Land after and Clear to Land
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land after and Clear to Land
Can anyone give me the definition of the difference between Land After and Clear to land?
I did a search but couldn't find anything. Apologies if its been done before.
18
I did a search but couldn't find anything. Apologies if its been done before.
18
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keeping it simple:-
clear to land means the runway is clear, you can land
clear to land after, means you may land after the one ahead has cleared, in other words, at your discretion, we can't guarantee he will clear in time.
clear to land means the runway is clear, you can land
clear to land after, means you may land after the one ahead has cleared, in other words, at your discretion, we can't guarantee he will clear in time.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite, seat 1A. 18 greens asked about Land After, not Cleared to land after. A land after clearance can be given by ATC when a preceeding aircraft has landed but has not vacated the runway provided that the runway is long enough to allow safe separation, and there is no evidence that braking may be impaired; it is during daylight hours; the controller is satisfied that the following acft will be able to see the preceding one clearly and continuously, until it is clear of the runway; and the pilot of the following acft is warned - responsibility for adequate separation then rests with the pilot of the following acft.
Certain aerodromes are permitted to use a 'clear to land after' and 'land after the departing' but the procedures for those are in MATS2
Certain aerodromes are permitted to use a 'clear to land after' and 'land after the departing' but the procedures for those are in MATS2
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain aerodromes are permitted to use a 'clear to land after' and 'land after the departing'..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite, TRH 365:-
Certain UK Aerodromes (e.g. Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester, under specified conditions) are permitted to use the following:-
"After the landed/departing (a/c type) cleared to land"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain aerodromes are permitted to use a 'clear to land after' and 'land after the departing'..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite, TRH 365:-
Certain UK Aerodromes (e.g. Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester, under specified conditions) are permitted to use the following:-
"After the landed/departing (a/c type) cleared to land"
Last edited by spekesoftly; 26th Apr 2004 at 08:15.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to that, the MATS pt. 2 of the said units contains the criteria under which that clearance may be given (preceding has to be a certain distance down the runway, noraml braking action etc.).
It should be borne in mind also that if an "After the landed cleared to land.." is given, it IS a landing clearance and not at all similar to a "Land after.."
P7
It should be borne in mind also that if an "After the landed cleared to land.." is given, it IS a landing clearance and not at all similar to a "Land after.."
P7
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other important point - Land After can only be done at an airfield with FULL ATC (i.e. not FIS / A/G). If the runway is occupied at a none ATC field then the ONLY option is to Go-around, the pilot has no discretion to 'Land After'
Guest
Posts: n/a
caniplay is just showing off, the ruke about not using a 'land after' if the preceeding aircraft has to backtrack has only just been published and comes into effect on 30th April.
Then again, it seems like common sense to me ...... but someone, somewhere, must have done some thing daft for the rules to be changed! Still, they've only got 4 more days to do it again.
Then again, it seems like common sense to me ...... but someone, somewhere, must have done some thing daft for the rules to be changed! Still, they've only got 4 more days to do it again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
So that I understand, if I get a Land after on final the aircraft ahead does not need to clear the runway (or even get to the end of it) it is up to my discretion as to whether I can stop before I hit him.
So that I understand, if I get a Land after on final the aircraft ahead does not need to clear the runway (or even get to the end of it) it is up to my discretion as to whether I can stop before I hit him.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a nutshell, yes. Or perhaps you might add: "It is up to me to decide whether he will have vacated the runway by the time I reach that point even if I can't stop by then."
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: frozen norff
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some pilots appear confused by, or don't understand, 'land after' when they hear it. An oft heard read-back of land after is 'cleared to land after'. This phraseology doesn't exist in the UK, although I often hear it, from PPL holders to ATPLs. If you aren't sure of the difference, ask the CFI/chief base pilot/ATC by phone; there is a difference.
I do have some sympathy for those that sometimes get confused - we have three variations of landing clearance, here in the UK alone. Abroad, there are yet more variations - ICAO at its best! 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be a whole lot clearer if you guys used.
Cessna xxx Runway 23 Cleared to Land, or
Cessna xxx Number two following the Regional Jet on three mile final, Runway 23 Cleared to land, (if necessary caution wake turbelence).
Mike
NATCA FWA
Cessna xxx Runway 23 Cleared to Land, or
Cessna xxx Number two following the Regional Jet on three mile final, Runway 23 Cleared to land, (if necessary caution wake turbelence).
