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.

 

Gosh, I don't know what to say other than... citation needed. ;-)

 

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".

 

According to 2011 statistics provided by each of the relevant airports, Heathrow saw 54 operations per hour (1317 per day) compared to Atlanta's 105 (2531 per day). Does Heathrow see a lot of traffic? Sure, but others see more (twice as much traffic).

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Europe has their way, and it works for them. The US has its way, and it works for us. You claim an accident that is 20 years old that was caused by a landing clearance issued before all other aircraft had cleared. At the very least that's a good track record to prove the system is working. Especially given the increase in traffic over the past 20 years in the US. The thing is, that clearance might be listed as a contributing factor, but it didn't cause the accident. No pilot is ever forced to land a plane (assuming no emergencies exist). I'm sure the actual cause is listed as pilot error, and it probably should be: "hey there's a plane on the runway, I'm going around." It isn't rocket-science. I know, for years airspeed indicators said "Airspeed" on them and altimeters said "Altitude."

 

As for a citation for my comment about Europe's way of doing it being - arguably - less safe: well, I'm the one stating that point, so I'm the citation. I carry the weight of a RW ATP, and RW experience as an airline pilot. I set forth the reason for that position. I don't need to have someone else conduct a study so that I can form that opinion.

Gosh, I don't know what to say other than... citation needed. ;-)

 

22 dead, which by your own admission may have been caused by a clearance being given when it shouldn't.

 

As for a citation for my comment about Europe's way of doing it being - arguably - less safe: well, I'm the one stating that point, so I'm the citation. I carry the weight of a RW ATP, and RW experience as an airline pilot. I set forth the reason for that position. I don't need to have someone else conduct a study so that I can form that opinion.

 

Your experience carries no weight at all unless you fly in Europe on a regular basis, which I doubt.

 

Your opinion doesn't count for much either, as that's all it is, and you've not backed it up with any evidence.

Gosh, I don't know what to say other than... citation needed. ;-)

 

I believe Jordan is referring to this accident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_1493

 

That accident has several other factors besides simply giving clearances to land with aircraft on the runway, so I don't see its relevance to the discussion as much as some would around here. If anyone took a few minutes to read an article on the accident, they'd immediately see why I say that. If anything, it's more of an argument against TIPH. The aircraft waiting was simply forgotten, and the landing clearance was issued in the assumption the aircraft was no longer on the runway. Based on that fact, anticipated separation wasn't being used, and the accident isn't truly relevant to the discussion.

 

According to 2011 statistics provided by each of the relevant airports, Heathrow saw 54 operations per hour (1317 per day) compared to Atlanta's 105 (2531 per day). Does Heathrow see a lot of traffic? Sure, but others see more (twice as much traffic).

 

Yeah, I think a lot of the European folks here don't fully understand the magnitude of the traffic we see over here Stateside. Additionally, the compression of that traffic has a huge impact on the efficiency. Here at IAD, we see tons of traffic over the day, but in large banks (similar to most large US airports). Those large banks have a ton of planes to land within a narrow period of time. I don't have the numbers or graphs to see how it looks on the other side of the pond, but I have a feeling it's a lot more spread out and even across the day.

 

22 dead, which by your own admission may have been caused by a clearance being given when it shouldn't.

 

If you're going to use an accident in defense of your argument, do your homework. It's linked above. Since you didn't provide Charles a citation, he couldn't look into the matter, so both of you are arguing about an accident reference that's so vague the details are lost. It's 34 dead (you only counted one aircraft's casualties), and if you don't feel like reading above, the controller gave the landing clearance because he thought the aircraft on the runway had already vacated. This wouldn't be anticipated separation, and thus the point is moot in this discussion.

 

Your experience carries no weight at all unless you fly in Europe on a regular basis, which I doubt.

 

Your opinion doesn't count for much either, as that's all it is, and you've not backed it up with any evidence.

 

Hmm...I'm pretty sure barristers and courts would disagree with you. There is such a thing as expert opinions brought into case considerations. As Charles does actually have a lot of flight experience, his opinion actually counts for a lot. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it worthless.

 

By the way, the same could be said about your opinions on US operations:

Unless you've been over here to experience our operation, your opinion doesn't count for much.

...but I don't believe that. I honestly believe your opinions could use a little more education, but I'm not going to call them worthless.

 

...and your own evidence needs a little work as well.

I've looked into the LAX accident, from the looks of it the controller forgot that the turbo prop was still on the runway and the US air pilots couldn't see it as the plane blended in with the runway due to night time darkness, that part of the runway was also in the tower's blind spot and IIRC there was no ground based radar there at the time. Its partially due to that accident that pilots now turn on all exterior lights when entering the runway.

...

 

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

 

Regards,

Scott

What part about it do you hate?

Hmm...I'm pretty sure barristers and courts would disagree with you. There is such a thing as expert opinions brought into case considerations. As Charles does actually have a lot of flight experience, his opinion actually counts for a lot. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it worthless.

