Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

smartt1982 · Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:28 pm

Recently heard about a scenario whereby one aircraft was cleared to line up on a runway after another had landed which it did. There was another aircraft on approach but was not an issue at this time. The first landing aircraft for whatever reason took a while to vacate as it ended up going to the end. This in turn meant that the aircraft being issued the take off clearance was given it late also.

The take off clearance was issued and began its take off run, unfortunately ATC had misjudged and issued a go around to the landing aircraft. The go around would involve flying on runway heading to a certain turn before a turn was initiated. At the same time ATC instructed the aircraft on take off to stop, the aircraft was already past V1 slightly. A stop was initiated with no issues. The departure would have involved following runway heading also before turning in a similar direction to the prescribed go around.

Obviously a mistake somewhere but can ATC not have issued an amended clearance to the go around aircraft and did they have any right to tell the aircraft taking off to stop, if so, should they have?

What legislation covers this sort of incident or rules around it? It took place in Europe. Can ATC not issue an amended go around, ie "go around with an immediate turn to the left etc"?

longhauler · Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:52 pm

This is one of those "Swiss Cheese" scenarios where things just happened to line up badly.

In essence, there were no errors made, and all must do what they can to keep things safe. Likely, the go-around clearance would also have an immediate turn instruction with it, and the landing aircraft (now going around) could see exactly why. It happens. Probably as the landing aircraft was watching the circumstances unfold, they were ready to go around, and it was not a surprise.

This has happened to me twice at YYZ, (I was the landing aircraft) and in both cases ATC saw the possibility of a conflict and issued an amended go-around clearance as a possibility. "In the event of a go around, turn to xxx, climb to xxxx". As you can imagine, it was not the published missed approach.

You have to remember, the aircraft taking off will be airborne about 2 kms from the threshold of the runway. The landing aircraft will be issued a go-around clearance at say 500' AGL, that would be about 2 kms from the other side of the threshold. While the two aircraft may not have legal separation, they are not exactly "close".

KELPkid · Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:02 am

If an aircraft is on an instrument approach, standard procedure would be to fly the published missed approach procedure. I have been issued an alternate (i.e. different from the published) missed approach before, once, while attempting to land at PDX. The approach controller notified me of the alternate missed approach isntructions, and had me read back the full missed approach instructions before handing me off to to the tower. I guess flying the published missed would have fouled things up somehow...

smartt1982 · Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:04 am

But on this occasion they told the aircraft taking off to stop and the landing aircraft to follow the normal go around. So there is not any rule about issuing an amended go around clearance?

Maybe let the aircraft taking off continue and issue an amended go around to the landing aircraft, like you said happened with yourself

XFSUgimpLB41X · Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:43 am

It's been a very long time since I've done a "published missed" on a go around. It's nearly always "Delta 1234, go around, turn left heading 330 and maintain 3000 feet" or something similar.

smartt1982 · Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:19 am

With that then, would the tower have any business telling the taking off aircraft to stop, after it already reached V1?

jgarrido · Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:28 am

There are many possible variables in the situation you described and without having been in the tower at that moment there's no way to know exactly why the controller made the decisions and took the actions he or she did.

So yes the tower can issue go around instructions that differer from the published missed. There could be plethora of reasons why they didn't.

I don't know about Europe but my experience as a controller in the US is it's rare at a controlled airport that an aircraft does the published missed approach. Most of the time it's only during practice approaches. The intent of the published missed is generally for lost comm procedures. Usually there are pre coordinated go-around instructions in the tower/approach control letter of agreement. Even those may not be used if the approach control needs something else. However that doesn't mean the controller can just tell the aircraft to go around an turn 90 degrees from final. Depending on how close the aircraft is to final it is probably below the MVA (minium vectoring altitude) and has climb to a certain attitude before they can turn off the final approach course.

Yes the controller can cancel a take off clearance. There is not regulation that i'm aware of that says atake off clearance cannot be canceled after a certain point. However the pilot is always in charge of the safe operation of the aircraft so if he deems it unsafe to abort the departure roll then he won't do so. I'm sure all controllers are aware of that, especially when working large tubojets.

romeomike · Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:39 am

ATC would not know the aircraft had reached V1. Although someone with some experience would likely be able to guess that they were going to fast to safely abort. In this case, if the pilot is past V1 and ATC tells them to abort, it's on the pilot to say no.

