The 'Land After' Instruction
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by caciara
So in your opinion the amendment to PANS-ATM, about reduced runway separation minima, isn't correctly applied by UK and Italy because not updated?? And so "land after" procedure is not totally legal??
I've found a PANS-ATM edition of 22/11/07, and I know there is an other one of 2009, so I know the last version of chapter 7.11 about RRSM, if it was amended in March 2005.
The situation, in my opinion, appears strange, because we know the ICAO reference to allow under separations for the same runway, but it is different from "land after" procedure where atc relieve responsability to pilot, even if visibility is lower than 5 KM, or tailwind exceed 5 kts, or suitable landmarks don't exist, etc..etc.., you only ask the pilot if able to maintain in sight the preceeding for visual separation, and although you cannot observe it, you may give the instruction "land after" (not standard phraseology). And I'm trying to know if there are other countries around the World which are using this procedure and if its application is the same of UK and Italy, or refered only to ICAO rules.
I've found a PANS-ATM edition of 22/11/07, and I know there is an other one of 2009, so I know the last version of chapter 7.11 about RRSM, if it was amended in March 2005.
The situation, in my opinion, appears strange, because we know the ICAO reference to allow under separations for the same runway, but it is different from "land after" procedure where atc relieve responsability to pilot, even if visibility is lower than 5 KM, or tailwind exceed 5 kts, or suitable landmarks don't exist, etc..etc.., you only ask the pilot if able to maintain in sight the preceeding for visual separation, and although you cannot observe it, you may give the instruction "land after" (not standard phraseology). And I'm trying to know if there are other countries around the World which are using this procedure and if its application is the same of UK and Italy, or refered only to ICAO rules.
And the procedures that we are talking about are not even SARPs but rather are PANS which have a slightly different status. The Foreword of PANS-ATM includes the two paragraphs below:
While the PANS may contain material which may eventually become Standards or Recommended Practices (SARPs) when it has reached the maturity and stability necessary for adoption as such, they may also comprise material prepared as an amplification of the basic principles in the corresponding SARPs, and designed particularly to assist the user in the application of those SARPs.
and
The implementation of procedures is the responsibility of Contracting States; they are applied in actual operations only after, and in so far as, States have enforced them. However, with a view to facilitating their processing towards implementation by States, they have been prepared in language which will permit direct use by air traffic services personnel and others associated with the provision of air traffic services to international air navigation.
Putting all this together it seems that in the UK it is not illegal - it's just that it seems that the UK has chosen not to align with the PANS. It's interesting that the UK has notified a difference in relation to reduced runway separation but it's about the phraseology - it says 'When using ICAO reduced runway separation procedures, the phraseology 'LAND AFTER THE (aircraft type)' will be used'. This suggests that all other aspects of reduced runway separation as described in PANS-ATM have been implemented. But if you look at the description of the 'land after' procedure in the AIP it is clearly the pre-2005 rules.Whether this means that the amendment to PANS-ATM, about reduced runway separation minima isn't correctly applied by UK is really a matter of opinion and of the UK's national policy. If the UK policy is to apply SARPs and PANS then I guess they haven't followed this policy - if they have other policies then....who knows! All one can really say is that the procedures in the UK are not consistent with the current content of PANS-ATM - which typically might be paraphrased as 'non-standard'. I can't see any real reason for not following the current procedures except that some aspects are more limiting than the old procedures. Perhaps some runways are not long enough to make it practical to use the new criteria but then one might ask whether it's a good idea anyway.
As for Italy, I think you're probably in a better position to offer comment than I.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Spitoon again about your clear explanation. Are you an ATCer or you have a specific office wich deals in ATC arguments?
