An AIM-9X is more than capable of overriding PIC authority.

 

No, it is not.

It might force a result, much the same way that taking someone's life at the ATM relieves them of their cash; neither represent authorization.

You plan to blow an aircraft out of the air because the pilot exercised his legal right to go around?

 

How in the hell does a Sidewinder come into a discussion on ATC procedures?

 

Thousands do it every year at Oshkosh with no training so it's not a big threat nor does it require special training or extraordinary skills.

Can we land in a 2000' runway? Yes. The other aircraft is 3000' ahead and moving away.

 

I read these "but what if, what if" declarations and I wonder how some people get out of bed, drive, especially without a full face helmet, climb in an airplane and take off, or land, without a runway check followed by another runway check to make sure nothing fell of the first vehicle, followed by a 3rd vehicle to check that nothing came off of the second vehicle, etc, etc. What about the problems with mx issues and flight controls rigged 180 degrees out? Oh...I'm going to roll over and pull the sheets back over my head and hope that an airliner doesn't crash into the roof and my home and crush me.

 

You havn't thought of all the possible things that could happen. For example no one's brought up the chance of a 500 lbs JDAM taking the plane out ahead of you. Then what do you do? If you don't have a game plan you're screwed. What about if a Russian MiG defected and passes you on final talking to no one? What do you do then?

Thankfully we only have to deal with a single Sidewinder. Whew...sometimes there's so much we have to be prepared for. :-/

 

Controller says "company policy doesn't override the rules." The company's policies can be more restrictive. Nothing requires a landing.

The runway doesn't have to be clear either as long as the minimum separation is met.

There's a learning lesson for the student pilot, and perhaps their instructor, in this video.

 

It's briefed, it's anticipated, and you're expected to do it that way.

Not hard to do, but I wouldn't do it if some rando tower controller just sprung it on me.

It's just not something that's done routinely in civil aviation. If there's some field out there that does it all the time, and the locals are used to it, then fine. I just haven't been there yet.

 

"Sprung it on me"? People need to be prepared for minimum spacing operations, or simulaneous approaches, all the time. Flying 101 - 'get 'er done' and 'grip 'em and rip 'em.'

It's a great learning opportunity - know the rules, be prepared, be ready.

 

You go hide in bed. We live in a world of what-if. We plan every takeoff for an engine failure and windshear and a master warning. We have equal time points to account for turnbacks or diversions, alternates, reservefuel. It's all about what-if, and when we go train, we don't train for anything else but what-if.

The point of this particular discussion is a clearance to land when another aircraft is landing ahead of us, and has, in fact, stopped on the runway to turn off...and isn't yet clear of the runway.

I won't accept a clearance if the airplane is still on the runway. I may be cleared to land, but if the other airplane isn't clear, I'm going around, and there isn't an air traffic control authority on the planet that holds the authority to deny my go-around...because there's no clearance required, and safety of flight takes front row.

The aircraft that just landed in front of me isn't moving away rapidly. THe distance is decreasing. If that aircraft has stopped (and it's his runway until he's clear of the runway), the distance is decreasing at the rate of my approach groundspeed. Nothing theoretical or what-if about that.

A controller has no business trying to talk a pilot out of an operational safety-of-flight decision. If the pilot announces a go-around, it is NOT the controller's place to try to talk him out of it.