That was my first thought that they simply didn't understand ATC command. I know you're supposed to have level 4 English ability but some of these guys get on the PA and I have no clue what they just said. Maybe they thought they heard cleared to land and confirmed. Lets face not all all ATCs speak the King's English either.

This could have also been a communication issue between the pilot working the radio and the flying pilot. It's happened to me several times as a controller with non-native English speaking crews.

Not going to speculate why the event happened but from the information in the article, it sounds like the controller was hesitant to issue the landing clearance based on the position of the preceding plane and issued the 'go around' anticipating the runway to still be occupied when RAM crossed the threshold. Doesn't seem to be any FOD or debris in the scenario so they were lucky in that regard.

per the article:

"descended through about 200 feet AGL tower began reporting winds in preparation for a landing clearance but stopped, instructed "disregard" and "go-around" as the aircraft was descending through about 150 feet AGL"

I've worked in FAA towers as well as ICAO towers and when working with ex-UK controllers I was very surprised to witness their technique of withholding a landing clearance until the preceding aircraft is completely clear of the runway. Extremely conservative technique. The biggest issue is that most aircraft end up getting their landing clearance on very short final when cockpit workload is high and communications should be avoided during this critical phase of flight if possible. ICAO procedures allow a landing clearance to be issued as soon as the 1st A/C is past the landing threshold and there is reasonable assurance that the aircraft will be clear by time the succeeding A/C crossed the threshold.

I'm not defending the pilot's actions because it could have resulted in a serious incident however.....the controller began reporting winds in preparation for landing clearance. You've probably got a non-native English speaking pilot that starts to hear the normal landing clearance phraseology and he's well beyond DH (decision height). As a pilot, you're expecting to hear the landing clearance along with the wind etc. and he quite possibly stopped listening once he heard the initial words that normally accompany the landing clearance.

This is the world we live and work in now. Different countries teaching and using different phraseologies and techniques that might seem very strange to a user that is familiar with only the 'book standards'. The controller's actions in a small way, help set the pilot up to fail but that's still not an excuse for the acknowledgement from the cockpit and a failure to comply. Lots of moving parts to this investigation...it will be interesting if we ever see a final report on it.

I only have two problems with the lack of communication/English language theory :

1.- The controller separated the wind information from the Go Around Call with the word "DISREGARD". I don't know if this word is commonly accepted within standard phraseology to cancel a previous instruction and issue a new one.
2.- The biggest one, according to the article, the flight crew AKNOWLEDGED the Go Around instruction. I know the different parts of the world can have issues with the pronunciation of sentences in English, but "Clear to land" and "Go Around" sounds very different.

Rgds.
G.

A go around at 150 feet?

I'm not a pilot, so help me out. But isn't it the case that if you try to go around at that low an altitude, the tires are still likely to contact the runway because there isn't enough time for the jets to spool up?

They'll need a good reason for acknowledging the go around call and then proceeding with the landing. If they had said negative unable and continued it would make a bit more sense. Without reading the transcript I wonder if they acknowledged the go around as "Roger." If so they may have an out as (at least in the US) Roger is defined as "I have received all of your last transmission. It is not an agreement to follow a clearance.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg/R.HTM

Since it was presumed to be Moroccan pilots flying a Moroccan aircraft at a UK airport - I doubt there is anything the UK could do as far as fines or suspensions of pilot licenses.

Quote: The return flight AT-673 was cancelled. The occurrence aircraft positioned back to Morocco as flight AT-8173 departing Gatwick after about 90 minutes on the ground.

I don't know what was the scheduled timing. Apparently UK authorities refused to allow the crew to return to Morocco with the aircraft carrying passengers. Instead the crew had to ferry an empty plane home.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 12): I've worked in FAA towers as well as ICAO towers and when working with ex-UK controllers I was very surprised to witness their technique of withholding a landing clearance until the preceding aircraft is completely clear of the runway. Extremely conservative technique. The biggest issue is that most aircraft end up getting their landing clearance on very short final when cockpit workload is high and communications should be avoided during this critical phase of flight if possible.

Although this is common in the UK and rest of Europe in my experience, which is very different from the US, where visual approaches are the norm when weather permits, and landing clearances are given 3 or 4 aircraft out. When I've flown into Gatwick it's nothing except ILS approaches on sunny days, and landing clearances on short-final.

