US AT procedures

[22/04]

Well I was away from home I staggered on Live ATC and US ATC procedures

What a shock!

How can they clear traffic to land when there is traffic ahead- why not continue approach then a genuine landing clearance when there is nothing to interfere; then they wouldn't need to waste all that time talking about traffic ahead.

And all those helis floating around Newark- why don't they make their life easier by constraining them to certain lanes entry/exit points like in London. And they seem lax about readbacks- would get a bollicking from some UK GA airfields if they behaved like that in the UK.

But some things seem the reverse. No conditional runway entries or line up clearances so far as I could hear.

After all if they clear things to land when there is traffic ahead why not do the same with departures!

One of us (UK/US) has to be getting it wrong

Doesn't sound very ICAO.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Ever been to CDG, ORY, AGP? To name a few.

[zondaracer]

I agree the readbacks aren´t what they should be, as far as the other stuff, what works for us in the US may not work for you in the UK.

But this is what ATC in the states really think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFtunP1ytc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFtunP1ytc&feature=related[YOUTUBE]TzFtunP1ytc)

YouTube - if air traffic controllers could speak their mind 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8esS3h4hoAk&feature=related)

However, all is not lost. In the US there are some pilot forums where American pilots like to complain about incorrect RT phraseology, so it is not like it is unnoticed from within. Personally, when flying in the states, I try to use correct phraseology at all times.

Also, there actually is a specific helicopter chart for the New York city area where they DO have specific routes and entry points for helicopters.

I´m not ATC, but I know they have their own handbook for operations, JO 7110.65.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf

They can clear landing traffic with traffic ahead if they see the traffic, and they are expected to maintain separation, which is possible. with departing traffic, they don´t clear them because they are usually waiting for separation. Also, as far as line up clearances, in the states we use ¨Position and hold¨ instead of ¨Line up and wait¨, but the FAA is switching over to Line up and wait to comply with ICAO. Variations from ICAO are allowed (with notice).

A lot of US phraseology is not ICAO, but I can think of one UK term which is unique to the UK, ¨overshoot¨

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

zondaracer.... Sorry, but "overshoot" went out over here many, many years ago. The phrase is "Go-around".

[zondaracer]

Ah ok cool, thanks for letting me know.

[172_driver]

Also, as far as line up clearances, in the states we use ¨Position and hold¨ instead of ¨Line up and wait¨, but the FAA is switching over to Line up and wait to comply with ICAO. Variations from ICAO are allowed (with notice).



That has already changed, line up and wait is now in effect.

One of the more annoying things here in the US is the omission of callsign in pilot readbacks. Makes it very confusing sometimes who is talking to who.

[Mike_Retired_ATC]

There had been discussions about doing away with issuing landing clearances to subsequent arrivals but the FAA never changed the ruling. Basically we are using anticipated seperation (the first arrival will be clear of the runway prior to the subsequent arrival crossing the landing thresshold.

My experience is that even when an aircraft that is in the final stream is not cleared to land that the majority of them will land anyway, I can't count how many times an aircraft doesn't switch over to the tower, never questions hearing the tower, and just lands anyway.

As for Taxi into Position and Hold which is now Line up and WAIT, the vast majority of FAA towers are still not allowed to use it, in fact if you research it you will find that the facilities that are allowed to use Line Up and Wait and the ones that had the errors with Taxi into Position and Hold.

[KKoran]

The difference between clearing a plane to land when there is traffic ahead (anticipated separation) and issuing a conditional runway entry clearance is that with the first, the controller retains responsibility for separation (though the pilot can, of course, execute a go-around if he is uncomfortable with the situation), while in the second, the controller relinquishes control of the situation.

I don't consider increasing a pilot's situational awareness by telling him about traffic to be a waste of time. Is it really less efficient to make one transmission--"Delta two thirty six, Traffic is an Airbus one-mile final, wind two-seven-zero at eight, cleared to land"--rather than making two transmissions--"Delta two thirty six, continue" and "Delta two thirty six, wind two-seven-zero at eight, cleared to land"?

Maybe the difference has to do with the amount of traffic. In 2009, the six busiest airports in the world were in the US. The US had...

8 of the top 10
14 of the the top 20
21 of the top 30
30 of the top 50 airports

[zondaracer]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF

Scroll down to Appendix 1, it shows the differences between UK phraseology and ICAO.

[22/04]

Thanks for this; got me an up to date CAP now

[rymle]

The readback issue definitely sounds like potential problem.

I however do not see any problems regarding giving a earlier landing clearance. The phrase to go by here is "reasonable assurance".
If you know from experience that the runway is clear by the time nr. 2 is overhead the threshold, why not save radiotime and give him the clearance right away. In 1 of maybe 1000 times you will have to re-do that clearance, but the other 999 cases saves up for it.