One last question to put my mind at rest. ICAO procedures allow giving an aircraft a clearance to land with the preceding aircraft still not landed or clear (2400m rule excepted). Yes or No?
Bloggsie,
You love "Yes/No" answers, as if that was the full and only answer, don't you, being incapable of comprehending that there might be matters of judgement involved.
Last time I had a close look (and I am not going to spend time actually cutting and pasting a section) the phrasing was to the meaning that a controller can issue a landing clearance to an aircraft if they have a reasonable belief that the landing runway will be clear for the aircraft in receipt of the landing clearance when the aircraft is to use said runway.
The second part is specifically when visual approaches are in progress. At EGLL I have received a landing clearance when all involved fully understood that the aircraft No.1 ahead was still airborne, much less having cleared or being close to clearing the runway. This leaves it up to the PIC of the following aircraft to decide to land or go around.
As I recall, working this way at EGLL can gain up to four (4) movements an hour in visual conditions, but also acknowledges a likely increase in missed approaches.
The controllers in London are quite smart enough to exercise their discretion, knowing which airlines are notorious for being slow to clear the runway.
What happens in US is a combination of the above, and the specific conditions for a visual approach in the US, see the AIM.
In the Australian case, you do know what your clearance limit is, if you are " --- cleared for approach"??
It is quite some time ago now, but we came to the conclusion that a controller in Australia had the same basic framework, had the same discretion, to issue a clearance, when you look at the totality of "the rools", not just tables of separation.
Tootle pip!!