Change needed in North American ATC

[qUadform]

After reading about the recent Alaska Airlines Taxiway Tango incident in KSEA, a few issues came to mind.


I have flown for years under the EASA license in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. I have also flow airliners for years in North America with the FAA license. I am a dual citizen and I have been afforded the opportunity to learn from different ATCs around the world.


To be quite honest, I am a bit concerned with the N. American ATC and its refusal to adapt to ICAO practices and standards. I always get a laugh when going into KLAX and there are several aircraft lined up on final and the controller says in a rushed manner, "ok you are number 3 and your following a B737 which is on a base turn at your 2'oclock position and you are cleared to land. I'm sorry, but this is simply amateur and asking for a serious accident in the future. It seems like you can be 30 miles from the airport and number 15 to land and they will issue a landing clearance. This combined with a culture of "unload the liability" onto the pilot by constantly "HARASSING" them about calling the preceding aircraft in order to dump a visual approach onto the pilot is ridiculous. How is it that an airport such as Frankfurt which handles an immense number of airplanes in often sub-par weather, can be so much more professional and efficient than let's say, San Francisco....even on a clear day?
Back to the Alaska Airlines Tango incident; I am going to level half the blame with the amateur ATC in this part of the world. Some of you may ask yourselves, "well how could the ATC there be worse than a typical African ATC." The answer is quite simple, in Africa there is often no radar and the pilot is following exact prescribed routes via the Jeppesen approach chart, coupled with a common frequency where the pilots are speaking to one another. In America, the ATC is often the biggest threat by directing air traffic in an unsafe and unprofessional manner.
I am not nationalistic toward any side of the Atlantic, I am simply calling it how I see it.
Major ATCs of the world are in dire need of an learning exchange program. I am certain there are positive techniques that could be learned from each culture. North America's refusal to adapt to more professional and safe practices will unfortunately cause more incidents/accidents in the future. The American controllers really need to spend a year split between London and Frankfurt to gain valuable knowledge on how to operate a large volume of traffic in often congested airspace.

[ironbutt57]

The American controllers really need to spend a year split between London and Frankfurt to gain valuable knowledge on how to operate a large volume of traffic in often congested airspace.

huh??

[lurkio]

I have absolutely no gripe with any of the ATC units (east of 30W and W of 30W) mentioned. When I used to operate over there I could only marvel at the ability of the unit concerned that managed to keep New York airspace running. Breathing seemed to be an option for those controllers.
IF you listen to the controller then it is usually pretty clear (wherever in the world they are from) what they would like you to do.
This thread will now predictably degenerate into a USA v Rest of the World slanging match so I thought I would get in early.

Keep up the good work.

[Max Contingency]

I make no observation as to which system trains to the appropriate level but it is no secret that EASA training is normally to a greater depth and breadth than FAA training. EASA students did not have the luxury of a question bank for their licencing exams

This is very apparent with ATC communication and RT phraseology when you compare USA with Europe.

Before my American peers 'lock and load', much of what we had to learn was utterly useless bollocks as well!!

(Again for my American peers...bollock is an english word for testicle.)

[PEI_3721]

qUadform, :ok:

lurkio, “… marvel at the ability of the unit concerned that managed to keep New York airspace running.”
Perhaps you should consider if it safe to keep on managing in that manner; just because it is successful doesn’t imply safety now or at some future point, just as being lucky is not safe.

If this thread does become US vs etc, then perhaps the views of why the US deviates from ICAO could be explained, and whether the US has filed a deviation from ICAO – with their justification.

[peekay4]

One size does not fit all.

Of the 10 busiest airports in the world (by aircraft movements), 8 are in the US:

1 ATLANTA GA, US (ATL)
2 CHICAGO IL, US (ORD)
3 DALLAS/FORT WORTH TX, US (DFW)
4 LOS ANGELES CA, US (LAX)
5 BEIJING, CN (PEK)
6 CHARLOTTE NC, US (CLT)
7 DENVER CO, US (DEN)
8 LAS VEGAS NV, US (LAS)
9 HOUSTON TX, US (IAH)
10 LONDON, GB (LHR)

Many US procedures have been / are being adopted by ICAO and vice versa.

[AC560]

When you look at the numbers of accidents and incidents related to ATC globally in the world the facts just don't support planes falling from the skies on any of the continents.

If you want to make a case about ATC then English proficiency is probably far more a barrier to safety then deviating from some ICAO specified verbiage.

OP next time you are in the US drop me a PM and be happy to buy you a drink and give you a hug.

[doyll]

How many of you so-called traffic control "experts" are willing to try doing half as good a job as the controllers now do?

How many of you commercial pilots would be able to function the extended stress of constant and consistent vigilance AC controllers function under. Their job is not to spend the first hour checking and taking off (at a rather easy pace and stress level) then swithcing on the 'auto pilot' and sipping coffee while monitoring instruments While the set for hours monitoring screens with constant moving objects threaten to play pong if they make a mistake. You have responsibility for your plane and it's passengers. They and all of your planes and passengers on their shoulders.

Are they perfect, not by a long shot.
But are you?

[tfx]

Back in 1943 the RAF could put 1000 airplanes over a position in one twenty minute period, night IMC, no lights no talking everyone jinking and swerving to throw of the other guys aim and

[GAPSTER]

Doyll...not sure where you fit into the pattern here.You state in an earlier thread that you're no pilot.Are you ATC? If so you are unlike myself or any of my colleagues...we have a better grip on the job our flightcrew chums do along with a knowledge of their responsibilities and a high level of respect for that.


If you are involved in Air Traffic I would be interested to know where and what as.I'll also disassociate myself from your comments if you don't mind.

[767__FO]

I am going to level half the blame with the amateur ATC in this part of the world.

I think you are nuts! If it's VFR and I land on the wrong runway/taxiway it's my fault.

[767__FO]

How is it that an airport such as Frankfurt which handles an immense number of airplanes in often sub-par weather, can be so much more professional and efficient than let's say, San Francisco....even on a clear day?



Of the 10 busiest airports in the world (by aircraft movements), 8 are in the US:

1 ATLANTA GA, US (ATL)
2 CHICAGO IL, US (ORD)
3 DALLAS/FORT WORTH TX, US (DFW)
4 LOS ANGELES CA, US (LAX)
5 BEIJING, CN (PEK)
6 CHARLOTTE NC, US (CLT)
7 DENVER CO, US (DEN)
8 LAS VEGAS NV, US (LAS)
9 HOUSTON TX, US (IAH)
10 LONDON, GB (LHR)

Many US procedures have been / are being adopted by ICAO and vice versa.


Where is Frankfurt on this list?

[Chesty Morgan]

Where is San Francisco?

[jdawg]

Utter Rubbish.
Didn't an EASA flight just land in the wrong spot in Pisa?
N Americans not only invented powered flight but also developed most of the technology used today for ATC.
Recently we have fallen back in the tech realm but due only to politics from our friends on the socialist side of the aisle.
In Sep 11 2001 the N American ATC miraculously performed a never rehearsed much less conceived effort to land all flying traffic safely in a matter of minutes.
N Americans work as a team to seperate traffic (ATC and pilots) which enhances safety. Burdening the controller without any justification to do so is immature and unprofessional.
By all means if you don't see traffic or don't feel you can maintain contact then refuse the liability. Otherwise just do your flying where traffic doesn't alarm you.

