Should I have been given clearance?
 

So, I was doing some solo work yesterday, and on one of my circuits, there was an aircraft ahead of me. He called final, and by the time he was on the ground, I was turning final. I put my call in and was given permission to land, but he hadn't vacated yet. My question is: Should control have given me permission even when the runway was in use, or given another instruction?

NB: He called vacated whilst I was at about 150 feet, fully prepared to do a go around should he have not vacated.

Thank you

We're you cleared to land or "land behind" ?

G

I don't know if it's entirely legal, but this happens a lot at my home base. When the controller sees that the preceding aircraft has slowed to a normal taxi pace (so it's not going to go around anymore, or crash, or do something else unexpected) the next aircraft is typically given an instruction along the lines of "PH-ABC, regarding the aircraft on the runway about to vacate, you are cleared to land". So far, it has always worked out fine for me.

It depends what you mean by 'given permission to land' (ie exact wording) and what type of ATC you and the airfield were under.

In the UK an ATCO but not anFISO can give a "land after" clearance, happens quite a lot on busy days at Gloucester

Throw in a few S turns to give some time and space between you and the guy thats clearing

Well "permission" to land isn't standard phraseology, unless your ATSU was "ATC" then neither permission or clearance was legal, and you as PIC would also be in breach if you elected to land while runway occupied.

No such thing in UK.

When I used to fly from a field with ATC and on final with an aircraft on the ground but not yet vacated, I would often be told "continue approach", sometimes with "expect late clearance to land" appended.

The OP did use the term "control" so a "Land after" clearance could, or should have been given. It is perfectly legal, but can be given in daylight hours only.

However, it's the responsibility of the pilot to decide if the landing can be safely made with the runway occupied.

Come on, you know that the majority here and other forums, constantly refer even to A/G as "control" & "controllers".

(I'll just wait for the flood of "Not me", " I never do", "I know the difference" etc):=;)

Sorry, I meant "land after", typo.

G

Does the military version 'clear land, one on' still exist?

I take it from the answers that no tower controllers have contributed. The answer is yes, you may be cleared to land on an occupied runway. Assuming ICAO RWY separation standards, this includes up to Heavy aircraft. The condition is that the departing aircraft must be airborne and past the point where the lander is expected to vacate the RWY before the lander crosses the threshold.

When the weights of the two aircraft are below 7000kg an aircraft may land with the RWY occupied provided certain conditions are met. (Weight of each aircraft, distance between, controller's assessment of risk, backtrack requirement)

This is a simplified version. If cleared to land, a standard will exist when you cross the threshold. If something goes amiss, you'll be sent around or you may initiate your own go around.

I trust you don't include me in that bracket. I answered the OP's question without prejudice, as per what was written.

Your reading that completely wrong.

My jibe is, as hopefully it is read by all others, it's aimed at those who will insist on describing a bloke in a shed with no sight of a runway or much else and a handheld radio offering an a/g "service" as a "controller"

If it's an airport under ATC I would expect to hear "continue" from the tower. And I would not advise on doing S turns on base to final as you really want to be stable by this point.

Fujii: although this is used in some countries only a few airports in the UK are approved to use it and the first landing aircraft must be at least 2,500m from the landing threshold.
As ShyTorque said, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, (daylight, good visibility, succeeding aircraft must keep the first one in view, controller must have continuous view of both aircraft) ATC (but not AFIS) may say 'land after' to the succeeding aircraft, so the situation encountered by tobster911 should not have occured.
I just wish FISOs were allowed to do this too, it would reduce the number of unnecessary go arounds certainly where I work.

Why would the "tower" have any interest in whether you're stable or not?

The notion of being "stable" on finals is surely a relatively recent fly-by-numbers sop concept developed by some airlines' Operations and Training depts and has absolutely nothing to do with ATC; 10 years and more ago it had hardly if ever been heard of - anywhere.

Has it somehow transferred to puddlejumpers now? For what purpose? Energy management is hardly the critical feature there that it is in a 737 or larger, is it?

I can think of reasons why s turns on finals may not be a good idea but "stable" wouldn't be one of them.

At Colt we used to clear the Jags to "land, one on, well up" and that was perfectly acceptable. I must admit, they didn't like it when I once did the same at Linton though. :=

Same with formations, if they had made one circuit you could use the "land in turn option" but if they made a second circuit then they had to be treated as separate entities and cleared as normal, but you could still use the "land, one on, well up" option.