Should I have been given clearance?

[tobster911]

So, I was doing some solo work yesterday, and on one of my circuits, there was an aircraft ahead of me. He called final, and by the time he was on the ground, I was turning final. I put my call in and was given permission to land, but he hadn't vacated yet. My question is: Should control have given me permission even when the runway was in use, or given another instruction?

NB: He called vacated whilst I was at about 150 feet, fully prepared to do a go around should he have not vacated.

Thank you

[Genghis the Engineer]

We're you cleared to land or "land behind" ?

G

[BackPacker]

I don't know if it's entirely legal, but this happens a lot at my home base. When the controller sees that the preceding aircraft has slowed to a normal taxi pace (so it's not going to go around anymore, or crash, or do something else unexpected) the next aircraft is typically given an instruction along the lines of "PH-ABC, regarding the aircraft on the runway about to vacate, you are cleared to land". So far, it has always worked out fine for me.

[Parson]

It depends what you mean by 'given permission to land' (ie exact wording) and what type of ATC you and the airfield were under.

[Johnm]

In the UK an ATCO but not anFISO can give a "land after" clearance, happens quite a lot on busy days at Gloucester

[piperboy84]

Throw in a few S turns to give some time and space between you and the guy thats clearing

[PA28181]

Well "permission" to land isn't standard phraseology, unless your ATSU was "ATC" then neither permission or clearance was legal, and you as PIC would also be in breach if you elected to land while runway occupied.

[Talkdownman]

We're you cleared to ...... "land behind" ?
No such thing in UK.

[DeltaV]

When I used to fly from a field with ATC and on final with an aircraft on the ground but not yet vacated, I would often be told "continue approach", sometimes with "expect late clearance to land" appended.

[ShyTorque]

The OP did use the term "control" so a "Land after" clearance could, or should have been given. It is perfectly legal, but can be given in daylight hours only.

However, it's the responsibility of the pilot to decide if the landing can be safely made with the runway occupied.

[PA28181]

Come on, you know that the majority here and other forums, constantly refer even to A/G as "control" & "controllers".

(I'll just wait for the flood of "Not me", " I never do", "I know the difference" etc):=;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

No such thing in UK.
Sorry, I meant "land after", typo.

G

[tmmorris]

Does the military version 'clear land, one on' still exist?

[fujii]

I take it from the answers that no tower controllers have contributed. The answer is yes, you may be cleared to land on an occupied runway. Assuming ICAO RWY separation standards, this includes up to Heavy aircraft. The condition is that the departing aircraft must be airborne and past the point where the lander is expected to vacate the RWY before the lander crosses the threshold.

When the weights of the two aircraft are below 7000kg an aircraft may land with the RWY occupied provided certain conditions are met. (Weight of each aircraft, distance between, controller's assessment of risk, backtrack requirement)

This is a simplified version. If cleared to land, a standard will exist when you cross the threshold. If something goes amiss, you'll be sent around or you may initiate your own go around.

[ShyTorque]

Come on, you know that the majority here and other forums, constantly refer even to A/G as "control" & "controllers".

(I'll just wait for the flood of "Not me", " I never do", "I know the difference" etc):=;)
I trust you don't include me in that bracket. I answered the OP's question without prejudice, as per what was written.

[PA28181]

I trust you don't include me in that bracket. I answered the OP's question without prejudice, as per what was written.

Your reading that completely wrong.

My jibe is, as hopefully it is read by all others, it's aimed at those who will insist on describing a bloke in a shed with no sight of a runway or much else and a handheld radio offering an a/g "service" as a "controller"

[TriBeCa]

If it's an airport under ATC I would expect to hear "continue" from the tower. And I would not advise on doing S turns on base to final as you really want to be stable by this point.

[chevvron]

I take it from the answers that no tower controllers have contributed. The answer is yes, you may be cleared to land on an occupied runway. Assuming ICAO RWY separation standards, this includes up to Heavy aircraft. The condition is that the departing aircraft must be airborne and past the point where the lander is expected to vacate the RWY before the lander crosses the threshold.

When the weights of the two aircraft are below 7000kg an aircraft may land with the RWY occupied provided certain conditions are met. (Weight of each aircraft, distance between, controller's assessment of risk, backtrack requirement)

This is a simplified version. If cleared to land, a standard will exist when you cross the threshold. If something goes amiss, you'll be sent around or you may initiate your own go around.
Fujii: although this is used in some countries only a few airports in the UK are approved to use it and the first landing aircraft must be at least 2,500m from the landing threshold.
As ShyTorque said, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, (daylight, good visibility, succeeding aircraft must keep the first one in view, controller must have continuous view of both aircraft) ATC (but not AFIS) may say 'land after' to the succeeding aircraft, so the situation encountered by tobster911 should not have occured.
I just wish FISOs were allowed to do this too, it would reduce the number of unnecessary go arounds certainly where I work.

[Wageslave]

Why would the "tower" have any interest in whether you're stable or not?

