Cleared for the option

[n07cfi]

At a busy towered airfield on a weekend, a pilot requested and got a "cleared for the option" clearance whilst practicing the traffic pattern.  The tower is juggling multiple aircraft in the field, nothing unusual.

Think aloud to yourself - what does "cleared for the option" allow you to do?  Full stop landing, stop and go, touch and go, etc., right?  Low approach and missed approach if on or practicing IFR.  No problem.  How about a go-around?  That's always a possibility too.

So this pilot performed a go-around and announced that he was doing so to the tower.  At this point the tower berates the pilot since a go-around is not one of the approved endings for an option clearance!  The tower spends the next 20 seconds explaining the procedures that are allowed for the option (keep in mind it's still busy in the airspace).  I can see how the pilot making the go-around can screw the pattern of planes in the air, but that's a pilot decision not a tower one (91.3).

Lo and behold, "ATC Order JO 7110.65T" says:

The “Cleared for the Option” procedure will permit an instructor pilot/flight examiner/pilot the option to make a touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stopand-go, or full stop landing. This procedure will only be used at those locations with an operational control tower and will be subject to ATC approval.

There is no mention of a go-around in that.

Moral of the story - don't do a go-around if cleared for the option.   

[notaperfectpilot]

Lo and behold, "ATC Order JO 7110.65T" says:

The “Cleared for the Option” procedure will permit an instructor pilot/flight examiner/pilot the option to make a touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stopand-go, or full stop landing. This procedure will only be used at those locations with an operational control tower and will be subject to ATC approval.

There is no mention of a go-around in that.

Moral of the story - don't do a go-around if cleared for the option.   

While that does not have a go-around listed, if you refer to AIM 4-3-12, it says:

"A low approach is the go-around maneuver following an approach."

Seems to me to be pretty clear that a go-around would be a option in the "option" clearance. 

[martyj19]

Seems to me a pilot initiated go-around is a possible outcome of any approach no matter how it had been cleared.  We do not want pilots thinking they have to complete a landing if the approach isn't working out to safely accomplish one.  Seems like the .65 should be amended to enumerate this possibility.  Moreover we do not want pilots keying the mike to report "on the go" until they have climb flaps and power established and positive rate.

[n07cfi]

While that does not have a go-around listed, if you refer to AIM 4-3-12, it says:

"A low approach is the go-around maneuver following an approach."

Seems to me to be pretty clear that a go-around would be a option in the "option" clearance.  

The pilot in question was VFR (didn't clarify that in OP) practicing the pattern.  Is AIM 4-3-12 referring to just an IFR approach, or would a "VFR final approach" be included?

The wording can be interpreted in different ways I would say.

[jermscentral]

I'd rather you just say something like "going missed" instead of "going around". If I hear "going around", I immediately look at the runway again to see what you may have seen that I didn't (like wildlife running around or a flock of birds in your flight path), even if I know you were cleared for the option. Maybe I'm more lax than other tower guys, but I don't get too specific as long as you don't turn off course into my arrivals/departures.

[notaperfectpilot]

While that does not have a go-around listed, if you refer to AIM 4-3-12, it says:

"A low approach is the go-around maneuver following an approach."

Seems to me to be pretty clear that a go-around would be a option in the "option" clearance. 

The pilot in question was VFR (didn't clarify that in OP) practicing the pattern.  Is AIM 4-3-12 referring to just an IFR approach, or would a "VFR final approach" be included?

The wording can be interpreted in different ways I would say.

yes, there can be some confusion between an IFR approach, and a VFR approach. if we refer to the Pilot/Controller glossary, we see that a missed approach is a "maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be completed to a landing."

and, it says that a low approach is a "An approach over an airport or runway following an instrument approach or a VFR approach including the go-around maneuver where the pilot intentionally does not make contact with the runway"

I think that it is pretty clear that a go-around is "allowed" in the "option" clearance, but we have to remember, that a go-around is ALWAYS an option on an approach, so it really doesn't matter whether the controller clears you for it or not.

[martyj19]

I'd rather you just say something like "going missed" instead of "going around". If I hear "going around", I immediately look at the runway again to see what you may have seen that I didn't (like wildlife running around or a flock of birds in your flight path), even if I know you were cleared for the option. Maybe I'm more lax than other tower guys, but I don't get too specific as long as you don't turn off course into my arrivals/departures.

Could you comment on whether "going missed" is something you can reasonably expect a VFR pilot to report, and whether that's accurate for a VFR pilot who is not on an instrument approach?  The average low time VFR pilot may not even know what a "missed approach" is if they have not been exposed to IFR procedures?  In my experience the report for a VFR go-around is "on the go" or "going around".  And we do appreciate you checking the runway since there may in fact be something there that caused the go-around.

[Rick108]

If I heard a VFR pilot say he's "going missed" I would assume he really means he is "going around" - i.e. aborting his landing attempt - and will fly the pattern and attempt another landing.  At a controlled airport usually the tower will then issue either left or right traffic, or other instructions, depending on what else is happening.  No matter if the pilot has been cleared for the option or cleared to land, at ANY time he may decide to discontinue the landing and "go around" - something on the runway, unstable approach, too fast, too high, a warning light, or just a bad feeling, it doesn't matter.  Although I would try to add a reason if I weren't too flustered - "N123 going around, turtles on the runway" or whatever.

