Was this legal? (For USA tower controllers or the like)

[Saab340Pilot]

I was landing at KIND (Indianoplis) on runway 14. FedEx was landing runway 5R. The runways don't physically intersect but are positioned so if the aircraft landing 5R went around and I did too on 14 our flight paths would likely intersect. At the moment I touched down Fed Ex was also in the flare. I asked my FO at about 500 AGL to reconfirm we were cleared to land and ATC did confirm it a second time. Was this legal or should additional seperation be provided (I have many times seen similar landing configurations to this BUT never a near simulataneous touchdown and the possible outcome of a dual go-around.)

[Findo]

It's Air Traffic ... but not as we know it Jim.

Ask the US why they don't adhere to standard phraseology and use all sorts of procedures which would never be acceptable in most other countries.

------------------
Go with the flow ... or you'll miss your slot.

[Chilli Monster]

Sounds like another delightful Americanism like 'LAHSO' and 'Cleared to land no.4'!

Have the FAA never heard of the concept of asking 'What if...........?'

CM

[fweeeeep]

....or

"In the event of a go-around, LAND YOUR AIRPLANE"

[cossack]

The Americans are great believers in pushing it to the max if the weather conditions allow. They will readily transfer responsibility for maintaining separation to the pilot in order to squeeze more traffic into their over-crowded airports. When the weather is not so good, things slow down quite a bit since they have to maintain radar separation which will usually be greater than visual separation.

In the UK we shift the same traffic volumes on a VFR day as on an IFR one, so you know what to expect and for the majority of the time we are responsible for maintaining separation. Visual arrival separations are seldom used at our busy airports.

In your IND example, the flight paths of the two go-arounds would probably cross if both parties flew the published procedure. If you both land (>99.99% of the time) there is no problem. If you and FedEx went around you would have to see and avoid. There would, one imagines, be some controller intervention although this might be limited since they may have transferred responsibility for separation to you in certain cicumstances ie visual approach. As for the legality of the landing clearance itself; there is nothing (for a change!) on your runway ahead of you so there is no problem there I think. US controllers are able to utilise "anticipated separation" hence "cleared to land number four" as CM has mentioned.

If this runway configuration were in the UK, we would have to provide appropriate separation between the two aircraft so that in the event of a missed approach a collision would be easily avoided. This could be construed as CM's "what if" approach with in-built separation. Our rules are designed to cope with the <0.01% of occurrences safely.

In the US their philosophy is one of move the traffic as fast as you can and IF it goes wrong, sort it out. Whereas ours is move the traffic as fast as you can within the safety rules set out so that controller intervention is kept to the minimum and safety is maintained.

Two different philosophies for doing the same job.

End of ramble...

[Saab340Pilot]

The disturbing thing is ATC never asked me if I visually saw FedEx landing on 5R etc. He just cleared me to land 14. By the tone of his voice you could tell he was "nervous" and had thought that there would be at least a short seperation between the moments we would land (thereby in the event of a go-around by both aircraft creating *minimal* seperation and something I see *all* the time) but when he saw both airplanes were going to cross the thresholds simulatenously he seemed off-put. I just wonder if it was legal or if he was in the spot where he figured, "beautiful VFR night, no real wind... no chance they will both go around at the same time so to hell with the seperation." I wasn't sure if that type of runway operation was legal, if I knew it wasn't I would have abandoned the approach at 500 AGL or higher (as I could clearly see the problem coming, as did the controller by the sound of it).

[This message has been edited by Saab340Pilot (edited 08 June 2001).]

[Saab340Pilot]

To see the KIND airport diagram go to http://www.wesellplanes.com/airports/IN.htm and select Indianapolis International and "View Airport Information."

Keep in mind the Fed Ex MD-11 was in the flare 1000 feet down 5R while I was at about 100 AGL or less about to flare on 14. If we both went around it really looked like it would be incredibly close. Thoughts?

[cossack]

You're obviously very concerned at the event you describe. Why not give the Tower a phone next time you're in Indianapolis? They'll probably be more than happy to discuss events and put your mind at ease either way.

[WhiskeySierra]

What happens in case both A/C go around in that example where X-ing rwys are used. Yesterday I vectored two A/C to an airfield with a single rwy, No1 a P28A, No2 B757. When you make the spacing between two A/C with so different speeds, you arrange your vectoring so that No2 will have the necessary seperation to No1 when No1 is reaching the rwy. E.g. if you need 3nm, B757 is, with a safety margin, about 4nm from touchdown when P28A is over the numbers. In case both A/C go around and both follow the missed app. there will be a loss of seperation. The propability that both A/C go around using the same rwy is surely higher than using the X-ing rwys.

[ztlsafety]

Dear Saab,

I don't know if it was legal or not. If you really want to know, log in here:

http://bbs.natca.net:8080/~public

I assure you someone will know...probably someone from IND itself.

My fellow brethren have pretty well summed it up here allready. We push a lot of metal over here. As you might imagine from my title, I don't think much of "anticipated separation". But my Terminal friends remind me that I'm plane ignorant. :) Then I remind them that they have small minds (about 40 miles worth). :)

And then we're off...forgetting the topic but intent on making sure that everyone knows that controllers can leap tall buildings in a single bound... :)

Don Brown
Facility Safety Representative
Atlanta ARTCCenter
National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(and that's the *only* time I'm going to type that title in) :)