Land after and Clear to Land

[18greens]

Can anyone give me the definition of the difference between Land After and Clear to land?

I did a search but couldn't find anything. Apologies if its been done before.

18

[Seat1APlease]

keeping it simple:-


clear to land means the runway is clear, you can land

clear to land after, means you may land after the one ahead has cleared, in other words, at your discretion, we can't guarantee he will clear in time.

[turn right heading 365]

Not quite, seat 1A. 18 greens asked about Land After, not Cleared to land after. A land after clearance can be given by ATC when a preceeding aircraft has landed but has not vacated the runway provided that the runway is long enough to allow safe separation, and there is no evidence that braking may be impaired; it is during daylight hours; the controller is satisfied that the following acft will be able to see the preceding one clearly and continuously, until it is clear of the runway; and the pilot of the following acft is warned - responsibility for adequate separation then rests with the pilot of the following acft.
Certain aerodromes are permitted to use a 'clear to land after' and 'land after the departing' but the procedures for those are in MATS2

[spekesoftly]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain aerodromes are permitted to use a 'clear to land after' and 'land after the departing'..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not quite, TRH 365:-

Certain UK Aerodromes (e.g. Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester, under specified conditions) are permitted to use the following:-

"After the landed/departing (a/c type) cleared to land"

[Point Seven]

Further to that, the MATS pt. 2 of the said units contains the criteria under which that clearance may be given (preceding has to be a certain distance down the runway, noraml braking action etc.).

It should be borne in mind also that if an "After the landed cleared to land.." is given, it IS a landing clearance and not at all similar to a "Land after.."

P7

[African Queen]

"....5 on, land after."

If it is VMC, daytime and plane ahead is not slower than the one following

:rolleyes:

[Squadgy]

One other important point - Land After can only be done at an airfield with FULL ATC (i.e. not FIS / A/G). If the runway is occupied at a none ATC field then the ONLY option is to Go-around, the pilot has no discretion to 'Land After'

[caniplaywithmadness]

An additional thing for the Uk that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the first a/c to land must not be performing any sort of backtrack to exit the runway

[Spitoon]

caniplay is just showing off, the ruke about not using a 'land after' if the preceeding aircraft has to backtrack has only just been published and comes into effect on 30th April.

Then again, it seems like common sense to me ...... but someone, somewhere, must have done some thing daft for the rules to be changed! Still, they've only got 4 more days to do it again.

[18greens]

Thanks for the replies.

So that I understand, if I get a Land after on final the aircraft ahead does not need to clear the runway (or even get to the end of it) it is up to my discretion as to whether I can stop before I hit him.

[eyeinthesky]

In a nutshell, yes. Or perhaps you might add: "It is up to me to decide whether he will have vacated the runway by the time I reach that point even if I can't stop by then."

[JustaFew]

Some pilots appear confused by, or don't understand, 'land after' when they hear it. An oft heard read-back of land after is 'cleared to land after'. This phraseology doesn't exist in the UK, although I often hear it, from PPL holders to ATPLs. If you aren't sure of the difference, ask the CFI/chief base pilot/ATC by phone; there is a difference.

[spekesoftly]

I do have some sympathy for those that sometimes get confused - we have three variations of landing clearance, here in the UK alone. Abroad, there are yet more variations - ICAO at its best! :rolleyes:

[FWA NATCA]

Wouldn't it be a whole lot clearer if you guys used.

Cessna xxx Runway 23 Cleared to Land, or

Cessna xxx Number two following the Regional Jet on three mile final, Runway 23 Cleared to land, (if necessary caution wake turbelence).

Mike
NATCA FWA

[Chilli Monster]

Mike - nice idea, but not really. The legal implications alone are horrendous.

When you clear an aircraft to land (in the UK) you are issuing an assurance that the runway is not obstructed. If the runway has an aircraft on it then technically speaking it's obstructed. Clear an aircraft to land with an obstruction on the runway, and it hits it - well - whose neck is going to be on the chopping block for liability. You've guessed it - the controller.

No different to issuing landing clearances to two different aircraft, to two different runways, which intersect. What if no.1 has a tyre burst and stops on the intersection? You've issued an unsafe clearance which has to be rescinded - more R/T, not less.

