can u land on a rnwy with another aircraft on it
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Oz no, you would get in big trouble.
Having said that yesterday in Africa we were operating out of a sealed strip that had a busted Herc sitting on the runway.
People were operating on the remaining TODA and LDA except a few of the Russian boys who needed more distance and operated off the parrallel taxiway.
Not China Airlines but interesting all the same, mind you these guys put fighters and boeings onto dirt so I suppose its no big deal once out of the big smoke.
Having said that yesterday in Africa we were operating out of a sealed strip that had a busted Herc sitting on the runway.
People were operating on the remaining TODA and LDA except a few of the Russian boys who needed more distance and operated off the parrallel taxiway.
Not China Airlines but interesting all the same, mind you these guys put fighters and boeings onto dirt so I suppose its no big deal once out of the big smoke.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ENR 1.1 OPERATIONS IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
AIP ENR 11.5 Separation Minima for Landing
11.5.1 The appropriate wake turbulence separation standard will always be applied by ATC between landing aircraft.
11.5.2 A landing aircraft will not be permitted to cross the threshold of the runway on its final approach until:
a. a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway:
(1) is airborne, and
has commenced a turn; or
is beyond the point on the runway at which the
landing aircraft could be expected to complete its
landing roll and there is sufficient distance to
manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach;
(2) is at least 1,000M from the runway threshold, and
has commenced the take-off run, and
in the opinion of the controller, no collision risk exists,
and
the aircraft taking off has a MTOW of 7,000KG or
less, and
the landing aircraft is performance Category A and
has a MTOW below 3,000KG.
b. a preceding landing aircraft using the same runway:
(1) has vacated it and is taxiing away from the runway; or
(2) will vacate the runway without backtracking, and
in the opinion of the tower controller, no collision risk
exists, and
the preceding landing aircraft has a MTOW of
7,000KG or less, and
the following landing aircraft is performance
Category A and has a MTOW below 3,000KG; or
(3) in the case where the following landing aircraft is a helicopter,
the preceding landing aircraft is at least 300M down the runway from the threshold and ATC is satisfied that no collision risk exists. This standard is not applicable at GAAP aerodromes;
c. a preceding aircraft, using a different runway, has crossed or
stopped short of the landing aircrafts runway.
In the above situations, a landing clearance may be issued if
ATC expect that the required runway separation standard will
exist.
11.5.3 Other than as specified in para 46.1, exceptions to separation
minima are:
a. aircraft landing in formation with respect to each other;
b. aircraft operating in different areas or lanes on aerodromes
with runways or facilities suitable for simultaneous landings.
OPERATIONS IN NON-CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
AIP ENR 62.SEPARATION MINIMA FOR LANDING
62.1 An aircraft must not continue its approach to land beyond the
threshold of the runway until:
a. a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway is airborne
and:
(1) has commenced a turn; or
(2) is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing
aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and
there is sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the
event of a missed approach;
b. a preceding landing aircraft using the same runway has vacated it and is taxiing away from the runway;
c. a preceding aircraft using another runway, has crossed or
stopped short of the landing aircrafts runway.
62.2 At aerodromes where gliders operate to a common circuit pattern from a parallel strip outside the runway strip, the above separation minima shall apply to aircraft landing or taking off on both runways as if they were a single runway, but aircraft taxiing or stationary on one runway must not affect operations on the other. Where gliders and glider tugs operate to a contra-circuit, simultaneous operations are permitted.
Note: Pilots are reminded of their obligations to see and avoid
other aircraft (CAR 163A).
AIP ENR 11.5 Separation Minima for Landing
11.5.1 The appropriate wake turbulence separation standard will always be applied by ATC between landing aircraft.
11.5.2 A landing aircraft will not be permitted to cross the threshold of the runway on its final approach until:
a. a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway:
(1) is airborne, and
has commenced a turn; or
is beyond the point on the runway at which the
landing aircraft could be expected to complete its
landing roll and there is sufficient distance to
manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach;
(2) is at least 1,000M from the runway threshold, and
has commenced the take-off run, and
in the opinion of the controller, no collision risk exists,
and
the aircraft taking off has a MTOW of 7,000KG or
less, and
the landing aircraft is performance Category A and
has a MTOW below 3,000KG.
b. a preceding landing aircraft using the same runway:
(1) has vacated it and is taxiing away from the runway; or
(2) will vacate the runway without backtracking, and
in the opinion of the tower controller, no collision risk
exists, and
the preceding landing aircraft has a MTOW of
7,000KG or less, and
the following landing aircraft is performance
Category A and has a MTOW below 3,000KG; or
(3) in the case where the following landing aircraft is a helicopter,
the preceding landing aircraft is at least 300M down the runway from the threshold and ATC is satisfied that no collision risk exists. This standard is not applicable at GAAP aerodromes;
c. a preceding aircraft, using a different runway, has crossed or
stopped short of the landing aircrafts runway.
