Don't want to be cheeky, but has new RT been introduced since last winter's CHIRPS report (pasted below) regarding conditional clearances based on landing a/c type? My understanding is that we still get these "line up after landing xxx type".
Like I said, not trying to contradict you, just interested.
Conditional Clearances - Aircraft Identification
(1)
Report Text: An old chestnut - I am not happy with the "line up after" or "cross the (active) runway after" conditional instructions. There is always plenty of time to line up if given the instruction to do so as the landing aircraft crosses the "hedge" and be ready to cross after the landing aircraft has passed.
In both of the above cases I am often given the added instruction "... after the next 'Scruggs Bearcat 420"'. This is rather presumptive that my aircraft recognition is to such a level that I know what a Scruggs Bearcat 420 actually looks like as opposed to a Scruggs Bearcat 419 and can then comply with the ATC request. Years ago I was given the instruction to "Line up after the next landing DC8" which I duly repeated to ATC. As the aircraft came into visual contact I saw it wasn't a DC8 but a Viscount or VC8. Supposing it had been a DC8 followed by a VC8 and I had lined up after I saw my DC8, I would have entered the runway contrary to the intended instruction ahead of the following VC8.
OK, so you will tell me that I will never be given a conditional instruction based on a second event, in which case why do I need to know the type of aircraft? Just say "the next landing" or "passing" aircraft. But better still wait until it has landed or passed and then say, "Line-up" or "Cross". Keep it simple! To confuse the issue, ATC refer to a certain aircraft as the RJ100. It entered service as the BAE146, which is how I always remember it.
Not too long ago I was waiting to cross Runway ##R on the way to Runway ##L and instructed to "cross ##R after the next landing A320". Looking out of the window to get the picture and hopefully see the same picture that the controller was seeing, I noticed an aircraft with main wheels on the tarmac and the nose wheel about to join them. Was this the "next landing A320" as it seemed to me to have already landed; was it an A320 (or a 319?) or was the A320 in question still on finals? In my mind so many questions about an instruction that in the controller's mind was probably ever so simple. Trying subtly to make a point, I replied that my aircraft recognition wasn't that good and was that an A320 that I saw on the runway and the same A320 to which the controller was referring or was he referring to another A320 yet to land? The controller's attitude was not to see my point but to take a rather castigatory, petty and retaliatory stance by cancelling my instruction to cross the runway, making me wait for the next landing traffic.
You might believe I am rather stretching the point and making an issue out of nothing. I must stress however that in all forms of communication (written and verbal) it is important to understand that others comply with what they think you said and not what you intended to say. The meaning of your instructions therefore lies in the mind of the receiver. If there is any doubt or confusion it is here that it will be misconstrued. Instructions should therefore be given such that they could not be open to misinterpretation or be ambiguous. Do controllers receive any training that introduces this philosophy?
(2)
Report Text: We were cleared to cross the runway "after the landing Embraer". Actually it was a Bombardier. A little more precision from ATC would be appreciated with such clearances. Perhaps they should include the airline too, to assist identification.
(3)
Report Text: Whilst taxying along a grass taxiway/runway in an Islander aircraft, a Trislander was cleared to taxi to the same holding point behind me. A light aircraft carrying an "N" registration operated by a person whose first language was obviously not English called for taxy. This aircraft was parked alongside the taxiway it was on. The aircraft was cleared to taxy to the same holding point as both the Islander and Trislander. The actual phrase used was "N … to holding point XX behind the Trislander".
The light aircraft then proceeded to follow me, in the Islander, not looking down the taxiway where I had come from to see the Trislander. This resulted in, from where I was looking, a very close call. The Trislander came to a complete stop as did the light aircraft.
I am unsure of how the situation was resolved as by now I was back-tracking the runway. Before I left the frequency, I could hear the tower controller giving the light aircraft pilot a telling off, for a problem which could have been solved simply by saying "N … follow the second aircraft, a yellow Trislander", since the term Islander and Trislander could be so easily confused over the radio as was evident in this situation.
I have received many ambiguous clearances as I'm sure most pilots have, but an event as silly as this, especially on a relatively quiet airfield just shouldn't happen.
CHIRP Comment: The ATC view is that conditional clearances are required to achieve arrival/departure rates at many UK airports, and are safe provided that they are used correctly. One of the conclusions of a recent trial in the UK, in which conditional clearances were not used, was that flight crews reported that their situational awareness was adversely affected.
As with other RTF messages, the vital point is that the recipient understands clearly the instruction. For this reason, the correct sequence of a conditional clearance instruction and the readback should be always to state the condition prior to the clearance.
Also, the use of aircraft types and company identifiers as the basis for a conditional clearance can contribute to uncertainty as two of the reports indicate; one example being when an aircraft's paint scheme does not accord with the flight callsign.
As noted, conditional clearances against landing traffic should only be given against the first landing aircraft; if this is not the type stated by ATC in the clearance instruction, the logical and safe option is to hold position and query the clearance.