So if we want to have a summary of all considerations, we can say that to follow ICAO rules depends on single country policy. In case of land after we don't have a general reference in ICAO documents, but only the chapter 7.11 PANS-ATM about RRSM. Actually the conditions to apply land after and RRSM are different beacause of an amendment of march 2005. So now there is the legal matter of right application of this procedure. You said: "I can't see any real reason for not following the current procedures except that some aspects are more limiting than the old procedures. Perhaps some runways are not long enough to make it practical to use the new criteria but then one might ask whether it's a good idea anyway." As an ATCer which gives an instruction to land after, even if on pilot responsability, I worry about all situations to be considered when a reduction in separation is going on. In fact ICAO suggests to pay attention also to visibility, to tailwind, to category of acft involved, etc..etc..and I don't think is a good idea to not consider all of them, because not consistent with our local or national manuals. And my doubt is not only about right application of a procedure under ATC point of view, but also under legal point of view, in case of a snag. Because we know, we ATCer are above all safety guardians...
In Italy, for example, even if rules for "Visual Approach" are clear and like for land after, you relieve responsabiliy for separation to pilot, due to an accident happened about 7 years ago near Cagliari, when pilot of an ambulance flight was cleared for a visual approach, all ATCer involved have been sentenced to some years of prison and to pay compensation for damages. This sentence was expressed by Judge on ATCers responsability to not avoid in all ways the collision with the mountain (it was during nighthours). Consequence of this sentence, now Visual Approach in Italy is forbidden....
So if we want to have a summary of all considerations, we can say that to follow ICAO rules depends on single country policy. In case of land after we don't have a general reference in ICAO documents, but only the chapter 7.11 PANS-ATM about RRSM. Actually the conditions to apply land after and RRSM are different beacause of an amendment of march 2005. So now there is the legal matter of right application of this procedure. You said: "I can't see any real reason for not following the current procedures except that some aspects are more limiting than the old procedures. Perhaps some runways are not long enough to make it practical to use the new criteria but then one might ask whether it's a good idea anyway." As an ATCer which gives an instruction to land after, even if on pilot responsability, I worry about all situations to be considered when a reduction in separation is going on. In fact ICAO suggests to pay attention also to visibility, to tailwind, to category of acft involved, etc..etc..and I don't think is a good idea to not consider all of them, because not consistent with our local or national manuals. And my doubt is not only about right application of a procedure under ATC point of view, but also under legal point of view, in case of a snag. Because we know, we ATCer are above all safety guardians...
In Italy, for example, even if rules for "Visual Approach" are clear and like for land after, you relieve responsabiliy for separation to pilot, due to an accident happened about 7 years ago near Cagliari, when pilot of an ambulance flight was cleared for a visual approach, all ATCer involved have been sentenced to some years of prison and to pay compensation for damages. This sentence was expressed by Judge on ATCers responsability to not avoid in all ways the collision with the mountain (it was during nighthours). Consequence of this sentence, now Visual Approach in Italy is forbidden....
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think your summary covers things well. It is up to each State to implement whichever bits of ICAO they choose to in the best way that fits the legal framework. In theory each State should do all of ICAO if it can but many file Differences for reasons related to national policy or perhaps even not wanting to change something that works and is well understood.
For all the flaws in the ICAO system, the SARPs etc are generally consistent with each other. This means that if a State deviates from or does not apply one SARP or PANS it is common for problems to be created elsewhere because something that was assumed to be in place is not. The UK has had a tendency in the past to do some things in its own way - sometimes with very good and justifiable reasons in my personal view - but it does mean that it sometimes has to find more and more fixes for a problem which wouldn't even exist if they'd just applied the ICAO rules.
However, the UK has a very good set of national and local procedure manuals that describe in a lot of detail how ATC should be done - I don't know if you have the same in Italy. If a controller follows the procedures in the manuals this will usually be a good enough defence if something goes wrong like Cagliari. The people who write the manuals and oversee them (the NSA) would probably also have to justify why they considered the procedures to be adequate also. Unless the controller can be shown to have been actively negligent I would hope that he/she would not be convicted in court (but, of course, you can never be sure what a court will conclude). Again, I don't know how the Italian legal system works so I've no idea whether there are parallels with the UK.
