"Expect late landing clearance"

[good egg]

Chaps/Chappesses
I'm just curious about above phraseology (sometimes used by ATC in UK - I know in other countries they're perfectly happy to clear you to land as number 2,3,4,5 etc). Is it helpful in any way to you at the pointy-end?
Obviously in "good" weather it may seem pointless as you can probably see the reason (although at my unit the reason should also be stated, regardless of weather)...but what does it mean to you? I.e. What do you regard as a "late" landing clearance? Inside a mile from touchdown/half a mile/100ft from runway/50ft??

[Intruder]

I'd call anything below 1000' (inside 3 miles) as "late". Usually, those calls are explained further, e.g., "Continue approach. One departure before you, expect late landing clearance." Depending on the approach type and weather, I may or may not be able to see the runway to gauge the immediacy of the threat, so I may decide to go around sooner rather than later. If I see the departure airplane rolling, but have not received clearance, I may take it down to 100 or 50'. If it's still turning onto the runway, I may go around at 500 or 200'.

[oceancrosser]

Yes, too frequent at LHR. I have had landing clearance given to me under 100ft with someone which we could perfectly see late to clear the runway.
The French came to their senses (unbelievably) and issue consecutive landing clearances at CDG, but the English still have their heads buried firmly in the sand. :ugh:

(Taking cover for incomings..)

[AerocatS2A]

I'd call later than 500' late. It is useful because it prevents us from piping up and asking one just as you're giving it to us.

[good egg]

I'd call later than 500' late. It is useful because it prevents us from piping up and asking one just as you're giving it to us.

Interesting...would the same be true at a steep approach airport (say 5.5 degrees rather than standard 3 degrees)?

[B737900er]

Chaps/Chappesses
I'm just curious about above phraseology (sometimes used by ATC in UK - I know in other countries they're perfectly happy to clear you to land as number 2,3,4,5 etc). Is it helpful in any way to you at the pointy-end?
Obviously in "good" weather it may seem pointless as you can probably see the reason (although at my unit the reason should also be stated, regardless of weather)...but what does it mean to you? I.e. What do you regard as a "late" landing clearance? Inside a mile from touchdown/half a mile/100ft from runway/50ft??

In VMC condition im willing to take it to 100' above TDZE if I can see the aircraft turning off the runway, if not G/A.
In IMC if I hear nothing at minima its a go around.

[STBYRUD]

Flying into busy US airports gives the whole thing perspective... There in VMC everyone and their dog is cleared to land at once, if the guy in front of you doesn't vacate in time tower might tell you to go-around (or more likely you'll do it yourself before they notice) - I'd like to be cleared in Europe somewhere around 100-200 feet, not a fan of touch-and-go-arounds.

[seen_the_box]

In IMC if I hear nothing at minima its a go around.


That doesn't make any sense. IFR minima has absolutely nothing to do with receiving a landing clearance. Surely if you're still "IMC" (i.e. not visual") at minimum, you're going to go around anyway?

[TypeIV]

I think it's good CRM where the tower lets you know that he/she hasn't forgotten about you and that everything (hopefully) is under control. Most countries allow time until the threshold. I think that the UK allows time until touchdown.

If you like your landing clearences early, you should stay away from Gatwick :E

[oicur12.again]

"Flying into busy US airports gives the whole thing perspective... There in VMC everyone and their dog is cleared to land at once"

I have always been suspect of the practice of "clearing" aircraft to land, as per the practice in the US. Perhaps it should be "permission" to land as you are certainly not "clear" if you have several landers in front of you.

Listening to the BA 777 LAS fire ATC recording is interesting. The controller, having cleared EVERYONE to land, then has to unclear everyone to land and issue go around instructions. TWICE she stepped on the BA 777 pilot trying to transmit a mayday call.

I cant help thinking that had non FAA procedures been in use, namely clearing aircraft to land only when it is ACTUALLY clear to land, then the radio waves would have been free for more important dialogue as non cleared aircraft would simply fly the missed approach sans landing clearance.

[B737900er]

That doesn't make any sense. IFR minima has absolutely nothing to do with receiving a landing clearance. Surely if you're still "IMC" (i.e. not visual") at minimum, you're going to go around anyway?

If your flying at Cat 1 minima i.e 550m with a low cloud base,then you may not necessarily see the end of the runway where matey boy can still be turning off.

