders, though. In your example, as the commander of your aircraft, if you felt that going around would compromise the safety of your flight (unlikely, but you can imagine some scenarios), you can and should disregard the instruction.
- FabHK 6y ago
  I think we're on the same page. In the case here, approach instructed them to abort the approach, and the pilots should have. Well, they paid the ultimate price for their mistakes, taking many people with them.