4 ms·

That's not how ATC works. The tower controller is responsible for the runway environment. The only reason they can tell a plane to go around is if there is a tr

That's not how ATC works. The tower controller is responsible for the runway environment. The only reason they can tell a plane to go around is if there is a traffic conflict or the runway is not available, and they're supposed to give the pilots a reason for the go around instruction. A go around for an unstable approach is 100% the decision of the pilots, because they have the complete picture. They also know the stability requirements of the operator and speed limits of the plane, ATC doesn't know those. So while ATC can think "wow he is very fast for an A320" or "that looks too high" they cannot see what the actual airspeed is, they cannot see whether the gear is down or not or what the flap settings are. And they don't know the speed limits for each specific type. All they know is roughly how fast the typical plane of that type normally goes.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
One of the truly astonishing parts of this report is that the pilots do not actually appear to have been in direct contact with the tower controller at any point during the initial, gear-up landing. If you read the report, it seems they were in contact with the approach controller who contacted the tower for landing clearance on their behalf.
- t0mas88 6y ago
  If the controller thought they were having an emergency (which I guess he did based on the strange approach and all the warning sounds he heard on the radios) it's not that uncommon to hold on to them. Happens because it reduces crew workload if he's not telling them a new frequency. Tower and approach have a button to talk directly in each other's headsets, so it's easy for approach to give you a landing clearance on behalf of the tower. Or the other way around, tower could get you radar instructions from approach in case you have a problem right after take off and want to return immediately. But in this case it was a very bad decision to do that.
dmix 6y ago
While you're probably right apparently the tower didn't tell the pilots that they saw a fire/sparks on the plane when it hit the pavement. Not that the pilots were listening anyway.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

One of the truly astonishing parts of this report is that the pilots do not actually appear to have been in direct contact with the tower controller at any point during the initial, gear-up landing. If you read the report, it seems they were in contact with the approach controller who contacted the tower for landing clearance on their behalf.

t0mas88 6y ago
If the controller thought they were having an emergency (which I guess he did based on the strange approach and all the warning sounds he heard on the radios) it's not that uncommon to hold on to them. Happens because it reduces crew workload if he's not telling them a new frequency. Tower and approach have a button to talk directly in each other's headsets, so it's easy for approach to give you a landing clearance on behalf of the tower. Or the other way around, tower could get you radar instructions from approach in case you have a problem right after take off and want to return immediately. But in this case it was a very bad decision to do that.

dmix 6y ago

While you're probably right apparently the tower didn't tell the pilots that they saw a fire/sparks on the plane when it hit the pavement. Not that the pilots were listening anyway.