"Expect late landing clearance"
As a pilot "expect a late landing clearance" triggers several things in me
I will PREPARE FOR A GO-AROUND
- situational awareness. It tells me that for some reason - known or unknown - i will not get my landing clearance right away. Most of the time it is a developing situation. Traffic in front missed the first exit and trundles along on the runway.
2 s
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
error 401
Would your reaction to 'continue approach, one to vacate' be any different?
Cross posted with 2 Sheds......point remains.
As does the fact that we did have occasions where aircraft landed without clearance after being told 'expect late landing clearance'.
Would your reaction to 'continue approach, one to vacate' be any different?
Cross posted with 2 Sheds......point remains.
As does the fact that we did have occasions where aircraft landed without clearance after being told 'expect late landing clearance'.
Like the time I was landing on 27L in a Brymon Herald. We had late landing clearance to allow the Link helicopter to cross ahead. The Trident behind us was of course fast catching up and reported OM well before we touched down and was given 'continue'. He made a couple more reports after we touched down and was still given 'continue'. Just before we vacated he reported 'I'm on the deck', 'cleared to land' replied the controller!
I can remember (!) being on the jump seat of a Swissair A310 waiting for takeoff at Manchester more than 20 years ago a KLM B737 on short final being told "expect a late landing clearance"... the, I think it was a 'shed' departed... slowly... and KLM was informed, just flaring... "cleared to land". Those were the days.
It has its purpose, I'm sure.
To me, it means, among other things
- the controller is aware that we would have wanted the clearance significantly sooner than we'll get (and that they plan for us to land rather than go around)
- expect a chance of a go around, so I can re-brief the missed approach procedure
- (depending on the reason for late clearance) expect a chance of wake turbulence, either on approach if a landing aircraft, or in the go around if a departing one, or could be an aircraft/vehicle crossing the runway
- gives me and the guy next to me time to consider the plan if we go around (particularly if due to a departing aircraft who will be in our blindspot on the g/a)
To me, it means, among other things
- the controller is aware that we would have wanted the clearance significantly sooner than we'll get (and that they plan for us to land rather than go around)
- expect a chance of a go around, so I can re-brief the missed approach procedure
- (depending on the reason for late clearance) expect a chance of wake turbulence, either on approach if a landing aircraft, or in the go around if a departing one, or could be an aircraft/vehicle crossing the runway
- gives me and the guy next to me time to consider the plan if we go around (particularly if due to a departing aircraft who will be in our blindspot on the g/a)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilots in this thread have said that 'expect late landing clearance' has been a trigger to prepare for a go-around.
Perhaps this is what UK-based pilots think about when they hear that phrase. If so then they are second guessing the controller. Which is fine, and they are doing it in the sensible, defensive, way.
Imagine that you do not speak English as a first language. ATC have just told you that you will be getting a landing clearance, just not yet.
And old war stories of giving a landing clearance when the aircraft has already touched down precisely shows the problems resulting from the use of this phraseology. I'm glad to know that things have moved on a bit in terms of safety.
Is it just me?
Perhaps this is what UK-based pilots think about when they hear that phrase. If so then they are second guessing the controller. Which is fine, and they are doing it in the sensible, defensive, way.
Imagine that you do not speak English as a first language. ATC have just told you that you will be getting a landing clearance, just not yet.
And old war stories of giving a landing clearance when the aircraft has already touched down precisely shows the problems resulting from the use of this phraseology. I'm glad to know that things have moved on a bit in terms of safety.
Is it just me?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this is for me an overseas thread, here's something from your own backyard.
Supplement to CAP 143. Radiotelephony Manual, A Quick Guide to UK Phraseology:"Continue Approach." Repeated in the ICAO "All Clear" R/T Guide.
There is a similar PPPrune thread in the archives from May 2005.
Supplement to CAP 143. Radiotelephony Manual, A Quick Guide to UK Phraseology:"Continue Approach." Repeated in the ICAO "All Clear" R/T Guide.
There is a similar PPPrune thread in the archives from May 2005.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our manual states that if we cannot issue a landing clearance to an aircraft on approach before 2 miles from touchdown then we should issue "expect a late landing clearance". This may be something historic which needs an update.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO "expect late landing clearance" improves SA for all concerned.
If I hear this call when I am the pilot of the preceding aircraft, I will do what I can, consistent with safety, to expedite clearing the runway.
If I hear this call when I am the pilot of the preceding aircraft, I will do what I can, consistent with safety, to expedite clearing the runway.
Our manual states that if we cannot issue a landing clearance to an aircraft on approach before 2 miles from touchdown then we should issue "expect a late landing clearance". This may be something historic which needs an update.
IMO "expect late landing clearance" improves SA for all concerned.
2 s
Last edited by 2 sheds; 22nd Mar 2016 at 08:36. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our manual states that if we cannot issue a landing clearance to an aircraft on approach before 2 miles from touchdown then we should issue "expect a late landing clearance". This may be something historic which needs an update.
I don't use the phrase but I do give situational information. "Continue 767 to depart" or similar.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of what individual airport limit is (if there is one), would you rather say "Expect late landing clearance [reason]" or the (more standard) "Continue approach [reason]"?
Where [reason] = Departure ahead/departure rolling/one to vacate/inspection in progress...etc., etc
Where [reason] = Departure ahead/departure rolling/one to vacate/inspection in progress...etc., etc
A 'land after' doesn't require the first aircraft to have vacated before the second touches down.(Unless the rules have changed since I retired!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by n.dave
The bad one is 'zz, land after xx have vacated the runway' and the xx will take all his time to vacate the runway. Don't like it.
A 'land after' doesn't require the first aircraft to have vacated before the second touches down.(Unless the rules have changed since I retired!)
Originally Posted by n.dave
The bad one is 'zz, land after xx have vacated the runway' and the xx will take all his time to vacate the runway. Don't like it.
A 'land after' doesn't require the first aircraft to have vacated before the second touches down.(Unless the rules have changed since I retired!)
2 s
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Heart of Europe
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Gonzo
Sorry to the late answer, been flying quite a bit lately...
Right - Generally speaking. A dozend reasons to go-around a dozend of things that have to fall into place to land including "cleared to land RWY 36, wind 360/5".
I agree that the optional "continue the approach 737 to vacate" is the better option but not always the reality.
Sorry to the late answer, been flying quite a bit lately...
Right - Generally speaking. A dozend reasons to go-around a dozend of things that have to fall into place to land including "cleared to land RWY 36, wind 360/5".
I agree that the optional "continue the approach 737 to vacate" is the better option but not always the reality.