Jimbo

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 15): They'll need a good reason for acknowledging the go around call and then proceeding with the landing.

The tower will also need a really go reason for creating a situation that necessitated a go around call that close in.

Quoting d l x (Reply 14): A go around at 150 feet? I'm not a pilot, so help me out. But isn't it the case that if you try to go around at that low an altitude, the tires are still likely to contact the runway because there isn't enough time for the jets to spool up?

A GoAround can be completed at any time up till engine reverse thrust is selected. For information, the typical height loss during a GA in a B737 is approx 40 feet. The lowest height that I've personally conducted a GA in a B737-800, is 50 feet and we never made contact with the runway. Making contact with the runway during a low altitude GA (such as a CAT3 autoland) is to be expected and considered to be normal.

There seems to be some misconception on this forum and others (AVHerald) that a GA shouldn't be conducted below a certain altitude, or that it's a dangerous action. Not true. As I mentioned before a GA can be carried out up till the thrust levers are placed to idle reverse (ie when on the runway), and is a simple action to carry out. A single press of the TOGA button starts the GA phase. However a GA can be a very busy period of flight (high workload) and an awful lot of actions, decisions and crew actions need to be done to make it successful. But it's what any airline pilot should be able to do without thinking about it.

There's not enough information to digest to know why the Air Maroc pilots, ignored ATC and landed anyway. I wasn't there in the flightdeck and know what their decision process was, but they'd need a damn good reason (low fuel state, on fire, etc) to ignore this instruction.

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 19): A GoAround can be completed at any time up till engine reverse thrust is selected.

Technically once the wheels are on the ground it would be a rejected landing and not a go around.

150 AGL? Perhaps he was already below his decision height and decided it was safer to proceed with landing?

Quoting U2380 (Reply 10): Indeed I once heard of a crew continuing the approach and landing despite an ATC go-around instruction as they had descended through their Asymmetric Committal Altitude, which is of course the correct action to have taken.

And that is fine, but in any case, you tell the tower of this issue, and don't acknowledge the go-around.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 11): That was my first thought that they simply didn't understand ATC command. I know you're supposed to have level 4 English ability but some of these guys get on the PA and I have no clue what they just said.

That might be the cause, but it is not an excuse. Like it or not, English is the language used in aviation, and one must at a minimum be able to understand and communicate using standard phraseology, with "go-around" definitely being part of that phraseology from day 1.

The fact (if article is correct that is) that the pilot acknowledged the go-around makes this issue even bigger.

-CXfirst

Quoting audioace87 (Reply 21): 150 AGL? Perhaps he was already below his decision height and decided it was safer to proceed with landing?

Now... where was that survey that looked into what pilots believed they can/cannot/should/should not do after they're below decision height... Anyway, if that was the case, a good look into the training and the country's CAA inspectors understanding of is called for... There are some pilots out there for whatever reason or because someone told them whatever, thinks that the decision height is like V1... commit or abort... sounds ridiculous... but there are those who believe so... (to the amazement of the training department of the airline that took them in direct entry)...

Quoting catiii (Reply 18): The tower will also need a really go reason for creating a situation that necessitated a go around call that close in.

I have no knowledge of this incident, but LGW is the busiest single runway airport in the world and operates close to full capacity for most of the day, consequently late clearances and go-arounds are much more frequent occurances than elsewhere.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 24): The fact (if article is correct that is) that the pilot acknowledged the go-around makes this issue even bigger.

I'm pretty sure the article should have said "the non-flying pilot" acknowledged....". Aircraft incident/accident investigations always have some seemingly minor, yet critical facts to consider.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 26): I have no knowledge of this incident, but LGW is the busiest single runway airport in the world and operates close to full capacity for most of the day, consequently late clearances and go-arounds are much more frequent occurances than elsewhere.

So? That doesn't mean that the controllers need to create a crappy circumstance.

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 24): LGW is the busiest single runway airport in the world

The article says "runway 26L". Did they get a parallel runway or is this an editorial oversight?

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 12): I've worked in FAA towers as well as ICAO towers and when working with ex-UK controllers I was very surprised to witness their technique of withholding a landing clearance until the preceding aircraft is completely clear of the runway. Extremely conservative technique.

In my experience, UK controllers are very good, but are handcuffed by procedural rules that are overly complex and make things more difficult than they need to be for everybody. The landing clearance rule is one of them, but to be fair, this could have just as easily happened in a US-like environment where the crew already had their landing clearance but for whatever reason the controller felt it necessary to issue a go-around on short final and the crew either misunderstood or ignored it.

Quoting catiii (Reply 18): The tower will also need a really go reason for creating a situation that necessitated a go around call that close in.

Not really - the separation just didn't work out. It happens sometimes. And the separation on final is primarily the approach controller's responsibility.

Quoting d l x (Reply 14): I'm not a pilot, so help me out. But isn't it the case that if you try to go around at that low an altitude, the tires are still likely to contact the runway because there isn't enough time for the jets to spool up?

No, it's only below 50 feet that you run the possibility of hitting the runway during the go-around (which isn't a huge deal). 150 feet is plenty of time.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 13): 1.- The controller separated the wind information from the Go Around Call with the word "DISREGARD". I don't know if this word is commonly accepted within standard phraseology to cancel a previous instruction and issue a new one.

"Correction" is more common for issuing different instructions while you're talking. "Disregard" is normally used when you've issued instructions and then just want to wipe the slate clean, not issue new instructions. With that said, it should have been clear what was meant.

-Mir

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 19): A GoAround can be completed at any time up till engine reverse thrust is selected. For information, the typical height loss during a GA in a B737 is approx 40 feet. The lowest height that I've personally conducted a GA in a B737-800, is 50 feet and we never made contact with the runway. Making contact with the runway during a low altitude GA (such as a CAT3 autoland) is to be expected and considered to be normal. There seems to be some misconception on this forum and others (AVHerald) that a GA shouldn't be conducted below a certain altitude, or that it's a dangerous action. Not true. As I mentioned before a GA can be carried out up till the thrust levers are placed to idle reverse (ie when on the runway), and is a simple action to carry out. A single press of the TOGA button starts the GA phase.

Thanks for the really informative posts. Always learning something on A-Net.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 27): The article says "runway 26L". Did they get a parallel runway or is this an editorial oversight?

There is a 26R but it is primarily used as a taxiway and the two are too close to be used simultaneously. 26R is, I believe, only used when the main runway is closed for maintenance. So, whilst it has two runways, LGW only ever operates as a single-runway airport.

Can I get some thing clarified here pls.
The country which controls the airspace where the incident happens has no control over any action against the crew if they are not nationals?

Quoting type-rated (Reply 9): Then they will decide to either accept the excuse or make a complaint to the airline who in turn will dole out the punishment if that is the course they choose to do.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16): Since it was presumed to be Moroccan pilots flying a Moroccan aircraft at a UK airport - I doubt there is anything the UK could do as far as fines or suspensions of pilot licenses.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 27): The article says "runway 26L". Did they get a parallel runway or is this an editorial oversight?

The runway is marked as 26L/08R.

Yes, we all know it is a single runway airport - but the markings and using the L/R designation on ATC are essential for safe operation.

Quoting catiii (Reply 26): Quoting GCT64 (Reply 26): I have no knowledge of this incident, but LGW is the busiest single runway airport in the world and operates close to full capacity for most of the day, consequently late clearances and go-arounds are much more frequent occurances than elsewhere. So? That doesn't mean that the controllers need to create a crappy circumstance.

I think you are being hard on the controllers here. All it takes is for the preceding aircraft to fail to to vacate the runway in the expected timely manner and bingo, crappy circumstance. This could be because they missed the turn-off, had an overheating brake warning or a hundred and one other reasons. Not really something the controller could have predicted.

Quoting Mir (Reply 28): Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 13): 1.- The controller separated the wind information from the Go Around Call with the word "DISREGARD". I don't know if this word is commonly accepted within standard phraseology to cancel a previous instruction and issue a new one. "Correction" is more common for issuing different instructions while you're talking. "Disregard" is normally used when you've issued instructions and then just want to wipe the slate clean, not issue new instructions. With that said, it should have been clear what was meant.

"Correction" is also used in the UK to amend/replace a wrong clearance or instruction. "Disregard" concerns information no longer relevant.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 17): Although this is common in the UK and rest of Europe in my experience, which is very different from the US, where visual approaches are the norm when weather permits, and landing clearances are given 3 or 4 aircraft out. When I've flown into Gatwick it's nothing except ILS approaches on sunny days, and landing clearances on short-final.