[jdawg]

Where is San Francisco?
Chesty his point being 8 of 10 busiest aerodromes are in the US.
Perhaps that achievement is empirically supportive of the fact that N American ATC can do what few others in the world can do.
I don't know

[767__FO]

2014 By Aircraft Movement


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world%27s_busiest_airports_by_aircraft_movements

FRANKFURT 12

SFO 16

[con-pilot]

Never mind, facts posted above.

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes I get his point but the comparison was between Frankfurt and San Francisco.

[con-pilot]

Yes I get his point but the comparison was between Frankfurt and San Francisco.

How about the comparison between Frankfurt and ORD, ALT, DFW or LAX?

Aircraft movment ORD 881,933

Aircraft movement EDDF 469,026

[767__FO]

He pulled SFO out of his arse :E

From his thread title, he is criticizing all North American ATC.

[fmgc]

I don't want to pass comment on who is better, however:

Why do the USA not adopt ICAO standards? They work. Nearly everybody else in the world does so with minor variations.

When I used to fly to the USA we were briefed on US RT and we would adhere to it, not just as a courtesy but as a legal and safety requirement.

Why do the Americans not do the same when flying into the rest of the world? Surely the US wide body guys and girls fly into the "rest of the world" often enough that learning the ICAO standard would be a requirement and easily achieved just by listening to what everybody else does.

[Chesty Morgan]

How about the comparison between Frankfurt and ORD, ALT, DFW or LAX?

Aircraft movment ORD 881,933

Aircraft movement EDDF 469,026

How about it? What relevance have you posted there?

Usually those who want to compare numbers are compensating for something, old man.

[767__FO]

Originally Posted by con-pilot

How about the comparison between Frankfurt and ORD, ALT, DFW or LAX?

Aircraft movment ORD 881,933

Aircraft movement EDDF 469,026


How about it? What relevance have you posted there?

Usually those who want to compare numbers are compensating for something, old man.

Well the OP seemed to be bragging about the "immense number of airplanes" Frankfurt handles and con-pilot was just pointing out they don't come close to the volume of several US airports.

Clear?

[evansb]

Given the title of this thread is "...North American ATC" , how are Canada and Mexico performing?

Is it excess verbiage the American controllers use that is the significant difference? As well, Canada, Mexico and the U.S.A. have significant differences in their airspace structures that ICAO has no say in.

[JammedStab]

I don't want to pass comment on who is better, however:

Why do the USA not adopt ICAO standards?

Why doesn't ICAO adopt American standards?

[Chesty Morgan]

Well the OP seemed to be bragging about the "immense number of airplanes" Frankfurt handles and con-pilot was just pointing out they don't come close to the volume of several US airports.

Clear?

I suggest the OP chose FFM and SFO as they handle a similar number of flights and are, therefore, a good pair to compare relative abilities.

To introduce ORD is irrelevant.

[MarkerInbound]

And yet "After the landing traffic line up and wait" is OK?

The FAA does publish their differences from the ICAO standards in the Aeronautical Information Publication.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Going metric would be a good first step, but our conservatives would go berserk- I mean more berserk. Plus it would rob us of totally cool opportunities like the Gimli Glider. Though this is a 750 ml bottle. What's up with that?

[dr dre]

N Americans not only invented powered flight but also developed most of the technology used today for ATC.

So? Americans also invented the airplane and airlines but now the average US carrier's customer service would rank amongst the worst in the world.

And how rude, non-standardised and full of slang is their ATC? Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWOOKQlEe5s

[evansb]

As I read this thread, the topic is American vs. Euro Air Traffic Control procedures/phraseology at high-density international airports. NOT who invented what NOR airline customer service ratings. Gawd awful thread drift. Flown in to Madrid, Athens or Paris as a PILOT lately? Your comments as a PILOT would be welcome..

[misd-agin]

LHR ATC is great.


FRA also does a nice job.


The U.S. controllers should give the foreign carriers a little break. I hear them rattle off clearances to foreign carriers and it's too much info for a non-native speaker.


And some of the foreign carriers need to up their standards in the U.S. It's more crowded and faster paced. Nothing like having a visual to LAX 24R overshoot the entire airport while turning from downwind/base. We deviated 1.5 nm left of 25L centerline, leveled off, and watched the 747 slide by 1300'(1700'?...report had the exact distance) laterally at our 2 o'clock position. Passengers on the right side of the a/c during deplaning - "that guy on the right looked really close." "Oh, he didn't look really close, he WAS really close."


Fly up the East Coast of the U.S., Washington Center in NYC, on a weather day. Probably the busiest air corridor in the world. Seven major airports - IAD, DCA, BWI, PHL, EWR, LGA and JFK, all in about 200 nm.
And that's not counting the over flight traffic heading towards BOS, or coming NE from CLT or ATL, of MEM/DFW NE towards Europe.


Sorry, but nothing overseas compares to the demands of the U.S. ATC system. I wonder why it's not less RT intensive but it is what it is.

[ManaAdaSystem]

It's easy to be a hero in your own backyard.

If I could choose, I would prefer the calm ATC style of LHR, to the stressful, rapid fire ATC in some areas in the US. Incidently, the only place I had (two) real TCAS RAs, was in NY airspace.

The only place I have encountered rude ATC was in DXB.

[DirtyProp]

Why doesn't ICAO adopt American standards?And then we could get rid of ICAO altogether...:E
But why doesn't the US (and the UK) adopt the metric standard, then?

[wanabee777]

The only place I have encountered rude ATC was in DXB.

Was the controller an American?

[ManaAdaSystem]

I don't think so. One of the ground controllers.
This was a few years ago.

[B-757]

Dear qUadform,


may you not forget the most important thing..When we go to another country, we are the `guest` there , so we need to follow those rules and procedures, whatever they are..Right ??..When you go visit your next door neighbour, you are not (I hope) lecturing them about what to do in their own house..


I also have flown in all of those areas you mentioned, for several years, and hold different licenses from different parts of the world, inluding the FAA..And I respectfully disagree with your post..I find the controllers and the ATC system in North America very good and professional..No doubts about that..Yes, it is a bit different than elsewhere, but as a pilot our english should be good enough to be able to handle it..The US has their ways, we got ours..That´s it..


Fly safe !!

[Ian W]

A major difference that no-one in the thread has yet raised is that in Europe flight within Terminal Airspaces (TMA) of major airports is mandatory IFR. In the US airports usually run VFR, when the airspace becomes IMC and traffic is required to fly IFR the capacity of the US airports reduces sometimes significantly.

The practice of clearing an aircraft to land well before it can be guaranteed that the runway is clear for that aircraft to make a landing is not easy to accept by those who would normally only provide a formal landing clearance when the runway is allocated solely to the landing aircraft. Providing a clearance to land earlier is passing a controller's responsibility to the pilot. Yes the clearance can be withdrawn, but only if communications do not fail. So provision of early landing clearance before the runway is actually clear, puts the system into a fail dangerous rather than a fail safe state. In the US this is accepted, as is allowing passenger aircraft to land without a clearance as happened with the famous DCA sleeping controller.

