The 'Land After' Instruction

[PositiveClimbGearUp]

Hi there!

I'm sure this must have been discussed previously on the forum, but a search didn't find anything as such, so I'll stick my neck out and start a new thread!

I'm basically just enquiring as to how often the 'land after' instruction is given by controllers (particularly in the UK) and what actually determines whether a controller gives this instruction to a pilot, or whether he or she waits until the runway is clear and gives the more common 'cleared to land' instruction.

I think I understand the very basic difference between the two, and I assume the 'land after' clearance can only be used if the pilot has confirmed he is visual with the aircraft on the runway but what I don't really understand is why the two separate instructions exist.

When undertaking PPL training at Newcastle, I was once advised to 'land after' another light aircraft, after I had confirmed I was visual with him, and I've also occasionally heard commercial traffic given the same instruction.

On one occasion the commercial pilot refused to accept the instruction and asked to be cleared to land, which leads to another question - is it not company policy for some commercial airlines to accept such a clearance?

Does the 'land after' clearance tend only to be used at less-busy airports, or is it (in theory or otherwise) totally acceptable at say Heathrow and Gatwick?

Sorry for all the questions, but I have been pondering this for some time!

[Gonzo]

Hi.

A bit of background, and apologies if you know this already. :ok:

UK ATC units are governed by two manuals.

CAA CAP493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part One; a country-wide document which details responsibilities, phraseology and separations in force throughout the country.

Each unit will then have its own MATS Part Two, which is specific to that unit, which details local procedures, instructions, SIDS, STARS etc.

Now, the 'Land After' instruction is what we ATCOs call a 'MATS Part 1' instruction, i.e. unless it is specifically prohibited in the unit's Part 2, then it applies all over the country. Be careful calling it a clearance, as it is basically a 'Land at your discretion'. The responsibility for separation lies with the accepting pilot. There are some conditions for its use: Weather should be such that the a/c ahead should be continuously visible to the one following, etc.

At some of the busier airports in the UK, we can also use what's known as 'After the landing/departing xxx, cleared to land', which is a MATS Part 2 procedure. For its use, a number of more strict conditions must exist: All runway exits visible from the tower, daylight, no reports of adverse braking action, if both a/c are landing, then the one ahead must either be off the runway, or 2500m from the landing threshold (2000m if the one ahead is departing) when the following a/c touches down. The thing to note on this one is that responsibility for separation rests with the ATCO, so this is most definitely a clearance.

I certainly use the 'Land After' at Heathrow, if I'm prompted by a flight crew reporting visual with the one ahead. In fact, because of the slight difference in phraseology between 'Land After' and 'After the landing xxx, cleared to land', flight crews often read back the wrong one, or a combination of the two phrases....which means then that doubt exists in my mind as to whether the crews has understood the implications, and short final is not the time to attempt to clear that up.

[SilentHandover]

Quoted verbatim from the MATS Part 1 that Gonzo mentioned.

When aircraft are using the same runway, a landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft which has landed is clear of the runway provided that:

a) the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;

b) it is during daylight hours;

c) the preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;

d) the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway;

e) the pilot of the following aircraft is warned. Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation rests with the pilot of the following aircraft.

Criteria for the "After the landing, cleared to land" in use at Gatwick and Heathrow. Taken from the AIP.

(a) When the runway-in-use is temporarily occupied by other traffic, landing clearance will be issued to an arriving aircraft provided that at the time the aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway-in-use the following separation distances will exist:
London Heathrow and London Gatwick
(i) Landing following landing - The preceding landing aircraft will be clear of the runway-in-use or will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
(ii) Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2000 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use, or if not airborne, will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.

SH

[NudgingSteel]

In answer to why we use 'Land After' instead of 'Cleared to Land': obviously cleared to land is an explicit clearance, it's the preferred option and it tells the pilot that (in the UK at least) the runway, along with its cleared and graded areas, is empty and his to use as required.
If the separation has closed up on short final and an aircraft is just a few seconds from touchdown with one ahead still on the runway, there may not be time to say 'cleared to land' in the time between the first one vacating and the second one touching down. Crews can't, under normal circumstances, land without a clearance so it's an uncomfortable few seconds in the flare....
If it's clear that the one ahead will vacate before the second one bumps into it, we can issue a 'land after' clearance at an earlier point on the approach and reduce the risk of, for example, another aircraft calling on the R/T at exactly the wrong moment and causing a go-around. Many crews will prefer the 'discretionary' nature of a 'land after' knowing that they are going to be able to land, subject only to the one that's by now well ahead of them.