How can you issue a landing clearance to an aircraft 3 or 4 out on approach when you cannot guarantee the runway is going to be clear? The correct phrase should be "Land after...whatever plane is ahead", which gives approval for landing but leaves responsibility for separation (on the available runway length before the un-vacated aircraft) with the captain.

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 31): The country which controls the airspace where the incident happens has no control over any action against the crew if they are not nationals?

Try and tell that to Brazil   
It depends on the law of the country it occured in.

Quoting Mir (Reply 28): but to be fair, this could have just as easily happened in a US-like environment where the crew already had their landing clearance but for whatever reason the controller felt it necessary to issue a go-around on short final and the crew either misunderstood or ignored it.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. In the US or at an ICAO airport that uses the standard ICAO rules, the landing clearance would have been issued at least 2 1/2 - 3 miles out, if, in the mind of the controller the separation would exist at the time the A/C crossed the threshold. If spacing deteriorated or if #1 was slow exiting the runway, the ONLY thing the controller would say is "XXX123, go around". Simple, concise and absolutely no extra words or phrases to filter out (if the recipient is not a native English-speaker)

In this case the controller began the clearance with the wind check and that is something normally associated with a landing clearance and not with a go-around instruction. Not intentionally, but the pilot did get 'set up' a bit by doing this.

You're right, the UK rules do make it more difficult for controllers and pilots. If landing clearances are routinely issued on short or very short final, the landing clearance is very, very time-critical and any frequency interruption could result in unnecessary, pilot-initiated go-arounds or landings without a clearance. For pilots that aren't familiar with the UK rules, they can become very concerned when they're not cleared to land yet and they're over the approach lights. Again, it's different regions creating their own policy/techniques that differ from ICAO standards.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 7): But you cannot fill a thimble with what we know now, and so we can do well what users of the Great Global InterWebz do so very well: speculate without the merest hint of actual knowledge!

True.

But speculating can be fun! In my view the crew may have had a handful for whatever reasons (crosswind, something in the MEL, doing a livery late checklist etc), and then the tower commands come and you acknowledge on brain autopilot, but don't register then you continue and land...

It happens a lot when you are speccing something and you hear something different and you THINK you hear wat you expected, it happens specially when you are very concentrated or focused on something. I think that is what happens but I´d love to read the report on this one, as to what cause this non authorized landing..

TRB

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 33): How can you issue a landing clearance to an aircraft 3 or 4 out on approach when you cannot guarantee the runway is going to be clear?

Predicted separation. The philosophy is that you'd rather have the crews not distracted by waiting for a landing clearance on short final - the crews are still responsible for executing a go-around if they see or otherwise suspect that the runway is not safe.

-Mir

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 31): Can I get some thing clarified here pls. The country which controls the airspace where the incident happens has no control over any action against the crew if they are not nationals?

In general, one nation cannot suspend the pilots license, cancel the pilot's license for a pilot licensed by another nation. They might be able to issue a fine, but have no power to enforce the fine if the licensing nation does not agree. They can REQUEST fines, suspension, termination by the license issuing authority.

The nation - i.e. UK could ban the pilots from flying in UK airspace, though how to enforce that for overflights with no landing in UK territory is questionable. The UK could even blacklist the airline if they wanted to deal with the political consequences.


The US FAA will not fine or suspend the pilots in the Asiana crash. Punishment, if any, will be up to Korea and the airline.


Most of the time a foreign airline will be fined for the actions of a pilot outside the jurisdiction of the nation where the offense occurs.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 34): It depends on the law of the country it occured in.

True - criminal charges for pilots is a whole different discussion.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 33): How can you issue a landing clearance to an aircraft 3 or 4 out on approach when you cannot guarantee the runway is going to be clear? The correct phrase should be "Land after...whatever plane is ahead", which gives approval for landing but leaves responsibility for separation (on the available runway length before the un-vacated aircraft) with the captain.

Having 3 or 4 cleared to land is mostly an urban myth about transport category US airports. At any major airport the normal transfer of communication point is the FAF or approx. 4-6 miles from touchdown. At the most you could have 3 cleared to land but #1 would have to be very near touchdown for the pieces to fall into place.