 

I'm an experienced driver in the UK; that doesn't make me an road safety expert and certainly not somewhere else in the world where I've never driven. He would certainly not be considered an expert witness, and if he was, he'd be able to back up his option with some verifiable evidence.

 

You're right I didn't do a good job of this either, other than some tenuous link to an old crash (and the the clip I posted in my original post). At any rate, I started this thread to chat to other people so I could get a better understanding of the US system, not to bash it. I guess I got annoyed by effectively being told "It's best because I say so", as that's a pretty poor argument.

According to 2011 statistics provided by each of the relevant airports, Heathrow saw 54 operations per hour (1317 per day) compared to Atlanta's 105 (2531 per day). Does Heathrow see a lot of traffic? Sure, but others see more (twice as much traffic).

 

Excellent, some numbers, assuming they're correct then, in 2011 LHR had 2 runways, ATL had 4 (or had they finished the 5th?).

 

So, per runway, LHR handled 27 operations per runway per hour (54 / 2) and ATL handled 26.25 operations per runway per hour (105 / 4).

 

As I've said before...

we have the same runway utilisation (if not higher) here in Europe and don't use "anticipated" separation

 

so please can we stop with the...

 

I think a lot of the European folks here don't fully understand the magnitude of the traffic we see over here Stateside

 

You have more traffic and your busy airports are busier than ours... but you have twice (if not more) as many runways as us (at least in the UK) to handle it all.

 

Anticipated separation just makes it easier for the controller, he can clear you to land on first contact, then he doesn't need to worry about you.

 

All the best,

 

Ian

I'm an experienced driver in the UK; that doesn't make me an road safety expert and certainly not somewhere else in the world where I've never driven. He would certainly not be considered an expert witness, and if he was, he'd be able to back up his option with some verifiable evidence.

 

Jordan - the reason people give expert opinions is likely in cases where verifiable evidence does not exist, or is extremely hard to come by. Further, comparing pilots to drivers is a little asinine. If one were to take a driver and give them the same training a pilot got about the road, they would very likely be a safety expert. In any case - and I don't mean to be crass - he probably has a lot more experience than you.

 

You're right I didn't do a good job of this either, other than some tenuous link to an old crash (and the the clip I posted in my original post). At any rate, I started this thread to chat to other people so I could get a better understanding of the US system, not to bash it. I guess I got annoyed by effectively being told "It's best because I say so", as that's a pretty poor argument.

 

...and I appreciate that. I enjoyed the debate, but it seems that you and others are starting to get underhanded at the discussion here. You and I both agreed back on the first page that the discussion was an interesting one, and enjoyable. However, your latest posts seem to be taking an underhanded approach that's a little more characteristic of...well...me, when I'm irritated.

 

To be honest, when you start a thread in a forum meant for flight simmers (couldn't find any reference on the AVSIM Demographics Survey to participants here being licensed or not) about real world procedures, the responses aren't likely to be the most educated from most. Even then, when a couple pilots and someone who works on traffic management projects all day show up to discuss, shots are taken at them.

 

Excellent, some numbers, assuming they're correct then, in 2011 LHR had 2 runways, ATL had 4 (or had they finished the 5th?).

 

Don't assume. The 5th isn't always used, especially in the way you're thinking.

 

So, per runway, LHR handled 27 operations per runway per hour (54 / 2) and ATL handled 26.25 operations per runway per hour (105 / 4).

 

While I appreciate your attempt to work out the math, it is not a representative of real traffic load as you'd think. If it were, you'd have 2+ minutes between flights and we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

 

How many times do I need to point out that runway utilization is a lot more complex than that?

 

You have more traffic and your busy airports are busier than ours... but you have twice (if not more) as many runways as us (at least in the UK) to handle it all.

 

We really don't. If you have hard numbers on that, let me know. Even if we have more runways, the amount of runways doesn't necessarily determine how busy any single runway will be. If that were true, how is it that that LGA can land 40 an hour, but RDU can run 60? Both have 2 runways. RDU's don't cross, you say? Well then what about TEB? They can only run 32.

 

Anticipated separation just makes it easier for the controller, he can clear you to land on first contact, then he doesn't need to worry about you.

 

True. It makes it easier on the controller because frequency use is made more effective. Additionally, it does actually make life easier for the pilot, even though people here seem to be ignoring that point. Not sure if those who are ignoring it actually have flight experience or not.

 

That last point, however, couldn't be further from the truth, and is really an uneducated statement. I'm pretty sure I have other adjectives for that, but I'll leave it there. Any controller worth his/her weight in salt would never forget about an aircraft. Sure, they don't need to worry about your landing clearance at that point, but they do need to continue to watch your flight until you hit the non-movement area of the airport.

 

Please don't perpetuate the pilot versus controller mentality. It's already bad enough.

Jordan - the reason people give expert opinions is likely in cases where verifiable evidence does not exist, or is extremely hard to come by. Further, comparing pilots to drivers is a little asinine. If one were to take a driver and give them the same training a pilot got about the road, they would very likely be a safety expert. In any case - and I don't mean to be crass - he probably has a lot more experience than you.

