View Full Version : Important request for UK ATCers
18th Jan 2012, 07:37
Good morning to everybody.
I've already posted the same request in "land after intruction" without any answer.
I'm searching for information about your application in to practice of land after procedure.
I'm an italian air traffic controller, and we apply this procedure in LIRF and LIMC, as specified also in your AIP GEN 3.3.3 and CAP 493 part1 section2.
So we are continuing to use it, following the old condition, even if now there are reduced runway separation minima, which are ICAO approved. Land after, we know, is not ICAO approved.
By reading your radiotelephony manual and your AIP GEN 1-7-47, it seems to be a little difference between land after and RRSM in UK.
It could be a mixture by mean application of ICAO RRSM (with the actual applying condition), with the only phraseology difference (land after instead of cleared to land). Is it true?? So, you are using land after in your busy airports, with ICAO reduced runway separation minima condition, or with old land after condition?? Thank you very much for your help!!!:ok:
18th Jan 2012, 08:48
The criteria for 'land after' are as you say laid down in UK CAP 493. Just wish something similar was available for FISO (Aerodrome) procedures.
18th Jan 2012, 15:52
At some FISO fields they haven`t got much of a view of the rwy.
19th Jan 2012, 07:38
I give you an example just to show you my doubt in a clearer way.
If in your airports (EGLL, EGKK, EGSS,...) you have a landing sequence with two aircraft under separated (1.5 NM) and you want to avoid the missed approach for the second one, which procedure do you use? And if you have 2000 mt. of visibility or 7 kts of tail wind, you'll give anyway land after ??
Not Long Now
19th Jan 2012, 12:25
If you only have 1.5miles and are 'under seperated' the first thing you have to do is take avoiding action and, presumably break off the second aircraft way before a go-around let alone a land after.
19th Jan 2012, 13:36
Sorry, I don't understand. You don't allow the second aircraft to continue the approach even if the first one is in sight?? I'm talking as twr atcer, which has received two landing aircraft under separeted by the app, and the second one is maintaining the first one in sight and able to continue the approach. If you want to avoid the m.a. for the second one, what do yo do?? You give land after or not ?? And if you use land after, but you have visibility under 5 km or tail wind more than 5 kts, you'll give anyway land after ??
19th Jan 2012, 18:21
If I get handed two a/c with a sep loss I send the second one around, thats the DXB procedure.
19th Jan 2012, 20:13
by "under separated" do you mean "under reduced separation"?
That would match your description of one following the one ahead visually.
But you also said 1.5nm in trail, and the vis is 2000m. How can they be visual then?
It's all a bit confusing :)
19th Jan 2012, 20:48
In the UK the radar controller is responsible for separation on final approach and if two a/c became 1.5nm apart the radar controller would take action to separate them. 1.5nm between two jets is a non-landing situation for the second unless there was a very strong surface wind and you had some fast turn-offs. Remember that as an ATCO you are there to ensure safety; you can't simply let an aircraft continue in a dangerous situation simply because #2 has #1 in sight.
19th Jan 2012, 21:33
To legal tender:
It could be an important difference between visibility for pilots during flight, and ground visibility for atc, so no confused situation;
To Heatrow director:
I Know that the ATCO has to ensure the safety, I do it in each situation for 15 years...
My question was about ICAO reduced runway separation minima, which permit the arriving aircraft to land before the runway has been cleared by the previous aircraft. It could be a situation when two landing aircraft are not right separated, to avoid missed approach. Do you apply it? Have you ever applied Land after procedure?
19th Jan 2012, 23:50
"Under separated" is a false friend, the literal translation of "sotto-separazione" AKA loss of separation.
I don't get the 2000mt visibility condition example too, as far as I remember the requirement was not below 5KM .
20th Jan 2012, 08:10
Ok loss of separation, or not standard separation, or reduction in separation, this is not the important matter. I hope that you have understood the situation...
I give you also some references in your atc documents. UK AIP GEN 3.3.3, and UK AIP GEN 1.7.47, CAP 493 para 15.2.4 and attach E, CAP 413 appendix 1.
I continue to not understand if you use "in practice" the land after procedure, when you use this procedure, and if you respect only its own condition, or ICAO reduced runway separation too. :ugh:
20th Jan 2012, 10:59
As I have tried to explain before, in the UK the controllers will apply the procedures set out in CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 unless there are any other procedures published.
The UK procedures are different from the current ICAO reduced runway separation rules - a sort of hybrid between them and the previous rules. The land after procedure as described in CAP 493 is what is done in practice in the UK. Yes - it's not what ICAO publishes but that is what is done in practice.
Can it be explained any more clearly?
And, for what it's worth, confusing IFR separation with wake turbulence separation and reduced runway separation does not help to understand the situation. Each separation is applied for different reasons and with different conditions.
20th Jan 2012, 12:08
Ok probably I think I have to renounce to understand....Maybe I'm not so good to explain that in UK, in your documents, you have two different versions for the same procedure, even if, Eurocontrol told me, It is not possible to do. There are ICAO RRSM or not ICAO land after each one with its own condition. Each state can choose wich one can apply, according its own policy, ICAO or not. So, if you read in your UK AIP GEN 1.7.47 or CAP 413 appendix 1, is not clear wich one is applied in practice.
21st Jan 2012, 17:02
I've been trying to help. And I'll try this one LAST time. You ask what happens in the UK in practice.
Controllers will follow the national procedures in the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (and any local modifications - which are not normally in the public domain). This document currently says:When aircraft are using the same runway, a landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft which has landed is clear of the runway provided that:
a) the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
d) the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway; and
e) the pilot of the following aircraft is warned. Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation rests with the pilot of the following aircraft.The phraseology used to authorise a landing aircraft to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft is clear of the runway is "LAND AFTER the (aircraft type)".
Yes, it is not consistent with the current ICAO PANS. The current UK procedures do not appear to implement ICAO reduced runway separation criteria.
21st Jan 2012, 22:11
Not directly related to the thread but if you'd indulge me:
What is expected of the pilot in the case of a stuck mic or tower comms issue on short finals in LHR without a landing clearance?
Assuming vis/separation not an issue.
22nd Jan 2012, 07:06
No landing clearance, go around.
22nd Jan 2012, 09:08
OK It is clear, You use in practice Land after procedure with its own conditions and with its own phraseology, not standard ICAO.
So probably it's a mistake to show it under ICAO Reduced Runway Separation in UK AIP GEN 1.7.47 and CAP 413 annex 1 page 4, because as told you (by Eurocontrol), you cannot mix them. Ok thanks again.