Landing clearances (USA) while runway occupied

[dmwalker 612]

Life is all about calculated risk. Knowing these methods of remaining safe, I feel confident that this risk (crashing, losing an engine, explosive decompression, flying into poor weather, etc), has been acceptably mitigated.

 

This is off-topic so you can ignore it if you wish but, when I think of "calculated risk", I am reminded of Ronald Reagan firing 11,000 air traffic controllers back in 1981. Do you think that was an acceptable risk?

[pilotguy03 1]

It's when the transmit button sticks on your comm radio - EXTREMELY frustrating to any and all in comms distance on your freq... Some if the stuff you hear during these times is UNBELIEVABLE...

 

OBTW - I hate "Line up and wait"...

 

Regards,

Scott

So when your Push To Talk button becomes stuck?

[jbassue 181]

So when your Push To Talk button becomes stuck?

It can physically become stuck, or something wrong with software, or the pilot being a jack.

Funny thing is that you almost never know who does it, so it's hard to blame someone.

[PHXMD-11 86]

So when your Push To Talk button becomes stuck?

 

Yeah. Could happen. It gets stuck in the transmit position and you end up with a rant about your fellow crewmembers over the air.

 

Newer aircraft, I think, have an EICAS memo that will tell pilots that the PTT button may be stuck. So you just gotta get the button unstuck.

[neilbradley1 2]

All states (countries) that are signatories to the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), and that includes just about everyone these days, are required to abide by ICAO's standards and recommended procedures. One of those recomended procedures is 'conditional (anticipated) landing and take-off clearances. States may choose to adopt or not a procedure. The US, Canada and possibly other states have allowed their controllers to use their judgement and use the procedure. My country, Australia,has had an on again off again relationship with this, mainly I suspect because we really don't have the traffic to need to use it, except for YSSY. Personally as one who has used the procedure I found it very safe and efficient as one thing it does is allow the controller to oversee the whole picture and not tend to concentrate on just one situation.

 

My take on the seaparation standard is that for a landing aircraft the runway can be occupied up until the nose of the landing aircraft is about the cross over the runway threshold, at which time the runway must be his.

 

I was once checking a tower controller at YPAD and approach had a B727 too close to a preceding DC9. The controller told the DC( to roll through to the end and expedite ( he wouldn't have made the taxi way without breaking very hard and almost stopping before the turn) and instructed the B727 'To contunue approach and expect a late landing clearance', which was given during the flare about 1,500 feet down the runway as the DC9 was vacating at the end of a then 8,000 foot runway. At the subsequent check debrief I asked him if he was ever going to send the B727 around? 'No' he said. Then I said at least clear him to land a lot further back and give him the position of the preceding traffic and let the pilot make the decision in regard to your bad judgement even if it was 'safe'.

 

Neil Bradley

[russert 0]

It's not uncommon to be 'cleared to land, number 5' at Deer Valley, Phoenix AZ. From experience on some very busy days, the pattern is so tightly organized that one plane may touch down around 3-5 seconds after the plane in front lifts off. If tower wasn't able to clear you to land until the traffic in front had cleared the runway and then someone else jumped on the frequency to report inbound 10 miles or ready for departure, you would be forced to go around as the tower would not be able to issue you a landing clearance in time! So it increases efficiency and if you're too close to the other plane (or it's still on the runway), you simply go around -- it's not a big deal.

[EGLL77W 1,508]

Because the Americans like to be different with everything in life. Why use Hectopascals? Why use Meters? Why give a clearance to land when the runway is completely clear, that doesn't make sense, right?

 

The closest thing I hear to the Americans in Europe is; "Speedbird 2019 after the departing Boeing 757, you're cleared to land runway 26L, wind is 290 at 14."

 

I love seeing peoples reactions at Heathrow when the average time to get clearance to land is at or around the minimums of 280ft :lol: Or hearing the Americans over Director when they have little experience around the London TMA :LMAO:

[Irishcurse 234]

Well I've checked, and Gatwick actually has the busiest single runway in the world, and they manage without anticipated separation, so I'm still not convinced. But then, this is just an informative dicussion and you've no obligation to of course!

