Originally Posted by
giggitygiggity
I never said my post was fact, it is opinion. I am not the regulator, this is a forum for discussion. Although I am used to it do it most weeks in CDG, I still don’t like it. I just don’t see the advantage. You have the crew going, ‘were we cleared to land, I can’t remember? Oh yeah we checked in so we must be cleared to land’.
To the point another made about getting told to line up behind, I didn’t realise that this was something that was prohibited under the FAA as I don’t operate in the USA. Although a line up behind clearance would never be issued with a secondary condition, it will be specific referring to the next landing aircraft and never something like ‘after the third company a319 on the approach at 15 miles, cleared to line up behind’. I imagine that clearance option came about as a lot of the European airports are a lot smaller. For example, My base has just 1 runway but still moves 50 million pax a year, SFO has 4 and only shifts a fraction more. Therefore arguably compromises are necessary due to the infrastructure limitations to keep things moving. I just don’t see the advantage in clearing someone to land with 3 aircraft ahead.
I don’t see an advantage to not doing it. As I said earlier, The reason you don’t like it s because it’s different than what you’re used to. A bit of the NIH syndrome, so it must be substandard.