Change needed in North American ATC
Well, it seems that this controversy is all down to a difference in what the meaning & understanding of "clear to land" actually is in two different ATC cultures.
In the UK, the phrase means that the a/c is physically CLEAR to land. That is, NO obstacles to the a/c doing so. In the US, it simply means that the a/c MIGHT be clear to land - all things being equal at the time that the actual landing is to take place !
However, I believe that the US practice leaves a lot to be desired, particularly in a "legal" i.e. The Law, situation following an incident occurring as a result of the confusion which this procedure so obviously leaves itself open to. In this regard, I think that the US ATC authority & its ATCOS are exposing themselves to possible litigation & criminal legal cases.
Be that as it may, if "clear to land" is used as a perfunctory response to a mundane situation (eg. A sequence of a/c approaching to land), & has actually no relevance to a safe landing scenario & clearance, WHAT is the practical use of employing the term ?
Surely,& bearing in mind that ATC can alter this "clearance", should the need later arise, it would be better to employ a different "perfunctory" response to the landing sequence in the first place. Therein preserving the "sanctity" of "clear to land".
In the UK, the phrase means that the a/c is physically CLEAR to land. That is, NO obstacles to the a/c doing so. In the US, it simply means that the a/c MIGHT be clear to land - all things being equal at the time that the actual landing is to take place !
However, I believe that the US practice leaves a lot to be desired, particularly in a "legal" i.e. The Law, situation following an incident occurring as a result of the confusion which this procedure so obviously leaves itself open to. In this regard, I think that the US ATC authority & its ATCOS are exposing themselves to possible litigation & criminal legal cases.
Be that as it may, if "clear to land" is used as a perfunctory response to a mundane situation (eg. A sequence of a/c approaching to land), & has actually no relevance to a safe landing scenario & clearance, WHAT is the practical use of employing the term ?
Surely,& bearing in mind that ATC can alter this "clearance", should the need later arise, it would be better to employ a different "perfunctory" response to the landing sequence in the first place. Therein preserving the "sanctity" of "clear to land".
The sanctity of clear to land is ensured by the controller if separation doesn't exist.
You're trying to apply your beliefs based on your preferences to another system that works quite well with extreme traffic levels.
You're trying to apply your beliefs based on your preferences to another system that works quite well with extreme traffic levels.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This old chestnut again
N.American ATCC is the best in the world.Euro ATC also damn good.Just different.One or two yank TCA's could be a little more patient and speak slower for the Chinese,thats true enough.Theres always room for improvement.But some of these pilots from far-flung places(china,Korea,latin america) dont even have level IV.Is it the pot calling the kettle black?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my take on this.
US ATC is generally brilliant, but I notice two things which can be a problem at some airports which are very busy. One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors.
US ATC is generally brilliant, but I notice two things which can be a problem at some airports which are very busy. One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience outside the US is limited to Canada and the Caribbean but I have to say I really don't see what the issue is with Airline XYZ cleared to land #2 following an A320.
As West Coast points out unless ATC is assured separation in his mind and he is assured you are clear in your mind that you have separation visually by accepting the clearance. There is nothing that stops you from saying "traffic not in sight" or something to the effect and they work with you on next steps.
I can appreciate it isn't compliant with ICAO but I really don't get the safety implications. There are something like 50 million tower operations a year in the US and the last incident somewhat related to the topic I can think of was in LA 25yrs ago (USAir/Skywest).
English proficiency or propensity to use the local language mixed with English on frequency is a lot more dangerous to me than some minor ICAO differences. In any case this all seems to be a lot about nothing as the accident rates globally are so insignificant, why fix what isn't broken.
As West Coast points out unless ATC is assured separation in his mind and he is assured you are clear in your mind that you have separation visually by accepting the clearance. There is nothing that stops you from saying "traffic not in sight" or something to the effect and they work with you on next steps.
I can appreciate it isn't compliant with ICAO but I really don't get the safety implications. There are something like 50 million tower operations a year in the US and the last incident somewhat related to the topic I can think of was in LA 25yrs ago (USAir/Skywest).
English proficiency or propensity to use the local language mixed with English on frequency is a lot more dangerous to me than some minor ICAO differences. In any case this all seems to be a lot about nothing as the accident rates globally are so insignificant, why fix what isn't broken.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7.9.2 Clearance to land
An aircraft may be cleared to land when there is reasonable
assurance that the separation in 7.9.1, or prescribed in accord-
ance with 7.10 will exist when the aircraft crosses the runway
threshold, provided that a clearance to land shall not be issued
until a preceding landing aircraft has crossed the runway
threshold. To reduce the potential for misunderstanding, the
landing clearance shall include the designator of the landing
runway.
The above is from DOC4444...
So if you get the clearance when the preceeding is passing the threshold, or as number 4, is there a big difference? The ATCO will always keep an eye out for whats happening, and intervene if things get to tight.
An aircraft may be cleared to land when there is reasonable
assurance that the separation in 7.9.1, or prescribed in accord-
ance with 7.10 will exist when the aircraft crosses the runway
threshold, provided that a clearance to land shall not be issued
until a preceding landing aircraft has crossed the runway
threshold. To reduce the potential for misunderstanding, the
landing clearance shall include the designator of the landing
runway.
The above is from DOC4444...
So if you get the clearance when the preceeding is passing the threshold, or as number 4, is there a big difference? The ATCO will always keep an eye out for whats happening, and intervene if things get to tight.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is called "anticipated separation" which is perfectly fine for both departures and arrivals.
FAA Order 7110.65W:
FAA Order 7110.65W:
3−10−6. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
a. Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a
landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe
the positions of the aircraft and determine that
prescribed runway separation will exist when the
aircraft crosses the landing threshold. Issue traffic
information to the succeeding aircraft if a preceding
arrival has not been previously reported and when
traffic will be departing prior to their arrival.
EXAMPLE−
“American Two Forty−Five, Runway One−Eight, cleared
to land, number two following a United Seven−Thirty−
Seven two mile final. Traffic will depart prior to your
arrival.”
b. Anticipating separation must not be applied
when conducting LUAW operations, except as
authorized in paragraph 3−10−5b2. Issue applicable
traffic information when using this provision.
a. Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a
landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe
the positions of the aircraft and determine that
prescribed runway separation will exist when the
aircraft crosses the landing threshold. Issue traffic
information to the succeeding aircraft if a preceding
arrival has not been previously reported and when
traffic will be departing prior to their arrival.
EXAMPLE−
“American Two Forty−Five, Runway One−Eight, cleared
to land, number two following a United Seven−Thirty−
Seven two mile final. Traffic will depart prior to your
arrival.”
b. Anticipating separation must not be applied
when conducting LUAW operations, except as
authorized in paragraph 3−10−5b2. Issue applicable
traffic information when using this provision.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just my take on this.
US ATC is generally brilliant, but I notice two things which can be a problem at some airports which are very busy. One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors."
1. I agree on the comment about vernacular. IMO U.S. ATC needs to 'tighten up' their communication to non English native speakers.
2. Why can't a heavy do the same approach a 737 can? The only really challenging one's are the DCA River Visual 19 and w/b's don't fly there. The LGA Expressway Visual is a blast if flown correctly, especially in a w/b.
US ATC is generally brilliant, but I notice two things which can be a problem at some airports which are very busy. One, they sometimes think that a HEAVY can do exactly the same approach as a tightly flown 737. Two, there is a tendency to drop formal instructions into a quickly spoken vernacular, which is fine if you are local, but confuses foreign visitors."
1. I agree on the comment about vernacular. IMO U.S. ATC needs to 'tighten up' their communication to non English native speakers.
2. Why can't a heavy do the same approach a 737 can? The only really challenging one's are the DCA River Visual 19 and w/b's don't fly there. The LGA Expressway Visual is a blast if flown correctly, especially in a w/b.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, trying to keep out of the 'My ATC is better than yours debate', as lets face it there are a lot of parts of the world that could do with improvement, and the Dutch probably win the award for best ATC in a non native language.
I would be interested to hear from controllers who have worked in other countries - I know there is a Brit that works Toronto, and a Spaniard at LHR - what do they think is better/worse?
