Why cant I "Land After"?

[UV]

Can someone explain the logic of not being allowed to "land after" at airfields without full ATC?

I understand ATC obviously cannot "clear" an aircraft to land while one is still leaving the runway and so, presumably, this is where the the "Land After" clearance came from. Of course, at the end of the day, it is up to the Commander to decide whether or not to accept such a clearence.

We are being told that this legislation also applies to non "controlled" airfields and that without the ATC clearance (which we cannot get and do NOT need because it is uncontrolled!), we cannot land on a runway behind another aircraft, EVEN in a glider.

Whats the logic in this??

And what is the runway?

At some (most?) unlicenced airfields and gliding sites all of the ground is available for take off and landings (no marked runways)! So you cannot land when an aircraft glider or tug is landing on this area (or even parked)? Mr CAA Legislator, what am I to do in my glider when another one is ahead of me??

Or is this a manoevering area, not a runway, and thus exempt?!

We have an absurd situation at an unlicenced airfield that I operate from where I cannot land an aeroplane behind someone at the far end of the 6000 ft runway, but I can legally land 25 yards abreast of the same aircraft by landing on the designated grass runway!

Surely, it must be left to the Commander to decide when to "land after" at an airfield without full ATC...or am I missing something... (wouldnt be the first time)!

UV

[Flyin'Dutch']

'Cause those are the rules!

FD

[vintage ATCO]

UV

The rule you quote applies to a marked runway. (Rule 17(b)) Where there isn't a marked runway, then you can land to the right of an aircraft that has already landed, or one that is about to take off (Rule 17(c))

Logic in aviation. . . . Lemme think about that.

[slim_slag]

I understand ATC obviously cannot "clear" an aircraft to land while one is still leaving the runway.....

Why not?

[PPRuNe Pop]

That is because the runway is NOT clear to land - there is 'something' on it! All kinds of things can happen to cause an aborted take-off.

[slim_slag]

I can be cleared to fly along an airway when there is 'something' on it in front of me, and so I should be able to be cleared to land on a runway when there is 'something' on it in front of me. Happens all the time, other parts of the world obviously, but controllers are quite capable of safely applying separation on the ground as well as in the air.

Landing clearances can be cancelled and I can be told to go around. As we all know from venturing into some of the more hallowed places on this site, a go around is no big deal

[FlyingForFun]

Where I fly, "land after" clearances are quite common, especially for the local instructors, whose capabilies the controllers are very aware of.

So I was quite surprised when I found myself in the following scenario a few weeks ago. I called "final". ATC replied "Continue, one vehicle on the runway to vacate". The vehicle was about half way down the 1800m runway. Even on a really bad day, I can land my aircraft and stop quite safely in around 600m.

So, even without allowing for the distance the vehicle would travel in the time it took me to reach the runway (it was travelling away from me), I was confident that I could land safely. I informed the controller I was "visual with the vehicle, can accept a land-after". The controller replied "I can't do that, continue approach". By this point, I was approaching the numbers. A go-around was a definite option. The alternative option was to add enough power to fly along the runway at about 10' until the vehicle had vacated, and I was cleared to land - an option which, given the size of the runway, was perfectly safe.

So that's what I did. Before too long, the vehicle vacated, I landed, and was off by the taxyway which is half way down the runway - so still had half the runway to go. Perfectly safe.... but still far far less safe than the "land after".

Afterwards, I asked the controller what was going on. Turns out that although he can clear me to land after an aircraft, he's not allowed to clear me to land after a vehicle. I didn't know that!

As Vintage ATCO says: "Logic in aviation. . . . Lemme think about that. "

[Chilli Monster]

Afterwards, I asked the controller what was going on. Turns out that although he can clear me to land after an aircraft, he's not allowed to clear me to land after a vehicle. I didn't know that!

That's because, in the case of the aircraft, you're both going in the same direction and the intentions of the aircraft are known (he's going to vacate, and you have good enough two-way comms to ensure he does what you want.).

The vehicle on the other hand is an obstruction, probably without the same level of communications - and the rules state you cannot land on a runway which is obstructed unless you 're-declare' the distances available. The rules have to be written for worst case scenario - you can't have one set for the aircraft that can land in 600m and another for the aircraft that requires 1500m.

[stiknruda]

Last 2 posts

When I typed this - the last 2 posts were CM's and F3. The scenario outlined above made me ponder.......

Okay - this is totally hypothetical.

Landi with flashing lights is on the runway travelling away from me. As pic, I am confident that I can "squeak her on", make the next available exit and the gents in the truck wouldn't even know I was there, as I'm probably a dot in their rear window. Should they 180 then they'll see an aeroplane approaching!

I decide to do just that, it all goes to plan.


What happens next?

Bollocking
Worse than bollocking
Or very little?


Stik

[Chilli Monster]

In the case of an airfield with ATC:

1261 gets raised (landing without a clearance)
You get to have a 'chat' with the chaps from the Belgrano

My licence is my livelihood - mess around with that and you'll find you get it back tenfold!

[DubTrub]

UV wrote:

but I can legally land 25 yards abreast of the same aircraft by landing on the designated grass runway

Bless you, UV, but you can't. Parallel runways require a greater legal separation than this, and unless you comply with this minimum separation, they are legally (within the UK) treated as one runway.

