"Expect late landing clearance"

[good egg]

Chaps/chapesses
Just curious about the above phrase and how it's used at various units...
IF you use it is it defined in your MATS 2? What is your cut-off point? E.g. Landing clearance will be given when inbound is, say, inside 1nm final
(If you're bold enough to add airfield that'd be great, if not no sweat)

[2 sheds]

A fairly meaningless phrase IMO - certainly no authority in MATS 1 or CAP413.


2 s

[fujii]

Some controllers use it as "padding" when they are running it tight but it is a bit of a "feel good" phrase. It would only be used in visual conditions in which aircrews can see if the RWY is still occupied. If you feel you must say something, try "continue approach, 737 (or whatever) departing/vacating."

[Jwscud]

It lowers the blood pressure on the flight deck as one gets the sense the controller has a plan.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Also, by saying it slowly the frequency is occupied so you don't reach a critical stage when someone comes on with his life story!

[NudgingSteel]

Anecdotally I believe at least one airport / major airline considers there's a risk of expectation bias when this phrase is used - leading the crew into expecting a landing clearance. I stand to be corrected, but didn't the thinking for crews used to be: expect a go-around until offered the runway by way of a landing clearance?

[good egg]

I tend to agree with most of the comments so far...I much prefer saying something like "continue approach, [reason]" e.g. [departure ahead/routine runway inspection in progress].
I can't agree with you HD, in my mind less R/T is better...yes, at times you need to control the R/T but superfluous waffle makes no sense to me.
Getting back to original question though...does your MATS 2 require you to say it, if so when?

[Gonzo]

It's a pretty meaningless phrase to be honest, and we don't use it.

'Continue approach, one to vacate' or similar is much more descriptive and also does not lead the flight crew into confirmation bias.

[Captain Spam Can]

As a Pilot at a large 'southern' airport I quite like it, as mentioned earlier on, it tells me that the controller has a plan and I can relax a bit, I can fly down a lot lower without worrying so much about going around as I know...there is a plan....hopefully! :E

[chevvron]

As a retired controller now operating as a FISO, I wish we could use something similar.
At small or medium sized ATC airports, you could always use 'land after' if all the conditions are fulfilled; I used to use both of these at Farnborough although some of my colleagues would rather issue a 'go-around'' and not use either, don't know why, lack of confidence in themselves and the pilots maybe?.

[ZOOKER]

"Expect late landing clearance", surely means that traffic is light.
"Expect very late landing clearance", means 'it's going a bit', however the ANSP's movement-rate contract with the aerodrome authority is probably being fulfilled. :E

[blissbak]

If you really want to improve the situational awareness why don't you tell the crew what's going on (departure in progress, RWY inspection, bulls running on the strip, naked girls on the aiming point ... ) , otherwise just say nothing but "continue the approach" .

[Gonzo]

The trouble with 'expect late landing clearance' is that it was often used when something like 'I cannot give you landing clearance at this time' would be more appropriate, when the ATCO was thinking 'Ho hum, this is going to be very tight, not sure this will work but I'm not going to throw it away yet'. But what the flight crew heard, and is now thinking, is that 'this ATCO is really switched on and has just told me I'm going to get a landing clearance'.

They are two different mental models.

That's not good.

[fujii]

Then there are crews for whom English is not their first language and hearing a phrase which includes something to do with landing may assume a landing clearance. It has happened to me. "Continue approach" is in Australian phraseology and I assume most others.

That's why "takeoff" is only ever used with a takeoff clearance.

[Tarq57]

As a controller, I only use it when I'm pretty certain a landing clearance will be forthcoming (saving an abort or other somewhat unusual event).

May add a bit of situational awareness or even reassurance for the flight crew/s, and (maybe more important) may prevent someone overshooting needlessly.

[kcockayne]

Heathrow Director makes a very valid point about manipulating the frequency to the Controller's needs. In my experience, this is a very valuable strategy - for the issues that HD mentions. It needs to be used cautiously , though.