 

 

Here is a list of the busiest airports and I don't see Gatwick on it. I have watched videos of pilots landing at Heathrow and they don't get clearance to land till almost at the threshold. To me that has the pilots on edge ready to either Go Around or Land. Simply clearing them to land in advance lessens everyone's load. Also 1 call is needed. " AAL123 cleared to land #3 behind a Southwest 737". The other way " AAL123 continue the approach" then "AAL123 cleared to land" Twice the radio traffic. If they need to wave them off they can call them.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....craft_movements

 

Also look at the difference. ATL has more than double Heathrows traffic.

[G-CIVA 62]

Here is a list of the busiest airports and I don't see Gatwick on it.

 

LGW is a single runway operation...the ones on your list have at least one departing & one arriving runway...LGW has one runway for both.

 

Also look at the difference. ATL has more than double Heathrows traffic.

 

Spooky that...ATL has five runways in each direction to LHR's two.

 

Or am I trying to be too simplistic as usual?

 

Much of this discussion revolves around two closely linked cultures separated by a common language...as it always has been.

[EGLL77W 1,508]

Also look at the difference. ATL has more than double Heathrows traffic.

 

But look at the size of Atlanta, then look at Heathrow - that's an unfair comparison in my opinion. Heathrow is at or near it's maximum capacity - just go on flightrradar and you'll get an idea of the traffic

[dmwalker 612]

The Gatwick statement is also from Wikipedia which says it handles up to 53 movements per hour with one runway.

 

The Wikipedia entry for Atlanta states that, with the opening of the 5th runway, it went from 184 to 237 movements per hour.

 

It also states that, with the 5th runway, it can handle triple simultaneous landings.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I can see why you like anticipated separation, but the above is simply misleading. There is nothing wrong with saying "AAL245, continue approach, you're number two following a United 737, two mile final." That's no harder for the pilots following.

 

It not physically harder, no, but being held in suspense like that is, mentally. To me, it's a lot better to have an expectation and a contingency than it is to have nothing. In the case of anticipated sep, your expectation is that you're going to set down, with the contingency that you might have to go around. In the case of "continue approach" (not using anticipated sep), you don't have anything. You're waiting for either a clearance to land, or an instruction to go around. That delayed instruction places the pilot in a void of instruction. Continue inbound to the airport, but continue to wait for further direction. It's like driving with a friend who's the navigator. You see the junction up ahead and know you'll need to do one thing or another, but your friend just says "I'll tell you which way to go when we get closer." Mentally, it's a lot less stressing if he said "take exit 118B" well ahead of time. If that exit was packed when you got closer, you can still continue down and take another exit, but at least you're not stressing about what the next instruction is.

 

Well I've checked, and Gatwick actually has the busiest single runway in the world, and they manage without anticipated separation, so I'm still not convinced. But then, this is just an informative dicussion and you've no obligation to of course!

 

They may manage without it, but that doesn't mean that it's the optimum solution. Our system over here has been helping aircraft get from point A to point B for quite some time, but that isn't stopping us from moving forward with better technologies like ADS-B.

 

In the UK, appart from the odd private airfield, there is almost always someone on the ground to talk to. However, not all of these are not 'towered' (staffed by an ATCO); some provide FIS (flight information service) or A/G (air ground radio), an even lower level of service. A/G is little more than an AWOS provided by an actual person. And I can tell you, I've definately flown into A/G staffed 'non-towered' airfields, and they are most definately dangerous! Not necessarily in terms of runway occupation, but in the traffic pattern was a huge free for all with lots of aircraft in it without any organisation what so ever. We may have to agree to disagree with this one!

 

I believe Canada does something similar, but we only have a couple of those, and they're few and far between. I've flown out of a non-towered field since I first started flying in 2003, and I'd say that calling it dangerous is a gross mischaracterization. I've normally found those who are "raised" at tower fields make similar statements, but I've found JYO to be very manageable and safe. Heck, a month ago, I flew into a non-towered field that used the most common airport frequency in US Aviation (122.8), so not only did I have to coordinate with the aircraft and helicopter at the airport I was flying into, I had to wait for breaks in the chatter from other airports in radio range. Still, we managed to coordinate well enough to operate safely.

 

There's a clearly defined pattern in the AIM, which you learn in ground school, and the A/FD clearly states whether the pattern should be flown with left or right turns, and at what altitude. All you need to do from there is coordinate on the frequency. A lot of the pilots who start at towered fields do find it to be somewhat chaotic at first, but it's really the same principle.