Much as I'm a lover of all things U.S at the moment I think it's a phraseology that maybe the FAA should look at. Landing at Long Beach the other day I was no.2 to a C152. Brought the speed back, giving him a chance to get off the runway. Loads of space and it would have worked - tower controller sent me round.

Now - if you'd had "land after" the go around wouldn't have happened - all it's doing is transferring separation responsibility to the pilot :)

We can learn a lot from you re: airspace management and control - but I think the same could be said for the U.S learning from U.K aerodrome procedures.

[Max Angle]

Some pilots appear confused by, or don't understand, 'land after' when they hear it I have to say I was not aware that are two different phrases or that they mean two different things, to be honest it doesn't matter much to me anyway. If the runway is not clear, or in my judgement not going to be clear in time, I am going around regardless of the clearance recieved.

Perhaps NATS should consider changing the format of one or other of the clearances, at the moment the two are so alike that they are bound to be taken as meaning the same thing, I suspect that 90% of commercial pilots don't know there is a difference.

[eastern wiseguy]

Max Wrote

I have to say I was not aware that are two different phrases or that they mean two different things

Yet your profile says you are a captain on A320/1's!!...surely in your career you will have heard both?At my unit (BFS) I have used land after many times.I would be less surprised if (as has been been said to me in the past) you were"only a ppl" and didn't know what the difference was!!

BRING BACK FAM FLIGHTS!!

[spekesoftly]

Max Angle,

As touched upon earlier in this thread, there are actually three variations of landing clearance in the UK:-

"Cleared to Land"

"Land After"

"After the landed/departing, cleared to land"


Not having a dig at you; your candid admittance supports the point I made in my previous post. I have no doubt that on a busy flight deck, the seemingly subtle differences may not always be understood.


FWA NATCA,

Mike,
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I was not suggesting earlier that UK ATC phraseology wrt to landing clearance is any better, or any worse, than in other countries, but simply highlighting the fact that there are a number of variations worldwide.

Just one polite observation on your suggestion:-

"Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution vortex wake, the recommended spacing is xx miles, surface wind 230/07, Runway 23 Cleared to land".

OK, I've embroidered it for emphasis, but that's one mighty long transmission! :ugh:

[FWA NATCA]

Chili,

With "LAND AFTER", if the pilot directed to "LAND AFTER" lands prior to acft #1 clearing the runway, then who is at fault? The pilot for landing prior to aircraft #1 clearing the runway, or the controller for not sending aircraft #2 around?

In the US if for some reason you doubt that aircraft #1 won't be clear of, or far enough down the runway (Cat 1- 3000', Cat 2- 4500', Cat 3- Clear of the runway) then you do have the choice of with holding the landing clearance to aircraft #2.

Example: Cessana 428 number 2 following the Cherokee on two mile final, continue, (if you want you can add expect landing clearance short final or at some other point). This way if #2 lands without a clearance it's a pilot deviation, not a controller operational error.

Mike
NATCA FWA

Spekesoftly,

>Just one polite observation on your suggestion:-

"Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution vortex wake, the recommended spacing is xx miles, surface wind 230/07, Runway 23 Cleared to land".<<<<<


The proper phraselogy in the US is:

Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution wake turbulence. As the tower controller I\'m assuming that Cessna xxx has the B737 in sight and is maintaining visual separation.

There is no requirement to issue wind, or recommend spacing, for one the pilot should have the current ATIS (if he doesn\'t then I will issue it if Approach hasn\'t).

As the approach controller I will vector the cessna to a point that I am reasonable assured that he will get the B737 in sight, or if he doesn\'t to a point that provides the appropriate wake turbulence separation prior to shipping him over to the tower.

The phraselogy will normally be if it is VFR:

Approach- Cessna xxx number two following B737 at 10 o\'clock and 3 miles,

Cessnaxxx- FWA approach traffic in sight,

Approach- Cessna xxx, follow the B737, caution wake turbelence, Cleared Visual Approach Runway 23, Contact Tower 119.1.

From this point on the Cessna is responsible for maintaining visual separation from the B737.

If the Cessna pilot doesn\'t get the B737 in sight then Approach must provide the appropriate wake turbulence separation.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[spekesoftly]

Mike,

The methods you describe for achieving the required spacing, for IFR and VFR, are the same here. The way you have broken down the transmissions in your last post are also very similar. Not quite what I (mis?)understood from your original suggestion.

