Aircraft Separation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Separation
Hello;
I am an airport fire officer employed in Canada. While we were discussing in front of the Fire Station, we witnessed an RJ Canadair landing while a 737 was taking off from the same 10000 ft runway. The RJ just touched down and the 737-200 was still rolling. I did enquire with the Control Tower about this unusual landing/take off but they were very vague. What is the minimum separation (time or distance) required in between theses types of aircrafts?
Thanks.
I am an airport fire officer employed in Canada. While we were discussing in front of the Fire Station, we witnessed an RJ Canadair landing while a 737 was taking off from the same 10000 ft runway. The RJ just touched down and the 737-200 was still rolling. I did enquire with the Control Tower about this unusual landing/take off but they were very vague. What is the minimum separation (time or distance) required in between theses types of aircrafts?
Thanks.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nashville TN. USA
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottawa,
The rules vary in accordance to the type of aircraft that the departure aircraft was, but in all instances the departure must be airborne prior to the arrival crossing the landing thresshold. In the case that you describe, maybe the controller issued a go around but the pilot elected to land anyways, or the controller felt that it was far safer to let the RJ land than to risk an over/under situation, or from the tower it appeared that the B737 was airborne. The perspective between being on the ground or up in the tower is entirely different, so how do you say who was right or wrong?
Whether the rule is different in Canada I don't know. I can say that in my years of experience I've seen some go arounds issued by controllers that became quite scary because they ended up with an over/under situation between the go around and the departure. In these situations, in accordance to the rules the controller did the right thing, but as a controller you have to put SAFETY FIRST, and sometimes it would had been far safer to had let the arrival land than to had issued a go around.
I'll vote for SAFETY FIRST!
Mike
The rules vary in accordance to the type of aircraft that the departure aircraft was, but in all instances the departure must be airborne prior to the arrival crossing the landing thresshold. In the case that you describe, maybe the controller issued a go around but the pilot elected to land anyways, or the controller felt that it was far safer to let the RJ land than to risk an over/under situation, or from the tower it appeared that the B737 was airborne. The perspective between being on the ground or up in the tower is entirely different, so how do you say who was right or wrong?
Whether the rule is different in Canada I don't know. I can say that in my years of experience I've seen some go arounds issued by controllers that became quite scary because they ended up with an over/under situation between the go around and the departure. In these situations, in accordance to the rules the controller did the right thing, but as a controller you have to put SAFETY FIRST, and sometimes it would had been far safer to had let the arrival land than to had issued a go around.
I'll vote for SAFETY FIRST!
Mike
The rules can vary, depending on which country, and even between different Airports in the same country. In the UK, for example, the 'norm' is to not issue a landing clearance until a preceding departure is airborne. However, at London Heathrow (and some others), under certain specified conditions, a landing clearance may be issued before the departure is airborne.
NavCanada will specify the rules and conditions for the issuance of a landing clearance in your home country.
NavCanada will specify the rules and conditions for the issuance of a landing clearance in your home country.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know during my time at NCTI we used to teach the studes (mil) the process of anticipation, ie to issue a landing clearance in anticipation of the runway being safely available when the aircraft touched down. I can't remember of the exact distances involved but I am pretty sure that the aircraft already on the runway had to be a certain distance up the runway. So in theory it is cleared to land with one on well up.
At my last airfield we used to be able to land a similar type, stn-based ac with one on (landing) provided that the "one on" was already in the last third of the runway when the clearance was issued . I tried in vain to get the rules expanded to allow a clearance to "land one on" (and only land) with one rolling or getting airborne provided that aircraft was also in the last third but I was told to shut up and forget it as it would never be approved. I personally don't see any problems with it as it is no less safe than landing behind a landing aircraft (especially since the rolling/departing aircraft ahead will always have a greater speed by that point of the runway). Comments please.
At my last airfield we used to be able to land a similar type, stn-based ac with one on (landing) provided that the "one on" was already in the last third of the runway when the clearance was issued . I tried in vain to get the rules expanded to allow a clearance to "land one on" (and only land) with one rolling or getting airborne provided that aircraft was also in the last third but I was told to shut up and forget it as it would never be approved. I personally don't see any problems with it as it is no less safe than landing behind a landing aircraft (especially since the rolling/departing aircraft ahead will always have a greater speed by that point of the runway). Comments please.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In good weather, (Visual Meteorlogical Conditions) the departure must be airborne (nose wheel off) prior to the landing a/c crossing the threshold. It may have been that your perspective on the ground made it look like this was not achieved. Aspect, distance from the aircraft, ambient light conditions etc. can affect the overall appearance of the situation.
In IMC, generally, the departure must be rolling by time the lander is 2 nm final, and by one minute's time from the point the departure began it's takeoff roll there will be a minimum of 3nm between them.
In IMC, generally, the departure must be rolling by time the lander is 2 nm final, and by one minute's time from the point the departure began it's takeoff roll there will be a minimum of 3nm between them.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we really getting into advising our fire-fighter friend that ATC stuffed up. Stick to fighting fires I say, I'll bet no ATC will write to the Prof Firefighters Rumour network asking how you fought your last fire. I'll also bet your Tower boys are doing a great job and there is a perfectly good reason for what you saw that will undoubtedly have been examined by their peers. Greatest story we ever read where I live was an interview in the local paper after a go-around. "It was the most dangerous go-around I've seen in twenty years of driving a taxi" No ****!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrApproach
Very harsh.
Ottawa at no time says "it looked dangerous" or "ATC were in the wrong". He merely asks a genuine question to try and find out the procedure so give him a break.
Ottawa
Its very probably different in canada, but at heathrow its possible to issue an "after the departing, cleared to land" clearance which makes assumptions (hence we're still responsible for providing separation) that when the landing aircraft crosses the threshold, the departing will either still be on the runway and at least 2500m along, or airborne and at least 2000m along the runway. Thats the rules for the types of aircraft you described. There are different rules for propellor aircraft, and there are also weather criteria which have to be achieved also.
As I say though, it may be different in canada.
Hope that helps.
FB
Stick to fighting fires I say, I'll bet no ATC will write to the Prof Firefighters Rumour network asking how you fought your last fire.
Ottawa at no time says "it looked dangerous" or "ATC were in the wrong". He merely asks a genuine question to try and find out the procedure so give him a break.
Ottawa
Its very probably different in canada, but at heathrow its possible to issue an "after the departing, cleared to land" clearance which makes assumptions (hence we're still responsible for providing separation) that when the landing aircraft crosses the threshold, the departing will either still be on the runway and at least 2500m along, or airborne and at least 2000m along the runway. Thats the rules for the types of aircraft you described. There are different rules for propellor aircraft, and there are also weather criteria which have to be achieved also.
As I say though, it may be different in canada.
Hope that helps.
FB
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vienna
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick to fighting fires I say, I'll bet no ATC will write to the Prof Firefighters Rumour network asking how you fought your last fire.
He did not attack the controller or the pilot, he just asked someone for an information - where is the problem?
Regards, Bernhard
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick to fighting fires I say, I'll bet no ATC will write to the Prof Firefighters Rumour network asking how you fought your last fire.
Pilots and ATC people frequently think that they know how to do journalists' jobs better - why not extend the arrogance to every other profession too?
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots and ATC people frequently think that they know how to do journalists' jobs better
Go back to cooking.