In the above situations, a landing clearance may be issued if
ATC expect that the required runway separation standard will
exist.
11.5.3 Other than as specified in para 46.1, exceptions to separation
minima are:
a. aircraft landing in formation with respect to each other;
b. aircraft operating in different areas or lanes on aerodromes
with runways or facilities suitable for simultaneous landings.
OPERATIONS IN NON-CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
AIP ENR 62.SEPARATION MINIMA FOR LANDING
62.1 An aircraft must not continue its approach to land beyond the
threshold of the runway until:
a. a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway is airborne
and:
(1) has commenced a turn; or
(2) is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing
aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and
there is sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the
event of a missed approach;
b. a preceding landing aircraft using the same runway has vacated it and is taxiing away from the runway;
c. a preceding aircraft using another runway, has crossed or
stopped short of the landing aircrafts runway.
62.2 At aerodromes where gliders operate to a common circuit pattern from a parallel strip outside the runway strip, the above separation minima shall apply to aircraft landing or taking off on both runways as if they were a single runway, but aircraft taxiing or stationary on one runway must not affect operations on the other. Where gliders and glider tugs operate to a contra-circuit, simultaneous operations are permitted.
Note: Pilots are reminded of their obligations to see and avoid
other aircraft (CAR 163A).
Last edited by Islander Jock; 7th Oct 2002 at 07:12.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done IJ
All the right bits bolded and bloody obvious after having a read of it. Must have taken plenty of time to type in, but.
The WX no good there at the moment mate.
PS did you get a QFI rating to go with that M/EIR as well, a mutual friend (another ex grunt) was keen to know.
The WX no good there at the moment mate.
PS did you get a QFI rating to go with that M/EIR as well, a mutual friend (another ex grunt) was keen to know.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus2k1, I definitely do not live a sheltered life ask Dash27 about our formation landings.
Operations here are really different to the j curve mate, last week I was cleared to land as I was taxiing in.
Dodging AN72 and IL76 whilst doing bad weather circling approaches in terrain with 105 MORA.
Definitely not sheltered.
Operations here are really different to the j curve mate, last week I was cleared to land as I was taxiing in.
Dodging AN72 and IL76 whilst doing bad weather circling approaches in terrain with 105 MORA.
Definitely not sheltered.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day AMRAAM,
"Plenty of time to type" Give me a break. Good ol cut'n'paste for this plagiarist.
Didn't get an Instructor Rating, only MEIR. But I think they have also closed that loop up now so I was damn lucky - and grateful for it.
"Plenty of time to type" Give me a break. Good ol cut'n'paste for this plagiarist.
Didn't get an Instructor Rating, only MEIR. But I think they have also closed that loop up now so I was damn lucky - and grateful for it.
Hog Driver we need a smilie with a big tongue in a cheek.
What is your current life expectancy?
So avtraitor the answer is YES.
Try this...
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/rules/index.htm
What is your current life expectancy?So avtraitor the answer is YES.
Try this...
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/rules/index.htm
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is the legal side (thanks Islander Jock) to this question about can another A/C be on the runway when you land on it, and then there is the just think about it side. How would you feel when you sit at the end of the RWY cause you didn't have time to back-track because your mate was on finals, and asked if he can land while you sit there....and then his brakes fail, and the only thing between him and the "clearway" is you? I'd be feeling pretty stupid!.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point raingauge.
If everyone asked themselves that one question before committing to doing something perhaps they shouldn't. "Am I insured"? Perhaps we would see a significant lessening of accidents/incidents in GA.
If everyone asked themselves that one question before committing to doing something perhaps they shouldn't. "Am I insured"? Perhaps we would see a significant lessening of accidents/incidents in GA.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ic why do you think anyone goes to Africa these days?
There is no way that my life expectancy is going to be harmed when I need to spend that good green stuff on my 4 months off per year.
Relevant yes, did you get it No.
Relevant yes, did you get it No.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: your worst nightmare
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picture this......