[arba]

i am sorry for the OOT question, if a traffic requesting descent .. does the Atco expect him to vacate immediatly or he can wait until the computer's ToD? thanks.

[fujii]

If you request descent, it means you want it now. Here, the controller would expect you to commence descent as soon as possible but not more than one minute. The same if the controller initiates the descent. If the controller has no restrictions and gets in first, the instruction may be preceded by "when ready descend to..." In that case, you can commence descent whenever it suits you or the computer. You could prefix your request with " request descent at (time/distance/place) or if planning ahead the controller may request your descent point.

[Piltdown Man]

This call is for the benefit of the pilot and I think it does the job. It primes us not to ask for a clearance, it tells us that something else is going on, that we haven't been forgotten and most important of all, it now primes us for a go-around. That this phrase doesn't fit in the book doesn't worry me at all.

PM

[error_401]

As a pilot "expect a late landing clearance" triggers several things in me:

- situational awareness. It tells me that for some reason - known or unknown - i will not get my landing clearance right away. Most of the time it is a developing situation. Traffic in front missed the first exit and trundles along on the runway.
- I will PREPARE FOR A GO-AROUND
This phrase implies a limiting factor for a landing clearance which is still there (see above.) So better be up and ready to take action.
- It also tells me that if it works out there is still a reasonable chance for a landing. My thumb is next to the TOGA button nevertheless.
- It also tells me at some airports and in some situations that I have not been forgotten.

IMHO something of a primer to heighten alertness without alarming. For me a very welcome thing as I now know that ATC has a plan and I have my finger ready at the TOGA button.

[2 sheds]

As a pilot "expect a late landing clearance" triggers several things in me
And inclusion of the words "landing clearance" might well trigger something entirely incorrect in the mind of some pilots.

I will PREPARE FOR A GO-AROUND
= you do not really trust (quite rightly) that there will be a landing clearance forthcoming.

- situational awareness. It tells me that for some reason - known or unknown - i will not get my landing clearance right away. Most of the time it is a developing situation. Traffic in front missed the first exit and trundles along on the runway.
Surely "continue approach" (= you cannot yet have the runway) plus e.g. "737 to vacate" is far more pertinent for situational awareness?

2 s

[Gonzo]

error 401

Would your reaction to 'continue approach, one to vacate' be any different?

Cross posted with 2 Sheds......point remains.

As does the fact that we did have occasions where aircraft landed without clearance after being told 'expect late landing clearance'.

[chevvron]

Like the time I was landing on 27L in a Brymon Herald. We had late landing clearance to allow the Link helicopter to cross ahead. The Trident behind us was of course fast catching up and reported OM well before we touched down and was given 'continue'. He made a couple more reports after we touched down and was still given 'continue'. Just before we vacated he reported 'I'm on the deck', 'cleared to land' replied the controller!

[zed3]

I can remember (!) being on the jump seat of a Swissair A310 waiting for takeoff at Manchester more than 20 years ago a KLM B737 on short final being told "expect a late landing clearance"... the, I think it was a 'shed' departed... slowly... and KLM was informed, just flaring... "cleared to land". Those were the days.

[LlamaFarmer]

It has its purpose, I'm sure.

To me, it means, among other things
- the controller is aware that we would have wanted the clearance significantly sooner than we'll get (and that they plan for us to land rather than go around)
- expect a chance of a go around, so I can re-brief the missed approach procedure
- (depending on the reason for late clearance) expect a chance of wake turbulence, either on approach if a landing aircraft, or in the go around if a departing one, or could be an aircraft/vehicle crossing the runway
- gives me and the guy next to me time to consider the plan if we go around (particularly if due to a departing aircraft who will be in our blindspot on the g/a)

[Gonzo]

The pilots in this thread have said that 'expect late landing clearance' has been a trigger to prepare for a go-around.

