Cleared to land, land only?

[OhNoCB]

Sometime last year I was given this instruction at a towered airfield in the UK. I don't mention the name simply because I can't remember which one it was. It happened twice in one week and I always meant to find out more about it but forgot about it until recently when a colleague asked having encountered it as well.

Was given all times after an instrument approach, and once transferred to tower was told "Runway XX, Cleared to land, land only, wind xxx/xx"

Can anyone clarify what exactly this means? I tried searching but found nothing.

On one hand it sounds like it is trying to drill in that you aren't cleared for a touch and go or something, but this seems odd as to me it is obvious you aren't cleared to touch and go if you aren't told it.

Another thought that briefly occurred was that perhaps something in the vicinity would prevent a go around, so they were saying that a go around was not an option, but this seems very very wrong to me since a go around is ALWAYS possible for a variety of uncontrollable reasons.

Any thoughts?

[chevvron]

Definitely wrong if it meant 'do not go around'. The airspace in the missed approach area 'belongs' to the landing aircraft same as the runway does. If the controller gave a reason why you should not go round, that might be more acceptable.

[Slylo Green]

Sounds like it was vortex wake reasons.

If you were a light, and subsequently following small/medium/large departing ahead for vortex wake 3 minutes separation is required from the time the departing aircraft put the nose up.

The "land, land only" is there to emphasise that you are not cleared for the touch and go.

[mad_jock]

Its due to departing traffic wake vortex and if you have to go-around such is life. And I have done in the past from 5ft with a student.

The ATCO in question was a bit upset about this but the satco re-educated him.

If you do go around your nowhere near the departure flight path so nothing to worry about.

I have seen instructors in the heat of the moment gun it and do a t n g but realistically that won't get near the vortex anyway.

[2 sheds]

Should be "make full stop landing" of course!

[fujii]

As chevron says, it's wrong. The controller should plan for a possible go around. No way should the controller be getting into the cockpit. Imagine a low time pilot making a bad approach and being told "land only." The only times I have told an aircraft to make a full stop is if it were doing circuits and things were getting busy with other aircraft. Even then, plan for a go around.

[mad_jock]

Tis just one of the issues of atco's never having had to fly an aircraft themselves.

[1Charlie]

I say "due wake turbulence make full stop cleared to land" in that scenario.

[kcockayne]

I wouldn't make too much of this, except that it is WRONG - in my opinion.
On the face of it, it appears to be the ATCO trying to ensure that the pilot appreciates that he should not "go around" from the approach (or leave the runway after landing) - for whatever reason. But, if this is so, I would suggest that if he thought that this phraseology should be used, the ATCO should have stated the reason.
The reason that I say the ATCO was wrong to use this terminology is that I was always told during Tower courses & training sessions, that once an aircraft has been cleared to land it is also cleared to go around. If in this case any further pilot action was not "clear to be carried out" eg go around, the aircraft should NOT have been cleared to land.
If the ATCO had traffic that made a go around unwise & he wished to use such phraseology (non-standard), he should, at the very least, have given the pilot traffic info.
All in all, this is non standard & should not have been used - in my opinion.

[FantomZorbin]

Tis just one of the issues of atco's never having had to fly an aircraft themselves.

Once upon a time ATCO cadets were taken through at least part of the PPL course, is this no longer the case?

[kcockayne]

I should have added that I have used a similar phraseology (as in LookingForAJob's example). This was in the context of the MATS Pt.1 stating that nothing in it precluded the ATCO from using his own discretion in circumstances which necessitated such actions. Does this still exist ?
In such circumstances as LFAJ describes, I feel that its use is "legal" & justified; & is still complying with "The Book".
But, without the "let out" described above, I don't think that this should be used as a regular course of action.

[Talkdownman]

'Land only' is unacceptable. Absolute Tosh. Every approach is to a go around. The landing is the bonus.

[Fly Through]

Always used this. Nothing to do with go arounds. Always in the scenario of a circuit detail, when I want to emphasise not to touch and go, always with a reason why and what to do next ie. hold on the runway.

Most common reason is for wake turbulence but also used in a cross runway scenario (hold on ground so i can depart another aircraft from a cross runway.)

Every approach could be a go around at any moment so definitely nothing to doo with that.

[055166k]

A landing clearance is not an instruction! If an aircraft is training and the overall traffic situation is such that the controller considers that a landing is preferable to a "touch and go" or "go around" then I applaud the controller's stress that only a clearance to land has been issued for the benefit of a busy trainee.
Nothing in the original report indicates that a go-around was not permitted for genuine reasons [other than training].
Timely advice that a pilot should plan to land rather than go-around or touch-and-go might aid approach planning/briefing/flap selection etc.
Good controlling! In some states/locations there are LAHSO procedures which depend on pilot compliance as a matter of routine.