 

Isn't LUAW required to get the most runway utilisation though?!

 

It is, but it does cut the safety margin, as you're putting a stationary object on a runway that needs to be clear for the next arrival. Most of the facilities that have traffic levels high enough to need it have a safety logic system in place such that they are able to use it, however.

 

Definately agree with you on this one. "If you spend £X million to save one life, it'll be worth it!". Really? Then I'll send you the bill!

 

Glad I'm not the only crazy. I always hated seeing the safety guys out on the ramp when I worked out there. I knew it was their job, and they were out there to make sure we were safe, and able to continue working. I know the ramp is a dangerous place, but sometimes they went way overboard in my opinion.

 

This is off-topic so you can ignore it if you wish but, when I think of "calculated risk", I am reminded of Ronald Reagan firing 11,000 air traffic controllers back in 1981. Do you think that was an acceptable risk?

 

I'm not sure how that fits into the conversation, or more specifically the manner in which I used calculated risk, but I'm not sure where I stand on that whole situation. I'll be honest in my belief that unions are in existence to prevent abuse, and not cause it. When that line is crossed, the union ceases to have a purpose. They clearly broke a law and were dealt with accordingly. There are other ways in which to raise your salary or otherwise better your work environment than putting the Nation's aviation safety in jeopardy.

 

It's not uncommon to be 'cleared to land, number 5' at Deer Valley, Phoenix AZ.

 

Oh God...the flashbacks...

"Ahhhhh Deeyah Wawwey tahwah, ahhhh TransaPock ree-too-ninah, ah, inbound ohver the prison, with Arlpha."

[dmwalker 612]

I'm not sure how that fits into the conversation, or more specifically the manner in which I used calculated risk, but I'm not sure where I stand on that whole situation

It's just that a calculated risk being acceptable depends on who's doing the calculation and who's finding it acceptable.

 

It doesn't fit into the original conversation but it sort of fits into your statements about safety. I thought, in my ignorance, that these events in 1981 must have created an unacceptable risk but I wondered what your opinion was, based on your knowledge of flying and of air traffic control.

 

At least some aviation disasters have resulted from calculated risks which should, in hindsight, have been unacceptable.

 

I suppose, also in my ignorance, that if the procedure for landing clearances while runway is occupied is acceptable to both pilots and air traffic controllers then it must be safe.

[Airbusman330 300]

Because the Americans like to be different with everything in life. Why use Hectopascals? Why use Meters? Why give a clearance to land when the runway is completely clear, that doesn't make sense, right?

 

The closest thing I hear to the Americans in Europe is; "Speedbird 2019 after the departing Boeing 757, you're cleared to land runway 26L, wind is 290 at 14."

 

I love seeing peoples reactions at Heathrow when the average time to get clearance to land is at or around the minimums of 280ft :lol: Or hearing the Americans over Director when they have little experience around the London TMA :LMAO:

 

Well 90*F sounds a lot hotter than 30*C and 30,000 feet sounds far more appropriate than 10,000 meters which give me a lower impression of altitude (I didn't bother to convert, just threw out random numbers). As for landing clearance if I don't have one 5 miles out my finger is hovering above the TOGA button and if I don't have it by minimums I go around regardless if the runway is in sight or not. Russia just switched to RVSM and feet as well so its a system that does work.

 

I like metric when it comes to certain application but I prefer the US system in most other regards, I'm just happy I don't pay for gas by the liter lol

[EGLL77W 1,508]

Well 90*F sounds a lot hotter than 30*C and 30,000 feet sounds far more appropriate than 10,000 meters which give me a lower impression of altitude (I didn't bother to convert, just threw out random numbers). As for landing clearance if I don't have one 5 miles out my finger is hovering above the TOGA button and if I don't have it by minimums I go around regardless if the runway is in sight or not. Russia just switched to RVSM and feet as well so its a system that does work.

 

I like metric when it comes to certain application but I prefer the US system in most other regards, I'm just happy I don't pay for gas by the liter lol

 

Of course Americans are going to like their system, it's the way they've been brought up to know things - exact same with everyone else in their appropriate countries.

 

I actually prefer SM to Meters, that's about it. I hate using LBS here for Mass & Balance for my PPL here, absolutely hate it. Safe to say I'm excited to get to Oxford to do the rest of training haha