It's reasonable commonly used but obviously not when there's a departure in between the two arrivals.....probably very common at places like Heathrow, given their pressure on capacity.

I only found out a couple of years ago that some company manuals only permit a 'land after' when the aircraft type ahead is of the same, or faster category than them. I guess that's because the catch-up, once on the ground, might be too fast to safely manage. (Refused by an A320 following a Dash-8. Very brief discussion ensued as I asked the crew if they wanted to go-around or continue for a very late landing clearance - it worked out, but not comfortable for me or them!)

[PositiveClimbGearUp]

Thanks for the information, everyone! I see our friendly mods have moved this into the ATC section from the Spectators' Gallery - I wasn't sure which section to post it in!

I understand this a lot clearer now, and as to why a commercial aircraft may refuse a 'land after' instruction.

As to crews misinterpreting/mis-hearing the instruction, I remember an occasion when an Eastern Airways Jetstream was instructed to 'land after' company traffic, and the pilot read back 'cleared to land'. The tower controller immediately corrected him, but my instructor commented to me 'It's the same thing, for goodness sake.' Even with only half a dozen PUT flying hours, I knew the two instructions weren't the same and had an idea that 'land after' meant that the responsibility for separation was with the PIC and not ATC. It's somewhat concerning that an experienced pilot would consider incorrect readback of this nature to be a nothing issue!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<The tower controller immediately corrected him, but my instructor commented to me 'It's the same thing, for goodness sake.'>>

Not very professional was he? It was my misfortune to have to work with lots of flying instructors once. Some of them frightened the living daylights out of me with precisely the attitude your bloke had!

[baba99]

Could I ask a related question about go-arounds - I was SLF on OZ 521 yesterday which initiated a go-around from short finals for 24L (we had gone past Hatton Tescos, so were about 1km / .5nm from the threshold). Interested to know the specifics if anyone knows, but in general, how often do you get pilot-initiated (as opposed to ATC instructed) go-arounds at Heathrow, due to the previous arrival still being on the runway? I guess in that case it must be due to being given a 'land after' instruction, if you cannot give 'cleared to land' unless the runway is vacated.

Does it make any difference whether the crew are familiar with the high rate of arrivals at Heathrow? Do you get some companies where the crews are familiar with heathrow accepting land-after instructions whereas others might not?

thanks.

[caciara]

Hi, I'm an ATC of LIRF, and we use "land after" procedure too, according our AIP Italia. In Italy we use this particular procedure, only in Fiumicino and Malpensa. Our conditions to apply it are like yours in CAA CAP493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part One, and It's a recovery procedure for underseparated landing traffic. We can give land after instruction only during daylight hours to landing aircraft for rwy 16l/34r, when is underseparated by preceeding aircraft, and it has preceeding aircraft in sight and able to maintain it in sight till vacating the runway. Runway must be dry. The responsability for separation "should be" (...) only of the pilot. Our doubt is that this strange procedure is not ICAO, because based on ICAO rules you can reduce separation runway minima, only according to chapter 17.1 of DOC 4444 Pans-Atm, and its conditions with more and more restrictions. So, even if with this procedure you transfer the responsability for separation to pilot, and you don't give any clearance, if there aren't VFR conditions or if you have tailwind more than 5 kts, and you issue this instruction to succeeding aircraft, in case of accident into the runway, could you be anyway responsible?? :uhoh:

[caciara]

Sorry the right chapter in DOC 4444 Pans-Atm is 7.11...:rolleyes:

[fireflybob]

On a point of technicality surely "Land After" is not an instruction?

It's saying you may land if you want to - there is always the option to GoAround.

[caciara]

Thank you Fireflybob for your post,
I'm just trying to know where this strange procedure is applied everywhere, because I've understood is not a common procedure...Surely is not an ICAO approved procedure, because according DOC 4444 you can reduce separation only under certain conditions in chapter 7.11.
I know that in this case you relieve the responsability for separation to the succeeding aircraft, and so in theoretic way, in case of unexpected situation, pilot should be responsible for go around. But, my question is, if the pilot for unknown reasons shouldn't able to go around anymore, or if it lost the nr.1 in sight when it's too late to go around, and in both situation the nr.1 is still into the runway, under specific legal way the judge don't give you any responsability or will search for meteo, technical or procedural reasons, refered only to ICAO rules??:confused::confused:

[Spitoon]

The ICAO PANS for reduced runway separation minima were amended in March 2005. I think you'll find that the 'land after' procedure reflected the earlier PANS.

