To go around, or not to go around...

[Keith Smith]

"To go around, or no to go around, that is the question."

Tower clears you to land #2 on runway 29 at San Luis Obispo (KSBP) in your Skyhawk as you turn base in the pattern. Turning final, you notice the aircraft ahead has just touched down and is rolling out nicely. The timing looks just about right for this to all work out.
Unfortunately, the plane ahead doesn't make the exit Foxtrot or Echo and instead continues down towards Charlie. You're just crossing over the runway 29 threshold as the leading aircraft is approaching Charlie, however it's clear he won't be across the hold short line, or even clear of the runway before you touch down.

Do you go around? Do you HAVE to go around? Why, or why not?

This one is for the pilots, controllers need not answer!

[jiva602]

Go around unless tower has given specific instructions relating to aircraft still on runway. Reason: Safety.

[manlyman]

Don't know much of the rules seeing how I'm just a sim pilot, I would say go around. I had to do that on my cat 1 due to 3 pilots doing it at the same time. Thought I had good separation, about half mile final the pilot ahead of me was doing a very slow exit so had to do a go around.

David

[rtataryn]

This has happened to me a few times in the RW and I have gone around without hesitation. The most recent was just a few months ago doing pattern work and here at KSFF and the tower controller said "thanks". He seemed relieved, like you could tell he was timing it and worried it wouldn't work out. Did I HAVE to go around? I don't know - I was cleared to land and the tower didn't tell me to go around, but it definitely seemed the safe thing to do and I'm pretty sure the controller is not allowed to have two aircraft onto the same runway at the same time.

That said, after multiple trips to KOSH Airventure, it doesn't seem that big of a deal to have both of us on the active at the same time.

[kullery]

Common perception is one aircraft at a time on the runway, however there are situations where multiple aircraft simultaneously occupy the same runway. As mentioned, it happens throughout AirVenture arrivals and in formation arrivals. Same runway separation standards are published which define acceptable anticipated separation distances. Short final isn't the time or place to determine if the controller met these separation standards based on the category of the other aircraft, but the fact that the controller has not canceled the clearance is evidence that the separation standard was likely met.

We only need to be concerned about safety of flight.

We know that we are looking at a 6000+ runway and Charlie is about 3/4 of the way down the runway giving us 4500 feet of separation. Furthermore, the runway is 150 feet wide, so unless we are following an A380, it seems reasonable that we could "squeeze" our 36' wingspan behind the lead aircraft if they still have not fully cleared the hold short line at Charlie. And that's assuming that we couldn't get down and stopped in over twice the length of runways we typically operate into.

Not sure that I agree that a go around is necessarily the safest option. While it is something we practice (don't we?), it still includes risks of it's own with power and configuration changes at low speed and altitude. If my approach is stabilized, on airspeed and on glide slope, crosswind (if any) under control, I'm going to continue to land. Workload permitting, I might have given a quick "confirm cleared to land?" call to tower just to insure I haven't missed a clearance cancellation.

[zerofay32]

If there is no wake turbulence considerations, I beleve the minimum distance for landing traffic is 3000ft, could be less. If the traffic ahead is at Charlie at KSBP as you cross the threshold, you'll have about 4000ft between you and him so no need to go around (especially in a skyhawk, which lands in about 1400ft give or take 100ft or so, rounding up )

[Keith Smith]

This question was posed on our FB page. I'm adding the follow-up here...

Same Runway Separation controlling standards DO allow for multiple aircraft to be on the runway at the same time, it's completely legal provided the required conditions are met. So, if your answer was "Go around" because you thought it was the only legal option, you needn't be concerned about that. It's not a controller error, and as Dhruv alluded to, it's actually SOP at some of the busier training airports.

As to whether it's 'safe' or not, it's fairly subjective, but given a) the stopping distance of our 172, b) the fact that the other plane is more than half a mile down the runway, c) the fact that it will be clear of the runway well before we get anywhere near it, and d) if the lead plane were to blow a tire, it's a 150ft wide runway. There isn't any conceivable way that the lead airplane poses a realistic collision hazard. A pilot can always call a go-around, however, when tower says, "say reason for go around," and you say, "traffic on the runway...." you can expect ATC to point out the fact that the required separation was in place.

The reason for bringing up this question was two fold:
1) most part 91 GA pilots are not aware of same runway separation rules unless they fly at an airport where they are frequently exposed to the scenario.

2) when first introduced to the concept, many pilots will have the gut reaction that a go-around is still best option without closely evaluating the conditions under which a hazard could exist. This is likely because we're taught during training that "the runway must be clear, otherwise go around," without giving it much more thought than that.

If it was truly an unsafe operation, then same runway separation standards wouldn't exist. The fact that they do exist with a range of required minimum distances implies that the operation has been well-considered and deemed safe.
A blanket statement of, "there's an aircraft on the runway, I'm going around," doesn't necessarily consider factors such as the fact that the plane will likely exit in the next few seconds, the fact that you'll be stopped will before reaching Charlie, and the fact that you could have 3 172's side by side on the runway and still have ample room to taxi around them with the runway being so wide.

There's no question that we should go around if an unsafe condition exists, there's not really any debate about that. However, is a plane which is about to exit a runway representative of an unsafe condition for our landing, particularly if we will be stopped before that exit, and if for some reason we're not, we can easily steer around it?

Still uneasy? Replace the 6000ft runway with Victorville's 15,000ft runway 17 with another plane exiting at Charlie 1 (the very end of the runway). The runway is "not clear" and yet most reasonable people would deem it to be a risk-free operation. It's conceptually no different than our case. The reduction of a 15000ft runway to a 6000ft runway doesn't actually represent an increase in risk.

If you were in the go-around camp because of a perceived legal requirement or as a rote response from primary training, hopefully this has been helpful. For those that would still prefer to go-around, if you have a logical reason why you'd deem the landing to be remotely unsafe, then that's still the right call, just as long as it goes beyond, "there is traffic on the runway."

[rtataryn]

If you were in the go-around camp because of a perceived legal requirement or as a rote response from primary training, hopefully this has been helpful."

Very helpful. Great info Keith. Thanks!

[jiva602]

Once again I had the wrong answer - didn't read the details and really understand how much runway I had/needed.

This type of "stump the chumps" quiz is extremely helpful and thought provoking; please keep them coming

[Keith Smith]

going around isn't necessarily the wrong answer, however, I suspect a lot of ppl go around because they think they legally have to, or because they simply have it in their heads that touching down on a runway when another aircraft is still on the runway is always to be avoided without full consideration of the factors.

I'm not saying that you would be expected to run that analysis in real time the first time you encounter the situation. However, with some forethought in the comfort of an armchair, a pilot can be better prepared for this case so that when it happens, they'll be on the lookout for it and make an informed, reasoned decision. Again, if you choose to go around, that's ok, but if you're only doing it because of a perception of the legality of the situation, or rote recital of a primary training mantra from a misinformed CFI, it's worth another look with fresh eyes. If you still feel that the runway must be clear, then make sure you reject LAHSO clearances, too, because they effectively cut down the usable landing distance, too.