Originally Posted by
DIBO
don't think activity rate was a factor
I read the same statement in the report and question its validity, for an ATCO to clear an aircraft onto the runway in 1/4 m viz conditions, compromising the GP and LLZ protections, with the landing traffic below 1000'AGL would be what, incompetence or negligence or a failure of local procedures to comply with the FAR-AIM procedures? It seems more self serving than credible. The Boston & John Wayne cases, are not load related? If the traffic is not a factor, then they can start with giving clearances that actually mean "clearance". We can afford to give proper intervals, give proper RT standard phraseology per 4444 and actually have a system that functions as envisaged. That would be nice. Being given rational runways for the operation that is undertaken would be nice too.