Cleared to land, land only?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We use this phraseology when controlling light circuit traffic following a Small+ departure eg G-CD cleared to land, land only due wake turbulence, expect further clearance on the runway.
It helps to emphasise that a touch and go should not be carried out in order to prevent a wake turbulence encounter. It does not prohibit a G/A, however if the pilot needs to he will then be aware of the WT.
To me this phraseology seems more appropriate for denying a circuit detail due to traffic levels rather than holding the aircraft for WT before continuing, it also does not inform the pilot of a potential WT encounter.
It helps to emphasise that a touch and go should not be carried out in order to prevent a wake turbulence encounter. It does not prohibit a G/A, however if the pilot needs to he will then be aware of the WT.
G-CD, unable to approve
due traffic, make full stop
landing runway 34 cleared
to land, surface wind calm
due traffic, make full stop
landing runway 34 cleared
to land, surface wind calm
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so the conclusion I can come to from this is that it was not a prohibition of going around (didn't think it would be this). But more likely a controller who likely by accident mixed in his normal patter for circuit traffic in a given circumstance to an aircraft inbound commercial IFR?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the way I would take it OhNoCb. It's definately not an instruction to not go around.
Just using the wrong phraseology - though interestingly that is what I was taught in college too!
It's non standard but i don't feel it was that ambiguous. I would certainly only use it for Circuit traffic/training traffic in a Wake Turbulence situation.
Instrument approach does not necessarily mean that he would not conduct a touch and go - it's not necessarily a commercial operation. Instrument training aircraft do this all the time.
Could also have been an error/slip form the controller, or maybe a student controller under instruction.
Just using the wrong phraseology - though interestingly that is what I was taught in college too!
It's non standard but i don't feel it was that ambiguous. I would certainly only use it for Circuit traffic/training traffic in a Wake Turbulence situation.
Instrument approach does not necessarily mean that he would not conduct a touch and go - it's not necessarily a commercial operation. Instrument training aircraft do this all the time.
Could also have been an error/slip form the controller, or maybe a student controller under instruction.