If I am recalling the amendment to PANS-ATM correctly it would appear that the UK and Italian procedures have not been reviewed for consistency with ICAO procedures and updated where necessary.

bob, certainly in my day, 'land after' was commonly referred to by controllers as an instruction in order to distinguish it from a clearance. I don't think there was ever an intention or implication that any of the options available to a pilot making an approach were different.

[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.

[Pull what]

Not very professional was he? It was my misfortune to have to work with lots of flying instructors once. Some of them frightened the living daylights out of me with precisely the attitude your bloke had!

If your feeling homesick I think quite a few of them are on the Flying Instructor forum

[Pull what]

I spent most of my career based at LHR and can never remember a go around ordered by ATC in fact the only one I do remember is after wishing a captain 'good luck' after he asked for a visual from base leg and was obviously too high! Land afters were more common of course but still not that many ( i never liked them unless a high speed was available and believe that should be mandatory)

LHR was the slickest ATC operation I ever came across, the problems for us always came at other airfields which when they suddenly got busy they couldnt cope with the traffic. I certainly can remember more GAs at other airfields!

[NudgingSteel]

On a point of technicality surely "Land After" is not an instruction?

It's saying you may land if you want to - there is always the option to GoAround.

On an equal technicality...."Cleared to Land" is also not an instruction, and the crew also have the option to go-around if they'd prefer!

[caciara]

It's true!! Look this amendment!!:


3 Reduction of separation minima
7.10 REDUCED RUNWAY SEPARATION MINIMA BETWEEN AIRCRAFT
USING THE SAME RUNWAY

7.10.1 Provided that an appropriate, documented safety assessment has shown that an acceptable level of safety will be met, lower minima than those in 7.8.2 and 7.9.1 may be prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority, after consultation with the operators., and The safety assessment shall be carried out for each runway for which the reduced minima are intended, taking into account such factors such as:

a) runway length;

b) aerodrome layout; and

c) types of aircraft involved.

Insert new text as follows:


7.10.2 All applicable procedures related to the application of reduced runway separation minima shall be published in the Aeronautical Information Publication as well as in local air traffic control instructions. Controllers shall be provided with appropriate and adequate training in the use of the procedures.

7.10.3 Reduced runway separation minima shall only be applied during the hours of daylight from 30 minutes after local sunrise to 30 minutes before local sunset.

7.10.4 For the purpose of reduced runway separation, aircraft shall be classified as follows:

a) Category 1 aircraft: single-engine propeller aircraft with a maximum certificated take-off mass of less that 2 000 kg;

b) Category 2 aircraft: single-engine propeller aircraft with a maximum certificated take-off mass of more than 2 000 kg but less than 7 000 kg; and twin-engine propeller aircraft with a maximum certificated take-off mass of less than 7 000 kg;

c) Category 3 aircraft: all other aircraft.

End of new text.



7.10.5 Such lower Reduced runway separation minima shall not apply:

1) between a departing aircraft and a preceding landing aircraft;.

2) between sunset and sunrise, or such other period between sunset and sunrise as may be prescribed;

3) when braking action may be adversely affected by runway contaminants (e.g. slush, water, etc.); and

4) in weather conditions preventing the pilot from making an early assessment of traffic conditions on the runway.

Note.— See the Air Traffic Services Planning Manual (Doc 9426) for details of such lower minima developed by one State.

Insert new text as follows:


7.10.6 Reduced runway separation minima shall be subject to the following conditions:

a) wake turbulence separation minima shall be applied;

b) visibility shall be at least 5 000 m and ceiling shall not be lower than 300 m (1 000 ft);

c) tail wind component shall not exceed 5 kt;

d) surface movement radar or other device that provides the air traffic controller with position information on aircraft shall be utilized, provided that approval for operational use of such equipment includes a safety assessment to ensure that all requisite operational and performance requirements are met; or there shall be available other means of determining the specified distances such as suitable landmarks to assist the controller in assessing distances between aircraft;

e) separation shall exist between two succeeding departing aircraft immediately after take-off of the second aircraft;

f) flight crews shall be informed when reduced runway separation is applied;

g) traffic information shall be provided to the flight crew of the succeeding aircraft concerned; and

h) the breaking action shall not be adversely affected by runway contaminants such as ice, slush, snow, water, etc.

