Originally Posted by
BFSGrad
The point of withholding the landing clearance until the runway is actually clear has been discussed in many other loss of separation threads (e.g., Austin incident). I remain unconvinced that the “continue approach” procedure prevents loss of separation or runway incursions. A predictive landing clearance does not change the local controller’s responsibility to maintain separation. Similarly, the point in time that a landing clearance is issued during the approach does not change the landing pilot’s obligation to see and avoid (weather permitting). I do wonder what 4HV would have done if the LC had gone mute.
"A predictive landing clearance does not change the local controller’s responsibility to maintain separation."
No, but it does change the risk associated with subsequent error or omission.
If a controller states to 'continue approach' and subsequently omits landing clearance, the PIC is aware that the aircraft is not cleared to land.
If a controller states 'cleared to land' and subsequently omits any necessary ammendment, the PIC remains cleared to land on a runway that is not clear.
Clearing an aircraft to land on a runway which is not clear requires an error to be spotted and rectified, whereas the alternative does not.