I would be interested to hear from controllers who have worked in other countries - I know there is a Brit that works Toronto, and a Spaniard at LHR - what do they think is better/worse?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex-brit in Toronto.
Re: Multiple landing clearances.
In Canada it is a little different again to what was quoted above from the 7110.65. In the US example a landing clearance can be issued to an arriving aircraft when it is not number one to land and there is an intervening departure ahead also. In Canada multiple landing clearances are only issued with reference to arriving traffic. A landing clearance will not be issued with reference to a departure until the departure is rolling and the controller believes that it will be airborne before the arrival crosses the beginning of the runway. The responsibility for separation rests with the controller.
Extensive surveys have taken place logging thousands of movements to obtain accurate runway occupancy times (ROT). If a ROT for a runway is demonstrated to be 50 seconds or less the runway will be approved for 2.5 mile arrival spacing. It is permissible, however, that aircraft on visual approaches will be closer than that. On this side of the pond the onus for separation (and wake turbulence avoidance) on a visual approach is the pilot's unlike in the UK where the controller is still responsible.
This is why airports here can have very high arrival acceptance rates in good weather which fall when visuals are not possible and fall further when it goes less than 3SM and/or 1000'.
What is wrong with using years of experience and your skill to separate aircraft? You're either cleared to land or you're not. There is no confusion, unlike the UK's "land after", "after the landed, cleared to land", "land after the departing". How is a non-native crew supposed to make head or tail of the nuances between these and know what his responsibilities are? Have some of these now been removed from use? If so, why?
If you're a radar controller and you have two aircraft on converging headings and wish to climb one through the other, do you parallel them off to make sure they can never come close or do you use your experience and skill to decide whether the climb through can be completed in time? Is that not a form of anticipated separation?
I don't think its a case of better or worse, its just different. We all have different rules to work with, be it our ATC rules or noise abatement. I could clear an aircraft for take off every 30-40 seconds and move 100 departures an hour but that would take an ideal world, which we just don't live in. If things are done differently, its usually for a reason but the reason may not be apparent to the user so having the user saying ATC at ABC is way better than at XYZ is about as valid as us saying pilots at CBA are better than pilots at ZYX.
Re: Multiple landing clearances.
In Canada it is a little different again to what was quoted above from the 7110.65. In the US example a landing clearance can be issued to an arriving aircraft when it is not number one to land and there is an intervening departure ahead also. In Canada multiple landing clearances are only issued with reference to arriving traffic. A landing clearance will not be issued with reference to a departure until the departure is rolling and the controller believes that it will be airborne before the arrival crosses the beginning of the runway. The responsibility for separation rests with the controller.
Extensive surveys have taken place logging thousands of movements to obtain accurate runway occupancy times (ROT). If a ROT for a runway is demonstrated to be 50 seconds or less the runway will be approved for 2.5 mile arrival spacing. It is permissible, however, that aircraft on visual approaches will be closer than that. On this side of the pond the onus for separation (and wake turbulence avoidance) on a visual approach is the pilot's unlike in the UK where the controller is still responsible.
This is why airports here can have very high arrival acceptance rates in good weather which fall when visuals are not possible and fall further when it goes less than 3SM and/or 1000'.
What is wrong with using years of experience and your skill to separate aircraft? You're either cleared to land or you're not. There is no confusion, unlike the UK's "land after", "after the landed, cleared to land", "land after the departing". How is a non-native crew supposed to make head or tail of the nuances between these and know what his responsibilities are? Have some of these now been removed from use? If so, why?
If you're a radar controller and you have two aircraft on converging headings and wish to climb one through the other, do you parallel them off to make sure they can never come close or do you use your experience and skill to decide whether the climb through can be completed in time? Is that not a form of anticipated separation?
I don't think its a case of better or worse, its just different. We all have different rules to work with, be it our ATC rules or noise abatement. I could clear an aircraft for take off every 30-40 seconds and move 100 departures an hour but that would take an ideal world, which we just don't live in. If things are done differently, its usually for a reason but the reason may not be apparent to the user so having the user saying ATC at ABC is way better than at XYZ is about as valid as us saying pilots at CBA are better than pilots at ZYX.