"Land after" applies to parallel runways too, and always only applies with full ATC and with the agreement of the commander of the forward aircraft.

Read the ANO.

Interestingly, the Yanks are looking at full ILS Pub Cat descents on close-in parallel runways (like LAX, DEN etc)...anyone have news?


DT

[TheOddOne]

FlyingForFun,

I'm amazed to hear of an aerodrome that allows a vehicle on a runway at the same time as an aircraft that close to landing. I'd love to see the risk assessment that allows this to take place.

There are tasks requiring a continuous run down a runway by a vehicle; friction measurement and taking readings of output from light fittings for instance, but surface inspections can easily be done in chunks between aircraft movements. We do 49 heavy jet transport movements an hour off our single runway and manage to squeeze 3 daylight surface inspections in per day without breaking any of the rules. We most certainly are acutely aware of the position of the aircraft in the vicinity of the runway and we share the same frequency so we know exactly what's going on. Hopefully crews are also aware of the instructions that we've been given by ATC, too. Our teams take pride in having a standard of RTF at least equal to aircrew and ATC.

When we do require a continuous run down the runway we co-ordinate with ATC to provide the necessary spacing. I'm not saying we get it completely right all the time but there's still enough safety margin to give us some leeway and not cause a go-around. VERY occasionally, our continued presence may result in such, but only because we're unable to vacate for a good reason, such as recovering debris for instance. In that case, ATC will issue a mandatory go-around instruction.

Cheers,
The Odd One

[UV]

Thanks Chaps for all the info about ATC Controlled Airfields!

That wasnt the question tho!

Why cant I make my own assessment at an UNLICENCED and NON ATC controlled Airfield?!

Dub Tob, does that separation really apply apply at these airfields?

UV

[Tinstaafl]

The land to right of a preceding a/c procedure applies to all over fields. Not runways.

[shortstripper]

UV

The great thing about gliders is that you can't go around.

Therefore, in this scenario a "land after" even if not strictly legal has to be LEGAL because of safety issues. It would take a lot of aurguing to say you were in the wrong if the only other choice was to put down in the rough! If it went pear shaped I suppose you might get in trouble ... but then if landing after was a good option but you didn't take it and crashed you'd be equally at fault.

SS

[Final 3 Greens]

UV

As FD said, because the rules say you can't.

We all sign up to those when we join. for better or for worse.

It seems reasonably logical that a procedure that the authorities consider to carry an element of risk should be allowed under ATC (with the oversight and control of an ATCO to mitigate the risk), but not without.

[knobbygb]

At first sight it does seem daft - I've asked the same question myself, but I guess it comes dow to risk assessment. While you may be perfectly happy to take that (probably very small) risk of landing behind another aircraft, the other guy sat on the runway has no choice whatsoever. If you're in the first aircraft, how do you feel knowing another aircraft, possibly of undetermined size, performance (stopping distance) etc. is approaching you from behind? Your aircraft may slow to taxi speed in, say 300 or 400M, but how can you be SURE the one behind can too? I guess the thinking is that it's OK to take a small risk yourself, but not with someone else's safety too. So, he's allowed double his normal stopping distance, or ever triple - but he's still forcing his own personal safety margins on you.

Having said that, as for the 'it's the rules' answers above - can't agree with that - after all, if we always took that attitude and never questioned stuff, we'd simply live in a nanny state! Oh, forgot, we do!

[Evil J]

I think UV, the answer you are looking for is that you can't because the ANO doesn't permit it. The reasoning for this is probably down to a right of way issue and a desire to keep the rules as clear cut as possible (!!). That said I(who is an ATCO by trade) do the odd stint at an uncontrolled airfield (A/G service) and DO see people quite safely give themselves a land-after. That is not to say that I condone such activities as it is clearly ABANL but it does show that it can be done.

And I would like to echo Chilli's comments about the vehicles....read the report from Humberside filed recently....then you'll understand why we don't issue land after with vehicles.

The one I've never understood is why, with 2 light a/c you can't give a land after with one on the runway doing a touch and go. Sometimes I have to give the TNG a/c a landing clearance so that I can give the one on short final a land after, then when that one is down I re-clear the landed one for take off. This situation is (just) legal but the separation is at best constant quite possibly decreasing; if we were permitted to give "land after, one rolling (or something similar like the military can do I think)" the separation would be constant or increasing-therefore much safer.

now I left my step ladder round here somewhere-I'm ready to get off my soap box now...

[G-KEST]

An interesting thread however the law is clear in respect of not allowing landing on a runway if another aircraft is already on it except at an aerodrome with licensed ATC who may give a "land after" clearance.

At airshows and, on application, at handicap air race venues an exemption is granted by the CAA to permit landing after without ATC intervention and leaving it up to the pilots to ensure safety.

In the long past days of grass airfields without runways the procedure was to turn left after landing allowing the next aircraft to land to your right. It left it to the second pilot to ensure adequate separation was maintained from the first. It worked well and was largely carried out without radio. I wonder what the interpretation would be nowadays?

Cheers,

Trapper 69

[Final 3 Greens]

Barry

Remember that we live in a Nanny State these days, with ambulance chasing lawyers seeking every opportunity to cash in

James