I agree with you that the considerations set out in PANS-ATM for applying reduced runway separation now are better than for the previous land after procedures. As I said, I can't see why the UK national procedures have not been updated - only the people who write the procedures (in the CAA) can tell us. But even if the books had been updated, a controller has options about which procedures he/she uses - if you don't feel that using reduced runway separation is a good idea in a particular situation, then don't use it. I sometimes hear these sort of decisions being described as defensive controlling and it does appear to be quite common in some places that I have seen - perhaps because of legal decisions that have been made.
In some ways the situation may get easier before too long because EASA is planning to introduce regulations about rules of the air and ATC procedures - effectively mandating ICAO Annex 2 and PANS-ATM. This will mean, in theory anyway, that States cannot file individual Differences and we will all do ATC in the same way across the whole of Europe. What will happen in practice, is another 'who knows'!
For all the flaws in the ICAO system, the SARPs etc are generally consistent with each other. This means that if a State deviates from or does not apply one SARP or PANS it is common for problems to be created elsewhere because something that was assumed to be in place is not. The UK has had a tendency in the past to do some things in its own way - sometimes with very good and justifiable reasons in my personal view - but it does mean that it sometimes has to find more and more fixes for a problem which wouldn't even exist if they'd just applied the ICAO rules.
However, the UK has a very good set of national and local procedure manuals that describe in a lot of detail how ATC should be done - I don't know if you have the same in Italy. If a controller follows the procedures in the manuals this will usually be a good enough defence if something goes wrong like Cagliari. The people who write the manuals and oversee them (the NSA) would probably also have to justify why they considered the procedures to be adequate also. Unless the controller can be shown to have been actively negligent I would hope that he/she would not be convicted in court (but, of course, you can never be sure what a court will conclude). Again, I don't know how the Italian legal system works so I've no idea whether there are parallels with the UK.
I agree with you that the considerations set out in PANS-ATM for applying reduced runway separation now are better than for the previous land after procedures. As I said, I can't see why the UK national procedures have not been updated - only the people who write the procedures (in the CAA) can tell us. But even if the books had been updated, a controller has options about which procedures he/she uses - if you don't feel that using reduced runway separation is a good idea in a particular situation, then don't use it. I sometimes hear these sort of decisions being described as defensive controlling and it does appear to be quite common in some places that I have seen - perhaps because of legal decisions that have been made.
In some ways the situation may get easier before too long because EASA is planning to introduce regulations about rules of the air and ATC procedures - effectively mandating ICAO Annex 2 and PANS-ATM. This will mean, in theory anyway, that States cannot file individual Differences and we will all do ATC in the same way across the whole of Europe. What will happen in practice, is another 'who knows'!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our strange situation in Italy is that in our general manual (MO-ATM) land after is not considered. It only appears in Fiumicino and Malpensa local manuals, but its applying conditions shouldn't be less restrictive than general. At the contrary, in MO-ATM we have only the RRSM last version, so with new more restrictive conditions.
In my opinion in UK the strange situation is that is not clear in your CAP493 MATS1 para.15.2.4, if "...landing aircraft may be premitted to land..." means that it is a RRSM or land after procedure (you say clear to land or land after??), and also that it is not updated according new RRSM...
In my opinion in UK the strange situation is that is not clear in your CAP493 MATS1 para.15.2.4, if "...landing aircraft may be premitted to land..." means that it is a RRSM or land after procedure (you say clear to land or land after??), and also that it is not updated according new RRSM...
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In our local manuals (IPI) in Fiumicino and Malpensa, we have some conditions to apply land after, as yours in CAP493 MATS1, Aerodrome Services, para.15.2.4, but it's also explained the phraseology to use. Are there any reference more about it in UK??
I certainly use the 'Land After' at Heathrow, if I'm prompted by a flight crew reporting visual with the one ahead.
The question: from your point of view as an ATCO - is it more of a help or a hindrance having a pilot report "we will accept a land-after" at about 1 mile or so? Would you rather we just kept quiet rather than prompting you?
(On both occasions that I remember, what we indeed actually received in response was the aforementioned "after the departing xxxxx, cleared to land".)
In NZ a conditional clearance may be issued provided that there is reasonable assurance that by the time the arriving aircraft crosses the threshold to land, or departing aircraft commences their take off roll, the appropriate RWY sep or reduced RWY sep will exist. The responsibility is always with the controller. Phraseology is "B737 departing, RWY 36 cleared to land".