Cossack ( & others)
I agree with all that you say. The controller uses his experience & separates the traffic. No argument. Nor do I criticise the ATC service provided. It obviously works ! Also, there is no intention to compare US & European ATC in a competetive way.
My point is, perhaps, on the semantics. Why use a phrase which is used NOT according to its meaning, & which is used in a purely perfunctory & meaningless capacity - as I see it.
Why not use a different phrase, which has no element of possible confusion attached to it, instead ?
I agree with all that you say. The controller uses his experience & separates the traffic. No argument. Nor do I criticise the ATC service provided. It obviously works ! Also, there is no intention to compare US & European ATC in a competetive way.
My point is, perhaps, on the semantics. Why use a phrase which is used NOT according to its meaning, & which is used in a purely perfunctory & meaningless capacity - as I see it.
Why not use a different phrase, which has no element of possible confusion attached to it, instead ?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not use a different phrase, which has no element of possible confusion attached to it, instead ?
(Merriam-Webster)
clearance noun clear·ance \ˈklir-ən(t)s\
1: an act or process of clearing: as
clearance noun clear·ance \ˈklir-ən(t)s\
1: an act or process of clearing: as
f : authorization for an aircraft to proceed especially with a specified action <clearance to land>
Similarly, the phrase "number two, cleared to land" does not mean that the runway at that very moment is physically clear, but instead is an authorization to land after the preceding aircraft.
peekay4
Good point on your first comment. No argument on that one.
On the second point, I'm not so sure. I think that a lot more rides on the "clear to land" statement than on the "clear to destination". However, I cannot disagree that this, second clearance, does also infer that it is physically "clear" to proceed to destination.
I shall have to think long & hard on this !
Good point on your first comment. No argument on that one.
On the second point, I'm not so sure. I think that a lot more rides on the "clear to land" statement than on the "clear to destination". However, I cannot disagree that this, second clearance, does also infer that it is physically "clear" to proceed to destination.
I shall have to think long & hard on this !
In between the time that clearance is granted, and the wheels touch down, any number of things may arise (vehicle on runway, plane makes mistake and taxis on runway, something else) which may render a landing unsafe. Whomever first notices this needs to take action and communicate such, at which time landing clearance (permission) can be revoked, and a go around executed/called for.
(In summary, peekay4 said about the same thing differently, but since it seems to you confusing, maybe having it put another way helps).
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ask me tomorrow
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add a little twist, the lawyers have come out in full force againt ATC in that Cessna 172/Saberliner midair in San Diego last summer-
Suits blame traffic control in fatal plane crash
San Diego Union-Tribune (CA) (Published: 9-Jan 2016 5:02, Received: 5:02:28)
By Dana Littlefield, The San Diego Union-Tribune
Word Count: 561
Jan. 09--SAN DIEGO -- The families of those killed in a plane collision near Otay Mesa have filed lawsuits blaming the air traffic controllers for clearing both planes to land at Brown Field and allowing them to fly too close.
The latest wrongful-death lawsuit was filed last week by the family of Michael A. Copeland, a 55-year-old Qualcomm executive from San Diego who was the sole occupant of a single-engine Cessna 172 that collided with a twin-engine Sabreliner jet on Aug. 16 above the small airport.
All four people on the jet were also killed.
Copeland's widow, Kathleen, and two adult children contend that New Jersey-based Serco Inc. -- which contracts with the U.S. government to provide air traffic control services at Brown Field -- and a manager at the airport's control tower were negligent because the air traffic controllers failed to keep the two aircraft a safe distance apart.
The San Diego Superior Court suit also blames Maryland-based BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, which owned and operated the Saberliner.
The pilot of the jet, Jeffrey Percy, 41, of the Mojave area, was a BAE employee. His co-pilot James Hale, 66, of Adelanto, was a contract employee for BAE. They were testing radar for the Navy on their flight.
Attorney David S. Casey Jr. , who represents the Copeland family, has said the control tower communicated with the pilots of both planes before the crash.
"We tragically learned that they made miscommunications," Casey said, explaining that both aircraft had been cleared to land at the airport, and that Copeland had been cleared to perform "touch and go" maneuvers in the Cessna.