[Chilli Monster]

With "LAND AFTER", if the pilot directed to "LAND AFTER" lands prior to acft #1 clearing the runway, then who is at fault?

Mike

That's the beauty of it - if the aircraft ahead hasn't vacated (rolled to the end say) then the following aircraft can land providing he can stop before catching up with the other aircraft. So, nobody's at fault. Same principle that is used at the likes at Oshkosh (I presume) / PFA Rally - just not on quite a large scale ;)

In the US if for some reason you doubt that aircraft #1 won't be clear of, or far enough down the runway (Cat 1- 3000', Cat 2- 4500', Cat 3- Clear of the runway) then you do have the choice of with holding the landing clearance to aircraft #2

We've got the same thing: "G-ABCD Continue approach, expect late landing clearance".

[Max Angle]

!!...surely in your career you will have heard both? Yes I have heard both Wiseguy, of course unless you have been based at LHR,LGW or MAN at some point, you won't have heard both and are maybe not the best person to comment. The point of my post was that until now the subtlety of difference was lost on me, and I suspect most of my colleagues.

Having re-read the LHR aerodrome booklet this afternoon the difference still strikes me as rather subtle, one may very well be a clearance and the other not but far as the pilot is concerned they amount to much the same thing. In both situations, at the time of the transmission, due to the traffic ahead, the runway is not clear but is expected to be clear, or have adequate useable length, by the time the landing aircraft reaches it's final land/go-around decision point (100ft rad alt. for us). There would seem to be not much difference, no matter what clearance has been issued if the pilot or controller is unhappy it's going to result in a go-around anyway, same goes for "cleared to land".

The rules do seem rather strange and I wonder how they work from the towers point of view in practice. How do you know that the aircraft will be clear or 2500m from the threshold?. You don't know how hard it's going to brake or where it's going to vacate unless a specific instruction about exits has been given and even then it's not a certainty. Why not keep things simple and say "land after", both parties can still call a go-around if needed.

On the issue of famil. flights the latest guidance we have from the Dft is that ATC Officers on official business are specifically included in the list of people who are permitted access to the flightdeck. In my opinion it's actually far more useful to come and see a LOFT exercise in the sim. but any contact has got to be a good thing. Get you bosses to get in touch with my bosses and get something sorted out

[eastern wiseguy]

Max Angle wrote

my opinion it's actually far more useful to come and see a LOFT exercise in the sim

Totally agree.

Perhaps I did come over as a bit harsh...I was just genuinely amazed ..as for ....maybe not the best person to comment ..been at this for a long time all over the place ...so I reckon I am reasonably well qualified to comment.

[FWA NATCA]

Chilli Monster,

During the OSH airshow we have a wavier to utilize reduced runway separation so the goal is to have 1500 feet or 3000 feet between arrivals (why you see the huge Green and Orange Dots on runway 9/27). We have the aircraft turn off into the Grass as soon as possible so that the aircraft landing behind them doesn't run them over, most pilots have the flick and get off the runway real fast, others, they can make it real interesting. At OSH the last thing that we want is for the pilots to start transmitting on the tower frequencies, with the volume of traffic things would rapidly get out of control.

The Land After procedure as you describe it sounds interesting, since it places the responsibility for runway separation on the pilot instead of on the controller.

By the way if any of you guys are planning to attend the EAA Air Venture Show at OSH this summer let me know. This will be my 5th year as a controller at OSH.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[Turn It Off]

People,

I haven't checked the books so could be wrong.

My understanding is that ( as agreed with in previous postings ) that the use of this is at controllers discretion, braking action not less than good etc etc.

But, the preceeding aircraft must have vacted the runway before the following aircraft was over the threshold. Therefore, surely the onus is on the pilot of the landing aircraft to maintain seperation.

However, doesn't duty of care say that if the controller realises that it isn't going to work that they send the aircraft around anyway? - I'm sure that the pilot would rather ATC sent them around rather than they made the decision at all, especially, as seems clear from previous threads they are not completely ' au fait ' with the procedures??

