"Land After" UK / ... now SVO
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur with GT3. LHRPony I apologise, I didn't intend to cast aspersions! I don't blame crews for not understanding the subtleties between the two similar instructions.
One could surmise that withdrawing one of the two was a step towards eliminating that potential confusion.
One might also perhaps consider that we retained the UK-specific procedure rather than the ICAO compliant procedure, so perhaps the confusion potential is still there, as evidenced by GT3's remarks.
One could surmise that withdrawing one of the two was a step towards eliminating that potential confusion.
One might also perhaps consider that we retained the UK-specific procedure rather than the ICAO compliant procedure, so perhaps the confusion potential is still there, as evidenced by GT3's remarks.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 'Land After' is a cop-out at precision IFR ATM airports such as Heathrow. It's lacklustre and brought about by the high pressure on runway utilisation. Because of the confusion highlighted above I think that 'Land After' should be consigned to the nats Room 101 bin of doubtful, non-robust procedures (such as 2.5 nm spacing). If the airport cannot operate using standard robust procedures then take some of the runway utilisation pressure off in the interest of the flight safety of the fare-paying passenger. It took a whole raft of go-around incidents at Heathrow before robust (non-intervention) go-around procedures were introduced. Every approach is to a potential go-around, so there should never have been any need for reactive intervention. I think 'Land After' at major international airports such as Heathrow shoddy buck-passing. If there is insufficient spare capacity for a robust landing clearance, then airport operators should create some by relieving the pressure.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Land after' enables a safe clearance to be issued and prevent an otherwise unnecessary missed approach. Would a clear landing clearance with associated distances as per Doc 4444 be more appropriate, possibly, however the 'Land after' procedure works well and helps the ATCO to provide a safe service. The important aspect being that the 'Land after' clearance be issued in good time and as GT3 says, not be upset by the potential for a missed approach if that is what the crew desire.
2.5nm spacing is a robust tool to enable consistent throughput to the landing runway in stronger winds.
2.5nm spacing is a robust tool to enable consistent throughput to the landing runway in stronger winds.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree 100% with Talkdownman. And, as already noted, Land After is not a clearance - it's passing the buck to the crews which should not happen at a major airfield.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, poor choice of words using 'clearance', sorry.
It does not change the fact that the 'Land after' is a useful procedure to enable a pilot to safely land when otherwise a missed approach would be the only option. The Part 1 is quite clear that:
'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'.
The instruction (I appreciate that some won't like the choice of 'instruction' either) would not be issued if the mandated condition's were not present.
It does not change the fact that the 'Land after' is a useful procedure to enable a pilot to safely land when otherwise a missed approach would be the only option. The Part 1 is quite clear that:
'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'.
The instruction (I appreciate that some won't like the choice of 'instruction' either) would not be issued if the mandated condition's were not present.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London
Age: 42
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys,
I have to admit (and it's abundantly obvious), I wasn't aware of the "after the landing." It is interesting reading, and probably one of the most useful things I have learned from Pprune.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Kind regards
LHRPony
I have to admit (and it's abundantly obvious), I wasn't aware of the "after the landing." It is interesting reading, and probably one of the most useful things I have learned from Pprune.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Kind regards
LHRPony
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Poland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, at my airport any 'land-after' instruction is a crime, but to be honest - in a case where the *only* limitiation to issue a legal landing clearance is a preceding landing aircraft that is just about to vacate the runway, it should be fine, in my opinion, to issue a 'land after' landing clearance, leaving that small part of responsibility to the crew. I think that in CAVOK conditions they are able to judge the situation better than the ATC...
Last edited by samotnik; 16th Sep 2014 at 07:04.
No. It can only be given by ATC where the controller is positive the following aircraft can see the first one and the pilot can assess that it is sufficiently far ahead for him to land ie it must be daylight and VMC, there is no requirement for a specific minimum distance between landers, however obviously the first aircraft must not be permitted to backtrack.
I was wrong earlier - heard a tower controller at Essex International issue a conditional landing clearance this morning ("after the departing xxx cleared to land"). The departure was rolling at that point but still fairly slow.