The controller does NOT have to guarantee the runway is going to be clear when issuing a landing clearance but only to be "reasonably sure that separation will exist". If spacing is adequate for the wind and runway conditions and the speeds are compatible on final, there is no reason to withold the landing clearance. A simple exchange of traffic and a landing clearance lets the pilots know about any other traffic and also gives them their landing clearance with the stipulation that the clearnace can be rescinded if necessary. "XXX123, 737 touching down, runway 26L cleared to land"

"Land after" doesn't exist anywhere in ICAO or FAA docs. It's a term I've heard some UK guys use in conversation but it has no legal meaning in the ATC world. No good controller is going to allow a pilot to make his own runway separation determination with the traffic in front of him. With few exceptions the runway must be clear for transport category planes before A/C #2 crosses the threshold. If a pilot thinks it's safe to land behind a plane that's still on the runway, the controller has just allowed a runway incursion to happen and he/she will be decertified. It's the controller's job to ensure runway separation...not the pilot's.

[Edited 2014-01-07 11:51:42]

Now I'm curious about something. If this had happened in the US someone would have posted the conversation between the pilots and ATC by now. Is this not possible with flights in the UK? Sure would be nice to hear exactly what was said by both sides and also the Moroccan pilot's English proficiency.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 35): If spacing deteriorated or if #1 was slow exiting the runway, the ONLY thing the controller would say is "XXX123, go around". Simple, concise and absolutely no extra words or phrases to filter out (if the recipient is not a native English-speaker)

I have no practical experience in this area but I'd think it's fairly safe to assume the controller didn't begin the wind information with the intention of issuing a go-around. It seems to me he was about to issue a landing clearance but something changed his mind before he got to it.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 33): The correct phrase should be "Land after...whatever plane is ahead", which gives approval for landing but leaves responsibility for separation (on the available runway length before the un-vacated aircraft) with the captain.

I wasn't aware of that. I've heard "Continue, you're number n" and "... expect late landing clearance" though I confess it's been quite a while since I listened.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 39): At any major airport the normal transfer of communication point is the FAF or approx. 4-6 miles from touchdown. At the most you could have 3 cleared to land but #1 would have to be very near touchdown for the pieces to fall into place.

Well it could be much farther out for a visual approach, when the airport is in sight, which is common in the US and rare in the UK.

Jimbo

Quoting David L (Reply 41): I have no practical experience in this area but I'd think it's fairly safe to assume the controller didn't begin the wind information with the intention of issuing a go-around. It seems to me he was about to issue a landing clearance but something changed his mind before he got to it.

Exactly right. Something happened that changed the controller's initial intent. Could have been that the previous arrival stopped before completely exiting the runway or slowed down more than originally anticipated but regareless, the controller's clearance changed mid-sentence. I've had pilots exit the runway and then come to a complete stop short of the hold bars...on the runway side of them!!!

Nothing wrong with changing the clearancd at the last second if the situation is fluid but you have to also realize that the person receiving the time-critical clearance must be able to react in a timely manner as well. The non-native English speaking pilot still have to internally translate the clearance so it's much tougher for them and might take an extra second or so.

The nice thing about having the landing clearance issued farther out on final is that the controller can focus his/her attention on the exiting aircraft and issue immediate instructions to keep them moving away from the runway if necessary.

Quoting d l x (Reply 14): the tires are still likely to contact the runway because there isn't enough time for the jets to spool up?

That´w why the gear is not raised on a Go Around until a "Positive Rate" call is made.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 42): Well it could be much farther out for a visual approach, when the airport is in sight, which is common in the US and rare in the UK.

It could be but at a busy air carrier airport, the approach control is normally responsible for separation to anywhere from 2 miles out to the FAF. Approach would not have any reason to transfer radio control to the tower if he is still responsible for the spacing either on the ILS or the visual. ATC can clear for a visual approach and still assign a speed or altitude restriction if necessary. Not a good way to have a long, healthy ATC career when you're responsible for separating aircraft that are not on your frequency.

Granted, at a non-busy time, an aircraft might be transferred to the tower 10-15 miles out but that'd be the exception instead of the rule. Still not a very good idea because the approach controller has the better equipment to issue VFR traffic that pops up whereas the tower does not always have the same equipment capabilities or training.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 39): "Land after" doesn't exist anywhere in ICAO or FAA docs.