7.10.7 Reduced runway separation minima which may be applied at an aerodrome shall be determined for each separate runway. The separation to be applied shall in no case be less than the following minima:

a) landing aircraft:

1) a succeeding landing Category 1 aircraft may cross the runway threshold when the preceding aircraft is a Category 1 or 2 aircraft which either:

i) has landed and passed a point at least 600 m from the threshold of the runway and is in motion; or

ii) is airborne and has passed a point at least 600 m from the threshold of the runway:

2) a succeeding landing Category 2 aircraft may cross the runway threshold when the preceding aircraft is a Category 1 or 2 aircraft which either:

i) has landed and has passed a point at least 1 500 m from the threshold of the runway and is in motion; or

ii) is airborne and has passed a point at least 1 500 m from the threshold of the runway:

3) a succeeding landing aircraft may cross the runway threshold when a preceding Category 3 aircraft:

i) has landed and has passed a point at least 2 400 m from the threshold of the runway and is in motion; or

ii) is airborne and has passed a point at least 2 400 m from the threshold of the runway.

b) departing aircraft:

1) a Category 1 aircraft may be cleared for take-off when the preceding departing aircraft is a Category 1 or 2 aircraft which is airborne and has passed a point at least 600 m from the threshold of the runway;

2) a Category 2 aircraft may be cleared for take-off when the preceding departing aircraft is a Category 1 or 2 aircraft which is airborne and has passed a point at least 1 500 m from the threshold of the runway; and

3) an aircraft may be cleared for take-off when a preceding departing Category 3 aircraft is airborne and has passed a point at least 2 400 m from the threshold of the runway.

Note.— Consideration may be given to increased separation between high performance single-engine propeller aircraft.








So Land After instruction (with old conditions) shouldn't be legal anymore!!! :eek::eek::eek:

[fireflybob]

Ok it's a question of semantics but, as a pilot, "Land after" is not an instruction.

According to the dictionary, instruction means, amongst other things:-

a. An authoritative direction to be obeyed; an order.

I would be uncomfortable if any pilot thought that it was so.

[chevvron]

Just wish FISOs could use something similar eg 'runway is occupied land at your discretion'; I've seen many go arounds which could have been avoided if they could say that.

[poldek77]

I'm just trying to know where this strange procedure is applied everywhere, because I've understood is not a common procedure...

And what about the system that is used at Paris CDG - when transferred from Appr to TWR you receive something like "No 1 over the threshold, you are cleared to land" (except LVP)?

[Gulfstreamaviator]

10 miles, was given clear to land....number 3.....

wtf

glf

[Spitoon]

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.

[caciara]

Thank you Spitoon again about your clear explanation. Are you an ATCer or you have a specific office wich deals in ATC arguments?
So if we want to have a summary of all considerations, we can say that to follow ICAO rules depends on single country policy. In case of land after we don't have a general reference in ICAO documents, but only the chapter 7.11 PANS-ATM about RRSM. Actually the conditions to apply land after and RRSM are different beacause of an amendment of march 2005. So now there is the legal matter of right application of this procedure. You said: "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 an ATCer which gives an instruction to land after, even if on pilot responsability, I worry about all situations to be considered when a reduction in separation is going on. In fact ICAO suggests to pay attention also to visibility, to tailwind, to category of acft involved, etc..etc..and I don't think is a good idea to not consider all of them, because not consistent with our local or national manuals. And my doubt is not only about right application of a procedure under ATC point of view, but also under legal point of view, in case of a snag. Because we know, we ATCer are above all safety guardians...:eek:
In Italy, for example, even if rules for "Visual Approach" are clear and like for land after, you relieve responsabiliy for separation to pilot, due to an accident happened about 7 years ago near Cagliari, when pilot of an ambulance flight was cleared for a visual approach, all ATCer involved have been sentenced to some years of prison and to pay compensation for damages. This sentence was expressed by Judge on ATCers responsability to not avoid in all ways the collision with the mountain (it was during nighthours). Consequence of this sentence, now Visual Approach in Italy is forbidden....:confused::confused:

[Spitoon]

I think your summary covers things well. It is up to each State to implement whichever bits of ICAO they choose to in the best way that fits the legal framework. In theory each State should do all of ICAO if it can but many file Differences for reasons related to national policy or perhaps even not wanting to change something that works and is well understood.

