Thanks for the links RossInteresting reading! ;-)And I didn't mean to sound as harsh as it turned out. ;-) I just think that these procedures would inject a degree of uncertainty into the final approach and landing phase. What happens if the aircraft that the controller is anticipating will leave the runway doesn't manage to do this within the time frame until the cleared aircraft reaches the treshold? To me it sounds like a better idea to give late clearances instead of giving a landing clearance that may or may not be reversed.Anyho. Just my two amateur cents! :-)Cheers,

In that case, the landing clearance would be cancelled, and/or the aircraft would be told to go around, depending on how short of a final the arrival was on.Most likely, the tower controller wouldn't give a landing clearance if there was an aircraft holding short ready to takeoff, unless that aircraft had confirmed that he was ready for an immediate takeoff. I'm not sure about the real world, but on VATSIM, (at least where I control in the Boston area) controllers have a rule that you should never clear an aircraft to enter an active runway unless the pilot has stated that he is ready to roll at any time. This is for taxiing aircraft into position to hold, or departures, either one.It probably comes down to personal preference. I'm sure a lot of controllers just give a late landing clearance. I've often heard controllers tell arrivals to expect a late landing clearance. That's a good idea, since that way the pilot won't be wondering when they'll be cleared to land, or maybe if they were already cleared and forgot, etc. Each case is different, I'd imagine.

Hi Ross,"you'll never hear conditional clearances, like "after arriving traffic, taxi into position and hold""Interesting! That actually DOES occur over here!Such as "behind landing B737 line up and wait rwy 25R behind"(you actually have to say behind twice!!)There was a near miss a few weeks ago in Munich because of this! An aircraft lined up before the landing aircraft actually landed.Regards,Mark

Eeek ... that's scary. I think one of the reasons that's not done in the US is to guard against problems with radio reception. Like if part of the transmission got cut off or stepped on, then maybe the pilot would just hear the "taxi into position and hold" part and not the conditional part ... then you've got trouble. Maybe over there, they guard against such a thing by requiring a full pilot readback before he starts to taxi? Either way, kinda scary! :)

They guard that by first saying "behind" as in"behind landing B737 line up and wait runway 26 behind"Who knows, maybe this will change here aswell after that incident.Mark

>can anyone tell me just what to do during a circling>approach? Everytime i leave downwind and enter the turn>against the landing runway, i overshoot and miss the runway by>great distances. It seems to me that you have to be on the>perfect parallel distance to the runway on downvind in order>off not overshooting when turning to the runway. I have asked>many times before, bu no one seems to give me a good enough>answer.>>Roar Nicolaisen Practice, practice, practice, is the only real answer... Your experience shows why circling approaches in crappy weather aren't done that often.

Just to add, I believe in the USA, if an Airline chooses not to do Circling Approach training in the simulator, then thier Circling Approach minimums are set at 1000'AGL and 3 miles Visibility for all circling approaches.Floyd

Ross,As I've learned the European way of doing air traffic control I do find the "American way" somewhat strange sometimes :)For me it doesn't make sense at all to clear an aircraft to land when you still use the runway for other things like crossings and so on because it is just not clear to land if the runway is still blocked. Of course there is that nice anticipated separation, but one has to be very careful using it...One thing where anticipated seperation is being used commonly is a landing traffic behind a landing traffic if the preceeding aircraft is say mid runway or about to vacate, but then you should tell the pilot "B737 mid runway, wind...". That's the European way :)Oh and yes "behind the Boeing 747 on final line up runway xx and wait behind" is used very often here, you just have to listen to the readback to hear if the pilots says something about "behind", then its ok :)But yes there is a BIG difference between Europe and the US in ATC matters. One of those big differences is that here in Europe we normally have the far more modern equipment to work with then in the US...Ok we're way off-topic here, but hey, the PMDG-Forum is just the best place to discuss with nice people :)Markus

>One thing where anticipated seperation is being used commonly>is a landing traffic behind a landing traffic if the>preceeding aircraft is say mid runway or about to vacate, but>then you should tell the pilot "B737 mid runway, wind...". >That's the European way :)That's the US way as well, we'll always point out the traffic, and indicate the number in sequence. Last week I was cleared to land behind a commuter prop on runway 33 at KBTV ... the clearanace was something like "Cessna 434, winds 010 at 8, runway 33, cleared to land, number two behind a dash-8 on 2 mile final" ... I was still entering a downwind, so the dash-8 was down, clear and probably parked and shutdown by the time I landed. :-lol