Gatwick Airport plane (allegedly) lands without clearance

[Crazy Voyager]

Message should be clear and brief.

A message such as "EZ 123: cancel take-off clearance" is not clear and does not convey a sens of urgency

Why not say something like "EZ 123: STOP AND HOLD NOW" repeated twice

Same for go arounds': "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW" "EZ 123: GO AROUND NOW"

when crew acknowledges, ATC can go on with further instructions: "EZ 123: maintain 3000 heading 180...." or "EZ 123: take-off clearance runway 27..."

How about

EZY123 go around, I say again, go around, acknowledge
or
EZY123 Hold position cancel takeoff, I say again, cancel takeoff, acknowledge

or
EZY123 stop immediately, I say again EZY123 stop immediately, acknowledge

That is the standard UK phraseology, I don't see how it could be much more clear personally, suggestions?

[Squawk 7500]

I agree with Voyager.

I've issued many of those instructions to many different nationalities, and I have never had anything other than prompt compliance. If it ain't broke...

[055166k]

I like to keep an open mind, and phraseology and instructions that seem completely acceptable and understandable in the calm office environment are not always suitable for "real world" situations. A controller may be absolutely by-the-book......great....pat on the back....utterly blameless; however that is not much good if the end result is a misunderstanding. Let me ask a question; how often in normal day-to-day controlling do we use the phrase " ,,I say again,,"? How often does a pilot [UK or foreign] hear this phrase? Always be willing to consider that something might need changing.

[HDRW]

While the standard phreaseology is determined in a calm office environment, it is decided based on common sense and experience. And it's changed when it is found to cause problems - for example "Take off" is only used when that clearance is issued (or cancelled), so that this sequence does not happen: PJ123: "PJ123 ready for takeoff" ATCO: "PJ123 Roger" and due to misunderstanding "Roger" to mean that approval has been given, the aircraft takes off. This is two mistakes, but it has happened, so the phrase "Ready for departure" is used nowadays. As for readbacks, again there is a list of what must be read-back, and it includes all clearances, altimeter settings, altitudes, headings and so on. A Go-Around must always be read-back, as it was in this case. If an instruction cannot be complied-with, the word "Unable" is used, possibly with a reason, but just ignoring it because as Captain "you know best" is not just bad airmanship, it is also illegal! Remember that in Controlled airspace ATCO instructions are just that, not suggestions. ("Well Mr.Spock, I like to think of it as the Prime Suggestion" :-) ) And in the UK if you are cleared to land by an ATCO, they are taking the legal responsiblity that landing is safe - how can they possibly do so until the runway is clear of the previous aircraft? Giving "Clear to land number 5" makes no sense as it's fail-dangerous - if a radio failure occurs (or someone doubles, or has a stuck transmitter) the clearance may not be able to be cancelled. On a CAVOK day the pilot can see the runway is clear, but if it's a CAT IIIA Autoland there could be four aircraft piled up on the runway that you can't see! (Obviously a silly example, but not impossible). I was taught that every approach is an approach to a Go-around, and if you can land then it's a bonus - a Go-Around should be a standard, no-drama procedure and not regarded as an surprised mad panic. LHR is incredibly busy - I have watched for a while and timed landings at 40 second intervals, and I think this may be about as close as anyone can do safely. If that means late landing clearances, then so be it - the alternatives are either increased danger or lower runway usage, and neither is going to be acceptable to someone.

[055166k]

TBS [time based separation] on approach will seek to improve runway utilisation in windy conditions; much work being done in UK and Eurocontrol on this. Somebody mentioned Heathrow, which is often reported to operate at near full capacity. It may be politically acceptable to say this, but in actual fact the real movement capacity will never be realised because of severe operating restrictions caused by dedicated landing/take-off runway protocols.
How do ATC cope with extensive holding delays?...they can use both runways for landing subject to certain conditions. Compare Gatwick single runway utilisation to Heathrow's two.
A Clearance to take-off or land is not an instruction, it merely conveys an ATCO's situational appraisal [or judgement] so that the pilot can proceed....but the pilot makes the ultimate decision based on a multitude of factors of which ATC clearance is one. Certain UK ATC units have permission to clear an aircraft to land with preceding traffic still on the runway....not to be confused with the "land after" procedure.

[ATC Watcher]

I have watched for a while and timed landings at 40 second intervals,

At an average Vref of 135 Kts that would be 1,5 NM long. separation on APP .
Question to EGLL APP ATCOS here : Do you really do this in LHR regularly ? If yes, how do you cope with wake turbulence separations and to guarantee high speed exits ? ? or is this just occasionally with single types , home based airline(s) and full CAVOK , etc..
Just curious ( and very impressed if true !)

[Aluminium shuffler]

They land batches of aircraft from the respective wake categories, rather than on a first come, first serve basis. That's part of why the holds are so busy - they are used as sorting stacks.

There was a BBC programme run for a week called "Heathrow Live", and they explained it. It was news to me, and it's a clever idea where runways are so limited. The programme was aimed at the public, not professionals, so some of it is a bit noddy, but it's worth trying to find on line as there were a few interesting nuggets like this.

I was based at LGW a decade ago, and landing clearances during peak hours typically consisted of a "Land after" at about 100-150', such is the congestion. The first high speed exit is for turbo-props, and jets are to aim for the second - if a jet tried for the first, the net aircraft would have to go around as the landed slowly trundled on to the second exit. There were a few frequent infringers of this procedure. The same three airlines were also regular abusers of "line up, ready immediate" clearances, causing go-arounds while they waited on their cabins to be secured on the runway.

[DaveReidUK]

I have watched for a while and timed landings at 40 second intervals

Between the start of segregated ops at 7am and when things start to tail off at around 10pm, Heathrow typically sees around 540 landings.

That's about 36 arrivals per hour, or an interval of around 100 seconds on average between successive landings.

[Gonzo]

ATC Watcher,

In a good headwind and when the tower can provide visual separation, we'll be doing 2.5nm spacing (non-wake pairs, obviously) to 4DME, which then compresses once the first one slows down. I've seen situations where the first one is just touching down and the second one is inside 2nm from touchdown.

[ATC Watcher]

Thanks Gonzo, now it makes sense. In FRA on a very nice day when everything is right they also go down to 2,5 NM , but not all the time .

So it is definitively not a landing one every 40 seconds as writen before.

[rigpiggy]

My personal SOP is the old school landing lights with the clearance. has saved me
at least 5 time. Twice I have been cleared to land by center, due to no switch at the beacon. I try to have a visual backup for all phases a la ac 120-74a