The attorney said Copeland would not have been able to see the jet, which was flying above and behind the Cessna at a higher speed.
"Michael Copeland had no idea that another plane was coming at him," Casey said.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.
Serco spokesman Alan Hill said in a statement Friday that the company continues to support and cooperate fully with the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation and Safety Board as investigators work to understand the cause of the collision.
In a similar statement, BAE Systems spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said: "BAE Systems employees continue to mourn the loss of all of those killed in this tragic accident. We continue to support the investigation and because it is ongoing, we cannot comment further."
Other lawsuits related to the fatal collision make similar claims against Serco.
Hale's family filed a lawsuit against the company in November, while Percy's family filed one against Serco and the airport's control tower manager in December. The family of a passenger in the jet, John Kovach, 35, of the Mojave area, filed a lawsuit against the company in December.
The widow and teenage son of Carlos Palos, 40, also a Mojave area resident and the other passenger in the Saberliner, filed a lawsuit in September against Percy's and Copeland's estates as well as the Cessna's owner, Plus One Flyers.
That lawsuit has been dismissed, but Copeland's attorney said he expects it to be filed again with Serco named as the defendant.
Staff writer Kristina Davis contributed to this report.
Suits blame traffic control in fatal plane crash
San Diego Union-Tribune (CA) (Published: 9-Jan 2016 5:02, Received: 5:02:28)
By Dana Littlefield, The San Diego Union-Tribune
Word Count: 561
Jan. 09--SAN DIEGO -- The families of those killed in a plane collision near Otay Mesa have filed lawsuits blaming the air traffic controllers for clearing both planes to land at Brown Field and allowing them to fly too close.
The latest wrongful-death lawsuit was filed last week by the family of Michael A. Copeland, a 55-year-old Qualcomm executive from San Diego who was the sole occupant of a single-engine Cessna 172 that collided with a twin-engine Sabreliner jet on Aug. 16 above the small airport.
All four people on the jet were also killed.
Copeland's widow, Kathleen, and two adult children contend that New Jersey-based Serco Inc. -- which contracts with the U.S. government to provide air traffic control services at Brown Field -- and a manager at the airport's control tower were negligent because the air traffic controllers failed to keep the two aircraft a safe distance apart.
The San Diego Superior Court suit also blames Maryland-based BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, which owned and operated the Saberliner.
The pilot of the jet, Jeffrey Percy, 41, of the Mojave area, was a BAE employee. His co-pilot James Hale, 66, of Adelanto, was a contract employee for BAE. They were testing radar for the Navy on their flight.
Attorney David S. Casey Jr. , who represents the Copeland family, has said the control tower communicated with the pilots of both planes before the crash.
"We tragically learned that they made miscommunications," Casey said, explaining that both aircraft had been cleared to land at the airport, and that Copeland had been cleared to perform "touch and go" maneuvers in the Cessna.
The attorney said Copeland would not have been able to see the jet, which was flying above and behind the Cessna at a higher speed.
"Michael Copeland had no idea that another plane was coming at him," Casey said.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.
Serco spokesman Alan Hill said in a statement Friday that the company continues to support and cooperate fully with the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation and Safety Board as investigators work to understand the cause of the collision.
In a similar statement, BAE Systems spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said: "BAE Systems employees continue to mourn the loss of all of those killed in this tragic accident. We continue to support the investigation and because it is ongoing, we cannot comment further."
Other lawsuits related to the fatal collision make similar claims against Serco.
Hale's family filed a lawsuit against the company in November, while Percy's family filed one against Serco and the airport's control tower manager in December. The family of a passenger in the jet, John Kovach, 35, of the Mojave area, filed a lawsuit against the company in December.
The widow and teenage son of Carlos Palos, 40, also a Mojave area resident and the other passenger in the Saberliner, filed a lawsuit in September against Percy's and Copeland's estates as well as the Cessna's owner, Plus One Flyers.
That lawsuit has been dismissed, but Copeland's attorney said he expects it to be filed again with Serco named as the defendant.
Staff writer Kristina Davis contributed to this report.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown in both Europe and the USA quite extensively I find the US system to be slick, accessible, flexible, efficient and safe. It is most definitely not in fundamental need of change.
