Originally Posted by caciara
So in your opinion the amendment to PANS-ATM, about reduced runway separation minima, isn't correctly applied by UK and Italy because not updated?? And so "land after" procedure is not totally legal??
I've found a PANS-ATM edition of 22/11/07, and I know there is an other one of 2009, so I know the last version of chapter 7.11 about RRSM, if it was amended in March 2005.
The situation, in my opinion, appears strange, because we know the ICAO reference to allow under separations for the same runway, but it is different from "land after" procedure where atc relieve responsability to pilot, even if visibility is lower than 5 KM, or tailwind exceed 5 kts, or suitable landmarks don't exist, etc..etc.., you only ask the pilot if able to maintain in sight the preceeding for visual separation, and although you cannot observe it, you may give the instruction "land after" (not standard phraseology). And I'm trying to know if there are other countries around the World which are using this procedure and if its application is the same of UK and Italy, or refered only to ICAO rules.
Dealing with the legal aspects first... You suggest that use of 'land after' procedures is not totally legal - this all depends on your national law. Every State that is signatory to the Chicago Convention is responsible for implementing the Standards and Recommended Practices contained in Annexes whenever practicable in whatever suitable way permitted by the national legal framework. Nothing in the ICAO Annexes is law until it is incorporated into the rule framework that exists in a State.
And the procedures that we are talking about are not even SARPs but rather are PANS which have a slightly different status. The Foreword of PANS-ATM includes the two paragraphs below:
While the PANS may contain material which may eventually become Standards or Recommended Practices (SARPs) when it has reached the maturity and stability necessary for adoption as such, they may also comprise material prepared as an amplification of the basic principles in the corresponding SARPs, and designed particularly to assist the user in the application of those SARPs.
and
The implementation of procedures is the responsibility of Contracting States; they are applied in actual operations only after, and in so far as, States have enforced them. However, with a view to facilitating their processing towards implementation by States, they have been prepared in language which will permit direct use by air traffic services personnel and others associated with the provision of air traffic services to international air navigation.
Putting all this together it seems that in the UK it is not illegal - it's just that it seems that the UK has chosen not to align with the PANS. It's interesting that the UK has notified a difference in relation to reduced runway separation but it's about the phraseology - it says 'When using ICAO reduced runway separation procedures, the phraseology 'LAND AFTER THE (aircraft type)' will be used'. This suggests that all other aspects of reduced runway separation as described in PANS-ATM have been implemented. But if you look at the description of the 'land after' procedure in the AIP it is clearly the pre-2005 rules.
Whether this means that the amendment to PANS-ATM, about reduced runway separation minima isn't correctly applied by UK is really a matter of opinion and of the UK's national policy. If the UK policy is to apply SARPs and PANS then I guess they haven't followed this policy - if they have other policies then....who knows! All one can really say is that the procedures in the UK are not consistent with the current content of PANS-ATM - which typically might be paraphrased as 'non-standard'. I can't see any real reason for not following the current procedures except that some aspects are more limiting than the old procedures. Perhaps some runways are not long enough to make it practical to use the new criteria but then one might ask whether it's a good idea anyway.
As for Italy, I think you're probably in a better position to offer comment than I.