The notion of being "stable" on finals is surely a relatively recent fly-by-numbers sop concept developed by some airlines' Operations and Training depts and has absolutely nothing to do with ATC; 10 years and more ago it had hardly if ever been heard of - anywhere.

Has it somehow transferred to puddlejumpers now? For what purpose? Energy management is hardly the critical feature there that it is in a 737 or larger, is it?

I can think of reasons why s turns on finals may not be a good idea but "stable" wouldn't be one of them.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

At Colt we used to clear the Jags to "land, one on, well up" and that was perfectly acceptable. I must admit, they didn't like it when I once did the same at Linton though. :=

Same with formations, if they had made one circuit you could use the "land in turn option" but if they made a second circuit then they had to be treated as separate entities and cleared as normal, but you could still use the "land, one on, well up" option.

[Parson]

You should be sufficiently aware of the position of other aircraft in the circuit to avoid the need to do 'S turns on final'. Extend downwind, orbit downwind or widen base are all options.

As an aside, I have never really been phased by flying over water in a single as I spent many a time orbiting over the drink during my ppl training :)

[2 sheds]

If the OP would like to state what service he was receiving, we might be able to comment usefully instead of writing some of the claptrap that has appeared so far. Mind you, a bit worrying that apparently he does not know the procedures applicable to whatever service it was!


2 s

[Maoraigh1]

As the OP mentions he was solo, I take it he is a student, and may have only flown at this one airfield. Different services and procedures will be learned later in his course.

[Local Variation]

Ormand Beach Fl.

'601D cleared to land number 4'
'Cleared to land 601D'

Just did the one s-turn on final for spacing.

[Wageslave]

I take it he is a student, and may have only flown at this one airfield. Different services and procedures will be learned later in his course.
That should have no reflection whatsoever on the correctness RT procedures current at his home field. Quite the opposite in fact. Any field involved in training has a special responsibility to make sure they get their RT absolutely PERFECT. Nothing less is acceptable.

[Maoraigh1]

Perfect radio procedure is easily misunderstood by a low hour student on circuits, on final, with a large percentage of his brain involved in trying to land with the aircraft re-useable.

[vector4fun]

At Oshkosh next week, there may be 3 or 4 arrivals on the same runway at a time. Fun stuff. :E



http://www.boldmethod.com/images/blog/lists/2015/07/oshkosh-kosh-the-busiest-control-tower-in-the-world/8.jpg

[India Four Two]

I'll let you know how much fun. Arriving there on Monday.
I've just read the 26 page Notam!

Very interesting arrival videos here: Visual Flight Rules Video Examples | EAA AirVenture Oshkosh (http://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-fly-in-flying-to-oshkosh/oshkosh-air-traffic-control/visual-flight-rules-video-examples)

[tobster911]

I've been offline for a while, thank you for all the responses. It's a small airfield with the radio operator sat in the clubhouse area. They have a view of the runway and the approach. When I called final, I could clearly see the aircraft in front, who had just touched down, and I was given the runway information, surface wind etc etc. I'd imagine, however, that in the event of the 'controller' not deeming it safe for me to land, he would've told me to go around? I wasn't told to 'land after' or anything like that, and as I said, I wouldn't have let the wheels touch the ground had the aircraft not called vacated by the time I was coming over the threshold. @Maoraigh1 . it is indeed this one airfield I've been learning at. Moving on to cross country and navigation for my next lesson.

[Crash one]

It would seem that this "controller" is an "air / ground" radio station.
If so he has no authority to give permissions, clearances, instructions to go around, etc.
It is an advisory service only. All decisions in the circuit are yours, the pilot.
If you land too close to the aircraft in front, you may however incur the wrath of the airfield operator with whatever consequences. The A/G operator may report what he considers dangerous practices, but he is not responsible for you.
Problem is when in these situations of A/G ops giving what appears to be an instruction and it goes wrong, who takes responsibility?

[Local Variation]

Tobster,

In your opening message you state that you were given permission to land. Your message above states the A/G operator gave you runway and wind info only. The latter is correct for such an operation and the decision making following that info being received lies with you.

As an aside, keep hearing en-route people calling A/G operators for a basic service.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

As an aside, keep hearing en-route people calling A/G operators for a basic service.
I don't do that, but neither do I know the official wording for "thought you might like to know for SA that I'm passing over the top of your ATZ at 2,001', and I'd like to listen to your traffic whilst I'm passing, again for SA, no service required".

[Wageslave]

Isn't it rather a worry that studes are being taught to fly by a "school" that neither teaches them correct RT procedure, nor the differences between different airfield radio services?

