Land After....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ASBO Central
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land After....
Speaking as a controller, can pilots please tell me if you ever get any proper training as to what this procedure is and why/when you are likely to hear it. We are not "clearing you to land" as the runway is not clear, we are basically saying land at your discretion, it is down to YOU as to whether you wish to accept this. Readbacks from pilots seem to indicate that some are aware while others have not a clue. Speaking to pilot friends it seems that you can find yourself in the RHS of a 737 without ever having heard of it and consequently causing some confusion very short final one day.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience of 'land after' comes mainly from the USA when controllers are very anxious to get you to declare visual ASAP and as soon as you agree to continue visually then all separation is down to you. That is just my experience and may not be typical.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BigBoeing - I assume that you are UK-based? The Jepps and Aerad(whatever they are called nowadays) include info. on UK "land after". It is different from US "cleared to land" which may be given when not necessarily No.1 to land and runway is clear. Every pilot should have in the cockpit, info. on "land after clearances" if operating into UK airports.
P.s I once declined a "land after" clearance from LGW ATC as it was still dark! Fortunately the preceding cleared expeditiously
P.s I once declined a "land after" clearance from LGW ATC as it was still dark! Fortunately the preceding cleared expeditiously
Guest
Posts: n/a
Speaking as a controller trained in the UK but having worked elsewhere also, can anyone tell me how much training UK controllers get on which procedures in MATS Part 1 differ from international standards and thus might not be familiar to pilots from non-UK carriers? In my day it was precious little.....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on, what's this? Can someone explain this further before I disgard it as nonsense... Sounds to me like a desperate measure to increase runway operations that's going to lead to accidents.
/LnS
/LnS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ASBO Central
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not desperate, if one is slow to vacate then provided a long list of conditions are met (no adverse braking action, daylight, pilot of lander can see landed aircraft....) a Land After instruction can be issued. This simply gets it out of the way to allow the controller to move onto other things and stops the pilot getting itchy with the TOGA switch when he doesn't get a landing clearance till over the threshold. The main point being is that it is not a "clearance to land" but that the controller has now put the decision into the hands of the pilot, if the pilot is happy then he lands, otherwise he goes around or hangs on for a last second standard landing clearance. Clear as mud?
“… the controller has now put the decision into the hands of the pilot…” (#8)
This appears to be another of those situations where the crew’s responsibility for a safe landing is increased, but the crew may not have all of the relevant information.
Runway condition / braking action could be a significant factor, but the crews knowledge of these aspects is limited and in adverse conditions (wet, contam, etc) more likely to be incorrect. Even with a reasonable estimate of landing conditions the intent to land is based on the safety margins of the required landing distance (factored) and not on some indeterminate distance along the runway if the preceding aircraft is slow to clear. Accepting such a clearance implies a change to the briefed level of braking – who changes the auto brake setting, who remembers to brake harder immediately from touchdown?
Obviously if ‘the preceding traffic must be clear of the runway’ is a mandated prerequisite, then the runway conditions / braking action aspect does not apply, but as BigBoeing intimates, and from my experience, the US interpretation expects a landing with an aircraft still on the runway – peer pressure.
This is a dangerous precedent adding to the stress of operations and increasing opportunity for error or pushing the rules, detrimental to safety.
This appears to be another of those situations where the crew’s responsibility for a safe landing is increased, but the crew may not have all of the relevant information.
Runway condition / braking action could be a significant factor, but the crews knowledge of these aspects is limited and in adverse conditions (wet, contam, etc) more likely to be incorrect. Even with a reasonable estimate of landing conditions the intent to land is based on the safety margins of the required landing distance (factored) and not on some indeterminate distance along the runway if the preceding aircraft is slow to clear. Accepting such a clearance implies a change to the briefed level of braking – who changes the auto brake setting, who remembers to brake harder immediately from touchdown?
Obviously if ‘the preceding traffic must be clear of the runway’ is a mandated prerequisite, then the runway conditions / braking action aspect does not apply, but as BigBoeing intimates, and from my experience, the US interpretation expects a landing with an aircraft still on the runway – peer pressure.
This is a dangerous precedent adding to the stress of operations and increasing opportunity for error or pushing the rules, detrimental to safety.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land after assumes no adverse braking reaction, so we can factor that one out. In BA we are given plenty of info on 'land after' clearances, although some ultra-cautious skippers don't like accepting them (rarely for valid reasons in my experience). Personally I'd be happy with a 'land after', or if in a smaller aircraft I'd be happy with an 'expect a late landing clearance' as is often the case at LHR.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP413 I extracted the following from CAP413:
First, a non-UK operator is likely to NOT fully understand the ramifications of the [non]clearance, especially the "responsibility for separation." I have never heard a "land after" [non]clearance, but if I had received one prior to reading this thread, I would likely have responded "Roger; cleared to land after the 737 on short final. I have him in sight." I would have assumed that he simply issued a "prospective" landing clearance that is allowed by FAA regulations in some circumstances (i.e., a clearance based on his assessment that the runway would be clear when I touch down, rather than waiting for the other airplane to actually clear the runway).
How would the controller have responded? Would he have corrected my misunderstanding of the [non]clearance to land? Would he have told me to go around? Would he have merely extended the confusion by repeating, "Negative. Land after..."?
Second, how does the controller determine that "The runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft..."? Does he know my [747 Classic] landing distance because he is monitoring my airspeed on final? Does he know that "safe separation" is defined by our Operating Procedures as 'Thou shalt not land when another airplane is on the runway'?
