The US airspace is better laid out I will give you that, the UK airspace is a mess. Unfortunately it's a product of trying to meet the needs of way to many groups at once (Airlines, Military, gliders, GA, balloons, etc etc).

 

 

I don't know the details of "land after" but I'll look them up so I can reference what I'm about to say.

 

As I've understood it, it's not a clearance (due to the runway being occupied you can't give a clearance). It's basically permission for the pilot to (if they accept by reading it back) maintain visual separation and therefore take their own responsibility for separation.

 

It can be used for airliners, but I don't know the details. Also see CAP493 for the general rules regarding the use of "land after".

 

 

As I said, I'll ask someone who knows if they can give me some more input on the subject and also some of the legal implications (who's responsible in case something goes wrong etc).

In the UK (and I believe it's not uncommon elsewhere) landing clerance will never be given to an aircrat until it is number one and the runway is unoccupied.

 

In the UK "A landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft has vacated the runway provided that:..."

 

The phraseology is "BIGJET 347, runway 28, land after the B737, wind calm "

 

See CAP 413

In the UK "A landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft has vacated the runway provided that:..."

 

The phraseology is "BIGJET 347, runway 28, land after the B737, wind calm "

 

See CAP 413

 

As crazy voyager says, that's not a clearance.

As crazy voyager says, that's not a clearance

 

So a landing aircraft isn't permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft has vacated the runway?

That's the thing, it's a very grey thing and I don't really understand it, but as I said I'll get a hold of someone who knows and post my findings here in a few days.

So a landing aircraft isn't permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft has vacated the runway?

 

This isn't a straightforward topic as many of us are discovering!

 

However I think that much of this business is about who takes responsibility for what.

 

Getting a clearance to land in my mind is ATC taking responsibility for the runway being clear for me to land on. I started this topic because I thought that it was strange that in the states that ATC would take the responsibility for confirming to a pilot that the runway is (or would be) clear when it actually wasn't. As shown in the video I originally posted, this has the potential to create the situation where a landing aircraft is cleared to land before a departing aircraft waiting on the ground is cleared for takeoff. Lose comms a this point and you've got the potential for disaster. If comms hadn't been restored and the landing aircraft been told to go around, who knows what would have happened? This is the reason why in the UK aircraft are never cleared to land until the runway is actually clear.

 

'Land after' is quite a specific instruction given to the second of two sequential arrivals (no departures involved) during daytime vfr conditions, allowing the second aircraft to touch down before the proceeding aircraft has vacated, but the pilot takes responsibility for separation if they are happy to proceed (they don't have to accept the land after).

Yeah,

In the UK we have moved on further, we no longer say 'line up and wait' it is simply 'line up'.

 

 

The yanks are behind in a lot of regards, [Television image quality formats, etc.] But aviation is a pain for new long haul European pilots arriving into US airspace.

 

Celsius and Fahrenheit, lets not even go there! but I would like to see hector pascals being used in the states.

Hmmm, I've flown all over the world and have never had a issue in any airspace. The controller issues a clearance and you follow it... seems simple to me. I all ways read/brief the international procedures for every country I transit and i've never been violated or verbally lashed. Any skilled pilot should be able to fly in any airspace with out any pain as long as you follow procedures. The only differences that i've found in some countries is the accent of the controller. Seems that the Mid East and Asia are the most difficult. But after transiting a couple times, you pick it up fast. The only issues i've had with controllers were with diplomatic clearances. Usally it was a typo in the callsign or registration number. I've had them clear me through airspace that I did'nt have clearance for, but thats my responisibility not his/hers. I guess a new guy could have issues if he didn't stay on top of international and country specific procedures. Arriving in the UK vs US is the same to me besides minor terminology differences. I've never been given a term/phrase from a controller anywhere that I could not comprehend. Even though ATC mainly speaks spanish on the ATC radio in South America, I could care less because I trust TCAS and that the controller is doing thier job.

 

Believe it or not, Celsius is used in US aviation. The only place I've seen Fahrenheit in any aircraft I've flown was in the airconditioning system. I never worry about hector pascals becasue I can change that on my display controller with a button press. Most aircraft these days displays both and gives you the choice for displaying on your PFD. The US is not the only country that uses different TV formats, procedures ETC....But i get it, we love to have fun with the yanks B)

 

Also interesting! In the UK I believe clearance is given before taxi (or even engine start) but that might be for SIDs only. Perhaps only non standard procedures are given at the hold?

