Change needed in North American ATC
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetJockey A4, you have just posted your ignorance for all to see.
Firstly, as many have already stated, standards across Europe are not consistent, and there is no "Eurocontrol".
Secondly, there is no VFR in class A airspace, regardless of met conditions.
Thirdly, just because you couldn't see conflicting traffic, the refusal of a climb is not grounds to brand an ATCU inefficient - that conflicting traffic may have been crossing your track in another five minutes - how much would you be complaining if they had permitted your climb and then two minutes issued a descent instruction?
You might want to consider your own professional knowledge and ability before criticising others'.
Firstly, as many have already stated, standards across Europe are not consistent, and there is no "Eurocontrol".
Secondly, there is no VFR in class A airspace, regardless of met conditions.
Thirdly, just because you couldn't see conflicting traffic, the refusal of a climb is not grounds to brand an ATCU inefficient - that conflicting traffic may have been crossing your track in another five minutes - how much would you be complaining if they had permitted your climb and then two minutes issued a descent instruction?
You might want to consider your own professional knowledge and ability before criticising others'.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin, re post 60, I agree whole heartedly. It is reasonable to expect pilots to try to be aware of what is going on around them, and most of will try to do so, at least the bulk of the experienced ones anyway.
However, I feel that ATC issuing numerous simultaneous landing or take off clearances for the same runway is putting far to great a dependence on that pilot SA, without any way of verify that SA is accurate. It is begging for a collision. WHile there is no excuse for pilots to abdicate all responsibility and let ATC blindly drive them around the skies without working out their own SA and risk assessment, neither is it reasonable for ATC to dump all the workload and SA responsibility on pilots. Both should be working on it.
However, I feel that ATC issuing numerous simultaneous landing or take off clearances for the same runway is putting far to great a dependence on that pilot SA, without any way of verify that SA is accurate. It is begging for a collision. WHile there is no excuse for pilots to abdicate all responsibility and let ATC blindly drive them around the skies without working out their own SA and risk assessment, neither is it reasonable for ATC to dump all the workload and SA responsibility on pilots. Both should be working on it.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many aircrafts were going from Zurich to Montreal or from any other departure point within Europe at that time in their airspace? Furthermore, how many of them were climbing directly to FL430 in their airspace and then fly on a random route across the Atlantic to Montreal? Well I can assure you that we never saw anyone near us both laterally and vertically (certainly not above FL400) for the entire flight that would have overloaded their airspace.
It means that everyone to any airport that has filed through that bit of airspace will get the delay - we're not just picking on you, although with your tin hat mentality you probably think we are. There's nothing to stop you refiling around the airspace with the regulation.
Last edited by The Many Tentacles; 7th Jan 2016 at 06:32. Reason: Spelling!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC time lapse
Here's a neat ATC time lapse/animation or 3 for anyone interested:
London:
https://vimeo.com/132804154
UK:
https://vimeo.com/111844476
Transatlantic:
https://vimeo.com/98941796
>
I may have poorly communicated the point I was attempting to make (I suspected you were possibly on the troll tbh!) but I was trying to highlight the fact that IF your previous comment:
is true [I'm not certain that it is] then it would tend to suggest that the significantly higher workload to which you refer must be at least be partly the result of procedural differences, as the difference in numbers involved in terms of airspace congestion/traffic, comparing LON to NYC for example, are not exactly "night and day" in my view:
According ACI (Airports Council International), NYC metropolitan area (JFK + EWR + LGA + HPN + ISP + SWF) is the busiest airport system in the world in terms of total flight operations with 1,581,300 annual movements and the 2nd busiest in the world in terms of pax numbers with 121m pax annually.
LON (LHR + LGW + STN + LTN + LCY + SEN) is the 2nd busiest airport system in the world in terms of total flight operations with 1,277,600 annual movements and the busiest airport system in the world in terms of pax numbers with 146m pax annually.
2014 (not including overflights)
LON = 1,277,600 annual movements, 7 runways = ~499 per runway per day
NYC = 1,581,300 annual movements, 17 runways = ~255 per runway per day
Simplistically, NYC ATC is handling ~23% more traffic than LON ATC, so the difference in workload shouldn't be "night and day" and if it is, it can't logically be solely the result of the increased traffic volume. One might even argue the workload in LON ought to be greater to some extent, given the traffic distribution/substantially higher number of movements per runway.
All just IMHO of course... and notwithstanding that I may have misunderstood your post entirely!
All the best.
London:
https://vimeo.com/132804154
UK:
https://vimeo.com/111844476
Transatlantic:
https://vimeo.com/98941796
>
Originally Posted by misd-agin
LHR, LGW, Stansted is approx. 900,000 annual movements. I don't know the traffic at other local airports.
JFK, LGA, EWR, TEB, HPN, ISP, SWF is about 1,750,000 annual movements.
JFK/LGA/EWR are 18 nm apart. 1,170,000 movements. Add in TEB, overflown by EWR arrivals on base leg, and it's 1,340,000 movements.
The LA basin has over 3,000,000 movements.
JFK, LGA, EWR, TEB, HPN, ISP, SWF is about 1,750,000 annual movements.
JFK/LGA/EWR are 18 nm apart. 1,170,000 movements. Add in TEB, overflown by EWR arrivals on base leg, and it's 1,340,000 movements.
The LA basin has over 3,000,000 movements.
Originally Posted by misd-agin
The difference in workload in the U.S. ATC system vs. the 'busy' European cities is almost night and day. A 'busy' period overseas is an easy day at work for U.S. based pilots.
According ACI (Airports Council International), NYC metropolitan area (JFK + EWR + LGA + HPN + ISP + SWF) is the busiest airport system in the world in terms of total flight operations with 1,581,300 annual movements and the 2nd busiest in the world in terms of pax numbers with 121m pax annually.
LON (LHR + LGW + STN + LTN + LCY + SEN) is the 2nd busiest airport system in the world in terms of total flight operations with 1,277,600 annual movements and the busiest airport system in the world in terms of pax numbers with 146m pax annually.
2014 (not including overflights)
LON = 1,277,600 annual movements, 7 runways = ~499 per runway per day
NYC = 1,581,300 annual movements, 17 runways = ~255 per runway per day
Simplistically, NYC ATC is handling ~23% more traffic than LON ATC, so the difference in workload shouldn't be "night and day" and if it is, it can't logically be solely the result of the increased traffic volume. One might even argue the workload in LON ought to be greater to some extent, given the traffic distribution/substantially higher number of movements per runway.
All just IMHO of course... and notwithstanding that I may have misunderstood your post entirely!
All the best.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a fan of London ATC. They do a very good job. But the ops tempo is different. Often night and day. But the controllers are very, very good. But NYC/ORD is a completely different scale.
One of my favorite radio calls from ORD approach in the late 1990's - "I don't HAVE TIME for read backs. Just listen up and DO IT!" And then he started giving non stop clearances for several minutes.
Actual runway availability in the NYC metro area for the airports listed would be 9-12 at any given time. Nine in the worst case, 10-11 the more typical availability.
Imagine dropping 2.3x Stansted's traffic flow between LHR and LGW, 9nm from LHR, and pointing the primary summer departure runway at LHR, and that's the JFK/LGA/EWR setup.
LAX has a better traffic flow. Often one check-in at FL180 and you're cleared to descend via the arrival, cleared the approach, tower at the FAF(expected, not assigned). About a dozen restrictions and speed constraints but it works for traffic from the east. North/west arrivals get dropped off on downwind for 24R(north complex).
The NYC area doesn't have that. As pilots we wonder why but I'm guessing the airspace restrictions, or traffic demands, make it very tough, if not impossible, to automate via STAR's/'descend via' arrivals. On a tough day NYC can be a nice professional challenge.
On Sully's event I immediately recognized the controller's voice. He's one of the very sharp guys. Nice, professional, cool, gets the job done. Non standard RT (oh, the horrors...) but it's not uncommon for U.S. pilots to say "nice job" when you're handed off, especially on tough days. They work hard and do a good job. It was interesting seeing the controller being interviewed and reading about the impact to him in the books that were written after the fact. Find his part of the story, it's interesting reading.
One of my favorite radio calls from ORD approach in the late 1990's - "I don't HAVE TIME for read backs. Just listen up and DO IT!" And then he started giving non stop clearances for several minutes.
Actual runway availability in the NYC metro area for the airports listed would be 9-12 at any given time. Nine in the worst case, 10-11 the more typical availability.
Imagine dropping 2.3x Stansted's traffic flow between LHR and LGW, 9nm from LHR, and pointing the primary summer departure runway at LHR, and that's the JFK/LGA/EWR setup.