This is just 'a difference' in approach (pun intended). It works, like all things, until it doesn't.

[Huck]

Get 'em to quit speaking french to Air France on CDG tower frequency.

Then we'll talk about american controllers.....

[Aluminium shuffler]

The argument that early landing clearances reduce congestion is utter fallacy. The aircraft still takes the same time to make the approach and the RT transmissions still take the same time. It is purely an evasion of responsibility and an abdication of work effort by the controllers, and it is as shameful as it is dangerous. Likewise the inability to standardise RTF within a single airport, nevermind align with ICAO standards.

That much said, landing on the wrong runway is the pilot's responsibility unless ATC gave a wrong designation, which was not the case here. Further, US ATC is not alone in its issues - Spanish ATC has a well earned reputation, and Italian ATC (and airport management) is not up to much either (also has a habit of poor communication and putting all responsibility onto pilots out of pure laziness, like in the Linate accident).

I have said it before - ICAO needs teeth to enforce standardised regulations globally, meaning the Russians and Chinese fly in feet, the US drop inches of mercury, the Iranians, Russians and Chinese start measuring winds in knots and everybody starts talking comprehensibly. We, as aviation professionals, are all supposed to be on the same side!

[HM79]

[QUOTE][/How is it that an airport such as Frankfurt which handles an immense number of airplanes in often sub-par weather, can be so much more professional and efficient than let's say, San Francisco....even on a clear day

The answer has more to do with airport geometry than atc abilities. San Francsco's parrallel runway pairs are too closely located to run simultaneous operations unless aircraft are put on visual approaches. As an ATCO it is MUCH easier and more efficient to run prarallel ils approaches to widely spaced runways. Also FRA airport geometry does not have intersecting runways so departures are merely separated from each other vs having to space them with arrival traffic.

Fleet mix and scheduling also play tremendous amoount to efficiency. I would add that the proximty of OAK to SFO probably affects its a ability to use dispersal headings on deaprtures which would greatly improve efficiency assuming there was no conflicting arrival traffic, which ther always is.

Efficiency gains are complex and to assume that US airline industry would leave them on the table is niave. Nowadays airlines make runway decisions based solely on efficiency and as long as the weather parameters do not exceed the op specs of the aircraft that is what is expected of the ATC system.

[DirtyProp]

I have said it before - ICAO needs teeth to enforce standardised regulations globally, meaning the Russians and Chinese fly in feet, the US drop inches of mercury, the Iranians, Russians and Chinese start measuring winds in knots and everybody starts talking comprehensibly. We, as aviation professionals, are all supposed to be on the same side!Sorry, I'm getting confused:

http://www.pme.gov.sa/en/ICAO%20References/an05_cons.pdf

Page 3-3, Table 3-4

Aren't we all supposed to use the Metric system and the alternative ones only on a temporary basis?

[misd-agin]

Many US airport ground frequencies would get IMMEDIATELY overloaded if ground controller started giving out the endless conditional sequential taxi clearances during a normal, or heavy, traffic period.

Yeah, it works when there's hardly any traffic - "oh this works great! Why don't they do that in XYZ airport in the U.S.?" Add U.S. level of airport movement and it falls apart.


The difference in workload in the U.S. ATC system vs. the 'busy' European cities is almost night and day. A 'busy' period overseas is an easy day at work for U.S. based pilots. I can't pretend to know all the how's and why's but the operational pace is much easier overseas. Not saying the U.S. is perfect and the 'end all to be all'. Could it be fixed? I don't know.


Overseas they expect you to have read all the written procedures(P pages). The U.S. expects you to listen up to what guys ahead of you are getting and what you get assigned. Identifying flights ahead of you, and the clearances they get, helps you increase your situational awareness. Just sitting there as a sponge, without increasing your traffic situational awareness via TCAS and radio monitoring of what other flights are being assigned, isn't a good idea in the U.S.

[Aluminium shuffler]

I disagree - I can't see why it'd all fall apart just because a controller waits until an aircraft is number 1 on final and the preceding has either vacated or is sufficiently far down the runway for a clearance or "land after". There is no reason at all that several aircraft should share landing or take of clearances for the same runway.

As for the notion that US controllers expect a pilot to listen and know what all the other aircraft are doing, that is entirely the controller's job - they are the ones with surveillance radar and ground movement radar, and a seat and set of windows that aren't attached to a platform they're also controlling moving in three dimensions at a couple of hundred miles per hour... Good pilots will try to build an air picture of the traffic around them in easy conditions, but when the weather is bad or bits are falling off, or they're visiting a field with unduly complex procedures (ie most of the US) for the first time, their focus is going to be somewhat narrower.

[deadheader]

The difference in workload in the U.S. ATC system vs. the 'busy' European cities is almost night and day. A 'busy' period overseas is an easy day at work for U.S. based pilots.

If that were true, it would tend to suggest there must be shortcomings in the U.S. ATC system given NATS (UK), for example, handles more than 2 million flights per year in some of the most congested airspace in the world, would it not? Or are you just having an afternoon troll along with the OP?! :ok:

[Ian W]

Yeah, it works when there's hardly any traffic - "oh this works great! Why don't they do that in XYZ airport in the U.S.?" Add U.S. level of airport movement and it falls apart.


The difference in workload in the U.S. ATC system vs. the 'busy' European cities is almost night and day. A 'busy' period overseas is an easy day at work for U.S. based pilots.

From the tower controller point of view, it is far more difficult to operate a VFR system than an IFR system. The same vectoring often has to be done but on one frequency and using different methods.

As for 'hardly any traffic'. Heathrow has only two mainly single mode runways. If it were to operate 5 runways as Atlanta at the same runway acceptance rate it currently achieves on two with mandatory IFR then it would significantly surpass Atlanta's traffic. The local frequency would be just as unhurried as it is today.

Gatwick has one multi-mode runway if it were to operate 5 runways each with the same acceptance rate that it achieves on one mandatory IFR, then it would also far surpass Atlanta's acceptance rates.

The problem would be in the marshaling of all those aircraft and their ground handling. However, the frenetic verbal activity that can be heard at some airports working VFR would not be present.

With the new trajectory based precision navigation systems being developed the event driven VFR concepts may cease to be required.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Quite, Ian. LGW is ridiculously busy for a single runway, and the density of operations exceed that of just about anywhere else at peak times. It's unusual to get anything other than a land after, crossing 100-150', during peak times, but still you won't have two aircraft cleared to land at the same time. And there is far less RT confusion and repetition because the controllers speak clearer and slower, and use standard RTF. But obviously the LGW controllers are inferior because they're not American and they don't sound cool... :}

[jdawg]

I replied to the title of the thread.

It's clearly a concern over the safety of air traffic separation in North America and comparisons were drawn to Frankfurt.

The salient point from my perspective is that controllers and pilots were together professionally in North America. My experience around the world has been that controllers and pilots resist load sharing much more frequently with ATC.