I thought late landing clearances with a preceeding traffiic are issued with a "follow aircraft on the runway", giving the PIC the power to decide between land or Go Around...

Rgds.
G.-

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 13): 2.- The biggest one, according to the article, the flight crew AKNOWLEDGED the Go Around instruction. I know the different parts of the world can have issues with the pronunciation of sentences in English, but "Clear to land" and "Go Around" sounds very different.

They do sound different. However there are two issues. First is the aforementioned non-native speaker thing. Second is that the brain is very good at hearing and seeing what it expects to hear and see. If the pilots were in the "land" mindset and about to touch down, I find it easy to believe that the PM read back correctly but the instruction didn't "click". It is definitely a bad thing to happen but it is easy to see how it could.

You see this in any number of accidents, and not only with communications. Examples would be Teneriffe, AF447. Crew members expect one situation and consistently discard information that does not support their mental picture. It is a problem in Human Performance that is intensely studied.

Of course, speculation speculation!

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 31): Can I get some thing clarified here pls. The country which controls the airspace where the incident happens has no control over any action against the crew if they are not nationals?

As mentioned, the UK, like many other countries, does not treat air incidents and accidents as criminal cases. This is a good thing for many reasons.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 45): ot a good way to have a long, healthy ATC career when you're responsible for separating aircraft that are not on your frequency.

As I read the original comment, I understood it to mean "approach controller is responsible for the airplanes to come to tower in specific separation/distance one after another" not that he is the one responsible for separation on final.

That can be made, but then you can have aicraft being a bit faster or slower than expected after 4th mile, if the Moroccan jet was on a heavier side for whatever reason, and the crew elected to fly F30 landing, it could be maybe 20kts faster then preceding 737, which landed light and with F40.

Quoting Fabo (Reply 48): As I read the original comment, I understood it to mean "approach controller is responsible for the airplanes to come to tower in specific separation/distance one after another" not that he is the one responsible for separation on final.

This is where ATC differences around the world become factors.

Each ATC facility will determine the point at which separation on final will transfer from Approach to Tower. It will depend on many factors including equipment in the tower cab itself, the training of the tower personel and weather. Responsibility for separation transfer might be different than frequency transfer. This could be a whole new topic but I'll try to sum it up in a few bullets.

On non-simultaneous ILS approaches in the US, I'd say that 99% of the ATC facilities transfer separation responsiblity from approach to the tower at the FAF or equilavent. This doesn't mean that approach can hand two planes over to the tower 3 miles apart with the 2nd aircraft 20-50kts faster. Once inside the FAF, the tower controller will use the radar display to determine spacing and ground speed to ensure separation at the runway threshold will more than likely exist.

During simultaneous ILS approaches, approach will be responsible for separation down to approx. 2 miles from touchdown and they do this by having separate 'monitor controllers' in the approach room literally select the tower frequency and listen for every word that's said. If the monitor controller needs to make a correction or missed approach instruction, he has the ability to key the mike and over-ride the tower. During simultaneous ILS ops. aircraft on parallel runways must be on the tower frequency by normally at least 15 miles from the airport or where ever the vertical separation between the two finals will erode below 1,000'. The phraseology the pilot will get is: "change now and monitor tower on 118.5 and report (FAF)". The pilot will change to the tower freq 15-30 miles out and not check in with the tower until the FAF.

At the ICAO airport I worked at, the tower was not certified by the GCAA to use the radar display for certain separation so the approach was responsible for separation to the runway. Pretty hard to be responsible for separation when not on your frequency so if spacing did become a problem, approach would have to call the tower controller on the coordination line and rely a control instruction thru him to issue to the pilot. Very time-consuming and distracting

When traffic is light and approach can clear traffic for a visual approach 15-20 miles out, they might simply say: "XXX123, cleared for visual approach runway 26L, contact tower at 5 DME" or other pre-determined transfer of communication point. This allows the approach controller to make 1 transmission to the pilot but the pilot will stay on the approach frequency so that he/she can still monitor the flight path, altitude or issue any VFR traffic that might pop up. Tower really has no reason to talk with a pilot beyond that distance unless they're mixing IFR with VFR traffic.