Robert Briggs wrote:




If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said?


It is quite likely that the controller *would* call the go-around, but
the lack of a landing clearance would (or jolly well should) keep the
second guy airborne.

But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.




That would never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping
at the tower controller wondering about his landing clearance.


I don't think the pilot would often be "wondering about his landing
clearance".

Alas, they do.



At a field with normally light(ish) traffic where you happened to be
unusually close to the guy in front the controller would tell you to
expect a late landing clearance.

There's no reason for that and causes the controller to talk more than
he has to. "Follow the Cessna ahead, cleared to land." Assuming it
works out as expected with the required amount of separation no further
talking is required. If it doesn't then you tell the aircraft to go
around. It's foolish to be issuing landing clearances with the aircraft
on very short final. He's got more important things to worry about.





I wouldn't call issuing the landing clearance itself "doing all this
talking" - certainly not in comparison with a system which requires
time for the controller to call a go-around.

In my system I have a lot more time to talk because I am not giving
other airplanes farther out a stupid instruction like "continue inbound."