Where in a >10km day you can see matey boy turning off but still infringing the runway. So you continue past minima knowing he will be cleared in time. Happens a lot at the big boy airports.

[RAT 5]

If you like your landing clearences early, you should stay away from Gatwick

Been there done that years ago. It was almost the standard at rush hour. One land, one line up - roll- takeoff, one land ad infinitum. 150-200' landing clearance was normal, but advised. I thought ATC had made the calculation that 160/4 or 170/5, whatever is flavour of the month, was to allow max rate from single runways so that landing & takeoffs dovetailed perfectly. The odd slow one to get going caused a hiccup and a very late clearance was better than a GA.
What happened to the "one on, land after" clearance/experiment/procedure?

I too was taken by surprise on my first visit to JFK to be told "speed 180, No.5, cleared to land." I surmised that ATC were treating us like adult captains and were allowed to make the decision over the lights that we considered the runway suitable to land on. Given that ATC was like a rapper on acid there is no way you could make a call and no way did they have time to keep up with all the chess pieces converging on the 'king' and make last minute last minute (to them) spurious calls. Get them out of the way ASAP.
I wondered some times at UK ATC. They would call you to GA at 300' just because someone was slow to clear and by 100' they were cleared. Why can't the captains make that decision? What is the opinion about ATC calling GA's in VMC if the crew consider it unnecessary? They can't close an airfield for weather, unless the runway is out of use; they can't ban you from making an approach.

[Intruder]

FAA AIM Article 5-2-4 indicates a go-around is mandatory if another airplane is on the runway:NOTE−
ATC will normally withhold landing clearance to arrival aircraft when another aircraft is in position and holding on the runway.
i. Never land on a runway that is occupied by another aircraft, even if a landing clearance was issued. Do not hesitate to ask the controller about the traffic on the runway and be prepared to execute a go−around.
Since the pilot in command has the final responsibility to ensure compliance, a go-around is in order whenever that PIC believes the required separation will not be maintained.

There is no firm rule on when to initiate such a go-around. In some cases it may be prudent to go around from the flare if an airplane's tail has not yet cleared the runway ahead. In low-visibility situations, an earlier go-around would be prudent.

[chimbu warrior]

Listening to the BA 777 LAS fire ATC recording is interesting. The controller, having cleared EVERYONE to land, then has to unclear everyone to land and issue go around instructions. TWICE she stepped on the BA 777 pilot trying to transmit a mayday call.

I cant help thinking that had non FAA procedures been in use, namely clearing aircraft to land only when it is ACTUALLY clear to land, then the radio waves would have been free for more important dialogue as non cleared aircraft would simply fly the missed approach sans landing clearance.

I too prefer the "..expect late landing clearance.." method (which frequently occurs in Australia too) as I am then a little more primed for a go-around. My experience is that the US method of issuing landing clearances to multiple aircraft on approach engenders complacency, and in the event that a go-around is necessary (as described in the LAS case) a critical transmission could be blocked.

[Check Airman]

I completely understand the apprehension someone may feel when hearing "cleared to land, number 3", but after working in he system for a bit, it just feels normal, like driving on the "wrong" side of the road :)

If you consider that 8 of the 10 busiest airports in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world's_busiest_airports_by_aircraft_movements) are in the US, there is an advantage to the system. You contact tower, and he clears you to land, using anticipated separation. Elsewhere, the controller would have to monitor the number 1 aircraft, until it vacates the runway- this must be more work for the controller, who may have other duties (transitioning VFR aircraft, helicopters, ground frequency etc).

I imagine it results in fewer transmissions, and works quite well 99% of the time.

Listening to the BA 777 LAS fire ATC recording is interesting. The controller, having cleared EVERYONE to land, then has to unclear everyone to land and issue go around instructions. TWICE she stepped on the BA 777 pilot trying to transmit a mayday call.

In the case of the BA incident at LAS, even if the airplanes weren't cleared to land, the controller would still have had to issue GA instructions to the aircraft on final, using the same phraseology (GA, fly heading xxx, maintain xxxx ft).

[oicur12.again]

"even if the airplanes weren't cleared to land, the controller would still have had to issue GA instructions to the aircraft on final, using the same phraseolog"

Why, wouldn't a lack of landing clearance result in an automatic go around and an automatic following of the published missed approach?