Mike
NATCA FWA
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike - nice idea, but not really. The legal implications alone are horrendous.
When you clear an aircraft to land (in the UK) you are issuing an assurance that the runway is not obstructed. If the runway has an aircraft on it then technically speaking it's obstructed. Clear an aircraft to land with an obstruction on the runway, and it hits it - well - whose neck is going to be on the chopping block for liability. You've guessed it - the controller.
No different to issuing landing clearances to two different aircraft, to two different runways, which intersect. What if no.1 has a tyre burst and stops on the intersection? You've issued an unsafe clearance which has to be rescinded - more R/T, not less.
Much as I'm a lover of all things U.S at the moment I think it's a phraseology that maybe the FAA should look at. Landing at Long Beach the other day I was no.2 to a C152. Brought the speed back, giving him a chance to get off the runway. Loads of space and it would have worked - tower controller sent me round.
Now - if you'd had "land after" the go around wouldn't have happened - all it's doing is transferring separation responsibility to the pilot
We can learn a lot from you re: airspace management and control - but I think the same could be said for the U.S learning from U.K aerodrome procedures.
When you clear an aircraft to land (in the UK) you are issuing an assurance that the runway is not obstructed. If the runway has an aircraft on it then technically speaking it's obstructed. Clear an aircraft to land with an obstruction on the runway, and it hits it - well - whose neck is going to be on the chopping block for liability. You've guessed it - the controller.
No different to issuing landing clearances to two different aircraft, to two different runways, which intersect. What if no.1 has a tyre burst and stops on the intersection? You've issued an unsafe clearance which has to be rescinded - more R/T, not less.
Much as I'm a lover of all things U.S at the moment I think it's a phraseology that maybe the FAA should look at. Landing at Long Beach the other day I was no.2 to a C152. Brought the speed back, giving him a chance to get off the runway. Loads of space and it would have worked - tower controller sent me round.
Now - if you'd had "land after" the go around wouldn't have happened - all it's doing is transferring separation responsibility to the pilot
We can learn a lot from you re: airspace management and control - but I think the same could be said for the U.S learning from U.K aerodrome procedures.
Some pilots appear confused by, or don't understand, 'land after' when they hear it
Perhaps NATS should consider changing the format of one or other of the clearances, at the moment the two are so alike that they are bound to be taken as meaning the same thing, I suspect that 90% of commercial pilots don't know there is a difference.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Wrote
Yet your profile says you are a captain on A320/1's!!...surely in your career you will have heard both?At my unit (BFS) I have used land after many times.I would be less surprised if (as has been been said to me in the past) you were"only a ppl" and didn't know what the difference was!!
BRING BACK FAM FLIGHTS!!
I have to say I was not aware that are two different phrases or that they mean two different things
BRING BACK FAM FLIGHTS!!
Max Angle,
As touched upon earlier in this thread, there are actually three variations of landing clearance in the UK:-
"Cleared to Land"
"Land After"
"After the landed/departing, cleared to land"
Not having a dig at you; your candid admittance supports the point I made in my previous post. I have no doubt that on a busy flight deck, the seemingly subtle differences may not always be understood.
FWA NATCA,
Mike,
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I was not suggesting earlier that UK ATC phraseology wrt to landing clearance is any better, or any worse, than in other countries, but simply highlighting the fact that there are a number of variations worldwide.
Just one polite observation on your suggestion:-
"Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution vortex wake, the recommended spacing is xx miles, surface wind 230/07, Runway 23 Cleared to land".
OK, I've embroidered it for emphasis, but that's one mighty long transmission!
As touched upon earlier in this thread, there are actually three variations of landing clearance in the UK:-
"Cleared to Land"
"Land After"
"After the landed/departing, cleared to land"
Not having a dig at you; your candid admittance supports the point I made in my previous post. I have no doubt that on a busy flight deck, the seemingly subtle differences may not always be understood.
FWA NATCA,
Mike,
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I was not suggesting earlier that UK ATC phraseology wrt to landing clearance is any better, or any worse, than in other countries, but simply highlighting the fact that there are a number of variations worldwide.
Just one polite observation on your suggestion:-
"Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution vortex wake, the recommended spacing is xx miles, surface wind 230/07, Runway 23 Cleared to land".