For all the flaws in the ICAO system, the SARPs etc are generally consistent with each other. This means that if a State deviates from or does not apply one SARP or PANS it is common for problems to be created elsewhere because something that was assumed to be in place is not. The UK has had a tendency in the past to do some things in its own way - sometimes with very good and justifiable reasons in my personal view - but it does mean that it sometimes has to find more and more fixes for a problem which wouldn't even exist if they'd just applied the ICAO rules.

However, the UK has a very good set of national and local procedure manuals that describe in a lot of detail how ATC should be done - I don't know if you have the same in Italy. If a controller follows the procedures in the manuals this will usually be a good enough defence if something goes wrong like Cagliari. The people who write the manuals and oversee them (the NSA) would probably also have to justify why they considered the procedures to be adequate also. Unless the controller can be shown to have been actively negligent I would hope that he/she would not be convicted in court (but, of course, you can never be sure what a court will conclude). Again, I don't know how the Italian legal system works so I've no idea whether there are parallels with the UK.

I agree with you that the considerations set out in PANS-ATM for applying reduced runway separation now are better than for the previous land after procedures. As I said, I can't see why the UK national procedures have not been updated - only the people who write the procedures (in the CAA) can tell us. But even if the books had been updated, a controller has options about which procedures he/she uses - if you don't feel that using reduced runway separation is a good idea in a particular situation, then don't use it. I sometimes hear these sort of decisions being described as defensive controlling and it does appear to be quite common in some places that I have seen - perhaps because of legal decisions that have been made.

In some ways the situation may get easier before too long because EASA is planning to introduce regulations about rules of the air and ATC procedures - effectively mandating ICAO Annex 2 and PANS-ATM. This will mean, in theory anyway, that States cannot file individual Differences and we will all do ATC in the same way across the whole of Europe. What will happen in practice, is another 'who knows'!

[caciara]

Our strange situation in Italy is that in our general manual (MO-ATM) land after is not considered. It only appears in Fiumicino and Malpensa local manuals, but its applying conditions shouldn't be less restrictive than general. At the contrary, in MO-ATM we have only the RRSM last version, so with new more restrictive conditions.
In my opinion in UK the strange situation is that is not clear in your CAP493 MATS1 para.15.2.4, if "...landing aircraft may be premitted to land..." means that it is a RRSM or land after procedure (you say clear to land or land after??), and also that it is not updated according new RRSM...

[caciara]

In our local manuals (IPI) in Fiumicino and Malpensa, we have some conditions to apply land after, as yours in CAP493 MATS1, Aerodrome Services, para.15.2.4, but it's also explained the phraseology to use. Are there any reference more about it in UK??

[Zippy Monster]

I certainly use the 'Land After' at Heathrow, if I'm prompted by a flight crew reporting visual with the one ahead.

To elaborate on that then... I'm based abroad but fly into LGW every so often. I've had a couple of instances where it's been obvious it's going to be a very late landing clearance due to one departing ahead; in these circumstances I've asked the captain "would you accept a land-after instruction". If he's said "yes", then I've said to ATC "we will accept a 'land-after'" - the intention being to avoid exactly the scenario that someone described above, where we're almost in the flare and then someone cuts in on the radio at exactly the wrong time and we have to go around.

The question: from your point of view as an ATCO - is it more of a help or a hindrance having a pilot report "we will accept a land-after" at about 1 mile or so? Would you rather we just kept quiet rather than prompting you?

(On both occasions that I remember, what we indeed actually received in response was the aforementioned "after the departing xxxxx, cleared to land".)

[1Charlie]

In NZ a conditional clearance may be issued provided that there is reasonable assurance that by the time the arriving aircraft crosses the threshold to land, or departing aircraft commences their take off roll, the appropriate RWY sep or reduced RWY sep will exist. The responsibility is always with the controller. Phraseology is "B737 departing, RWY 36 cleared to land".

In the US they say number 3 following 737 cleared to land. Don't think that's ICAO but what in the US is?