An aborted take-off is an emergency procedure and should be used only if there's a threat to the aircraft if they continue (particularly at high speed). In this instance, perhaps the controller had nowhere safe to put the plane in the missed approach (ie: aircraft in either downwind, no place to turn the arrival) so they felt having the departure reject would be the safest solution. Obviously we don't know what was going on in the tower cab, but I would hope that a controller would recognize this situation developing earlier than the point he/she called for a missed approach and rejected take-off.

For pilots: is there any situation where you actually would abort beyond V1? I was under the impression that V1 meant hands off the throttles because there's nothing we can do to stop in the runway we have remaining.

josekmlb · Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:21 pm

V1 is decision speed right anything past VR you cant do the RTO?

CosmicCruiser · Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:35 pm

I would have a problem with ATC telling me to abort a T/O unless I was going really slow. The other point is yes, it's very common to get an amended G/A. When ATC here gives you a visual app, in VMC, the published miss is no longer a player anyway. I just saw this the other night as the Fedex inbounds were arriving. 2 jets on app to perpendicular runways. One goes miss for some reason as the other is nearing the other runway. Tower just says "roger turn right 090, climb 3000'". Easy. As some else said too I had a modiffied G/A proc given prior to landing. Going into CDG it was very IFR, 200' & 1mi, and ATC says "in the event of a missed app turn right hdg 360 climb 3000'". Just to finish the story we did miss because of a late T/O clearance for another jet on the same runway.

Starlionblue · Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:23 pm

Quoting RomeoMike (Reply 7):
For pilots: is there any situation where you actually would abort beyond V1? I was under the impression that V1 meant hands off the throttles because there's nothing we can do to stop in the runway we have remaining.

Quoting josekmlb (Reply 8):
V1 is decision speed right anything past VR you cant do the RTO?

The only reason to abort after V1 (decision speed) would be if the pilots have serious doubts about the airworthiness of the aircraft. To quote a somewhat extreme example, a failure of all engines after V1*. Think of it this way: The pilots are now deciding whether it is safer to go off the end of the runway or take off. Even with an engine on fire, taking off is way safer than going off the end of the runway.

I suppose it depends. 1 second after V1 and a nice big grass field at the end of the runway is different from 15 seconds after V1 and a gully. But even so I think the pilots would still rather take off unless it is something really really critical.

* This has never happened on modern airliners AFAIK.

Mir · Thu Oct 21, 2010 2:48 pm

Quoting RomeoMike (Reply 7):
For pilots: is there any situation where you actually would abort beyond V1? I was under the impression that V1 meant hands off the throttles because there's nothing we can do to stop in the runway we have remaining.

If there's a catastrophic fire somewhere, I'd abort beyond V1. There's a certain amount of time it takes to take off and come around and land, and if I don't think the airplane can last that long, it's time to abort.

But I wouldn't do it just because there was an airplane behind me doing a go-around. High speed aborts, even below V1, aren't exactly walks in the park.

-Mir

Maverick623 · Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:02 pm

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
At the same time ATC instructed the aircraft on take off to stop, the aircraft was already past V1 slightly. A stop was initiated with no issues.

Do you have a source for this incident? I'd very much like to know who aborted after V1.

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
and did they have any right to tell the aircraft taking off to stop, if so, should they have?

The tower absolutely has the right to instruct an aircraft to abort.... and the pilot absolutely has the right to say "unable".

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
Can ATC not issue an amended go around, ie "go around with an immediate turn to the left etc"?

Of course they can.... I see it happen all the time now with the runway construction at PHX, causing the exact scenario described above.

Quoting RomeoMike (Reply 7):
For pilots: is there any situation where you actually would abort beyond V1?

If there was a significantly better-than-not chance the airplane wouldn't stay airborne anyways (losing a control surface, all engines, etc...)

lowrider · Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:01 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
If there's a catastrophic fire somewhere

Unless that fire is in the cockpit, it is unlikely you will be able to determine that it is catastrophic in the seconds between V1 and Vr. About the only scenerios I would reject past V1 for are a confirmed multiple engine failure, or an aircraft entering the runway in front of me. Rejects beyond V1 are test pilot territory. If tower tells me to stop after V1, I am going to continue.