In the US they say number 3 following 737 cleared to land. Don't think that's ICAO but what in the US is?
In the US they say number 3 following 737 cleared to land. Don't think that's ICAO but what in the US is?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HI, spitoon sorry for my insistence...
Because I'm trying to have a right answer to my doubts about land after, I've sent some questions to our persons in charge. I'm sure, maybe like you, that our land after procedure, like yours, remained with old conditions, so without any update. In my opinion our actual applications are not legal anymore. Today I've received the first answer from ANACNA, and indipendent italian association for ATCers, that gives me confirmation about it. Our managment is not giving me any answer, yet...
In this situation I'm sure I will not use this procedure with old conditions anymore!!
(RRSM before March 2005). I've read your CAP 493 Mats 1 Section 2 of July 2009, and it is not clear if "...landing aircraft may be permitted to land before preceding landing aicraft is not clear of the runway..." is about RRSM not updated, or land after instruction without any clearance to land. The phraseology to be used is not specified and so is not clear which one it is. What is your opinion about it?? Thank you!
Because I'm trying to have a right answer to my doubts about land after, I've sent some questions to our persons in charge. I'm sure, maybe like you, that our land after procedure, like yours, remained with old conditions, so without any update. In my opinion our actual applications are not legal anymore. Today I've received the first answer from ANACNA, and indipendent italian association for ATCers, that gives me confirmation about it. Our managment is not giving me any answer, yet...
In this situation I'm sure I will not use this procedure with old conditions anymore!!
(RRSM before March 2005). I've read your CAP 493 Mats 1 Section 2 of July 2009, and it is not clear if "...landing aircraft may be permitted to land before preceding landing aicraft is not clear of the runway..." is about RRSM not updated, or land after instruction without any clearance to land. The phraseology to be used is not specified and so is not clear which one it is. What is your opinion about it?? Thank you!
Guest
Posts: n/a
caciara, the procedure is optional - if you are not happy to use it for any reason, then don't use it. Obviously this may mean that your approach colleagues may need to increase the spacing between inbounds.
Whether it is 'legal' depends entirely your national law framework. Nothing in the ICAO Annexes/PANS is law in your country until it is transposed into your legislation. If the land after/RRSM procedures are in your law then to do something different, even if the ICAO SARP on which the law is based changes, is probably unwise. If the procedures are in a manual published by your CAA - as CAP 493 is - then I would expect them to have a reason for not updating it (even if it's not obvious to you), that's their job. Again, doing something different is probably unwise.
Fortunately with this procedure you can choose whether or not to apply it. Things might be different if there are no alternatives available to you.
I'm not operational any more but if I were in your position I would personally - in principle - be happy to apply the national procedures in CAP 493. However, the fact that the procedures are confused/confusing and do not accord with the current ICAO procedures seems unnecessary and undesirable.
Maybe the EASA rules will solve these problems....
Whether it is 'legal' depends entirely your national law framework. Nothing in the ICAO Annexes/PANS is law in your country until it is transposed into your legislation. If the land after/RRSM procedures are in your law then to do something different, even if the ICAO SARP on which the law is based changes, is probably unwise. If the procedures are in a manual published by your CAA - as CAP 493 is - then I would expect them to have a reason for not updating it (even if it's not obvious to you), that's their job. Again, doing something different is probably unwise.
Fortunately with this procedure you can choose whether or not to apply it. Things might be different if there are no alternatives available to you.
I'm not operational any more but if I were in your position I would personally - in principle - be happy to apply the national procedures in CAP 493. However, the fact that the procedures are confused/confusing and do not accord with the current ICAO procedures seems unnecessary and undesirable.
Maybe the EASA rules will solve these problems....
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Spitoon,
I know that I can choose whether or not to apply this procedure. In fact I don't apply it, even if it's described in our local (Fiumicino airport) manual. And I know that nothing in ICAO is law until is transposed in our legislation.