 

So you're trying to tell me that someone who may well not have flow outside of the US is an expert in European operations, and you're calling me asinine?

 

All I wanted was some objective evidence. I'm struggling to understand why you think that "because I say so" is an acceptable answer.

So you're trying to tell me that someone who may well not have flow outside of the US is an expert in European operations, and you're calling me asinine?

 

Where did I call you asinine? I said the comparison was asinine. A better description for it would've been "a stretch," so I apologize for that much.

 

Why are you so sure he doesn't have experience flying over there?

 

All I wanted was some objective evidence. I'm struggling to understand why you think that "because I say so" is an acceptable answer.

 

Would you mind quoting that post in which I said "because I said so," or in any way alluded to the fact that the American way is the only way?

 

All I'm saying is that there is a place in discussion for both facts and educated opinions. Don't discount opinions simply because you don't agree with them.

Where did I call you asinine? I said the comparison was asinine. A better description for it would've been "a stretch," so I apologize for that much.

 

Ok no problem.

 

Would you mind quoting that post in which I said "because I said so," or in any way alluded to the fact that the American way is the only way?

 

You didn't, but you defended Carter for doing so.

 

All I'm saying is that there is a place in discussion for both facts and educated opinions. Don't discount opinions simply because you don't agree with them.

 

I don't discount peoples opinions because I don't agree with them, I discount them when they provide no objective reasoning behind their view.

 

At any rate, back to the topic at hand, as I'm keen to get away from these squabbles. I think I've got an idea of why assumed separation isn't used in the UK but is valuable in the US:

 

In the UK, the four most busy airports are Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and Stanstead. Gatwick and Stanstead are single runway airports; Heathrow and Manchester both have two, but they're parallel allowing the two runways to be controlled on discrete frequencies.

 

Many airports in the US have crossing runways; I assume this limits the opportunity for splitting the RT?

I too fail to see anywhere in this thread where the "because I said so" was even implied. I don't care who moved more a/c per hour or day or who thinks their glorious mega airport on either side of the ocean is busier than the other, there's so much more to it than simply numbers.

 

The question asked in the first post was simply "Anyone know why it's done this way?" Which was answered, OVER and OVER again. Argue for the sake of arguing? Multiple landing clearances have been approved and deemed safe by ICAO, FAA, Transport Canada as well as many other agencies. No one said you don't have to like it, and I don't have to use them if I don't want to. They have however in the short period of time they've been used in Canada reduced unnecessary go-arounds due to late landing clearances or frequency congestion by a large margin. They do still happen, but far less frequently. Where I work MLC's can only be used when the runway is single use only, ie no departures.

 

The Captain is still in charge and responsible for his/her aircraft and can initiate a G/A if they think it's needed as well as the Controller is responsible for having adequate runway separation.

At any rate, back to the topic at hand, as I'm keen to get away from these squabbles. I think I've got an idea of why assumed separation isn't used in the UK but is valuable in the US:

 

In the UK, the four most busy airports are Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester and Stanstead. Gatwick and Stanstead are single runway airports; Heathrow and Manchester both have two, but they're parallel allowing the two runways to be controlled on discrete frequencies.

 

Many airports in the US have crossing runways; I assume this limits the opportunity for splitting the RT?

 

You know, I don't think I ever thought of it like that. That may very well be a big factor.

 

 

You know, I don't think I ever thought of it like that. That may very well be a big factor.

 

I stopped replying to this topic as it seemed my r/w experience was carrying no weight, but I thought I would reply to this.

 

A good point is made above, we have crossing runways at Vegas. We use 25R primarily for departures, and use the 19's for GA and very few commercial airlines. We use 25L as the primary arrival runway and 19R as an offload. We have to have in trail spacing between 19 arrivals because we have the crossing runway rule to take into account. That is, if an aircraft is landing 19R, we can't depart 25R. Now, we have received a waiver under specific conditions where we can "break" this rule, but it doesn't remove the fact that we still can't run as many arrivals to 19R as we can 25R. So in retrospect, we have 1 1/2 arrival runways and 1 1/2 departure runways, even though we have 4 runways. Just because an airport has many runways, doesn't mean they use them all.

 

As far as the SKW accident, this is why major facilities now have the AMASS or ASDE-X. We had the AMASS and got upgraded to the ASDE-X about a year ago. If there is an aircraft, vehicle, etc on a runway that an aircraft is arriving, the system will alert the controller (the entire cab in fact) to send the arrival around.

'He would certainly not be considered an expert witness, and if he was, he'd be able to back up his option with some verifiable evidence.'

 

You would be surprised what, or should I say whom; would be considered an 'expert' witness in the world of law. Although, how much "weight" is attached to the aforsaid expert witness largely depends on

the court and or the judge, the topic and the facts. How reliable the opinion becomes after it is scruitinised to the extent necessary (or not) it is hard to say lol.

 

What was the topic again lol.