Landing Clearance at CDG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing Clearance at CDG
Going into Paris CDG today I was at 10nm on 08R and could 'see' another aircraft on TCAS at about 5nm ahead. We were in IMC. The French controller then cleared us to land. I queried what RWY the a/c on TCAS was using, and yep, it was the same as us. I then asked the controller if he meant 'clear land after' and he simply repeated 'yes, clear to land'.
We subsequently became visual and could see the one ahead clear the RWY before we landed.
I searched the Jeppesen Text Manual later to find some new reference to explain this strange behaviour...but could find nothing.
Have I missed something? I've never had such a clearance before...in France, or anywhere else.
Is it me? Or the French?
We subsequently became visual and could see the one ahead clear the RWY before we landed.
I searched the Jeppesen Text Manual later to find some new reference to explain this strange behaviour...but could find nothing.
Have I missed something? I've never had such a clearance before...in France, or anywhere else.
Is it me? Or the French?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you. Strange one this...as an aerodrome controller I have never issued such a clearance and I have never heard it being issued.
To the best of my knowledge there are three landing clearances a pilot can receive;
1. "cleared to land..."
2. "Land after..."
3. "Land after the departing..." (only applicable to certain a/d's)
You simply cannot safely clear an aircraft which is not number one to land.
Hope this helps.
To the best of my knowledge there are three landing clearances a pilot can receive;
1. "cleared to land..."
2. "Land after..."
3. "Land after the departing..." (only applicable to certain a/d's)
You simply cannot safely clear an aircraft which is not number one to land.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idunno,
on a J/S ride over to JFK I clearly heard the tower controller say "You are number 5 cleared to land". This is standard in the States but have not heard of it outside of there.
Whilst you're here though perhaps you can help me in this regard.
As a tower controller at an airfield that is getting consistentley busier, I am having to frequentley give landing clearances inside 1 mile from touch down, roughly at a point where an embankment is causing turbulence to add to the high cockpit workload.
Would you rather I give you a land after clearance when you are further out, or a cleared to land instruction at this point?
on a J/S ride over to JFK I clearly heard the tower controller say "You are number 5 cleared to land". This is standard in the States but have not heard of it outside of there.
Whilst you're here though perhaps you can help me in this regard.
As a tower controller at an airfield that is getting consistentley busier, I am having to frequentley give landing clearances inside 1 mile from touch down, roughly at a point where an embankment is causing turbulence to add to the high cockpit workload.
Would you rather I give you a land after clearance when you are further out, or a cleared to land instruction at this point?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting topic.
The actual runway separation standards used worldwide are pretty standard (I think!), but the application of them, it appears, is not.
In the US you can get a landing clearance when there are five (or six or seven - where does it end?) ahead of you. It appears that at certain UK airports (but not all, am I correct?) you can get a "land after" clearance.
In Australia we are not permitted to issue a landing clearance until you are next to use the runway - ie the runway is clear and the standard met. A small amount of anticipation is allowed to avoid late landing clearances when it is assured that the standard will be met. What's a small amount? It's not defined, there are no guidelines. One uses the sensible exercise of professional discretion, which is based on training, experience and circumstances.
Where I work (Sydney) most runway operations are mixed-mode (ie arrivals and departures on the same runway) or crossing runway operations. Most times traffic demands mean that the gaps between arrivals are minimal - just enough to accommodate a departure, be it on the same runway or a crossing one - meaning that on a routine basis the minimum runway separation standard is used and the arriving aircraft will not get a landing clearance until quite late.
One mile final is not unusual, in fact it's common - ie the landing a/c is just crossing the threshold as the departing gets airborne beyond the expected roll-out or, on crossing runways, crosses the runway intersection - in which case the landing clearance will be issued not far short of the threshold, when achievement of the standard is assured.
We quite often get adverse comment from aircrew, particularly internationals, usually British or United along the lines of "That's too close, tower."
In the case of landing behind a departing, eg a B737 landing behind a departing 747, we occasionally get complaints from the landing crew of "wake turbulence". It's not wake turbulence at all, of course, it's residual thrust turbulence at the threshold. The landing standard takes no account of that. Should ATC? To what degree? (Personally, I do with a lightie behind a medium or heavy jet. But not with any other combination.)
These are ICAO standards. Is the ICAO standard insufficient, or do other airports play it "not so squeezy" so aircrew don't get to experience the real minimum elsewhere? I doubt that. I hardly think that United pilots are not exposed to the minimums in their home environment, so why the apparent surprise out here? Or British for that matter - they fly to high density airports all over the world as well.
Thoughts, anyone?
AA
The actual runway separation standards used worldwide are pretty standard (I think!), but the application of them, it appears, is not.
In the US you can get a landing clearance when there are five (or six or seven - where does it end?) ahead of you. It appears that at certain UK airports (but not all, am I correct?) you can get a "land after" clearance.
In Australia we are not permitted to issue a landing clearance until you are next to use the runway - ie the runway is clear and the standard met. A small amount of anticipation is allowed to avoid late landing clearances when it is assured that the standard will be met. What's a small amount? It's not defined, there are no guidelines. One uses the sensible exercise of professional discretion, which is based on training, experience and circumstances.