[aerobat77]

depending on the situation and the airport it means you are not cleared to vacate the runway until advised ( e.g only one main taxiway or exit and he has other traffic taxi this taxiway just at the moment)


a go around is always pilots decision and the procedure is published, no atc can clear or deny you for a go around.


was it in a training situation practicing traffic circuits ?


i would always ask what he means with this "land only" when i would hear such an instruction.

[OhNoCB]

I have to admit that I more or less dismissed the idea that it meant no go around because I can't see how this is acceptable. The idea of it being used to strengthen that the aircraft had not been cleared for a touch and go seems more likely to me for whatever reason, HOWEVER apart from a possible local procedure, surely it is not likely that an inbound commercial IFR flight is going to elect to do a t&g, thus why the need to reinforce that its for a full stop only?

[aerobat77]

"surely it is not likely that an inbound commercial IFR flight is going to elect to do a t&g, thus why the need to reinforce that its for a full stop only?"


nah, when talking a commercial IFR inbound it should be self explanatory that every crew would ask what he means since its neither a standard nor a clear "clearance"


a touch and go is here nonsense, a 'prohibition' of a go around as well.


it can only be meant not to vacate the runway for whatever reason until advised.

[fujii]

Read the OP, it was given after an instrument approach, not circuits.

[Andy Mayes]

I was taught this very phraseology at college.

It was used when we wanted an aircraft on a circuit detail to land rather than do another touch and go, of course a go-around was still always an option but it was to emphasise we didn't want it to depart again. The aircraft would usually have been pre-warned downwind.

I disagree with what others have said about not going around.

I think the reason may be far less sinister than some others have suggested and I think the ATCO may have made an error by mistakenly thinking the aircraft wanted to do a touch and go.

[2 sheds]

For the UK, CAP 413 shows the correct phraseology for this situation:
G-CD, unable to approve
due traffic, make full stop
landing runway 34 cleared
to land, surface wind calm
...and as has been said by some of the more informed contributors, it would more often than not be due to inadequate wake turbulence separation if the aircraft were to make a touch-and-go, i.e a clearance for that manoeuvre cannot be given. That said, if the approach is unstable or for any other aircraft handling situation, yes, of course the pilot may elect to go-around, as with any approach to land. If that occurred with a WT interaction, then all that is left is for ATC to pass a warning - dependent on several factors, the aircraft then may or may not encounter WT from a previous departure.

I was taught this very phraseology at college.If you were, then it was taught wrongly - why do people quote what they were "taught" instead of checking back to the appropriate procedures?

Definitely wrong if it meant 'do not go around'. How can you make that criticism - the option for a missed approach must always exist, whether convenient to ATC or not. Presumably it meant what is illustrated by the CAP413 extract - but was wrongly phrased.

Tis just one of the issues of atco's never having had to fly an aircraft themselves. That tired old chestnut, i.e. no argument at all in this context! The concept of flying an aircraft is not that hard to grasp - and, surprisingly, a great number of ATCOs have flying experience anyway. Not that it is relevant at all in this case, which appears to be probably the application of correct ATC procedures, albeit with slightly incorrect phraseology.

[Pringle_]

We use this phraseology when controlling light circuit traffic following a Small+ departure eg G-CD cleared to land, land only due wake turbulence, expect further clearance on the runway.
It helps to emphasise that a touch and go should not be carried out in order to prevent a wake turbulence encounter. It does not prohibit a G/A, however if the pilot needs to he will then be aware of the WT.

G-CD, unable to approve
due traffic, make full stop
landing runway 34 cleared
to land, surface wind calm

To me this phraseology seems more appropriate for denying a circuit detail due to traffic levels rather than holding the aircraft for WT before continuing, it also does not inform the pilot of a potential WT encounter.

[OhNoCB]

OK so the conclusion I can come to from this is that it was not a prohibition of going around (didn't think it would be this). But more likely a controller who likely by accident mixed in his normal patter for circuit traffic in a given circumstance to an aircraft inbound commercial IFR?

[Sweet Potatos]

That's the way I would take it OhNoCb. It's definately not an instruction to not go around.

Just using the wrong phraseology - though interestingly that is what I was taught in college too!

It's non standard but i don't feel it was that ambiguous. I would certainly only use it for Circuit traffic/training traffic in a Wake Turbulence situation.

Instrument approach does not necessarily mean that he would not conduct a touch and go - it's not necessarily a commercial operation. Instrument training aircraft do this all the time.

Could also have been an error/slip form the controller, or maybe a student controller under instruction.