Perhaps this is what UK-based pilots think about when they hear that phrase. If so then they are second guessing the controller. Which is fine, and they are doing it in the sensible, defensive, way.

Imagine that you do not speak English as a first language. ATC have just told you that you will be getting a landing clearance, just not yet.

And old war stories of giving a landing clearance when the aircraft has already touched down precisely shows the problems resulting from the use of this phraseology. I'm glad to know that things have moved on a bit in terms of safety.

Is it just me?

[fujii]

As this is for me an overseas thread, here's something from your own backyard.

Supplement to CAP 143. Radiotelephony Manual, A Quick Guide to UK Phraseology:"Continue Approach." Repeated in the ICAO "All Clear" R/T Guide.

There is a similar PPPrune thread in the archives from May 2005.

[Hootin an a roarin]

Our manual states that if we cannot issue a landing clearance to an aircraft on approach before 2 miles from touchdown then we should issue "expect a late landing clearance". This may be something historic which needs an update.

[Sillert,V.I.]

IMO "expect late landing clearance" improves SA for all concerned.

If I hear this call when I am the pilot of the preceding aircraft, I will do what I can, consistent with safety, to expedite clearing the runway.

[2 sheds]

Our manual states that if we cannot issue a landing clearance to an aircraft on approach before 2 miles from touchdown then we should issue "expect a late landing clearance". This may be something historic which needs an update. IMO it needs a review and some thought and logic applied.
IMO "expect late landing clearance" improves SA for all concerned.How can it provide situational awareness for the pilot on final if it lacks any information about the relevant traffic situation? The latter would convey what to look for, its probable performance, any speed difference and potential separation/wake turbulence issues. If ATC wants a preceding arrival off the runway pronto, I am sure that there would be an instruction to expedite without the pilot having to interpolate from information to another. As it stands, that nebulous (and totally unofficial) phrase could mean anything, including that ATC is just pushing his/her luck!

2 s

[cossack]

Our manual states that if we cannot issue a landing clearance to an aircraft on approach before 2 miles from touchdown then we should issue "expect a late landing clearance". This may be something historic which needs an update.
In our mixed mode operation we often don't give the departure take off clearance until the arrival is 2 miles from touchdown, so every landing clearance is a late one. If you're the arrival in this situation I expect that you'll get off the runway quickly as the next arrival is depending on it. That's how runway usage of close to 60 an hour is achieved.

I don't use the phrase but I do give situational information. "Continue 767 to depart" or similar.

[good egg]

Regardless of what individual airport limit is (if there is one), would you rather say "Expect late landing clearance [reason]" or the (more standard) "Continue approach [reason]"?
Where [reason] = Departure ahead/departure rolling/one to vacate/inspection in progress...etc., etc

[n.dave]

The bad one is 'zz, land after xx have vacated the runway' and the xx will take all his time to vacate the runway. Don't like it.

[chevvron]

The bad one is 'zz, land after xx have vacated the runway' and the xx will take all his time to vacate the runway. Don't like it.
A 'land after' doesn't require the first aircraft to have vacated before the second touches down.(Unless the rules have changed since I retired!)

[2 sheds]

Quote:
Originally Posted by n.dave http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/575744-expect-late-landing-clearance-2.html#post9319406)
The bad one is 'zz, land after xx have vacated the runway' and the xx will take all his time to vacate the runway. Don't like it.

A 'land after' doesn't require the first aircraft to have vacated before the second touches down.(Unless the rules have changed since I retired!)
Quite so - probably another example where misuse over the years (with associated phraseology) has caused confusion.

2 s

[error_401]

@ Gonzo

Sorry to the late answer, been flying quite a bit lately...

Right - Generally speaking. A dozend reasons to go-around a dozend of things that have to fall into place to land including "cleared to land RWY 36, wind 360/5".

I agree that the optional "continue the approach 737 to vacate" is the better option but not always the reality.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<'zz, land after xx have vacated the runway' >

I never heard that phrase before.... maybe its new?