LAX has a better traffic flow. Often one check-in at FL180 and you're cleared to descend via the arrival, cleared the approach, tower at the FAF(expected, not assigned). About a dozen restrictions and speed constraints but it works for traffic from the east. North/west arrivals get dropped off on downwind for 24R(north complex).
The NYC area doesn't have that. As pilots we wonder why but I'm guessing the airspace restrictions, or traffic demands, make it very tough, if not impossible, to automate via STAR's/'descend via' arrivals. On a tough day NYC can be a nice professional challenge.
On Sully's event I immediately recognized the controller's voice. He's one of the very sharp guys. Nice, professional, cool, gets the job done. Non standard RT (oh, the horrors...) but it's not uncommon for U.S. pilots to say "nice job" when you're handed off, especially on tough days. They work hard and do a good job. It was interesting seeing the controller being interviewed and reading about the impact to him in the books that were written after the fact. Find his part of the story, it's interesting reading.
I am a newbie to ATC in the US as a domestic airline pilot. I have flown all over the world including the US on international flights but flying for a local carrier is a totally different animal, especially as a furiner!
My take:
Huge amounts of traffic that move very well. Someone is doing something right.
BUT, there are oddities that have me puzzled:
"climb and maintain", surely the maintain is redundant.
"descend via the star except maintain xxx", I am still getting to used to descent clearances via a star. Why cant it just be descend to xxx with the assumption we will comply with the crossing rerstrictions.
But my fave is clear to land, when you are number 4 in line. They should rephrase it permission to land.
Rant over.
My take:
Huge amounts of traffic that move very well. Someone is doing something right.
BUT, there are oddities that have me puzzled:
"climb and maintain", surely the maintain is redundant.
"descend via the star except maintain xxx", I am still getting to used to descent clearances via a star. Why cant it just be descend to xxx with the assumption we will comply with the crossing rerstrictions.
But my fave is clear to land, when you are number 4 in line. They should rephrase it permission to land.
Rant over.
OIC
That's language used to stop your descent at an altitude above the published one. As in "except maintain 8000". So you'll DV and maintain 8000 instead of continuing the descent below 8000 via the profile.
Here are FAA FAQs regarding climb/descend via clearances. Our airline used this when the procedures were implemented, there might be a more up to date version.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...nd_via_faq.pdf
That's language used to stop your descent at an altitude above the published one. As in "except maintain 8000". So you'll DV and maintain 8000 instead of continuing the descent below 8000 via the profile.
Here are FAA FAQs regarding climb/descend via clearances. Our airline used this when the procedures were implemented, there might be a more up to date version.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...nd_via_faq.pdf
Last edited by West Coast; 7th Jan 2016 at 16:07.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, this whole thread seems like a first world willy-waving contest. ATCs in both regions deal with highly complex and highly idiosyncratic challenges. And guess what, the statistical results show that both are beyond extraordinarily successful.
While I am sure that there are possibly improvements available for each ATC regime, it is clear that these are likely only to be marginal at best.
As a pax, my hat is off to all participants in both systems. Neither should be slagging at the other -- unless it is just in good humor.
While I am sure that there are possibly improvements available for each ATC regime, it is clear that these are likely only to be marginal at best.
As a pax, my hat is off to all participants in both systems. Neither should be slagging at the other -- unless it is just in good humor.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I decide to visit PPRuNE and come upon this thread and I simply had to LOL...
So some are complaining about the ATC system in the USA and how they are not ICAO “standard”…
Well a lot of places in the world are not ICAO “standard” including Europe it seems. However in my opinion there is NOT a better, more efficient and friendly ATC system in the world than the one found in the USA.
They will do their best to accommodate any reasonable demands, from direct routing to wrong way flight levels, to deviations for bad weather, to departure and arrival runway selections to get you on or off the ground as rapidly as possible while remaining safe in their operation.
Eurocontrol is a joke compared to the US ATC system. They can’t even start to think “outside the box”, they are in my opinion inefficient.
Two very recent examples on how inefficient Eurocontrol can be…
#1 - We were flying from southern Spain to LFPB. Both the departure and arrival airport as most of Europe on that day, was under VFR weather condition, actually the Paris area was severe clear. We were given a slot/departure delay of 2 hours by Eurocontrol because the ILS into LFPB was out of commission and this when there was a RNAV/GPS approach to that same runway available.