If an IFR pilot on an instrument approach says he's "going missed", I would expect he means he's aborting his landing and beginning the published missed approach procedure for the IAP he was flying, NOT entering the pattern.  Tower usually then hands him back to departure control for further negotiations.  However, if I were IFR on a visual approach, I would say "going around", not "going missed", and expect to enter the pattern for another try.

To me, "going around" means I'm planning on flying the pattern, and "going missed" means I'm planning on flying a missed approach procedure - at least until ATC changes my plans. But I'm a pilot, not a controller - that's just my opinion.

[InterpreDemon]

All dispute aside as to whether a low approach is actually a go-around and such, it seems to me that the issue is whether the pilot intends to remain in the pattern or not, and "go around" clearly suggests that intent where the "option" does not. Though it's been a long time for me, my recollection is that to stay in the pattern to do T&G's, S&G's, missed and low approaches and such I always had to advise the tower my intentions ("Closed traffic, touch and goes", etc.). I would also have to advise if I intended to then leave the pattern after one or more approaches while maintaining closed traffic. If I then flew to another airport and upon arrival simply asked to execute a T&G, low approach or option, the tower would assume I was either departing, departing, or perhaps landing (respectively) and not remaining in the pattern, which could screw him up if the pattern was already full and he was sequencing arrivals and departures. If this particular pilot had already been flying the pattern with multiple approaches and then chose the "option", the tower could not assume he intended to remain in the pattern even if he was operating out of a school on the field and this type of stuff was going on all day.

I am particularly sensitive to this because on my very first solo, which was at busy White Plains in the early 80's, after my nervous instructor inhaled a cigarette and hopped out on the tarmac with his walkie-talkie, I took off neglecting to advise the tower I intended to make closed traffic and on climb out they promptly instructed me to depart and remain clear of the ATA, my instructor monitoring on the ground simultaneously lighting up again and popping a nitroglycerin tablet under his tongue as I disappeared from view, and I had to orbit the Croton Dam for a few minutes before they let me back into the pattern to do my work.

[Rick108]

Thinking about this some more, I'm not sure why a pilot (without an instructor in the right seat) would ever request "the option".  I always thought "the option" was just a tool for flight instructors to allow them to not divulge their intentions to the unsuspecting student at the controls.  If there is no CFI barking instructions at the last second, why would a pilot NOT know how he intends to terminate his approach (barring an unexpected go around, of course, which is always permitted).  To me, it's kind of like saying to the tower "I'm not going to tell you what I am going to do, so deal with it".  If I want to fly a low approach, I would just "request low approach".  Or a T&G, or S&G - whatever I was planning.  I would only request "the option" if I really didn't know what I was going to do, and the only reason I can think of for that would be flight instruction.

[InterpreDemon]

Sans an instructor in the right seat, you would request an option so that you can get close enough to the FBO to see the prices on the pumps...

[martyj19]

That's a very good point Rick108 makes about what happens next.  If I am VFR and report going around, the implication is that I am going to be instructed to make left or right traffic and stay in the pattern.  If I am on an IFR approach, be it practice or real, and report going missed, the implication is that I am going to at least start the published missed, and the controller will ask intentions and give me a vector, or hand me back to approach, or whatever it takes from there to get a diversion or get another approach.

A cleared for the option on a sleepy day is a great time for an instructor to give a student a go around from the flare to simulate that animal jumping out onto the runway.

Also, can anyone think of a use for a stop and go that isn't for night currency.

[Rick108]

Sans an instructor in the right seat, you would request an option so that you can get close enough to the FBO to see the prices on the pumps...

Hillarious! 

[N/A]

-

[martyj19]

... or just continue whatever traffic you were already doing. If the tower said "make left closed traffic" at some point earlier, I don't see why a "going around" call should or needs to be met with any more than a "roger" from tower.

Well, yes, no argument there.  In the original poster's scenario you were already in the pattern, and had asked for the option on one landing.  I'm off into a side trip along with Rick108 on the distinction between "go around" and "go missed" in the usual case, where you are intending to make a full stop after coming from a distant airport.  Sorry for the confusion.

[N/A]

-

[falstro]

EDIT: It's a similar distinction I would probably make for an IFR aircraft executing a visual approach versus one executing some other IAP. If you're on an ILS approach, for example, and decide to abandon the approach, I'd expect to hear "going missed" or, perhaps even more verbosely, "going missed as published" (since an approach clearance for IFR automatically authorizes the missed approach procedures as well). Here, ATC could simply reply with "Roger" and say nothing else until he's worked on a new plan for you. You're still following your last clearance (the approach clearance).

Actually, the ICAO standard phraseology for this is "going around", so if you're on an instrument approach, "going around" means you're heading for the missed approach, and if you're visual you're heading for another lap in the pattern. This is analogous to the ATC instruction "go around", ATC will never tell you to "go missed" (unless you're on a PAR, in which case he'll tell you to "execute missed approach"). I can't find any appropriate FAA document specifying the use of "going around" though, the 7110.65 only mentions the "go around" instruction, not the appropriate response, so feel free to correct me on phraseology specific to the US. That said, I often hear "going missed", or "missed approach" (the second I suppose would be appropriate when checking back in with approach or center, not tower, no?).