Mir · Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:26 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
Unless that fire is in the cockpit, it is unlikely you will be able to determine that it is catastrophic in the seconds between V1 and Vr.

True. But if I did make such a determination, I'd be stopping.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 13):
About the only scenerios I would reject past V1 for are a confirmed multiple engine failure, or an aircraft entering the runway in front of me.

Wouldn't it make more sense to try and rotate early to avoid hitting the aircraft? IIRC, if you're past V1, by definition it will take you longer to stop than it will to get off the ground. Perhaps I'm not envisioning your scenario correctly.

-Mir

lowrider · Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:50 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Wouldn't it make more sense to try and rotate early to avoid hitting the aircraft?

By rotating early, you are just creating more drag that will lengthen your takeoff roll. You might be able to get off a few knots before Vr, but that would be by pure luck, as would clearing the obstructing aircraft. What I envision is a scenerio where an aircraft inadvertantly enters the runway in front of my and I have no hope of reaching Vr by then. If I am going to hit it, I would rather do so at the lowest possible speed. The V1/Vr calculation assumes the entire length, by placing an aircraft in your path you effectively shorten the runway and render the calculation invalid.

rwessel · Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:02 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Wouldn't it make more sense to try and rotate early to avoid hitting the aircraft? IIRC, if you're past V1, by definition it will take you longer to stop than it will to get off the ground. Perhaps I'm not envisioning your scenario correctly.

Remember you're also having to climb over a 50ft obstacle (the other aircraft) in that scenario.

XFSUgimpLB41X · Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:06 am

Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 5):
With that then, would the tower have any business telling the taking off aircraft to stop, after it already reached V1?

The airplane would not abort after reaching V1. You're going flying then.

In fact, above 80 knots only engine failure, onboard fire, windshear, or the airplane coming apart/ total loss of directional are the only abort criteria then. Above V1 you only abort if the airplane is not going to be able to fly.

I was ignoring the V1 part of the scenario as it is not realistic and ATC doesn't know when you reach V1 anyways.

Starlionblue · Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:47 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 15):
By rotating early, you are just creating more drag that will lengthen your takeoff roll. You might be able to get off a few knots before Vr, but that would be by pure luck, as would clearing the obstructing aircraft. What I envision is a scenerio where an aircraft inadvertantly enters the runway in front of my and I have no hope of reaching Vr by then. If I am going to hit it, I would rather do so at the lowest possible speed.

Sounds eerily similar to the Tenerife disaster.

Maverick623 · Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:44 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):

Sounds eerily similar to the Tenerife disaster.

Because it's exactly what happened. The KLM crew dragged the tail for a few hundred feet, and apparently managed to unstick the wheels, but it was too late.

CosmicCruiser · Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:10 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 19):
The KLM crew dragged the tail for a few hundred feet, and apparently managed to unstick the wheels, but it was too late.

The arguement is getting a little silly, don't you think? Human survival instinct would say get it off the ground; the alternative is death. Your instinct is to avoid the collision. In that split second you certainly aren't going to weigh all the parameters of a reject or go decision. I would dare say that had they aborted more people would have died because 1. the energy at that moment was so great, hitting at the slowest possible speed wasn't going to be slow at all and 2. they would have hit completely broadside and not shearing across the top of the fuselage. The crew that survived by turning the jet to the left off the runway would have probably caught the right outboard engine in the cockpit and not have it miss them. Had the KLM crew decided to veer off to the left, leave the runway thus sacificing their plane and pax perhaps that MAY have saved the other jet but they probably couldn't move it that far in so short of time and space and again they would face certain death as well as who ever was in the area once the plane began to break up and explode. Also there is a Vunstick speed that's slower than Vr and again it may have helped a little. Sorry to sound a little short here but this was a situation where everyone was completely unaware until the last moment when it was already too late. Not quite the same as say a gear up landing where you have plenty of time to plan, consider alternatives, brief expected results, etc. My $.02

lowrider · Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:29 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):
Sounds eerily similar to the Tenerife disaster.

If you don't consider the low vis aspect of that accident, I can see where you would draw that parallel. I was envisioning a simpler runway incursion where someone inadvertently enters the runway. I can look 500-1000 feet down the runway and know that I probably won't be flying by then, but I can scrub off a good amount of speed in that distance.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 20):
Human survival instinct would say get it off the ground; the alternative is death.