Just happened last week at EINN. Seems to be the norm in Europe. I've had this happen at EGSS also. I usually get the departure clearance at some point during taxi. I usually brief/load what i've filed and quickly load/brief what ever i'm given. Just a little more work for me since i'm a training captain and usually flying with a new hire.

 

Some of these posts are more or less US vs ETC...Out of the top ten most busiest airports in the world in 2012, the US has four of them with KATL at the top. Yes we have a antiquated system and its evolving. Even with a old system and the sheer volume, it's done safely every day. We all love aviation no matter what part of the world we reside. As a young captain, I was very excited about flying my four engine heavy through out the different airspaces around the world. Even today as a training captain i'm still excited about training/taking new international pilots all around the world. The only pains I have flying outside of the US is the long ocean crossings at night.

This isn't a straightforward topic as many of us are discovering!

 

However I think that much of this business is about who takes responsibility for what.

 

Getting a clearance to land in my mind is ATC taking responsibility for the runway being clear for me to land on. I started this topic because I thought that it was strange that in the states that ATC would take the responsibility for confirming to a pilot that the runway is (or would be) clear when it actually wasn't. As shown in the video I originally posted, this has the potential to create the situation where a landing aircraft is cleared to land before a departing aircraft waiting on the ground is cleared for takeoff. Lose comms a this point and you've got the potential for disaster. If comms hadn't been restored and the landing aircraft been told to go around, who knows what would have happened? This is the reason why in the UK aircraft are never cleared to land until the runway is actually clear.

 

'Land after' is quite a specific instruction given to the second of two sequential arrivals (no departures involved) during daytime vfr conditions, allowing the second aircraft to touch down before the proceeding aircraft has vacated, but the pilot takes responsibility for separation if they are happy to proceed (they don't have to accept the land after).

I've all ways taken the land after statement as situational awareness as to where i am in the que. Usually I hear " Delta one o seven you are #2 to land, follow the airbus on final". I take that as situational awarness. If I don't have traffic, I let him know. Usually shortly after i'm given winds and cleared to land. If not, I'm quick to state "confirm Delta 107 is cleared to land?". I don't know what the forum lawyers would say but in these situations both the pilot and the controller has the responsibility. You are in the controllers hand but you still have to follow procedures and let the lawyers place the blame.

 

SFO is also strange. It's normal to see traffic departing from crossing runways while you are on short final. The controller all ways tell you about it. Odd at first but you get used too it. In both situations I felt safe.

Just happened last week at EINN. Seems to be the norm in Europe. I've had this happen at EGSS also. I usually get the departure clearance at some point during taxi. I usually brief/load what i've filed and quickly load/brief what ever i'm given. Just a little more work for me since i'm a training captain and usually flying with a new hire.

 

I always get the clearance on the ground before start in Shannon, have you tried asking for it?

 

In most of Europe I've been to, we get clearance before start, often by ACARS (very handy). The only strange one I can think of off the top of my head is Aberdeen, you get your airways clearance before start but they don't give you departure instructions until you line up(!). We're pretty familiar with the route and it's usually one of 2 or 3 things so we tend to brief for all of them and see what we get. Never been a big issue in reality.

 

Hamburg (EDDH) and Zurich also use crossing runways (Hamburg dept and arr - Zurich 2 take off runways), usually no issues but worth making an effort to keep tabs on who's doing what on which runway.

 

I'm quick to state "confirm Delta 107 is cleared to land?"

 

Sounds like a leading question to me :wink2:, or don't you worry about such things?

 

I don't know what the forum lawyers would say but in these situations both the pilot and the controller has the responsibility. You are in the controllers hand but you still have to follow procedures and let the lawyers place the blame.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, the pilot (specifically the Captain) is always responsible and always takes the blame, no exceptions. if he doesn't think it's safe to follow the procedure, he shouldn't, he should always ensure his aircraft (and those around him) are safe. If the lawyers want to argue about it, I'm sure we'd all be happy to sit around a table in the nice safe confines of an office building with tea, biscuits and plenty of time and have a good ol' chat. While we're flying, we'll decide. Rant over, sorry, I'm not very good at bureaucracy :(, that's why I fly and don't sit in an office.