The crew of aircraft 'A' are hammering through space towards their assigned runway, having completed landing performace charts indicating they will need 1500m of the 2500m runway. Meanwhile, in front of them, aircraft 'B' has been cleared to land on the same runway. Aircraft 'B' is still on the runway when ATC decides to clear aircraft 'A' to land, claiming application of a landing standard, without asking the crew what length they require (yes, it happens). Aircraft 'A' lands, and promptly slams into the @rse end of aircraft 'B'. In the ensueing investigation CASA/insurance try to nail the PIC of aircraft 'A', saying that he should not have landed, and that as PIC he holds the ultimate responsibility. In his defense, counsel for the PIC claims that by completing the required P charts and being alert for denial of landing clearance by ATC (which would indicate unsafe landing conditions such as insufficient length available) as a qualified assesment of runway conditions, the PIC exercised all possible due care and responsibility. The CASA/insurance guys grumble and look at each other with disdain, beat a path to the foot of the tower stairs, and scream all sorts of questions down the intercom to the ATC dude asking why he made an available/required length judgement call without asking the crew of aircraft 'A' what length they require. He pulls out the book of regs and throws them down at the gathering mob below, the impact killing an innocent bystander before thudding open at the page containg the above-quoted regs. More head scratching by our friends from CASA/insurance who get in their shiny government/corporate cars and drive up and down the runway. They discover to their amazement that all the runway edge lights and markings are evenly spaced to the point that by knowing the distance between each marking an observer could determine with relative accuracy, the distance from the runway threshold to any given object on the runway.
Imagine this scenario for:
1. A CAVOKEYDOKEY day; and
2. The weather being down on the ILS minimums (200-300ft cloud and 'if you squint you can kinda see some lights' type vis).
Who, if anyone, should go to jail....?
(We all know who usually ends up wearing it...)
After the above decision has been handed down in court, a passenger who was sitting in the rear seat of aircraft 'B', who is now a quadraplegic as a result of the accident, comes forward and decides to claim damages arising as a result of.............
Who should they sue?????
Have another read of the regs in question and decide if they are truly quantifiable to the point that they allow the judgement call they claim to permit.
I'm really curious to see a few responses.
The crew of aircraft 'A' are hammering through space towards their assigned runway, having completed landing performace charts indicating they will need 1500m of the 2500m runway. Meanwhile, in front of them, aircraft 'B' has been cleared to land on the same runway. Aircraft 'B' is still on the runway when ATC decides to clear aircraft 'A' to land, claiming application of a landing standard, without asking the crew what length they require (yes, it happens). Aircraft 'A' lands, and promptly slams into the @rse end of aircraft 'B'. In the ensueing investigation CASA/insurance try to nail the PIC of aircraft 'A', saying that he should not have landed, and that as PIC he holds the ultimate responsibility. In his defense, counsel for the PIC claims that by completing the required P charts and being alert for denial of landing clearance by ATC (which would indicate unsafe landing conditions such as insufficient length available) as a qualified assesment of runway conditions, the PIC exercised all possible due care and responsibility. The CASA/insurance guys grumble and look at each other with disdain, beat a path to the foot of the tower stairs, and scream all sorts of questions down the intercom to the ATC dude asking why he made an available/required length judgement call without asking the crew of aircraft 'A' what length they require. He pulls out the book of regs and throws them down at the gathering mob below, the impact killing an innocent bystander before thudding open at the page containg the above-quoted regs. More head scratching by our friends from CASA/insurance who get in their shiny government/corporate cars and drive up and down the runway. They discover to their amazement that all the runway edge lights and markings are evenly spaced to the point that by knowing the distance between each marking an observer could determine with relative accuracy, the distance from the runway threshold to any given object on the runway.
Imagine this scenario for:
1. A CAVOKEYDOKEY day; and
2. The weather being down on the ILS minimums (200-300ft cloud and 'if you squint you can kinda see some lights' type vis).
Who, if anyone, should go to jail....?
(We all know who usually ends up wearing it...)
After the above decision has been handed down in court, a passenger who was sitting in the rear seat of aircraft 'B', who is now a quadraplegic as a result of the accident, comes forward and decides to claim damages arising as a result of.............
Who should they sue?????
Have another read of the regs in question and decide if they are truly quantifiable to the point that they allow the judgement call they claim to permit.
I'm really curious to see a few responses.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to be able to in a GAAP
Back in the early 90's it used to be kosher at GAAP's, in fact quite common for "One on, clear to land".
Dunno about now, though.:o
Dunno about now, though.:o
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Jarse 100%
The big picture is "what if" and in the legal environment that exists today why would you expose yourself to any hint of trouble.
Hey Jarse can you tell GPL300 to mail me, or is he doing his command course?
Hey Jarse can you tell GPL300 to mail me, or is he doing his command course?
Happened in Cairns a few years ago when a broken USAF transport aircraft (Galaxy?) sat on the runway for around 24 hours before anyone could move it. Occurred just before Clinton's visit.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread - you might be interested in similar about recent experience of someone landing whilst previous backtracking here in the UK - see Strange G.A. Practices! thread if interested.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and likewise an ATC thread about landing clearances while aircraft still departing (Riyadh, Heathrow, Gatwick Stanstead mentioned): http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=69929