[ZOOKER]

I'm with Al shuffler on this.
My personal best on a single runway 'oop north', was 57 in an hour, one of my colleagues achieved 60, which is still the record, (I believe).
Landing clearances were always given when the R/W had been 'vacated', or a 'land-after' if it was safe to do so.
'Keep the pilots in the picture' was how we were taught. It was sometimes played extremely tight, but we received few complaints from the 'customers'.

[doyll]

GAPSTER
I mean no disrespect to flight crews. I was only pointing out that the stress load of ATC is constant while most flights require vigilance, the stress load is not as constant.

That, and 'walk a mile in the other person's shoes before saying what they should or should not be doing.

[GAPSTER]

Wrong....I've worked over thirty years in the London TMA,including TWR and APC at the two main airports.My stress level has never been 'constant'...I'd still be interested in your experience.

[con-pilot]

Is there an exchange plan where controllers from different countries can work in other country's air traffic control centers? Or I guess I should say at least observe.

I would imagine that a few day working in the New York City TRACON would open a few eyes for other countries controllers and the same with the London Center area control for US controllers.

I've flown in both, New York of course a lot more than London, but both have always impressed me with their professionalism.

Many other countries I flown in, which will go nameless, not so much.

[DC10RealMan]

Before September 11th there was a programme of Familiarisation flights for London based ATC staff to the US and other destinations and these trips were normally combined with the opportunity to visit the local ATC facility as a liaison visit.

I suspect in this post Sept 11th age neither is possible which is a shame.

[Hotel Tango]

Always amuses me how English/American pilots always single out UK/US ATC as the most professional. Does this stem from the fact that they are speaking in their (and your) mother tongue and therefore sound more "professional"? How about some votes for ATCOs from other nations who may speak with an accent but are equally as "professional" in the execution of their job? ;)

[con-pilot]

I have flown in many Spanish speaking countries and Asian speaking countries and have controllers, with the respective accents, be very understandable and very professional.

But I don't want to start a "good" country and "bad" country conflict.

This thread has seemed to have fallen into the same old UK vs. US nonsense, so that is why I posted New York/London.

Sorry, did not mean to insult anyone.




And yes, even many very professional French controllers. :ok:

[Jet Jockey A4]

And I decide to visit PPRuNE and come upon this thread and I simply had to LOL...

So some are complaining about the ATC system in the USA and how they are not ICAO “standard”…

Well a lot of places in the world are not ICAO “standard” including Europe it seems. However in my opinion there is NOT a better, more efficient and friendly ATC system in the world than the one found in the USA.

They will do their best to accommodate any reasonable demands, from direct routing to wrong way flight levels, to deviations for bad weather, to departure and arrival runway selections to get you on or off the ground as rapidly as possible while remaining safe in their operation.

Eurocontrol is a joke compared to the US ATC system. They can’t even start to think “outside the box”, they are in my opinion inefficient.

Two very recent examples on how inefficient Eurocontrol can be…

#1 - We were flying from southern Spain to LFPB. Both the departure and arrival airport as most of Europe on that day, was under VFR weather condition, actually the Paris area was severe clear. We were given a slot/departure delay of 2 hours by Eurocontrol because the ILS into LFPB was out of commission and this when there was a RNAV/GPS approach to that same runway available.

#2- We were scheduled to leave Zurich for Montreal at 17H00 local (with a Zurich airport slot for that time). We ask for start-up and Zurich advised us that Eurocontrol had just imposed us a slot for 18H30 local, a 90 minute delay for no apparent reason. Eurocontrol can override any airport's own slot system which is counter productive in my opinion. Why in this day and age, can they not communicate with each other and coordinate a departure slot and an airway/ATC slot.

How many aircrafts were going from Zurich or that general area of Europe to Montreal at that time? Furthermore, how many of them were climbing directly to FL430 (initial climb) in Europe's airspace and then fly on a random route across the Atlantic to Montreal? I cannot believe that ATC could not accommodate another aircraft for an on time departure, especially one that was above 99% of all aircrafts in their airspace.

In all my flying years, I have NEVER experienced this kind of nonsense in the USA (or the UK) from their ATC system unless it was severe weather or an emergency at a departure or arrival airport.

Are the Americans perfect? No they are not, but I can say the same of many other ATC systems in the rest of the world. There are far worst places in the world where I think safety issues need to be addressed before even thinking the US system is unsafe.

You folks can go on ranting all you want about the US ATC system because of their “non-compliance” to certain ICAO standards or the use of some slangs when they talk on the radio but I’m willing to give them a break because IMHO the rest of the world can’t even come close to their safe efficient ATC system.

BTW, I want to make this clear, I am not criticizing the individual controller here because most are highly professional in my opinion. I even spent 3 years flying out of Paris for a major feeder airline for Air France in the early 90s and thought the French controllers were very good. However I do question Eurocontrol's ability to manage its traffic.


End of my rant!

[Redlands]

Most of my EU mates (French/Germans) understand my English just fine, unless I speak too fast and is harder for them too follow, add an accent (scouse for example), then see the result.

[tdracer]

Strange, the most recent accident I can come up that was directly attributable to ATC was nearly 15 years ago (2002). Knock on wood :rolleyes:


Oh, and it was in Europe (Germany).

[cossack]

My personal best on a single runway 'oop north', was 57 in an hour, one of my colleagues achieved 60, which is still the record, (I believe).

That was a good few years ago now but I still remember that day well from this side of the Atlantic.;)

There are good controllers all over the world but their methods may vary due to local rules and restrictions which are invisible to the pilots.

[misd-agin]

aluminium shuffler - As for the notion that US controllers expect a pilot to listen and know what all the other aircraft are doing, that is entirely the controller's job - they are the ones with surveillance radar and ground movement radar, and a seat and set of windows that aren't attached to a platform they're also controlling moving in three dimensions at a couple of hundred miles per hour... Good pilots will try to build an air picture of the traffic around them in easy conditions, but when the weather is bad or bits are falling off, or they're visiting a field with unduly complex procedures (ie most of the US) for the first time, their focus is going to be somewhat narrower.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expect is the wrong word. Maybe saying "it benefits the pilot to listen to a/c ahead of their aircraft" would be better. It provides basic situational awareness benefits. TCAS has been a wonderful addition to a pilot's SA ability.

[misd-agin]

LHR, LGW, Stansted is approx. 900,000 annual movements. I don't know the traffic at other local airports.


JFK, LGA, EWR, TEB, HPN, ISP, SWF is about 1,750,000 annual movements.


JFK/LGA/EWR are 18 nm apart. 1,170,000 movements. Add in TEB, overflown by EWR arrivals on base leg, and it's 1,340,000 movements.


The LA basin has over 3,000,000 movements.

[Aluminium shuffler]

JetJockey A4, you have just posted your ignorance for all to see.

Firstly, as many have already stated, standards across Europe are not consistent, and there is no "Eurocontrol".

Secondly, there is no VFR in class A airspace, regardless of met conditions.

Thirdly, just because you couldn't see conflicting traffic, the refusal of a climb is not grounds to brand an ATCU inefficient - that conflicting traffic may have been crossing your track in another five minutes - how much would you be complaining if they had permitted your climb and then two minutes issued a descent instruction?

You might want to consider your own professional knowledge and ability before criticising others'.