I am not so sure about this. My reactions to various situations have been altered by training and experience. I can only assume the the same is true for other people. My immediate reaction to a situation now might be different than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

CosmicCruiser · Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:14 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 21):
My immediate reaction to a situation now might be different than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

Hey lowrider, I certainly agree with your conclusion that your decision(process) may be different than it was a few yrs ago ( like me experience certainly is a good thing) but I'm saying that this being thrust upon you at the last second the idea of stopping is obviously not going to work and the other choice of flying MAY work which do you do in 2 seconds.

FlyingColours · Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:52 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10):
Quoting RomeoMike (Reply 7):
For pilots: is there any situation where you actually would abort beyond V1? I was under the impression that V1 meant hands off the throttles because there's nothing we can do to stop in the runway we have remaining.
Quoting josekmlb (Reply 8):
V1 is decision speed right anything past VR you cant do the RTO?

The only reason to abort after V1 (decision speed) would be if the pilots have serious doubts about the airworthiness of the aircraft. To quote a somewhat extreme example, a failure of all engines after V1*. Think of it this way: The pilots are now deciding whether it is safer to go off the end of the runway or take off. Even with an engine on fire, taking off is way safer than going off the end of the runway.

I suppose it depends. 1 second after V1 and a nice big grass field at the end of the runway is different from 15 seconds after V1 and a gully. But even so I think the pilots would still rather take off unless it is something really really critical.

* This has never happened on modern airliners AFAIK.

I believe TWA 843 was past V1 and may have been at VR when they aborted their takeoff. The skipper felt that the aircraft was unflyable, a lot of circumstances helped them that day including the decision to use the longer JFK runway (used by Concorde) and to start their roll from the beginning of the runway.

The Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_843

and the TWA Tribute pages (fantastic reading btw)

http://www.twaflight843.com

Phil
FlyingColours

Maverick623 · Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:07 am

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 20):
The arguement is getting a little silly, don't you think?

Calm down there sport, I passed no judgment... I merely stated known facts.

atct · Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:36 pm

Where I work, we dont use the "published missed approach." We have too many airplanes to let em just go where they want so we vector go-arounds / missed approaches accordingly. Anywho in the scenario above, inn the US, I wouldve let the departure keep rolling and advise the go-around aircraft "when able, turn right/left etc." and issue the traffic. Tower has visual seperation in this scenario.

Clint

IAHFLYR · Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:22 am

Quoting atct (Reply 25):
I wouldve let the departure keep rolling and advise the go-around aircraft "when able, turn right/left etc." and issue the traffic.

Since when did you start landing and departing the same runway?

Come on, now way you'd ever get away with that event.

Quoting atct (Reply 25):
Tower has visual seperation in this scenario.

For sure, always.

As atct says, let the departure roll, I don't ever remember having seen the departure told to abort regardless of the speed, by the time they slowed and exited the runway the landing traffic would probably be having to go-around anyway.

P3Orion · Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:50 pm

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 26):
Since when did you start landing and departing the same runway? Come on, now way you'd ever get away with that event.

You don't land and depart on the same runway? Boy that's weak.

IAHFLYR · Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:28 pm

Quoting P3Orion (Reply 27):
You don't land and depart on the same runway? Boy that's weak.

Oh tell me about it....it gets even better but for another thread another time.

cpd · Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:30 am

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
The take off clearance was issued and began its take off run, unfortunately ATC had misjudged and issued a go around to the landing aircraft. The go around would involve flying on runway heading to a certain turn before a turn was initiated. At the same time ATC instructed the aircraft on take off to stop, the aircraft was already past V1 slightly. A stop was initiated with no issues. The departure would have involved following runway heading also before turning in a similar direction to the prescribed go around.

I've seen it happen (very recently, photographed it too) where the takeoff plane continued takeoff, and the go-around plane continued go-around, both on runway heading - and the 737 jet (at slightly higher altitude) intiated a right turn, while the turboprop initiated a left turn.

I won't mention airlines, airport or exact times, since the media didn't catch it - and I don't wish them to blow it up into a storm. But it's the closest go-around scenario I've ever seen. It was very, very close.

IAHFLYR · Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:52 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 29):
I won't mention airlines, airport or exact times, since the media didn't catch it - and I don't wish them to blow it up into a storm. But it's the closest go-around scenario I've ever seen. It was very, very close.