[ShyTorque]

tobster,

Having read your original post, it appears that the person you earlier assumed to be a "controller" is almost certainly not. I suggest you ask your instructor asap to clarify what service you are operating under at your home airfield and to point you in the correct direction of the rules and regulations in this respect. ;)

[BossEyed]

Wageslave, it might not be that the school is failing to teach those things. The problem could be with 'receive' rather than 'transmit'. ;)

[Crash one]

I've been offline for a while, thank you for all the responses. It's a small airfield with the radio operator sat in the clubhouse area. They have a view of the runway and the approach. When I called final, I could clearly see the aircraft in front, who had just touched down, and I was given the runway information, surface wind etc etc. I'd imagine, however, that in the event of the 'controller' not deeming it safe for me to land, he would've told me to go around? I wasn't told to 'land after' or anything like that, and as I said, I wouldn't have let the wheels touch the ground had the aircraft not called vacated by the time I was coming over the threshold. @Maoraigh1 . it is indeed this one airfield I've been learning at. Moving on to cross country and navigation for my next lesson.
Tobster.
Having read this a bit closer it seems you have assumed this to be a controller.
I'm sorry but "I'd imagine>>>he would have told me to go around" does not apply.
You are in a situation of false security, for want of a better description.
You really must talk to your instructor about what the "controller" is authorised to do.
Basically he can TELL you nothing, he can advise the runway in use, advise the wind, advise other known traffic etc. He cannot give you permission, clearance, land after, go around etc.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Wageslave, it might not be that the school is failing to teach those things. The problem could be with 'receive' rather than 'transmit'. ;)
Yeahbut that should be spotted as part of the "am I going to send this guy solo" decision making, surely? Either way it sounds (so far, having heard only one side of the story, usual caveats) that an explanation from the school would be interesting.

[tmmorris]

Perhaps the AG operator should have said 'Wind blah blah, one ahead on short final' or similar. But he wasn't obliged to and you shouldn't expect him to.

[tobster911]

That's all I needed thanks. I just wasn't sure what the correct procedure was in this instance. As I said earlier on, I'm working on RT, and as I venture to further aerodromes, I'm sure that the correct RT procedures will be explained etc. My asking if I should have been given permission/clearance was my own phraseology, not something that I was expecting from the A/G Service. It was more 'Should he have advised me there was one in front?' I know that the decision making process is down to the PIC and not the service.
Thanks

[cjm_2010]

I'm sorry but "I'd imagine>>>he would have told me to go around" does not apply.
You are in a situation of false security, for want of a better description.
You really must talk to your instructor about what the "controller" is authorised to do.

Crash One is right with this.

The decision ultimately lies with the pilot in command.

If it feels dodgy, don't wait to be told. You're the one whose life may be on the line, and the 'controller' doesn't have a giant fishing rod waiting to pluck you out of the sky if it all goes tits up.

Also, regarding learning RT - it's worth getting classroom based training on procedures and calls using real world examples. Learn the WHY as well as the HOW & the pieces will fall into place.

[2 sheds]

Perhaps the AG operator should have said 'Wind blah blah, one ahead on short final' or similar. But he wasn't obliged to and you shouldn't expect him to.

...though preferably without using the now extinct term "short final"!

And certainly not "should" have said - no such obligation - as you say.

2 s

[rnzoli]

'Should he have advised me there was one in front?'

No. It's an uncontrolled airfield with an AFIS, who gives advice, but takes no responsibility for any collision. It would have been nice, if he tells you that you are #2 landing and you need to watch out for the aircraft that will vacate the runway before you, but maybe he was busy with something more important and trusted that you have eyes and know your own responsibility to go around in case of doubts.

In uncontrolled airfields, there can be a lot of congestions on the runways, and the main motivation for AFIS is to avoid accidents, because they are costly (think about cleaning the runway from debris, lots of paperwork, loss revenues due to RWY closure etc.). If it's only scary, it's OK. Some AFIS operators however, look out for students, especially soloing students, and clean the traffic from in front of them. The same with intructors in the air. So if you arrive to an unknown field, if you feel inexperienced - say so, and people will try to help. But as you correctly assumed, you are still in charge of your fate.

By the way have you seen this?

A Guide To Phraseology for General Aviation Pilots in Europe, section 7, Arrival

http://www.skolenipilotu.cz/skoleni-egast-eurocontrol/eurocontrol-prirucka-letecke-frazeologie-evropa.pdf

The term with uncontrolled fields is "free for landing".

[PA28181]

No. It's an uncontrolled airfield with an AFIS

If it's A/G then it doesn't even reach that low level..

[Low Level Pilot]

Get hold of a copy of CAP 413, freely available by download from the CAA, (costs a fortune to buy a hard copy). My instructor was not "over the moon" with my RT procedure, but commented that it was greatly improved after digesting CAP 413. It is a wealth of information regarding who does what and what can be expected from various agencies.

[150 Driver]

I'm sure the OP has a lot to learn, which is why the OP is a student. That also applies to most of us IMHO.

I'd like to think that all those with a licence would appreciate the difference in service levels (although have a sneaky feeling that this is not the case).

Sounds to me like this is A/G and therefore only information given, not permission to land.

However, the OP has said that he was fully prepared to go around if the traffic in front hadn't vacated, and that to my mind is good airmanship. After all, even if we are dealing with 'Control' (meant in its correct sense), the landing clearance is just that, permission to land, not an instruction that must be obeyed.

The decision of whether to actually land is that of the PIC regardless of the service level given by the person on the other end of the radio.