[Aluminium shuffler]

misd-agin, re post 60, I agree whole heartedly. It is reasonable to expect pilots to try to be aware of what is going on around them, and most of will try to do so, at least the bulk of the experienced ones anyway.

However, I feel that ATC issuing numerous simultaneous landing or take off clearances for the same runway is putting far to great a dependence on that pilot SA, without any way of verify that SA is accurate. It is begging for a collision. WHile there is no excuse for pilots to abdicate all responsibility and let ATC blindly drive them around the skies without working out their own SA and risk assessment, neither is it reasonable for ATC to dump all the workload and SA responsibility on pilots. Both should be working on it.

[The Many Tentacles]

How many aircrafts were going from Zurich to Montreal or from any other departure point within Europe at that time in their airspace? Furthermore, how many of them were climbing directly to FL430 in their airspace and then fly on a random route across the Atlantic to Montreal? Well I can assure you that we never saw anyone near us both laterally and vertically (certainly not above FL400) for the entire flight that would have overloaded their airspace.

This was possibly the best part of your slightly mental rant. It matters not a jot if there were 70 aircraft from Zurich to Montreal or if you were the only one. The reason for a slot change will be a regulation in at least one of the sectors you are due to fly through on your flight plan. It could be in the UK if you were going that way, it could have been in France or it could be that the first en-route sector out of Zurich. It doesn't matter if you wanted big numbers that no one else can reach, you've still got to get through congested and busy airspace to get there.

It means that everyone to any airport that has filed through that bit of airspace will get the delay - we're not just picking on you, although with your tin hat mentality you probably think we are. There's nothing to stop you refiling around the airspace with the regulation.

[deadheader]

Here's a neat ATC time lapse/animation or 3 for anyone interested:

London:
https://vimeo.com/132804154

UK:
https://vimeo.com/111844476

Transatlantic:
https://vimeo.com/98941796

>

LHR, LGW, Stansted is approx. 900,000 annual movements. I don't know the traffic at other local airports.

JFK, LGA, EWR, TEB, HPN, ISP, SWF is about 1,750,000 annual movements.

JFK/LGA/EWR are 18 nm apart. 1,170,000 movements. Add in TEB, overflown by EWR arrivals on base leg, and it's 1,340,000 movements.

The LA basin has over 3,000,000 movements.

I may have poorly communicated the point I was attempting to make (I suspected you were possibly on the troll tbh!) but I was trying to highlight the fact that IF your previous comment:

The difference in workload in the U.S. ATC system vs. the 'busy' European cities is almost night and day. A 'busy' period overseas is an easy day at work for U.S. based pilots. is true [I'm not certain that it is] then it would tend to suggest that the significantly higher workload to which you refer must be at least be partly the result of procedural differences, as the difference in numbers involved in terms of airspace congestion/traffic, comparing LON to NYC for example, are not exactly "night and day" in my view:

According ACI (Airports Council International), NYC metropolitan area (JFK + EWR + LGA + HPN + ISP + SWF) is the busiest airport system in the world in terms of total flight operations with 1,581,300 annual movements and the 2nd busiest in the world in terms of pax numbers with 121m pax annually.

LON (LHR + LGW + STN + LTN + LCY + SEN) is the 2nd busiest airport system in the world in terms of total flight operations with 1,277,600 annual movements and the busiest airport system in the world in terms of pax numbers with 146m pax annually.

2014 (not including overflights)
LON = 1,277,600 annual movements, 7 runways = ~499 per runway per day
NYC = 1,581,300 annual movements, 17 runways = ~255 per runway per day

Simplistically, NYC ATC is handling ~23% more traffic than LON ATC, so the difference in workload shouldn't be "night and day" and if it is, it can't logically be solely the result of the increased traffic volume. One might even argue the workload in LON ought to be greater to some extent, given the traffic distribution/substantially higher number of movements per runway.

All just IMHO of course... and notwithstanding that I may have misunderstood your post entirely!

All the best.

[misd-agin]

I'm a fan of London ATC. They do a very good job. But the ops tempo is different. Often night and day. But the controllers are very, very good. But NYC/ORD is a completely different scale.


One of my favorite radio calls from ORD approach in the late 1990's - "I don't HAVE TIME for read backs. Just listen up and DO IT!" And then he started giving non stop clearances for several minutes.


Actual runway availability in the NYC metro area for the airports listed would be 9-12 at any given time. Nine in the worst case, 10-11 the more typical availability.


Imagine dropping 2.3x Stansted's traffic flow between LHR and LGW, 9nm from LHR, and pointing the primary summer departure runway at LHR, and that's the JFK/LGA/EWR setup.


LAX has a better traffic flow. Often one check-in at FL180 and you're cleared to descend via the arrival, cleared the approach, tower at the FAF(expected, not assigned). About a dozen restrictions and speed constraints but it works for traffic from the east. North/west arrivals get dropped off on downwind for 24R(north complex).


The NYC area doesn't have that. As pilots we wonder why but I'm guessing the airspace restrictions, or traffic demands, make it very tough, if not impossible, to automate via STAR's/'descend via' arrivals. On a tough day NYC can be a nice professional challenge.


On Sully's event I immediately recognized the controller's voice. He's one of the very sharp guys. Nice, professional, cool, gets the job done. Non standard RT (oh, the horrors...) but it's not uncommon for U.S. pilots to say "nice job" when you're handed off, especially on tough days. They work hard and do a good job. It was interesting seeing the controller being interviewed and reading about the impact to him in the books that were written after the fact. Find his part of the story, it's interesting reading.

[oicur12.again]

I am a newbie to ATC in the US as a domestic airline pilot. I have flown all over the world including the US on international flights but flying for a local carrier is a totally different animal, especially as a furiner!

My take:

Huge amounts of traffic that move very well. Someone is doing something right.

BUT, there are oddities that have me puzzled:

"climb and maintain", surely the maintain is redundant.
"descend via the star except maintain xxx", I am still getting to used to descent clearances via a star. Why cant it just be descend to xxx with the assumption we will comply with the crossing rerstrictions.
But my fave is clear to land, when you are number 4 in line. They should rephrase it permission to land.


Rant over.

[West Coast]

OIC

That's language used to stop your descent at an altitude above the published one. As in "except maintain 8000". So you'll DV and maintain 8000 instead of continuing the descent below 8000 via the profile.

Here are FAA FAQs regarding climb/descend via clearances. Our airline used this when the procedures were implemented, there might be a more up to date version.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs470/pbn/media/rnav1_rnp1_rnav2/climb_descend_via_faq.pdf

[SeenItAll]

To me, this whole thread seems like a first world willy-waving contest. ATCs in both regions deal with highly complex and highly idiosyncratic challenges. And guess what, the statistical results show that both are beyond extraordinarily successful.

While I am sure that there are possibly improvements available for each ATC regime, it is clear that these are likely only to be marginal at best.

As a pax, my hat is off to all participants in both systems. Neither should be slagging at the other -- unless it is just in good humor.

[Check Airman]

And I decide to visit PPRuNE and come upon this thread and I simply had to LOL...