Where I work (Sydney) most runway operations are mixed-mode (ie arrivals and departures on the same runway) or crossing runway operations. Most times traffic demands mean that the gaps between arrivals are minimal - just enough to accommodate a departure, be it on the same runway or a crossing one - meaning that on a routine basis the minimum runway separation standard is used and the arriving aircraft will not get a landing clearance until quite late.
One mile final is not unusual, in fact it's common - ie the landing a/c is just crossing the threshold as the departing gets airborne beyond the expected roll-out or, on crossing runways, crosses the runway intersection - in which case the landing clearance will be issued not far short of the threshold, when achievement of the standard is assured.
We quite often get adverse comment from aircrew, particularly internationals, usually British or United along the lines of "That's too close, tower."
In the case of landing behind a departing, eg a B737 landing behind a departing 747, we occasionally get complaints from the landing crew of "wake turbulence". It's not wake turbulence at all, of course, it's residual thrust turbulence at the threshold. The landing standard takes no account of that. Should ATC? To what degree? (Personally, I do with a lightie behind a medium or heavy jet. But not with any other combination.)
These are ICAO standards. Is the ICAO standard insufficient, or do other airports play it "not so squeezy" so aircrew don't get to experience the real minimum elsewhere? I doubt that. I hardly think that United pilots are not exposed to the minimums in their home environment, so why the apparent surprise out here? Or British for that matter - they fly to high density airports all over the world as well.
Thoughts, anyone?
AA
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were IMC, the clearance you were given is illegal.
French rules do permit multiple clearances to land provided all are VMC and the controller can see all of the runway.
The attitude there, like the USA, is that if anything happens and the runway were to become blocked, then the controller can simply issue go-around instructions. But at CDG, a clearance to land does not mean you are the only thing cleared to use the runway.
Very far from satisfactory, I agree.
French rules do permit multiple clearances to land provided all are VMC and the controller can see all of the runway.
The attitude there, like the USA, is that if anything happens and the runway were to become blocked, then the controller can simply issue go-around instructions. But at CDG, a clearance to land does not mean you are the only thing cleared to use the runway.
Very far from satisfactory, I agree.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My doubts were raised by the fact that I was IMC and wasn't everasked if I could see the one ahead. We broke cloud a mile or so later, but the clearance was given at 10NM while IMC.
I've operated in thje states and I've been used to having that kind of clearance given there, but not in europe. I don't like it much.
Wheelybin, I would be quite happy to accept a 'cleared land after' if it's obviously VMC and we can see the one ahead. In high workload/busy fields I would probably prefer it to the late call. But there was no reason for it on this occasion as far as I could see.
Captain Stable, if what you say is true then the French controller was within the law in issuing the clearance...but only just...given I was still in IMC.
I've operated in thje states and I've been used to having that kind of clearance given there, but not in europe. I don't like it much.
Wheelybin, I would be quite happy to accept a 'cleared land after' if it's obviously VMC and we can see the one ahead. In high workload/busy fields I would probably prefer it to the late call. But there was no reason for it on this occasion as far as I could see.
Captain Stable, if what you say is true then the French controller was within the law in issuing the clearance...but only just...given I was still in IMC.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: paris
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At CDG, on the Southern 2 paralell runways, controllers are allowed to issue early landing clearances, provided that the controller thinks that, should everything go ok, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... will land safely.... and this whatever the weather, except when low visibility procedures are in force. In taht case, only the 1st one is cleared to land.
Otherwise, if for example the 2nd aircraft is far too close to the preceding one, with a greater speed, if the controller thinks there may be a missed approach, then he tells the second aircraft to continue on the ILS.... but when things are ok, the 6th one can be cleared to land.
(don't know if i'm very clear...... sorry, more difficult in English, and it's quite late by now )
the purpose of all this is to have less messages on the frequency. When there are many aircraft on departure and arrival, the controller does nothing else but talk on the radio... he/she doesn't stop....
It's aimed to be like in Dallas, actually.... don't know if it succeeds.... it's alledgedly the model...
à bientôt
Otherwise, if for example the 2nd aircraft is far too close to the preceding one, with a greater speed, if the controller thinks there may be a missed approach, then he tells the second aircraft to continue on the ILS.... but when things are ok, the 6th one can be cleared to land.
(don't know if i'm very clear...... sorry, more difficult in English, and it's quite late by now )
the purpose of all this is to have less messages on the frequency. When there are many aircraft on departure and arrival, the controller does nothing else but talk on the radio... he/she doesn't stop....
It's aimed to be like in Dallas, actually.... don't know if it succeeds.... it's alledgedly the model...
à bientôt
I,ve operated in and out of CDG for years and without wishing to be too rude (but I am going to be anyway!) the standard of ATC is far and away the worst of any large airport I have used, the issue of take-off and landing clearances is just one area that is often handled in a shoddy and non-standard manner. The difference between a certain other large busy airport 30mins flying time over the channel is VERY marked.
As far as getting landing clearance in the US whilst number 4-5 goes, in VMC it is a great system, it's just a conditional landing clearance, if the runway is clear you land, if not go-around. Shame we don't use it in the UK.