#2- We were scheduled to leave Zurich for Montreal at 17H00 local (with a Zurich airport slot for that time). We ask for start-up and Zurich advised us that Eurocontrol had just imposed us a slot for 18H30 local, a 90 minute delay for no apparent reason. Eurocontrol can override any airport's own slot system which is counter productive in my opinion. Why in this day and age, can they not communicate with each other and coordinate a departure slot and an airway/ATC slot.
How many aircrafts were going from Zurich or that general area of Europe to Montreal at that time? Furthermore, how many of them were climbing directly to FL430 (initial climb) in Europe's airspace and then fly on a random route across the Atlantic to Montreal? I cannot believe that ATC could not accommodate another aircraft for an on time departure, especially one that was above 99% of all aircrafts in their airspace.
In all my flying years, I have NEVER experienced this kind of nonsense in the USA (or the UK) from their ATC system unless it was severe weather or an emergency at a departure or arrival airport.
Are the Americans perfect? No they are not, but I can say the same of many other ATC systems in the rest of the world. There are far worst places in the world where I think safety issues need to be addressed before even thinking the US system is unsafe.
You folks can go on ranting all you want about the US ATC system because of their “non-compliance” to certain ICAO standards or the use of some slangs when they talk on the radio but I’m willing to give them a break because IMHO the rest of the world can’t even come close to their safe efficient ATC system.
BTW, I want to make this clear, I am not criticizing the individual controller here because most are highly professional in my opinion. I even spent 3 years flying out of Paris for a major feeder airline for Air France in the early 90s and thought the French controllers were very good. However I do question Eurocontrol's ability to manage its traffic.
End of my rant!
So some are complaining about the ATC system in the USA and how they are not ICAO “standard”…
Well a lot of places in the world are not ICAO “standard” including Europe it seems. However in my opinion there is NOT a better, more efficient and friendly ATC system in the world than the one found in the USA.
They will do their best to accommodate any reasonable demands, from direct routing to wrong way flight levels, to deviations for bad weather, to departure and arrival runway selections to get you on or off the ground as rapidly as possible while remaining safe in their operation.
Eurocontrol is a joke compared to the US ATC system. They can’t even start to think “outside the box”, they are in my opinion inefficient.
Two very recent examples on how inefficient Eurocontrol can be…
#1 - We were flying from southern Spain to LFPB. Both the departure and arrival airport as most of Europe on that day, was under VFR weather condition, actually the Paris area was severe clear. We were given a slot/departure delay of 2 hours by Eurocontrol because the ILS into LFPB was out of commission and this when there was a RNAV/GPS approach to that same runway available.
#2- We were scheduled to leave Zurich for Montreal at 17H00 local (with a Zurich airport slot for that time). We ask for start-up and Zurich advised us that Eurocontrol had just imposed us a slot for 18H30 local, a 90 minute delay for no apparent reason. Eurocontrol can override any airport's own slot system which is counter productive in my opinion. Why in this day and age, can they not communicate with each other and coordinate a departure slot and an airway/ATC slot.
How many aircrafts were going from Zurich or that general area of Europe to Montreal at that time? Furthermore, how many of them were climbing directly to FL430 (initial climb) in Europe's airspace and then fly on a random route across the Atlantic to Montreal? I cannot believe that ATC could not accommodate another aircraft for an on time departure, especially one that was above 99% of all aircrafts in their airspace.
In all my flying years, I have NEVER experienced this kind of nonsense in the USA (or the UK) from their ATC system unless it was severe weather or an emergency at a departure or arrival airport.
Are the Americans perfect? No they are not, but I can say the same of many other ATC systems in the rest of the world. There are far worst places in the world where I think safety issues need to be addressed before even thinking the US system is unsafe.
You folks can go on ranting all you want about the US ATC system because of their “non-compliance” to certain ICAO standards or the use of some slangs when they talk on the radio but I’m willing to give them a break because IMHO the rest of the world can’t even come close to their safe efficient ATC system.
BTW, I want to make this clear, I am not criticizing the individual controller here because most are highly professional in my opinion. I even spent 3 years flying out of Paris for a major feeder airline for Air France in the early 90s and thought the French controllers were very good. However I do question Eurocontrol's ability to manage its traffic.
End of my rant!