So some are complaining about the ATC system in the USA and how they are not ICAO “standard”…

Well a lot of places in the world are not ICAO “standard” including Europe it seems. However in my opinion there is NOT a better, more efficient and friendly ATC system in the world than the one found in the USA.

They will do their best to accommodate any reasonable demands, from direct routing to wrong way flight levels, to deviations for bad weather, to departure and arrival runway selections to get you on or off the ground as rapidly as possible while remaining safe in their operation.

Eurocontrol is a joke compared to the US ATC system. They can’t even start to think “outside the box”, they are in my opinion inefficient.

Two very recent examples on how inefficient Eurocontrol can be…

#1 - We were flying from southern Spain to LFPB. Both the departure and arrival airport as most of Europe on that day, was under VFR weather condition, actually the Paris area was severe clear. We were given a slot/departure delay of 2 hours by Eurocontrol because the ILS into LFPB was out of commission and this when there was a RNAV/GPS approach to that same runway available.

#2- We were scheduled to leave Zurich for Montreal at 17H00 local (with a Zurich airport slot for that time). We ask for start-up and Zurich advised us that Eurocontrol had just imposed us a slot for 18H30 local, a 90 minute delay for no apparent reason. Eurocontrol can override any airport's own slot system which is counter productive in my opinion. Why in this day and age, can they not communicate with each other and coordinate a departure slot and an airway/ATC slot.

How many aircrafts were going from Zurich or that general area of Europe to Montreal at that time? Furthermore, how many of them were climbing directly to FL430 (initial climb) in Europe's airspace and then fly on a random route across the Atlantic to Montreal? I cannot believe that ATC could not accommodate another aircraft for an on time departure, especially one that was above 99% of all aircrafts in their airspace.

In all my flying years, I have NEVER experienced this kind of nonsense in the USA (or the UK) from their ATC system unless it was severe weather or an emergency at a departure or arrival airport.

Are the Americans perfect? No they are not, but I can say the same of many other ATC systems in the rest of the world. There are far worst places in the world where I think safety issues need to be addressed before even thinking the US system is unsafe.

You folks can go on ranting all you want about the US ATC system because of their “non-compliance” to certain ICAO standards or the use of some slangs when they talk on the radio but I’m willing to give them a break because IMHO the rest of the world can’t even come close to their safe efficient ATC system.

BTW, I want to make this clear, I am not criticizing the individual controller here because most are highly professional in my opinion. I even spent 3 years flying out of Paris for a major feeder airline for Air France in the early 90s and thought the French controllers were very good. However I do question Eurocontrol's ability to manage its traffic.


End of my rant!

Delays on a clear day because the ILS was OTS? Doesn't make sense. Isn't arrival rate higher with visual approaches?

[Aluminium shuffler]

Check - most big EU airports don't generally mix visuals with instrument apps, partly as it introduces too many variables and would reduce flow rate if a pilot creates different spacing on a visual than ATC anticipated, but mostly because the EU doesn't enjoy the positive attitude towards aviation that the US does, and residents and authorities are itching to punish crews and airlines for noise violations. ATC are very restricted as a resulting in the routings they can offer in many airports. Besides, EU airlines tend to be highly procedural, at least with heavies (a whole other cultural discussion that has been had many times!). The smaller airports with medium jets and regionals are a bit more flexible as their arrival rates are low enough that ATC can correct for such cases. However, given the inaccuracies already pointed out in his post, I wouldn't credit his claim of the delays being due to the ILS with much reliability.

[kcockayne]

SeenItAll is totally correct, in my opinion. Sane, common sense & factually correct answer. There is no point comparing ATCOS in Europe & USA. The job & its idiosyncrasies are very different. All, in general, do a fine job.
I would only criticize the US "clear to land", when that is clearly not the case. However, I have never worked there & do not fully understand the thinking behind it.
Keep up the good work !

[4468]

Was in JFK recently, listening to a controller literally 'barking' at a/c. My colleague said it sounded like ATC didn't really like aeroplanes. A bit like a teacher who hates kids!

Was hilarious!

[Hotel Tango]

Was in JFK recently, listening to a controller literally 'barking' at a/c.

:) That's just New Yorkers' natural way of speaking! ;)

[vector4fun]

Speaking as a 30 yr retired US controller, commercial pilot and flight instructor....

Several people here have seemed to imply that US controllers pass on all responsibility for separation to the pilots by issuing advance landing clearances. Nothing could be further from the truth. If separation doesn't exist when #2 crosses the threshold, the controller is still charged with an error, even if #2 had him in sight since they left Omaha. It becomes a shared responsibility, and allows the following crew some flexibility in adjusting spacing instead of forcing the controller to micro-manage every speed reduction. (Visual approaches) Regardless of the rules in use, I assume the crew of a following aircraft would use good judgment in assessing their spacing with the aircraft ahead.

Point #2, 50,000 flights per day, 18+ million per year, while no doubt the occasional misjudgment occurs, advance landing clearances are way, way down the list of potential hazards you'll face.

I did it for 30 years as a controller, been flying for 40 years, never been violated or had an issue at a towered field. If you want to see chaos try a fly-in BBQ on a nice Saturday at a non-towered field over here.....

[Pratt X 3]

Not to be pedantic or anything but isn't it "Cleared to Land" as in "You have clearance to Land" and not "The runway is clear for you to land" as "Clear to Land" would suggest? The former would be ATC's part of the exchange and the latter would be the pilots' responsibility. Just as "Cleared for the approach" can be issued to more than one aircraft at a time, "Cleared to Land" shouldn't be much different.

[kcockayne]

Pratt X 3
Cannot agree with your point, I'm afraid. It was always stressed (& still is) when training in UK ATC, that the phrase " clear to land " meant exactly, & ONLY that. As I said before, I do not have experience of US ATC & it's nuances, & therefore cannot properly criticize its use of this phrase in the circumstances in which it is used; but, to my mind, I cannot justify its use in relation to more than one aircraft on the same, or crossing, runways at the same time.
A UK landing clearance relates to only one a/c at a time ( meaning that it is actually clear for that a/c alone to land). By definition, it cannot be physically possible for another a/c to be able to land on the same or crossing runway at the same time. I struggle to understand how such a clearance can be given to more than one a/c simultaneously. The only exception is a "land after"; & that can only be given to one other a/c AFTER the first a/c HAS landed.
Maybe the same desired effect of the US multiple landing clearance could be achieved by the use of a different ( non- confusing ) phraseology. As I have said, I won't criticise US ATC for this usage without understanding why it uses it. But, it does not seem to be a desirable practice to me.

[West Coast]

By definition, it cannot be physically possible for another a/c to be able to land on the same or crossing runway at the same time. I struggle to understand how such a clearance can be given to more than one a/c simultaneously. The only exception is a "land after"; & that can only be given to one other a/c AFTER the first a/c HAS landed.

Perhaps your definition doesn't allow, ours does. By the time I cross threshold, the previous aircraft is off or the appropriate separation exists. If not, then the controller sends the aircraft around/missed approach.

It works just fine. What it is, is different than what many of your countrymen are used to, therefore it's wrong.

The system hasn't failed me so far in many, many thousands of hours flying to 7 of the 10 busiest airports in the world.When I've crossed threshold, all was good. A few times it wasn't, the controller took action. Now without doubt, you're about to hear (likely apocryphal) stories otherwise. Like all systems, its not perfect, but it works well.

My preference is to get the clearance early and not on short final possibly. Others may prefer otherwise. Doesn't make one right and the other wrong.

[MarkerInbound]

Cannot agree with your point, I'm afraid. It was always stressed (& still is) when training in UK ATC, that the phrase " clear to land " meant exactly, & ONLY that. As I said before, I do not have experience of US ATC & it's nuances, & therefore cannot properly criticize its use of this phrase in the circumstances in which it is used; but, to my mind, I cannot justify its use in relation to more than one aircraft on the same, or crossing, runways at the same time.

The FAA publishes a Pilot/Controller Glossary. It says under CLEARED TO LAND - "ATC authorization for an aircraft to land. It is predicated on known traffic and known physical airport conditions."

[westhawk]

Just to reiterate the point clearly, "Cleared to Land" means you are authorized to land. (in FAA land) It does NOT imply in any way that the runway is clear. It only means that you have received the required landing clearance. One cannot legally take off or land without an ATC "clearance" to do so at airports with an operating control tower.

Some words and phrases mean different things depending upon where you are. In the USA, "cleared to land" means you have received the required authorization to do so. It does NOT mean, or even imply that the runway is presently "clear".

westhawk

[SINGAPURCANAC]

One of my favorite radio calls from ORD approach in the late 1990's - "I don't HAVE TIME for read backs. Just listen up and DO IT!" And then he started giving non stop clearances for several minutes.


that is everything but safe. :{

Read back is mandatory not optional features. ;)

I do believe that USA ATC system is good ( otherwise they wouldn't have been able to deal with the traffic level ) but others all around world are also good, in their traffic levels and so on.

It will be definitely better for USA to take fresh blood ,from other countries, as well send their people to watch and learn from others. Maybe they see something new,interesting and better practice.

East Germans, also believed that they were best. Until someone broke iron curtain.
any similarity with USA believes and ideas are purely fictitious. :E;)

[kcockayne]

Well, it seems that this controversy is all down to a difference in what the meaning & understanding of "clear to land" actually is in two different ATC cultures.
In the UK, the phrase means that the a/c is physically CLEAR to land. That is, NO obstacles to the a/c doing so. In the US, it simply means that the a/c MIGHT be clear to land - all things being equal at the time that the actual landing is to take place !
However, I believe that the US practice leaves a lot to be desired, particularly in a "legal" i.e. The Law, situation following an incident occurring as a result of the confusion which this procedure so obviously leaves itself open to. In this regard, I think that the US ATC authority & its ATCOS are exposing themselves to possible litigation & criminal legal cases.
Be that as it may, if "clear to land" is used as a perfunctory response to a mundane situation (eg. A sequence of a/c approaching to land), & has actually no relevance to a safe landing scenario & clearance, WHAT is the practical use of employing the term ?
Surely,& bearing in mind that ATC can alter this "clearance", should the need later arise, it would be better to employ a different "perfunctory" response to the landing sequence in the first place. Therein preserving the "sanctity" of "clear to land".

[West Coast]

The sanctity of clear to land is ensured by the controller if separation doesn't exist.

You're trying to apply your beliefs based on your preferences to another system that works quite well with extreme traffic levels.

[Rananim]

N.American ATCC is the best in the world.Euro ATC also damn good.Just different.One or two yank TCA's could be a little more patient and speak slower for the Chinese,thats true enough.Theres always room for improvement.But some of these pilots from far-flung places(china,Korea,latin america) dont even have level IV.Is it the pot calling the kettle black?

[macdo]

Just my take on this.
US ATC is generally brilliant, but I notice two things which can be a problem at some airports which are very busy. One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors.

[vector4fun]

One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors.

True enough. Unfortunately, after around 1990 or so, I was no longer allowed to rap them on the head with a strip holder to reinforce the lesson.

[AC560]

My experience outside the US is limited to Canada and the Caribbean but I have to say I really don't see what the issue is with Airline XYZ cleared to land #2 following an A320.

As West Coast points out unless ATC is assured separation in his mind and he is assured you are clear in your mind that you have separation visually by accepting the clearance. There is nothing that stops you from saying "traffic not in sight" or something to the effect and they work with you on next steps.

I can appreciate it isn't compliant with ICAO but I really don't get the safety implications. There are something like 50 million tower operations a year in the US and the last incident somewhat related to the topic I can think of was in LA 25yrs ago (USAir/Skywest).

English proficiency or propensity to use the local language mixed with English on frequency is a lot more dangerous to me than some minor ICAO differences. In any case this all seems to be a lot about nothing as the accident rates globally are so insignificant, why fix what isn't broken.

[jmmoric]

7.9.2 Clearance to land

An aircraft may be cleared to land when there is reasonable
assurance that the separation in 7.9.1, or prescribed in accord-
ance with 7.10 will exist when the aircraft crosses the runway
threshold, provided that a clearance to land shall not be issued
until a preceding landing aircraft has crossed the runway
threshold. To reduce the potential for misunderstanding, the
landing clearance shall include the designator of the landing
runway.

The above is from DOC4444...

So if you get the clearance when the preceeding is passing the threshold, or as number 4, is there a big difference? The ATCO will always keep an eye out for whats happening, and intervene if things get to tight.

[peekay4]

It is called "anticipated separation" which is perfectly fine for both departures and arrivals.

FAA Order 7110.65W:
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 crosses the landing threshold. Issue traffic
information to the succeeding aircraft if a preceding
arrival has not been previously reported and when
traffic will be departing prior to their arrival.

EXAMPLE−

“American Two Forty−Five, Runway One−Eight, cleared
to land, number two following a United Seven−Thirty−
Seven two mile final. Traffic will depart prior to your
arrival.”

b. Anticipating separation must not be applied
when conducting LUAW operations, except as
authorized in paragraph 3−10−5b2. Issue applicable
traffic information when using this provision.

[misd-agin]

"Just my take on this.
US ATC is generally brilliant, but I notice two things which can be a problem at some airports which are very busy. One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors."




1. I agree on the comment about vernacular. IMO U.S. ATC needs to 'tighten up' their communication to non English native speakers.


2. Why can't a heavy do the same approach a 737 can? The only really challenging one's are the DCA River Visual 19 and w/b's don't fly there. The LGA Expressway Visual is a blast if flown correctly, especially in a w/b.

[Victor Mike]

OK, trying to keep out of the 'My ATC is better than yours debate', as lets face it there are a lot of parts of the world that could do with improvement, and the Dutch probably win the award for best ATC in a non native language.
I would be interested to hear from controllers who have worked in other countries - I know there is a Brit that works Toronto, and a Spaniard at LHR - what do they think is better/worse?

[cossack]

Ex-brit in Toronto.;)

Re: Multiple landing clearances.

In Canada it is a little different again to what was quoted above from the 7110.65. In the US example a landing clearance can be issued to an arriving aircraft when it is not number one to land and there is an intervening departure ahead also. In Canada multiple landing clearances are only issued with reference to arriving traffic. A landing clearance will not be issued with reference to a departure until the departure is rolling and the controller believes that it will be airborne before the arrival crosses the beginning of the runway. The responsibility for separation rests with the controller.

Extensive surveys have taken place logging thousands of movements to obtain accurate runway occupancy times (ROT). If a ROT for a runway is demonstrated to be 50 seconds or less the runway will be approved for 2.5 mile arrival spacing. It is permissible, however, that aircraft on visual approaches will be closer than that. On this side of the pond the onus for separation (and wake turbulence avoidance) on a visual approach is the pilot's unlike in the UK where the controller is still responsible.

This is why airports here can have very high arrival acceptance rates in good weather which fall when visuals are not possible and fall further when it goes less than 3SM and/or 1000'.

What is wrong with using years of experience and your skill to separate aircraft? You're either cleared to land or you're not. There is no confusion, unlike the UK's "land after", "after the landed, cleared to land", "land after the departing". How is a non-native crew supposed to make head or tail of the nuances between these and know what his responsibilities are? Have some of these now been removed from use? If so, why?

If you're a radar controller and you have two aircraft on converging headings and wish to climb one through the other, do you parallel them off to make sure they can never come close or do you use your experience and skill to decide whether the climb through can be completed in time? Is that not a form of anticipated separation?

I don't think its a case of better or worse, its just different. We all have different rules to work with, be it our ATC rules or noise abatement. I could clear an aircraft for take off every 30-40 seconds and move 100 departures an hour but that would take an ideal world, which we just don't live in. If things are done differently, its usually for a reason but the reason may not be apparent to the user so having the user saying ATC at ABC is way better than at XYZ is about as valid as us saying pilots at CBA are better than pilots at ZYX.

[kcockayne]

Cossack ( & others)
I agree with all that you say. The controller uses his experience & separates the traffic. No argument. Nor do I criticise the ATC service provided. It obviously works ! Also, there is no intention to compare US & European ATC in a competetive way.
My point is, perhaps, on the semantics. Why use a phrase which is used NOT according to its meaning, & which is used in a purely perfunctory & meaningless capacity - as I see it.
Why not use a different phrase, which has no element of possible confusion attached to it, instead ?

[peekay4]

Why not use a different phrase, which has no element of possible confusion attached to it, instead ?

"Clear" in this context means having "clearance" (authorization) for an action:


(Merriam-Webster)

clearance noun clear·ance \ˈklir-ən(t)s\

1: an act or process of clearing: as
f : authorization for an aircraft to proceed especially with a specified action <clearance to land>


When ATC clears you for an IFR flight from JFK to LAX, that does not mean that at that very moment all airspace between NY and Los Angeles is physically clear for your flight. Rather, it is only an authorization for you to proceed according to the clearance.

Similarly, the phrase "number two, cleared to land" does not mean that the runway at that very moment is physically clear, but instead is an authorization to land after the preceding aircraft.

[kcockayne]

peekay4

Good point on your first comment. No argument on that one.
On the second point, I'm not so sure. I think that a lot more rides on the "clear to land" statement than on the "clear to destination". However, I cannot disagree that this, second clearance, does also infer that it is physically "clear" to proceed to destination.
I shall have to think long & hard on this !

[Lonewolf_50]

Well, it seems that this controversy is all down to a difference in what the meaning & understanding of "clear to land" actually is in two different ATC cultures.
Not meaning to mince words, but "cleared to land" or "clear to land" means that landing clearance has been granted. It is simpler than to say "you have permission to land" which is also what it means, and also that as of the time of clearance being granted, the landing can be expected to be made safely. The ATC will not issue the clearance if there is reason to believe that the landing area/runway is not safe to land on.

In between the time that clearance is granted, and the wheels touch down, any number of things may arise (vehicle on runway, plane makes mistake and taxis on runway, something else) which may render a landing unsafe. Whomever first notices this needs to take action and communicate such, at which time landing clearance (permission) can be revoked, and a go around executed/called for.


(In summary, peekay4 said about the same thing differently, but since it seems to you confusing, maybe having it put another way helps).

[Geosync]

Just to add a little twist, the lawyers have come out in full force againt ATC in that Cessna 172/Saberliner midair in San Diego last summer-

Suits blame traffic control in fatal plane crash
San Diego Union-Tribune (CA) (Published: 9-Jan 2016 5:02, Received: 5:02:28)
By Dana Littlefield, The San Diego Union-Tribune
Word Count: 561
Jan. 09--SAN DIEGO -- The families of those killed in a plane collision near Otay Mesa have filed lawsuits blaming the air traffic controllers for clearing both planes to land at Brown Field and allowing them to fly too close.

The latest wrongful-death lawsuit was filed last week by the family of Michael A. Copeland, a 55-year-old Qualcomm executive from San Diego who was the sole occupant of a single-engine Cessna 172 that collided with a twin-engine Sabreliner jet on Aug. 16 above the small airport.

All four people on the jet were also killed.

Copeland's widow, Kathleen, and two adult children contend that New Jersey-based Serco Inc. -- which contracts with the U.S. government to provide air traffic control services at Brown Field -- and a manager at the airport's control tower were negligent because the air traffic controllers failed to keep the two aircraft a safe distance apart.

The San Diego Superior Court suit also blames Maryland-based BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, which owned and operated the Saberliner.

The pilot of the jet, Jeffrey Percy, 41, of the Mojave area, was a BAE employee. His co-pilot James Hale, 66, of Adelanto, was a contract employee for BAE. They were testing radar for the Navy on their flight.

Attorney David S. Casey Jr. , who represents the Copeland family, has said the control tower communicated with the pilots of both planes before the crash.

"We tragically learned that they made miscommunications," Casey said, explaining that both aircraft had been cleared to land at the airport, and that Copeland had been cleared to perform "touch and go" maneuvers in the Cessna.

The attorney said Copeland would not have been able to see the jet, which was flying above and behind the Cessna at a higher speed.

"Michael Copeland had no idea that another plane was coming at him," Casey said.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.

Serco spokesman Alan Hill said in a statement Friday that the company continues to support and cooperate fully with the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation and Safety Board as investigators work to understand the cause of the collision.

In a similar statement, BAE Systems spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said: "BAE Systems employees continue to mourn the loss of all of those killed in this tragic accident. We continue to support the investigation and because it is ongoing, we cannot comment further."

Other lawsuits related to the fatal collision make similar claims against Serco.

Hale's family filed a lawsuit against the company in November, while Percy's family filed one against Serco and the airport's control tower manager in December. The family of a passenger in the jet, John Kovach, 35, of the Mojave area, filed a lawsuit against the company in December.

The widow and teenage son of Carlos Palos, 40, also a Mojave area resident and the other passenger in the Saberliner, filed a lawsuit in September against Percy's and Copeland's estates as well as the Cessna's owner, Plus One Flyers.

That lawsuit has been dismissed, but Copeland's attorney said he expects it to be filed again with Serco named as the defendant.

Staff writer Kristina Davis contributed to this report.

[oggers]

Having flown in both Europe and the USA quite extensively I find the US system to be slick, accessible, flexible, efficient and safe. It is most definitely not in fundamental need of change.