Scary Controlling!

[Alvin]

I think I saw one of the scariest pieces of controlling last night in OERK. Runway 33L in use and sitting at the end waiting for T/O clearance. 2 landing traffic fairly close together and in between the first a/c landing an a/c is cleared to line up and wait, landed aircraft vacates and departing a/c (think it was A300) given immediate t/o clearance, with DC10 on 2 mile final. Tower clears DC10 to land with departing a/c still rolling on the runway! approx 5 secs later departing a/c makes a call that they are airbourne (probably for the benefit of the tapes), and DC10 lands and complains of turbulence in their rollout with the departing aircraft at max power. We could have seen a very big accident here had the departing aircraft aborted its t/o.

Would you have landed your a/c with that separation or would you have thrown it away?

I haven't heard of any heavy a/c airport where arriving a/c are cleared to land with departing a/c still on the roll, maybe someone could comment?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I haven't heard of any heavy a/c airport where arriving a/c are cleared to land with departing a/c still on the roll, maybe someone could comment?>>

There is such a procedure, certainly at Heathrow - "After the departing cleared to land", providing certain minima are met. I've been away from there too long to remember the precise details but it goes something like.. the departure must either be airborne and ???m down the runway or at least 2500m down the runway. Hopefully one of the EGLL TWR boys will give you the correct gen.. I seem to recall that it is technically legit for both a/c to be on the concrete at the same time - it's the only way you can run a busy single runway airfield. So far as I can recall, it is not a requirement to provide VORTEX separation between aircraft in those circumstances.

[Muppit]

The same 'conditional' landing clearance exists at Gatwick:

After the departing A300, cleared to land rwy xx...

'By the time the aircraft crosses the threshold, the departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2000m from the threshold, or if not airborne, will be at least 2500m from the threshold, providing:
By Day only
The controller is satisfied that the pilot of the arriving aircraft will be able to observe the relevant traffic clearly and continuously.
The pilot of the following aircraft is warned
There is no evidence that the breaking action may be adversely affected
The controller is able to assess separation visually'

It's a handy tool to have in high-density single runway ops, but it DOES NOT excuse poor judgement.

[Ichabod]

You can add STANSTED to the list for "After the departing xxx, cleared to land". We have the same procedures, it appears, as Gatwick. With a busy single runway, traffic getting busier and everyone wanting to come and go at the same time, I guess these instances will become more common.:rolleyes:

[GoneWest]

They've made it even easier in the states - often heard "You are number three, cleared to land" (the two ahead are already cleared to land - single runway).

[FWA NATCA]

Alvin,

It sounds like the rules in the UK are similar in the US, the departure must be airborne and at least 2000m or 6000 feet down the runway.

Was it safe, probably, was it legal? Sometimes as a controller we are put into situations (self induced or not) where we have to decide to let an acft land instead of making them go around because it is safer thing to do.

Why does this situation occur? The controller probably was counting on acft 1 to clear the runway sooner (at the same turnoff as the last several arrivals) and it didn't, but here he is with an acft 2 stuck into position and hold with acft 3 on a two mile final, and afct 1 missing the turnoff that everyone else was able to take.

So now the decision proccess goes like this, can I get acft 2 airborne before acft 3 lands, do I have time to try to taxi acft 2 off the runway and let acft 3 land, should I give acft 3 a go around with acft 2 sitting in position on the runway, should I clear acft 2 for take off as soon as possible knowing that it may not be completely legal but it is safer, or should I give acft 3 a go around with acft 2 just lifting off the runway so that now I have two acft trying to share the same airspace.

Maybe in this instance the contoller thought that is was safer for acft 2 to take off with acft 3 landing behind. You have to also remember that the controller is making spit second decisions and sometimes we have to take the safer option even though it isn't legal.

I'm not trying to second guess the controller but a busy single runway situation is not any fun, and sometimes controllers are presured to push the legal enevelop to keep the operation both safe and moving.

Mike

[chiglet]

"Similar" at Manch, MD80 goes around at 2 miles due A300 "heavy" Departure:rolleyes:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy