Land after
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATS part 1, section 2, chapter 1, part 15
When aircraft are using the same runway, a landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft which has landed is clear of the runway provided that:
When aircraft are using the same runway, a landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft which has landed is clear of the runway provided that:
a) the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;
b) it is during daylight hours;
c) the preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
d) the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway;
and
e) the pilot of the following aircraft is warned. (Responsibility for ensuring adequate separation rests with the pilot of the following aircraft.)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would possibly be better posted elsewhere, but as the thread is here I'll ask anyway...Do pilots understand that when given a land after, responsibility for ensuring separation is with them? (i.e. i'm not saying you're cleared to land, i'm saying, if you're happy to do so, you can land at your discretion.)
I ask because I gave a land after the other day which was followed by:-
'xxx123, roger land after the 737 runway 27L' followed by 5 seconds of silence then 'xxx123 just confirm we're cleared to land?'!!!
Are commercial pilots taught during training about land after clearances?
FB
I ask because I gave a land after the other day which was followed by:-
'xxx123, roger land after the 737 runway 27L' followed by 5 seconds of silence then 'xxx123 just confirm we're cleared to land?'!!!
Are commercial pilots taught during training about land after clearances?
FB
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Highlands
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask because I gave a land after the other day which was followed by:-
'xxx123, roger land after the 737 runway 27L' followed by 5 seconds of silence then 'xxx123 just confirm we're cleared to land?'!!!
'xxx123, roger land after the 737 runway 27L' followed by 5 seconds of silence then 'xxx123 just confirm we're cleared to land?'!!!
'xxx123, cleared to land Runway23'
It's such a regular occurence that I usually let it go without further comment. I don't particularly want to get involved in an debate if things are busy. If they've told me they can see the a/c ahead on the asphalt then I'm usually confident that they'll do all they can to make sure they don't plough into it.
Sometimes of course a pilot will respond with:
'xxx123, cleared to land after Runway23'
Even more substance for debate which I'm happy to choose to ignore!
Of course in my trainee days, I would have been required to jump straight back in on the R/T (at a critical stage of flight) and ensure the pilot understands that he has not received a landing clearance.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: frozen norff
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Occasionally have a similar response from professional pilots. I reply with a 'Negative, land after.' Some say, 'OK, we continue', some reply, 'Say again?' others say 'we cannot accept a land after'. Choice then is a go-around, or 'continue for a late landing clearance'. And then they go-around.
This is a phraseology point which needs to be followed up, such as a phone call or a chat with the base chief pilot. Don't let it go!!
This is a phraseology point which needs to be followed up, such as a phone call or a chat with the base chief pilot. Don't let it go!!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect some care is required here, since the original poster claims 'France' as 'country of PPruneicile', and from experience one can be number 3 on the approach and 'cleared to land' at CDG, so who's national procedures are we asking about, Lomcovack?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be worth adding here that at some UK airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester only I believe but ready to stand corrected) you can also be 'cleared to land after' - which differs from the MATS 1 version.
For example: 'xxx123 after the landed/vacating 737 CLEARED to land runway 27L'.
This is a provision of separation from the controller and can only be given if when the aircraft issued the clearance crosses the threshold the subject aircraft will have vacated the runway or if still on the runway will be 2500m from the threshold.
For example: 'xxx123 after the landed/vacating 737 CLEARED to land runway 27L'.
This is a provision of separation from the controller and can only be given if when the aircraft issued the clearance crosses the threshold the subject aircraft will have vacated the runway or if still on the runway will be 2500m from the threshold.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hangten, although your intentions were good, with that last post you're potentially causing more confusion.
There is no such thing.
There is the Land after..... (already described) and there is the After the landing/departing, cleared to land.... (which you describe)
The word 'vacating' is not used in the clearance.
'cleared to land after'
There is the Land after..... (already described) and there is the After the landing/departing, cleared to land.... (which you describe)
The word 'vacating' is not used in the clearance.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am slightly confused here. I presume that an aircraft landing at Heathrow will technically need a clearance to land. If so, if one is "cleared" to land after, surely that is a clearance?
I accept that it is up to the pilot to decide if he will accept this clearance, and also up to him/her to not plough into the previously landed aicrraft, but it does seem like a clearance to me.
I accept that it is up to the pilot to decide if he will accept this clearance, and also up to him/her to not plough into the previously landed aicrraft, but it does seem like a clearance to me.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: southeast england
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo
At Heathrow, 'vacating' may not be used in the clearance,but it certainly is at Gatwick ( don't know about Stansted and Manch ). We use it because when you say 'after the landing' and the subject aircraft is already approaching the RET it can lead to unwanted confusion - if it's already landed how can it be landing? ( 'after the landed' is also available, but just sounds too much like 'after the landing'! ). All MATS part 2 procedures.
At Heathrow, 'vacating' may not be used in the clearance,but it certainly is at Gatwick ( don't know about Stansted and Manch ). We use it because when you say 'after the landing' and the subject aircraft is already approaching the RET it can lead to unwanted confusion - if it's already landed how can it be landing? ( 'after the landed' is also available, but just sounds too much like 'after the landing'! ). All MATS part 2 procedures.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat,
Yes, confusion all round, which is why I tend only to use the vanilla 'cleared to land' unless the crew prompts me.