 

On a related, somewhat similar issue, have you noticed controllers saying "Line up... and cleared for take off runway xx"? They've only seemed to start doing it in the last few years or so. It always makes me smile, are they worried we're so stupid that on receipt of a take off clearance we're just going to open the taps and let rip in whichever direction or on whatever piece of tarmac we happen to be on? I would have thought it was a fairly safe assumption that we'd choose a runway for such a manoeuvre.

 

Happy new year,

 

Ian

 

P.S. I was wrong to say it was a land after clearance, as other posters have said, it's not a clearance it's just the air trafficers way of saying "if it wasn't for that aircraft in front of you, I could clear you to land so if you're happy you're not going to hit him, I'm happy for you to land". It's not a clearance per se but a clear indication to the crew that it's safe to land if you can avoid the aforementioned aircraft.

To us Europeans, it just doesn't make sense to give clearence to land, when they are not 'clear'

 

The good news is it doesn't have to make sense to you.

 

It doesn't decrease safety even by little bit, and it allows controllers to give these clearances during times when workload(and frequency congestion) is lower, which means they are able to spread out the workload and maintain a more steady rhythm. Giving sequenced landing clearances aids pilots in having a better picture of what is going on around them.

 

Also consider this: generally speaking, controllers should not be giving instructions to planes once they are within 500 ft of touchdown elevation. There are plenty of times when the preceding aircraft has not cleared the runway until after the next aircraft is at or below 500 ft. If a controller had to wait to issue the clearance, they would be doing it during a time of greatly increased workload for the pilots. That is arguably a reason that waiting to issue the clearance - so it makes sense to some Europeans - would decrease safety.

 

Nobody wants to go around because they didn't receive landing clearance, especially if there was no reason why they couldn't have landed. For years, the unofficial word in KATL from the tower was "the green light is always on." Meaning that if the runway is clear when you get to it, land. They only wanted to deal with go arounds if there was an actual need for it. Resequencing a go around with as much traffic as they generally have isn't anyone's idea of fun.

Because the Americans like to be different with everything in life. ............

 

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."

 

 

 

According to FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3-7-1, a.(controllers)

 

Do not issue conditional instructions that are dependent upon the movement of an arrival aircraft on or approaching the runway or a departure aircraft established on a takeoff roll.

 

Do not say, "Line up and wait behind landing traffic," or "Taxi/proceed across Runway Three-Six behind departing/landing Citation."

 

The above requirements do not preclude issuing instructions to follow an aircraft observed to be operating on the movement area in accordance with an ATC clearance/instruction and in such a manner that the instructions to follow are not ambiguous.

It doesn't decrease safety even by little bit.

 

Well that's clearly not true is it, given the fact that it's been the cause of a major accident. That was over 20 years ago though, so it's obviously not a significant factor.

 

That is arguably a reason that waiting to issue the clearance - so it makes sense to some Europeans - would decrease safety.

 

...

 

I think the only polite why I can think to put this (due to the fact that some 1,000 planes land at Heathrow alone daily, where late landing clearances are common place) is "citation needed".

I always get the clearance on the ground before start in Shannon, have you tried asking for it?

 

In most of Europe I've been to, we get clearance before start, often by ACARS (very handy). The only strange one I can think of off the top of my head is Aberdeen, you get your airways clearance before start but they don't give you departure instructions until you line up(!). We're pretty familiar with the route and it's usually one of 2 or 3 things so we tend to brief for all of them and see what we get. Never been a big issue in reality.

 

Hamburg (EDDH) and Zurich also use crossing runways (Hamburg dept and arr - Zurich 2 take off runways), usually no issues but worth making an effort to keep tabs on who's doing what on which runway.

 

 

 

Sounds like a leading question to me :wink2:, or don't you worry about such things?

 

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, the pilot (specifically the Captain) is always responsible and always takes the blame, no exceptions. if he doesn't think it's safe to follow the procedure, he shouldn't, he should always ensure his aircraft (and those around him) are safe. If the lawyers want to argue about it, I'm sure we'd all be happy to sit around a table in the nice safe confines of an office building with tea, biscuits and plenty of time and have a good ol' chat. While we're flying, we'll decide. Rant over, sorry, I'm not very good at bureaucracy :(, that's why I fly and don't sit in an office.