TIO

[TwoDogs]

FWA NATCA

By the way if any of you guys are planning to attend the EAA Air Venture Show at OSH this summer let me know. This will be my 5th year as a controller at OSH.

Already did that back in 1981, even got to speak to a few airplanes during a quiet period (got the patch to prove it). The guy who made the "Black Friday" tape supervised me - they had called him outa the office cos all the other guys were on strike.
They tell me you don't use the gravel pit anymore!
Certainly was a memorable visit for a kid from PNG and I can highly recommend a visit to Oshkosh to anybody with an interest in aircraft or ATC - they sure did it differently there in those days, tho where I work now isn't so different.

[FWA NATCA]

The procedures for the EAA AirVenture show have been refined over the years, the basics are the same, and the rule is still safety first.

On day one of last years airshow we had over 14,200 aircraft parked on the field at OSH. For those who have never been to OSH it is nothing less than inspiring to see so many various types of aircraft at the same time.

On my days off I try to walk around with some of the retired volunteers looking at and taking pictures of some of the aircraft. These retired pilots are awesome, and the stories that they share are fantastic.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[Scott Voigt]

Mike;

I'm hoping to be there for a couple of days again this year. Look forward to seeing you again.

regards

Scott

[Young Paul]

At Paris CDG, on the southern runways, you will be cleared to land when you are handed over to the tower controller - at say 6 miles, #2 on the approach. You may not even be told that you are #2.

I always wondered what would happen if the preceding aircraft crashed on the runway - would I still be clear to land?

[salzkorn]

Young Paul,
when on final for the southern runways at CDG, you're cleared to land on first contact provided that :

- the weather conditions are the proper ones
- the speeds of the aircraft are "compatible" (the second not gaining on the first, for example)
- the controller assesses "everything is normal" (not very easy to put it into English words...)... that is to say for example that (s)he is reasonably sure that the first aircraft will vacate the runway soon enough for the second to land safely...

For example, when LVP are in force, only the first one is cleared to land, and when there is a great difference in speeds between the first and the second (i.e the second is seriously gaining on the first and might go around for that reason), the controller should not clear the 2nd aircraft to land...

Now concerning the question : "what if the first airplane crashes ? is the second one still cleared to land ?"

It's obvious that in that case, the second aircraft is instructed to go around...
But the case could also be on the northern runway, where T/Os and landings take place on the same runway... let's assume an aircraft is number one and cleared to land... what if a car enters the runway, or an aircraft does not stop at the holding point and thus has a part of its fuselage on the active runway ?


I hope I'm being clear enough...

thx

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

In my experience the vast majority of pilots do not understand the difference between "land after" and "after the landed, cleared to land". In fact, even my company's Flying Crew Orders confuse the two terms.

From my point of view, I much prefer these terms to the blanket "cleared to land" on first contact with US tower controllers and at CDG. My one critisism would be that at LL, sometimes it would be better to be given a "land after" a couple of hundred feet earlier, rather than wait for all the criteria to be fulfilled so that an "after the landed, cleared to land" can be given. It just leaves one less thing to worry about as the piano keys approach.

That said, it is only my personal opinion. Ask another 3 pilots and I am sure you would get 4 more!

G W-H

[Young Paul]

Salzkorn:

Okay then, why is this the only airport this side of the atlantic that this procedure is followed in? Why isn't it followed on the Northern runways, only the Southern ones? Is the procedure specified in the air pilot? (Genuine question, not rhetorical - don't remember if it was in our plates, or not) Do you not think that it might be important to me that there is another aircraft on the approach in front of me? (I don't remember whether the clearance was "no 2, clear to land", or just "clear to land").

You draw no distinction between another whole normal movement taking place before I land and an occurrence that is specifically outside the bounds of normality (unauthorised runway incursion). I mean, why not just give everybody a clearance "cleared take off after such-and-such" as soon as they switch to the tower frequency - or just say "assume you are clear to land unless you hear otherwise". Don't you see the difference? Doesn't anybody? Am I alone in the world in seeing this strange???!!!

Others:

I agree that "land after" a bit sooner would be greatly appreciated - which is why I try and prompt it at 500' or so with "Visual with the aircraft on the runway". To be honest, I know it's verboten, but I don't see why the same procedure shouldn't apply at night in good VMC if all runway and RET lights are serviceable.