The problem is different in my point of view. In Italy we can use this procedure only in Fiumicino and Malpensa, on local manual conditions. So we don't have any national or ICAO reference to understand its atc origin. It seems to be an indipendent procedure with its own conditions to apply it. In my opinion is not possible to apply a procedure unknown in all ICAO documents and also in our italian atc manual. We are trying to know if a connection could be possible with Reduced Runway Separation Minima, the only ICAO rules included in our italian atc manual, similar to "land after". In your opinion "land after" could be included in RRSM or not ??
Merry Christmas everybody!!!
I know that I can choose whether or not to apply this procedure. In fact I don't apply it, even if it's described in our local (Fiumicino airport) manual. And I know that nothing in ICAO is law until is transposed in our legislation.
The problem is different in my point of view. In Italy we can use this procedure only in Fiumicino and Malpensa, on local manual conditions. So we don't have any national or ICAO reference to understand its atc origin. It seems to be an indipendent procedure with its own conditions to apply it. In my opinion is not possible to apply a procedure unknown in all ICAO documents and also in our italian atc manual. We are trying to know if a connection could be possible with Reduced Runway Separation Minima, the only ICAO rules included in our italian atc manual, similar to "land after". In your opinion "land after" could be included in RRSM or not ??
Merry Christmas everybody!!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South of Brittany
Age: 75
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landing clearance
The "anticipated landing clearance" used in CDG is the copy of the FAA one's in force at ATL or DAL based on:
(JO 7110.65T ... 3-10-6. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION)
a. Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that
prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft cross the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if not
previously reported and appropriate traffic holding in position or departing prior to their arrival.)
About "land after" it has been used in Orly until ICAO published reduced separation on the same runway. "land after" was not considered as an ATC clearance ( hot discussions between OPS people and Legal department of DGCA) but only as a landing option offered to the pilot who agree to land on an occupied runway.
(JO 7110.65T ... 3-10-6. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION)
a. Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that
prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft cross the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if not
previously reported and appropriate traffic holding in position or departing prior to their arrival.)
About "land after" it has been used in Orly until ICAO published reduced separation on the same runway. "land after" was not considered as an ATC clearance ( hot discussions between OPS people and Legal department of DGCA) but only as a landing option offered to the pilot who agree to land on an occupied runway.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for instistence,
but I'm trying to complete the research about land after procedure.
I'm still trying to understand the right application of this procedure in other countries. Eurocontrol told me that only in some UK airports it is still used. I've understood that CAA has notified the land after application for your busy airports, and it is reported with its old applying conditions in CAP 493. It is reported in radiotelephony manual as differences to ICAO radiotelephony procedures, by using the phrase "land after...", instead of cleared to land. And it is reported in AIP GEN 1-7-47, as difference to ICAO PANS ATM, within Reduced Runway Separations, with the only phraseology difference. So it seems to be, that CAA is applying the ICAO RRSM with the only phraseology difference, land after instead of cleared to land, but because Eurocontrol told me that is not possible to mix both procedures, wich are the applying conditions in UK into practice?? (visibility, tail wind, runway conditions, application hours, etc...). ICAO RRSM or not ICAO Land After conditions??
Thank you again for your kind cooperation!!!
but I'm trying to complete the research about land after procedure.
I'm still trying to understand the right application of this procedure in other countries. Eurocontrol told me that only in some UK airports it is still used. I've understood that CAA has notified the land after application for your busy airports, and it is reported with its old applying conditions in CAP 493. It is reported in radiotelephony manual as differences to ICAO radiotelephony procedures, by using the phrase "land after...", instead of cleared to land. And it is reported in AIP GEN 1-7-47, as difference to ICAO PANS ATM, within Reduced Runway Separations, with the only phraseology difference. So it seems to be, that CAA is applying the ICAO RRSM with the only phraseology difference, land after instead of cleared to land, but because Eurocontrol told me that is not possible to mix both procedures, wich are the applying conditions in UK into practice?? (visibility, tail wind, runway conditions, application hours, etc...). ICAO RRSM or not ICAO Land After conditions??
Thank you again for your kind cooperation!!!