As far as getting landing clearance in the US whilst number 4-5 goes, in VMC it is a great system, it's just a conditional landing clearance, if the runway is clear you land, if not go-around. Shame we don't use it in the UK.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Landing Clearance at CDG
Multiple landing clearances in the USA are common. Normally the method is to tell you that you are number 2 following the B727 (or some other aircraft) on X mile final cleared to land runway XX.
As for clearing 5 acft at the same time to land on the same runway, I doubt it has ever happened unless, acft 3 has acft 2 in sight, and acft 4 has acft 3 in sight (so on and so on) and everyone who is following is maintaining VISUAL SEPERATION and approach switches all 5 over to the tower.
Mike
FWA
As for clearing 5 acft at the same time to land on the same runway, I doubt it has ever happened unless, acft 3 has acft 2 in sight, and acft 4 has acft 3 in sight (so on and so on) and everyone who is following is maintaining VISUAL SEPERATION and approach switches all 5 over to the tower.
Mike
FWA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind You
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to back up Max Angles statement (albeit as currently being little more than a ppl).
I have found there can be occasions you can see you are clearly in a sequence (in VMC) all is going nicely then on final at 2 or 3 hundred feet (with no one on the taxi ways) the radio gets congested with superfluous chatter (weekend scenario). You know beyond reasonable doubt you can land safely but you need that legaly binding verbal contract and the only break in Rt comes at 50ft ish (i'm in a light single) and you just manage to blurt out 'confirm cleared to land?' ATC then respond to the affirmative which you knew they would anyway but only then can you relax and properly get on with the job in hand.
I am aware that if in doubt I should go around, I have done and will do so but life would be so much simpler if ATC were allowed to say 'no3 cleared to land'
As far as getting landing clearance in the US whilst number 4-5 goes, in VMC it is a great system, it's just a conditional landing clearance, if the runway is clear you land, if not go-around. Shame we don't use it in the UK.
I am aware that if in doubt I should go around, I have done and will do so but life would be so much simpler if ATC were allowed to say 'no3 cleared to land'
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: paris
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's strange...
some foreign pilots say ATC in CDG is crap. and French pilots usually like it.... they say controllers adapt to pilots' requests, give direct routeings, it's flexible.
On the other hand, some of them say that in England (London), it's too rigid and always the same. "At that point, you can be sure you will be at that altitude, that speed, that heading, whether there are 20 or zero aircraft in the vicinity".
I'd also like to say that on the ground it's often a real mess..... but often, the controller is not to blame (or just up to a certain point).
Taxiing in CDG is very difficult, but Ground control too !! the guys who designed the taxiways should go to an asylum for insane people !! dumb ass taxiways, stupid round terminal 1, where the controller can't even see the aircrafts he controls !!!
those taxiways when you vacate 27L... real nonsense !!!!
and it's not the only nonsense....
some foreign pilots say ATC in CDG is crap. and French pilots usually like it.... they say controllers adapt to pilots' requests, give direct routeings, it's flexible.
On the other hand, some of them say that in England (London), it's too rigid and always the same. "At that point, you can be sure you will be at that altitude, that speed, that heading, whether there are 20 or zero aircraft in the vicinity".
I'd also like to say that on the ground it's often a real mess..... but often, the controller is not to blame (or just up to a certain point).
Taxiing in CDG is very difficult, but Ground control too !! the guys who designed the taxiways should go to an asylum for insane people !! dumb ass taxiways, stupid round terminal 1, where the controller can't even see the aircrafts he controls !!!
those taxiways when you vacate 27L... real nonsense !!!!
and it's not the only nonsense....
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a SH pilot who uses cdg probably 6-8 times a month, Im not sure I can see the problem with landing clearances given 'early' - as long as you are aware it may happen (pretty sure there is an AIS note about this one). In VMC you can see that the runway is clear - and I'd also like to see the stats about landing a/c running into the previous one versus a/c crashing on go arounds (which could be caused by something as simple as a blocked freq).
In any case, most busy airports seem to be getting into the habit of clearances given as the departing reaches something 'near' Vr (see FRA, DUS etc etc) and to me that is much more dangerous as a sudden emergency stop could block the freq and the runway much nearer to the touchdown point.
We all moan about the lack of flex in the new atc systems - just use a bit of common and go around if its not safe to land. In VMC I would guess that we all check the r/w state whatever clearance we get?
In any case, most busy airports seem to be getting into the habit of clearances given as the departing reaches something 'near' Vr (see FRA, DUS etc etc) and to me that is much more dangerous as a sudden emergency stop could block the freq and the runway much nearer to the touchdown point.
We all moan about the lack of flex in the new atc systems - just use a bit of common and go around if its not safe to land. In VMC I would guess that we all check the r/w state whatever clearance we get?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Crawley, Sussex, UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What method were they using at Silverstone for the British GP on Sunday? At one time I counted 15 helicopters in 2 lines queued up to land.
To add to the confusion, I believe that they were assigned the same frequency as another control centre in southern England.
To add to the confusion, I believe that they were assigned the same frequency as another control centre in southern England.