[oicur12.again]

"Elsewhere, the controller would have to monitor the number 1 aircraft, until it vacates the runway"

Isn't that the precise intent behind the term "clear to land". This is why I think it should be rephrased to "permission" to land as it has not been checked to be clear as the controller "has other duties".

[Natstrackalpha]

Talking of late landings or holding things up . . . I was just about to turn off at the desired exit when I was told to hold - so I stopped. There was also a chappy coming in behind me but well back probable 3 miles or more - he kept asking ATC if I was going to clear and ATC said that I was . . ok. I looked behind us and I could see said aeroplane getting closer and closer and wondered WHIH but stood there like a lost sheep. Eventually the concerned landing decided to go around - thank F -and I was asked if I was holding to which I replied that I was - and further questioned as to the reason of said hold to which I replied - "you told me to hold" - which was followed by "ah, ih, nu, ah meant . . okay, continue to the parking area. . " - at which point I continued to the parking area.

Thank the Lord for Go Arounds. I know, I know, sometimes it pays not to do as you are told - the first time that happens there will be a sound. Some dudes were cleared to an NDB once and even given a turn to get to it - it was on the other side of the mountain, they were in a 73 at the time. Its a bugger this flying is sometimes.

[Check Airman]

"even if the airplanes weren't cleared to land, the controller would still have had to issue GA instructions to the aircraft on final, using the same phraseolog"

Why, wouldn't a lack of landing clearance result in an automatic go around and an automatic following of the published missed approach?


No. The controller isn't going to let you happily continue down to some arbitrary altitude before deciding to GA.

Let's take your scenario, where you're on final without a landing clearance, you're not just going to sit there in silence, are you? You'll call and ask if you're cleared to land, at which time, the controller will tell you to GA.

[Check Airman]

"Elsewhere, the controller would have to monitor the number 1 aircraft, until it vacates the runway"

Isn't that the precise intent behind the term "clear to land". This is why I think it should be rephrased to "permission" to land as it has not been checked to be clear as the controller "has other duties".
I get what you're saying, but the way it seems to work, is that the controller lets the well oiled machine almost run itself, only interjecting when necessary.

At some busy airports here (even the class D airports), it's not uncommon to land and switch to ground without specifically being told to do so. Even so, when told to call ground, you'll typically hear "contact ground point eight".

The system is set up for efficiency, and it works well. Again, I can easily see how someone who has never flown in the US can think that it's dangerously unorthodox, but it does work.

[galaxy flyer]

Oicur,

Following the published miss will work for the first go; less so for numbers 2-5. Also if they are running converging runways, it will get real dicey.

GF

[RAT 5]

Scenario: STN. A/C lined up and given takeoff clearance. He is tardy and is taking a long time. (we've heard stories about no cabin secure etc.) ATC says to a/c on finals, "continue, expect late landing clearance." All seems fine. ATC gets nervous and at 200' calls a G/A just as ground traffic starts to roll. The GA route stops at 3000' and is exactly the same as the SID which stops at 4000'.
What would you do? is the question on the ATC exam paper.

[Intruder]

You go around. If you can keep the other airplane in sight, do so. If you pass him and/or lose sight, tell Tower so he can give both of you vectors as necessary.

[TypeIV]

Scenario: STN. A/C lined up and given takeoff clearance. He is tardy and is taking a long time. (we've heard stories about no cabin secure etc.) ATC says to a/c on finals, "continue, expect late landing clearance." All seems fine. ATC gets nervous and at 200' calls a G/A just as ground traffic starts to roll. The GA route stops at 3000' and is exactly the same as the SID which stops at 4000'.
What would you do? is the question on the ATC exam paper.

I would go around and maybe deliberately offset the track to keep the traffic in sight if VMC, there's still a possibility for the rolling traffic to reject the takeoff.

Bleeds off and climb like I mean it to 4000ft and convince traffic below to level off at 3000 or before.

[good egg]

Thanks for replies so far :)

Another query....
Let's assume other protocols are in place for low visibility operations...in VMC is there a limit in your SOPs where if you see the runway is still blocked you would perform a missed approach? If so, is this below your minima? (I'm thinking about CAT I approaches btw)

[RAT 5]

Has "one on, land after" been cancelled?

[good egg]

No, you've been told "expect late landing clearance, departure ahead"

[good egg]

So, provided you're also provided with a reason why (e.g. Departure ahead) are you in favour of "Expect late landing clearance [reason]" or would you prefer "Continue approach [reason]" ???