Think of the 'land after' instruction (for it is not a clearance) as a 'land at your discretion'.
Historically at Heathrow, the 'after the landing' came about because the 'land after' was being used more and more by ATC, and some airlines protested that they weren't being given a clearance to land.
Vespasia,
That's interesting, 'vacating' is not mentioned in our Part 2. But surely the whole point in the 'after the landing' clearance is to get it out of the way well before the 2nd a/c gets over the numbers? If you're waiting until the one ahead is in the process of vacating, then why not wait the extra few seconds and give a normal landing clearance?
Yes, confusion all round, which is why I tend only to use the vanilla 'cleared to land' unless the crew prompts me.
Think of the 'land after' instruction (for it is not a clearance) as a 'land at your discretion'.
Historically at Heathrow, the 'after the landing' came about because the 'land after' was being used more and more by ATC, and some airlines protested that they weren't being given a clearance to land.
Vespasia,
That's interesting, 'vacating' is not mentioned in our Part 2. But surely the whole point in the 'after the landing' clearance is to get it out of the way well before the 2nd a/c gets over the numbers? If you're waiting until the one ahead is in the process of vacating, then why not wait the extra few seconds and give a normal landing clearance?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'cleared to land after'
If you're waiting until the one ahead is in the process of vacating, then why not wait the extra few seconds and give a normal landing clearance?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: southeast england
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
Our MATS 2 states that in order to use the "after the vacating" or "after the landed" cleared to land, the controller must be satisfied that the first landing aircraft will be either vacated or 2500m down the runway before the next aircraft touches down.
In order to be satisfied of this I need the first aircraft on the runway to check their speed is under control ( for the vacated condition ) or that they haven't slowed down so much that the distance criteria will not be met. I think it's partly a factor of different RET layout and positioning from Heathrow, and partly the mixed mode operation.
When using this type of clearance I normally find that the landing aircraft is between about 1/2 to 1 mile from touchdown which gives 15 to 30 seconds (ish) extra time, and I want to be sure nobody has a chance to interrupt the clearance ( life history syndrome on first contact! ). Additionally in high intensity mixed mode ops my next call is likely to be a conditional line-up which needs to be made so that the departure is a) mentally ready and b) starting to move onto the runway as soon as the arrival is past them. So I don't find any problem with the timing for us. I don't know how your part 2 is worded but for our purposes I don't think I could ever convince myself that I would be genuinely satisfied that our criteria would be met until the first lander is in the roll-out.
To be honest, I'd guess that I probably only use this for a fairly small percent of movements ( about 10 percent at a guess, although it will vary according to the spacing and traffic speeds. )
Our MATS 2 states that in order to use the "after the vacating" or "after the landed" cleared to land, the controller must be satisfied that the first landing aircraft will be either vacated or 2500m down the runway before the next aircraft touches down.
In order to be satisfied of this I need the first aircraft on the runway to check their speed is under control ( for the vacated condition ) or that they haven't slowed down so much that the distance criteria will not be met. I think it's partly a factor of different RET layout and positioning from Heathrow, and partly the mixed mode operation.
When using this type of clearance I normally find that the landing aircraft is between about 1/2 to 1 mile from touchdown which gives 15 to 30 seconds (ish) extra time, and I want to be sure nobody has a chance to interrupt the clearance ( life history syndrome on first contact! ). Additionally in high intensity mixed mode ops my next call is likely to be a conditional line-up which needs to be made so that the departure is a) mentally ready and b) starting to move onto the runway as soon as the arrival is past them. So I don't find any problem with the timing for us. I don't know how your part 2 is worded but for our purposes I don't think I could ever convince myself that I would be genuinely satisfied that our criteria would be met until the first lander is in the roll-out.
To be honest, I'd guess that I probably only use this for a fairly small percent of movements ( about 10 percent at a guess, although it will vary according to the spacing and traffic speeds. )
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vespasia,
I reckon our part 2 is similar. I don't have it to hand, but the first one has to be on the deck, and of course you'd have to wait a bit to see the speed under control, although says nothing about 'after the vacating'. Similar criteria to you; 2500m down the runway, or vacated. The few controllers whop use it quite a bit tend to (as I would) give it when the 1st is about half way through it's landing roll, so the next is 1-1.5 miles out.
I reckon our part 2 is similar. I don't have it to hand, but the first one has to be on the deck, and of course you'd have to wait a bit to see the speed under control, although says nothing about 'after the vacating'. Similar criteria to you; 2500m down the runway, or vacated. The few controllers whop use it quite a bit tend to (as I would) give it when the 1st is about half way through it's landing roll, so the next is 1-1.5 miles out.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Heathrow is the only UK place that has " after the landing xxx, cleared to land rwy xx", therefore as Gonzo says giving a clearance to land.
Otherwise , it's a " land after vacating xx rwy xx" and the pilot then has the responsibility for separation.
I have also had the response of " cleared to land " but don't correct it on short final, especially as saying - "negative, land after" might result in an avoidable go around due to potential confusion in the cockpit.
louby
Otherwise , it's a " land after vacating xx rwy xx" and the pilot then has the responsibility for separation.
I have also had the response of " cleared to land " but don't correct it on short final, especially as saying - "negative, land after" might result in an avoidable go around due to potential confusion in the cockpit.
louby