Sharing a runway?
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: UK
Sharing a runway?
I have just watched, at a UK airport, what I assumed was going to be a 'go around' situation end with two aircraft operating on the same runway, one taking off & the other landing. Both aircraft were the same type & operated by the same airline. After seeing the smoke from the tyres of the landing aircraft I looked left to see the other just rotating, it was heavy & didn't become airborne for few more seconds.
Am I correct in thinking that this was an error of judgement on someones part?
Am I correct in thinking that this was an error of judgement on someones part?
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
From: UK
GAZIN
Just to stop any confusion creeping in, if you were in the UK, what you witnessed was an "After the departing, cleared to land" situation. This is actually quite different from a "Land after" situation.
The "Land After" situation can be used at any airfield with ATC (not A/G or AFISO) and gives all the responsibility for separation to the pilot of the following aircraft. The details are listed in MATS Part 1 Section 2 Ch 1 para 16.2.4. It boils down to:
1. Runway long enough and no evidence of impaired braking
2. Daylight
3. Preceding aircraft does not need to backtrack
4. Following aircraft will be able to keep preceding aircraft in sight
5. Following pilot warned.
"After the departing/landing, cleared to land" is specific to a number of UK airports. In this case separation is actually being provided by the controller. The details for Heathrow can be found in the Aerad guide page B6 para 41. Essentially:
1. Day only
2. Met vis 6km or better, ceiling 1000' or greater
3. Both aircraft are being operated normally
4. Runway is dry and free of all precipitants
5. Landing following landing; preceeding clear of runway or at least 2500m from threshold (1500m for props of 5700kgs or less)
6. Landing following departure; preceeding airborne and 2000m (1500m for props 5700kgs or less) from threshold or on the ground and 2500m from threshold.
I hope I haven't made any mistakes in paraphrasing these tricky concepts. I think that the AIP also details the second procedure for Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester.
All the best
G W-H
Just to stop any confusion creeping in, if you were in the UK, what you witnessed was an "After the departing, cleared to land" situation. This is actually quite different from a "Land after" situation.
The "Land After" situation can be used at any airfield with ATC (not A/G or AFISO) and gives all the responsibility for separation to the pilot of the following aircraft. The details are listed in MATS Part 1 Section 2 Ch 1 para 16.2.4. It boils down to:
1. Runway long enough and no evidence of impaired braking
2. Daylight
3. Preceding aircraft does not need to backtrack
4. Following aircraft will be able to keep preceding aircraft in sight
5. Following pilot warned.
"After the departing/landing, cleared to land" is specific to a number of UK airports. In this case separation is actually being provided by the controller. The details for Heathrow can be found in the Aerad guide page B6 para 41. Essentially:
1. Day only
2. Met vis 6km or better, ceiling 1000' or greater
3. Both aircraft are being operated normally
4. Runway is dry and free of all precipitants
5. Landing following landing; preceeding clear of runway or at least 2500m from threshold (1500m for props of 5700kgs or less)
6. Landing following departure; preceeding airborne and 2000m (1500m for props 5700kgs or less) from threshold or on the ground and 2500m from threshold.
I hope I haven't made any mistakes in paraphrasing these tricky concepts. I think that the AIP also details the second procedure for Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester.
All the best
G W-H
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: UK
Unfortunately on this occasion I was unable to listen to the radio, so I don't know what instructions were given. It just looked odd & in the past such situations have always resulted in a 'go around', sometimes from a very low altitude. It didn't look dangerous, just unusual.
Thanks for the explanations.
Thanks for the explanations.