Ya know, visual separation is often seen a something far less than standard separation in day to day ops! Maybe, just maybe it was a normal go around to avert less than standard separation on the runway and it appeared to be some wild west operation, when simply was a go around to avoid a loss of separation standard in some phase of flight set my some rules of a state/country.

Media, oh for sure, let the media get ahold of a simple touch-n-go clearance and the entire world will think the TSA has discovered a security breach..........the airplane hit the runway and left!

cpd · Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:28 am

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 30):
Ya know, visual separation is often seen a something far less than standard separation in day to day ops!

You didn't see it happen - it was a little bit close. Sometimes I wish I hadn't mentioned it.

It's easier not to mention anything on this forum because everyone picks at the little details.

[Edited 2010-10-25 20:29:43]

Starlionblue · Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:03 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 31):
It's easier not to mention anything on this forum because everyone picks at the little details.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo really?

IAHFLYR · Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:25 pm

Quoting cpd (Reply 31):
You didn't see it happen -

You are correct, I did not see the event, at least not that I know of. My intent was only to offer the idea of what we see from one angle may look much worse or much different from another place....not to pick at the details. Sorry for any injury you may have received.

Quoting cpd (Reply 31):
it was a little bit close

About what distance do you figure?

atct · Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:05 pm

Quoting P3Orion (Reply 27):
Boy that's weak.

Like where you work? Man that would suck if I moved there...the pay cut n all

Just kiddin, ya'll do a great job!

atct

PGNCS · Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:09 am

Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
Obviously a mistake somewhere but can ATC not have issued an amended clearance to the go around aircraft and did they have any right to tell the aircraft taking off to stop, if so, should they have?

ATC can amend the clearance; they can also direct an abort. As PIC I retain the right not to abort, and I would not in this scenario.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 4):
It's been a very long time since I've done a "published missed" on a go around. It's nearly always "Delta 1234, go around, turn left heading 330 and maintain 3000 feet" or something similar.

I am actually trying to recall the last time I did a published missed outside of the simulator, and I am coming up blank. It has been a LONG time.

Quoting smartt1982 (Reply 5):

With that then, would the tower have any business telling the taking off aircraft to stop, after it already reached V1?

How would ATC know if a plane was at or above V1?

Quoting RomeoMike (Reply 7):
For pilots: is there any situation where you actually would abort beyond V1? I was under the impression that V1 meant hands off the throttles because there's nothing we can do to stop in the runway we have remaining.

Only if I really, REALLY didn't believe the aircraft would fly.

Quoting josekmlb (Reply 8):
V1 is decision speed right anything past VR you cant do the RTO?

Vr doesn't really enter into the RTO decision per se (although V1 and Vr may be equal); and Balanced Field Length may be much shorter than the actual runway available.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 9):
I would have a problem with ATC telling me to abort a T/O unless I was going really slow. The other point is yes, it's very common to get an amended G/A.

Agreed on both accounts!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10):
The only reason to abort after V1 (decision speed) would be if the pilots have serious doubts about the airworthiness of the aircraft.

I would need to believe the aircraft was unable to be successfully flown. The records of accidents after high speed RTO's is substantially worse than the record of going flying and coming back to land.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 12):
Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
and did they have any right to tell the aircraft taking off to stop, if so, should they have?

The tower absolutely has the right to instruct an aircraft to abort.... and the pilot absolutely has the right to say "unable".

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 12):
Quoting smartt1982 (Thread starter):
Can ATC not issue an amended go around, ie "go around with an immediate turn to the left etc"?

Of course they can.... I see it happen all the time now with the runway construction at PHX, causing the exact scenario described above.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 17):
I was ignoring the V1 part of the scenario as it is not realistic and ATC doesn't know when you reach V1 anyways.

Quoting FlyingColours (Reply 23):
I believe TWA 843 was past V1 and may have been at VR when they aborted their takeoff. The skipper felt that the aircraft was unflyable, a lot of circumstances helped them that day including the decision to use the longer JFK runway (used by Concorde) and to start their roll from the beginning of the runway.

And this is an EXCELLENT example of why you really don't want to try to stop after V1 (and certainly not after rotation.) The Captain's decision, while well-intentioned, was wrong.

Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

RE: Can ATC Amend Go Around Clearance?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net