I tend to agree with low 'n slow that such terminology is more confusing than safe when dealing with international carriers...
‘Land After’ Clearance
A landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft, which has landed, has vacated the runway provided that:
> The runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;
> It is during daylight hours;
> The preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
> The controller is satisfied that the flight crew of the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway; and
> The flight crew of the following aircraft is warned.
Responsibility for separation rests with the following aircraft.
A landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft, which has landed, has vacated the runway provided that:
> The runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be adversely affected;
> It is during daylight hours;
> The preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to vacate the runway;
> The controller is satisfied that the flight crew of the landing aircraft will be able to see the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously, until it has vacated the runway; and
> The flight crew of the following aircraft is warned.
Responsibility for separation rests with the following aircraft.
How would the controller have responded? Would he have corrected my misunderstanding of the [non]clearance to land? Would he have told me to go around? Would he have merely extended the confusion by repeating, "Negative. Land after..."?
Second, how does the controller determine that "The runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the two aircraft..."? Does he know my [747 Classic] landing distance because he is monitoring my airspeed on final? Does he know that "safe separation" is defined by our Operating Procedures as 'Thou shalt not land when another airplane is on the runway'?
I tend to agree with low 'n slow that such terminology is more confusing than safe when dealing with international carriers...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of you guys are approaching this from completely the wrong direction.
The decision to land always rests with the pilot
When a controller says "cleared to land", in Europe he means exactly that - the runway is clear. In the US he means " I reckon it'll be clear by the time you get to it after the other 3 aircraft". In either case if you, the Commander of the aircraft (allegedly) are not happy that the runway is safe to land on - Go Around.
A "land after" is also exactly what it says - the controller is unable to clear you, but if you think it's safe, well hey, it's your decision anyway.
As for different procedures in different countries, you could fill a book with those. So all this bleating about "it's dangerous" is just an excuse for not getting off your backside and making sure you know the procedures for where you're going.
BTW it's not new either, if anything I would say its use has declined dramatically over the last 25 years.
The decision to land always rests with the pilot
When a controller says "cleared to land", in Europe he means exactly that - the runway is clear. In the US he means " I reckon it'll be clear by the time you get to it after the other 3 aircraft". In either case if you, the Commander of the aircraft (allegedly) are not happy that the runway is safe to land on - Go Around.
A "land after" is also exactly what it says - the controller is unable to clear you, but if you think it's safe, well hey, it's your decision anyway.
As for different procedures in different countries, you could fill a book with those. So all this bleating about "it's dangerous" is just an excuse for not getting off your backside and making sure you know the procedures for where you're going.
BTW it's not new either, if anything I would say its use has declined dramatically over the last 25 years.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland mainly, rather than at home.
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all, no different than "Line-up and wait (or position and hold) after landing Delta 757"...
In my opinion a clearance to land will always be more safe, although I am quite happy to "expect late clearance". Land after, however,is going to make me work harder when I want to be concentrating elsewhere. Perhaps it is, though, just down to my level of experience, which is not high. Having said, that perhaps we become more blasé with the passing years.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: At home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only ever received a 'Land After' after the controller has confirmed I have the preceding aircraft visual. It's a perfectly safe clearance, and I prefer it to a late clearance.
Are you other guys so concerned about taking responsibility for your aircraft, that you'd rather have the controller tell you what to do?
I know my aircraft, I can anticipate closing rates etc much better from the cockpit than the controller can from the ground.
Where have all the pilots gone? is it just drivers out there now?
Are you other guys so concerned about taking responsibility for your aircraft, that you'd rather have the controller tell you what to do?
I know my aircraft, I can anticipate closing rates etc much better from the cockpit than the controller can from the ground.
Where have all the pilots gone? is it just drivers out there now?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with Wyle E Coyote. While ATC clears us to land, the decision on whether or not to land is always ours, even after TWR has cleared us. I fly through CDG a lot, and they don't even say "land after", they simply say "clear to land runway 27L" (for instance) even if you are no.3 on the ILS! Having been trained mostly in the UK, I was a bit uneasy with that procedure at first, certainly when you are no.1 and you hear two more aircraft cleared to land behind you... But, guess what? It works well. (Obviously, they don't use that procedure during LVPs). I'd rather be cleared to land early as no.2 (or 3) than wait for a stupidly late landing clearance like we sometimes get in the UK. Is it me, or has Britain become a nation of control freaks?
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Poole
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Land After" is a very useful clearance.
It allows "Clear to Land" to mean that the controller takes responsibility for giving you the whole runway but still allows common sense to apply, particularly on long or very long runways where I can already see enough empty concrete to land safely.
LHR 9L is as an example.
If I land my 747 early in the morning heading for T4, I prefer to be a good neighbour and use only idle reverse. I can clear at the high speed exit (Block 17 or whatever it's called this week) but my minibus colleague behind heading for Shuttle has plenty of room to land and take his turning even if I am technically infringing his runway as he touches down.
It allows "Clear to Land" to mean that the controller takes responsibility for giving you the whole runway but still allows common sense to apply, particularly on long or very long runways where I can already see enough empty concrete to land safely.
LHR 9L is as an example.
If I land my 747 early in the morning heading for T4, I prefer to be a good neighbour and use only idle reverse. I can clear at the high speed exit (Block 17 or whatever it's called this week) but my minibus colleague behind heading for Shuttle has plenty of room to land and take his turning even if I am technically infringing his runway as he touches down.