[Spitoon]

Charlie, I think the problem is that what happens in NZ and the US is 'ICAO' - it's just that the procedures used are different interpretations of the same ICAO text.

[caciara]

HI, spitoon sorry for my insistence...
Because I'm trying to have a right answer to my doubts about land after, I've sent some questions to our persons in charge. I'm sure, maybe like you, that our land after procedure, like yours, remained with old conditions, so without any update. In my opinion our actual applications are not legal anymore. Today I've received the first answer from ANACNA, and indipendent italian association for ATCers, that gives me confirmation about it. Our managment is not giving me any answer, yet...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif
In this situation I'm sure I will not use this procedure with old conditions anymore!!
(RRSM before March 2005). I've read your CAP 493 Mats 1 Section 2 of July 2009, and it is not clear if "...landing aircraft may be permitted to land before preceding landing aicraft is not clear of the runway..." is about RRSM not updated, or land after instruction without any clearance to land. The phraseology to be used is not specified and so is not clear which one it is. What is your opinion about it?? Thank you!

[Spitoon]

caciara, the procedure is optional - if you are not happy to use it for any reason, then don't use it. Obviously this may mean that your approach colleagues may need to increase the spacing between inbounds.

Whether it is 'legal' depends entirely your national law framework. Nothing in the ICAO Annexes/PANS is law in your country until it is transposed into your legislation. If the land after/RRSM procedures are in your law then to do something different, even if the ICAO SARP on which the law is based changes, is probably unwise. If the procedures are in a manual published by your CAA - as CAP 493 is - then I would expect them to have a reason for not updating it (even if it's not obvious to you), that's their job. Again, doing something different is probably unwise.

Fortunately with this procedure you can choose whether or not to apply it. Things might be different if there are no alternatives available to you.

I'm not operational any more but if I were in your position I would personally - in principle - be happy to apply the national procedures in CAP 493. However, the fact that the procedures are confused/confusing and do not accord with the current ICAO procedures seems unnecessary and undesirable.

Maybe the EASA rules will solve these problems....

[caciara]

Hi Spitoon,
I know that I can choose whether or not to apply this procedure. In fact I don't apply it, even if it's described in our local (Fiumicino airport) manual. And I know that nothing in ICAO is law until is transposed in our legislation.
The problem is different in my point of view. In Italy we can use this procedure only in Fiumicino and Malpensa, on local manual conditions. So we don't have any national or ICAO reference to understand its atc origin. It seems to be an indipendent procedure with its own conditions to apply it. In my opinion is not possible to apply a procedure unknown in all ICAO documents and also in our italian atc manual. We are trying to know if a connection could be possible with Reduced Runway Separation Minima, the only ICAO rules included in our italian atc manual, similar to "land after". In your opinion "land after" could be included in RRSM or not ?? :ugh::ugh:
Merry Christmas everybody!!!

[A7700]

The "anticipated landing clearance" used in CDG is the copy of the FAA one's in force at ATL or DAL based on:
(JO 7110.65T ... 3-10-6. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION)
a. Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that
prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft cross the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if not
previously reported and appropriate traffic holding in position or departing prior to their arrival.)

About "land after" it has been used in Orly until ICAO published reduced separation on the same runway. "land after" was not considered as an ATC clearance ( hot discussions between OPS people and Legal department of DGCA) but only as a landing option offered to the pilot who agree to land on an occupied runway.

[caciara]

Sorry for instistence,
but I'm trying to complete the research about land after procedure.
I'm still trying to understand the right application of this procedure in other countries. Eurocontrol told me that only in some UK airports it is still used. I've understood that CAA has notified the land after application for your busy airports, and it is reported with its old applying conditions in CAP 493. It is reported in radiotelephony manual as differences to ICAO radiotelephony procedures, by using the phrase "land after...", instead of cleared to land. And it is reported in AIP GEN 1-7-47, as difference to ICAO PANS ATM, within Reduced Runway Separations, with the only phraseology difference. So it seems to be, that CAA is applying the ICAO RRSM with the only phraseology difference, land after instead of cleared to land, but because Eurocontrol told me that is not possible to mix both procedures, wich are the applying conditions in UK into practice?? (visibility, tail wind, runway conditions, application hours, etc...). ICAO RRSM or not ICAO Land After conditions?? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Thank you again for your kind cooperation!!!