 

On a related, somewhat similar issue, have you noticed controllers saying "Line up... and cleared for take off runway xx"? They've only seemed to start doing it in the last few years or so. It always makes me smile, are they worried we're so stupid that on receipt of a take off clearance we're just going to open the taps and let rip in whichever direction or on whatever piece of tarmac we happen to be on? I would have thought it was a fairly safe assumption that we'd choose a runway for such a manoeuvre.

 

Happy new year,

 

Ian

 

P.S. I was wrong to say it was a land after clearance, as other posters have said, it's not a clearance it's just the air trafficers way of saying "if it wasn't for that aircraft in front of you, I could clear you to land so if you're happy you're not going to hit him, I'm happy for you to land". It's not a clearance per se but a clear indication to the crew that it's safe to land if you can avoid the aforementioned aircraft.

When we put in the request verbally, we are usually given the routing, runway, initial altitude, frequency and squawk. During taxi we are given the departure procedure. Not an issue but a bit ambiguous. Could be that we have no dispatch agency, just a FBO representative. I fly Gulfstreams and we are pretty much on our own during travel. We file using JetPlan and pass on the flight plan to the FBO representative. It was interesting going from having everything done for you to a do it all yourself operation. Usually late night or early morning you are in the hotel's bizz center filing and confirming arrangments at the next destination(co-pilots job lol ^_^ ). You all ways find yourself racking your brain making sure you took care of everything from airport services to hotel rooms. It's nice flying around the world in a G550 and future G650, but it comes with a lot of work and procedural knowledge. Our corperate operations could be the reason we are delayed clearances and run into issues in certain countries. I have the most issues in Egypt and other African countries. We don't have ACARS but i can uplnk/dwnlink flight plans, weather, etc. It is nice getting Oceanic clearances through the box, but not as nice as you guys have it.

 

If i'm given landing clearance early on or if the controller isn't clear, I'll make him give me a warm fuzzy by stating "confirm clear to land?" lol. I do like the European way of waiting on the landing clearance. When you get the clearance very early while hand flying/during challenging approaches, Someone will all ways ask "we were cleared to land right?" lol, even when you know you are cleared, It's hard to resist the urge to confirm it when asked that question. Even though I use the taxi light after we are cleared, It's easy to create doubt on the flight deck. Last thing you want to do is land without clearance.

 

I think you misunderstood my statement. When I say follow procedures, I'm speaking of governing regulations. For example, in the Mid East the controller usually will state "descend and maintain 5 thousand, no speed restriction below 10 thousand". Perosnally, I stick with the FAA and ICAO procedures and ensure i'm at 250 by 10. Some guys will satisfy the controllers needs but, I don't. Another example, happened when the US first lady was arriving at an airport following a heavy. Her jet was cleared to land, but the heavy missed his turnoff and did a Sunday's drive to the end. Feeling uncomfortable, the crew elected to go-around. Of course this caused a big scene, and sparked an investigation. Even though the crew was never in any danger, the tower and the approach controllers were both fired. In this case the crew followed procedures. Both the controller and the crew shared responsibility, but unfortunately the controllers had a career altering event. I just follow procedures and let the lawyers check the tapes if a controller thinks i did something wrong. History shows that when crews stray from procedures, the risk of bending metal increases. IAN i think we are in agreement. :rolleyes:

 

I've noticed controllers making those clearances lol, I all ways smile myself. I'm at the hold short line, what other runway am i going to take lol.

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO!!!!!

This makes sense because it creates a smother traffic flow of departures and arrivals so as Luke was saying it is not uncommon to get a landing clearance at hethrow at minimums but most airlines sop's and checklists state that landing clearance must be obtained by the DH so there is more likely chance for go around using the UK's way than the US way correct me if i am wrong.

This makes sense because it creates a smother traffic flow of departures and arrivals so as Luke was saying it is not uncommon to get a landing clearance at hethrow at minimums but most airlines sop's and checklists state that landing clearance must be obtained by the DH so there is more likely chance for go around using the UK's way than the US way correct me if i am wrong.

 

I seem to remember an anecdote about Heathrow: If you don't keep the separation close enough such that it results in the odd go around, then you're not trying hard enough!