Either way, you are always cleared to go around. Even if you get "unable low approach, cleared to land", if you don't like the way things are unfolding, you are indeed cleared to go around. Same with LAHSO. You might have to explain yourself, but the controller may never ever rob you of the option to go around if he clears you to land. So saying you're cleared for the option (including to land, touch and go, whatever), you are also cleared to go around, and berating someone for saying "going around" when doing a low approach, which is effectively the same, just seems dumb to me. Perhaps we're missing part of the picture?

[InterpreDemon]

Agreed... if cleared for the option you are also cleared to land, thus to go around and enter the pattern. That's handy, because if you run out of runway before seeing the pump prices, they look good but no room to stop, you can go around again for your top-up.

[notaperfectpilot]

Agreed... if cleared for the option you are also cleared to land, thus to go around and enter the pattern. That's handy, because if you run out of runway before seeing the pump prices, they look good but no room to stop, you can go around again for your top-up.

unless your at LWB where they don't advertise the prices anywhere...

[jermscentral]

Could you comment on whether "going missed" is something you can reasonably expect a VFR pilot to report, and whether that's accurate for a VFR pilot who is not on an instrument approach?  The average low time VFR pilot may not even know what a "missed approach" is if they have not been exposed to IFR procedures?  In my experience the report for a VFR go-around is "on the go" or "going around".  And we do appreciate you checking the runway since there may in fact be something there that caused the go-around.

Reasonably, if I have a VFR guy come into my B airspace for approaches, the pilot has typically been talking to the TRACON, though I have had a couple of calls from folks off an adjacent airport. If the approach controller hadn't already called me on the interphone to tell me, I'll ask the pilot, "How will this approach terminate?" before I ever clear you for anything so I know what to expect. I'd rather pre-plan and get you taken care of and not have to talk to you again until you're on the next (closed traffic) approach or departing the airspace. The fewer transmissions I make, the better. I'd rather say, "N12345, runway 11, cleared for the option. After the option, make right closed traffic," or, "N12345, runway 11, cleared for the option. After the option, climb and maintain 3000, turn right heading 170," than keep talking to you after everything. If you call up and say you're on the missed approach, I'll restate the instructions.

When I worked at a Class D tower, I always heard pilots call "on the go". To me, it doesn't really matter what you say; I'll be responding either way.

[n07cfi]

Just revisiting this forum - memory is now a bit hazy after this time, but here are the relevant details.

* Class D towered
* VFR for the pilot in question
* Mix of VFR and practice IFR traffic (I was practicing an IFR approach with a student when I heard the conversation between tower and pilot)
* Pilot originally received touch and go clearance, pilot requested an option instead, pilot granted option clearance
* Pilot announced on the final approach that he was "going around"
* Tower advised pilot that go-around is not an approved procedure for an option clearance

One potential additional detail.  The pilot may have come in from outside the airspace intending to do the pattern (as opposed to already being in the pattern).  Maybe tower was annoyed ... "I gave him an option clearance when he could have just kept the touch and go"...

Regardless, my fundamental issue with this is that a go-around is a pilot's prerogative exclusive of what the tower wants or expects.  But according to the FAA tower ops advisory, the controller was technically right stating that go-around is not approved.

[Immelman]

A clearance to land is just that a "clearance" not a mandate. If for whatever reason the pilot needs to abort the landing and "go-around" he can, therefore the tower should always be prepared for that possibility. I think we as pilots should be careful not to over use "the option". If you know what your going to do say so, especially in a busy pattern.

[fragrep]

If I'm cleared to land, cleared for the option cleared for whatever, If I decide to go around I'm going around.  A go around usually stems from the PIC not feeling warm and fuzzy about the final phase of the landing. No tower, passenger, ATC etc will dictate this critical decision. Often times this is a life or death decision. For you students, new pilots etc. NEVER BE AFRAID TO GO AROUND. IT'S YOUR CALL.

[FLLflyboy]

We have a lot of flight training at my facility (as I'm sure many other facilities around the world). When I clear someone for the option, the way I interpret the .65, this includes a go-around. I look at t go around the same way I look at a low approach, which is part of the option clearance. The controller was in the wrong in my opinion.

Someone also mentioned that, regardless of the approach you are on, or the clearance that was issued, there is ALWAYS a possibility of a go-around. We don't berate the pilots for that, why should we when they do it on an option clearance?

[svoynick]

One potential additional detail.  The pilot may have come in from outside the airspace intending to do the pattern (as opposed to already being in the pattern).  Maybe tower was annoyed ... "I gave him an option clearance when he could have just kept the touch and go"...

Regardless, my fundamental issue with this is that a go-around is a pilot's prerogative exclusive of what the tower wants or expects.  But according to the FAA tower ops advisory, the controller was technically right stating that go-around is not approved.

... but a go-around is never not approved...