OK, I've embroidered it for emphasis, but that's one mighty long transmission!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chili,
With "LAND AFTER", if the pilot directed to "LAND AFTER" lands prior to acft #1 clearing the runway, then who is at fault? The pilot for landing prior to aircraft #1 clearing the runway, or the controller for not sending aircraft #2 around?
In the US if for some reason you doubt that aircraft #1 won't be clear of, or far enough down the runway (Cat 1- 3000', Cat 2- 4500', Cat 3- Clear of the runway) then you do have the choice of with holding the landing clearance to aircraft #2.
Example: Cessana 428 number 2 following the Cherokee on two mile final, continue, (if you want you can add expect landing clearance short final or at some other point). This way if #2 lands without a clearance it's a pilot deviation, not a controller operational error.
Mike
NATCA FWA
Spekesoftly,
>Just one polite observation on your suggestion:-
"Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution vortex wake, the recommended spacing is xx miles, surface wind 230/07, Runway 23 Cleared to land".<<<<<
The proper phraselogy in the US is:
Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution wake turbulence. As the tower controller I\'m assuming that Cessna xxx has the B737 in sight and is maintaining visual separation.
There is no requirement to issue wind, or recommend spacing, for one the pilot should have the current ATIS (if he doesn\'t then I will issue it if Approach hasn\'t).
As the approach controller I will vector the cessna to a point that I am reasonable assured that he will get the B737 in sight, or if he doesn\'t to a point that provides the appropriate wake turbulence separation prior to shipping him over to the tower.
The phraselogy will normally be if it is VFR:
Approach- Cessna xxx number two following B737 at 10 o\'clock and 3 miles,
Cessnaxxx- FWA approach traffic in sight,
Approach- Cessna xxx, follow the B737, caution wake turbelence, Cleared Visual Approach Runway 23, Contact Tower 119.1.
From this point on the Cessna is responsible for maintaining visual separation from the B737.
If the Cessna pilot doesn\'t get the B737 in sight then Approach must provide the appropriate wake turbulence separation.
Mike
NATCA FWA
With "LAND AFTER", if the pilot directed to "LAND AFTER" lands prior to acft #1 clearing the runway, then who is at fault? The pilot for landing prior to aircraft #1 clearing the runway, or the controller for not sending aircraft #2 around?
In the US if for some reason you doubt that aircraft #1 won't be clear of, or far enough down the runway (Cat 1- 3000', Cat 2- 4500', Cat 3- Clear of the runway) then you do have the choice of with holding the landing clearance to aircraft #2.
Example: Cessana 428 number 2 following the Cherokee on two mile final, continue, (if you want you can add expect landing clearance short final or at some other point). This way if #2 lands without a clearance it's a pilot deviation, not a controller operational error.
Mike
NATCA FWA
Spekesoftly,
>Just one polite observation on your suggestion:-
"Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution vortex wake, the recommended spacing is xx miles, surface wind 230/07, Runway 23 Cleared to land".<<<<<
The proper phraselogy in the US is:
Cessna xxx Number two following the Boeing 737 on three mile final, caution wake turbulence. As the tower controller I\'m assuming that Cessna xxx has the B737 in sight and is maintaining visual separation.
There is no requirement to issue wind, or recommend spacing, for one the pilot should have the current ATIS (if he doesn\'t then I will issue it if Approach hasn\'t).
As the approach controller I will vector the cessna to a point that I am reasonable assured that he will get the B737 in sight, or if he doesn\'t to a point that provides the appropriate wake turbulence separation prior to shipping him over to the tower.
The phraselogy will normally be if it is VFR:
Approach- Cessna xxx number two following B737 at 10 o\'clock and 3 miles,
Cessnaxxx- FWA approach traffic in sight,
Approach- Cessna xxx, follow the B737, caution wake turbelence, Cleared Visual Approach Runway 23, Contact Tower 119.1.
From this point on the Cessna is responsible for maintaining visual separation from the B737.
If the Cessna pilot doesn\'t get the B737 in sight then Approach must provide the appropriate wake turbulence separation.
Mike
NATCA FWA
Mike,
The methods you describe for achieving the required spacing, for IFR and VFR, are the same here. The way you have broken down the transmissions in your last post are also very similar. Not quite what I (mis?)understood from your original suggestion.
The methods you describe for achieving the required spacing, for IFR and VFR, are the same here. The way you have broken down the transmissions in your last post are also very similar. Not quite what I (mis?)understood from your original suggestion.