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check - most big EU airports don't generally mix visuals with instrument apps, partly as it introduces too many variables and would reduce flow rate if a pilot creates different spacing on a visual than ATC anticipated, but mostly because the EU doesn't enjoy the positive attitude towards aviation that the US does, and residents and authorities are itching to punish crews and airlines for noise violations. ATC are very restricted as a resulting in the routings they can offer in many airports. Besides, EU airlines tend to be highly procedural, at least with heavies (a whole other cultural discussion that has been had many times!). The smaller airports with medium jets and regionals are a bit more flexible as their arrival rates are low enough that ATC can correct for such cases. However, given the inaccuracies already pointed out in his post, I wouldn't credit his claim of the delays being due to the ILS with much reliability.
SeenItAll is totally correct, in my opinion. Sane, common sense & factually correct answer. There is no point comparing ATCOS in Europe & USA. The job & its idiosyncrasies are very different. All, in general, do a fine job.
I would only criticize the US "clear to land", when that is clearly not the case. However, I have never worked there & do not fully understand the thinking behind it.
Keep up the good work !
I would only criticize the US "clear to land", when that is clearly not the case. However, I have never worked there & do not fully understand the thinking behind it.
Keep up the good work !
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was in JFK recently, listening to a controller literally 'barking' at a/c. My colleague said it sounded like ATC didn't really like aeroplanes. A bit like a teacher who hates kids!
Was hilarious!
Was hilarious!
That's just New Yorkers' natural way of speaking! Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as a 30 yr retired US controller, commercial pilot and flight instructor....
Several people here have seemed to imply that US controllers pass on all responsibility for separation to the pilots by issuing advance landing clearances. Nothing could be further from the truth. If separation doesn't exist when #2 crosses the threshold, the controller is still charged with an error, even if #2 had him in sight since they left Omaha. It becomes a shared responsibility, and allows the following crew some flexibility in adjusting spacing instead of forcing the controller to micro-manage every speed reduction. (Visual approaches) Regardless of the rules in use, I assume the crew of a following aircraft would use good judgment in assessing their spacing with the aircraft ahead.
Point #2, 50,000 flights per day, 18+ million per year, while no doubt the occasional misjudgment occurs, advance landing clearances are way, way down the list of potential hazards you'll face.
I did it for 30 years as a controller, been flying for 40 years, never been violated or had an issue at a towered field. If you want to see chaos try a fly-in BBQ on a nice Saturday at a non-towered field over here.....
Several people here have seemed to imply that US controllers pass on all responsibility for separation to the pilots by issuing advance landing clearances. Nothing could be further from the truth. If separation doesn't exist when #2 crosses the threshold, the controller is still charged with an error, even if #2 had him in sight since they left Omaha. It becomes a shared responsibility, and allows the following crew some flexibility in adjusting spacing instead of forcing the controller to micro-manage every speed reduction. (Visual approaches) Regardless of the rules in use, I assume the crew of a following aircraft would use good judgment in assessing their spacing with the aircraft ahead.
Point #2, 50,000 flights per day, 18+ million per year, while no doubt the occasional misjudgment occurs, advance landing clearances are way, way down the list of potential hazards you'll face.
I did it for 30 years as a controller, been flying for 40 years, never been violated or had an issue at a towered field. If you want to see chaos try a fly-in BBQ on a nice Saturday at a non-towered field over here.....
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to be pedantic or anything but isn't it "Cleared to Land" as in "You have clearance to Land" and not "The runway is clear for you to land" as "Clear to Land" would suggest? The former would be ATC's part of the exchange and the latter would be the pilots' responsibility. Just as "Cleared for the approach" can be issued to more than one aircraft at a time, "Cleared to Land" shouldn't be much different.
Pratt X 3
Cannot agree with your point, I'm afraid. It was always stressed (& still is) when training in UK ATC, that the phrase " clear to land " meant exactly, & ONLY that. As I said before, I do not have experience of US ATC & it's nuances, & therefore cannot properly criticize its use of this phrase in the circumstances in which it is used; but, to my mind, I cannot justify its use in relation to more than one aircraft on the same, or crossing, runways at the same time.
A UK landing clearance relates to only one a/c at a time ( meaning that it is actually clear for that a/c alone to land). By definition, it cannot be physically possible for another a/c to be able to land on the same or crossing runway at the same time. I struggle to understand how such a clearance can be given to more than one a/c simultaneously. The only exception is a "land after"; & that can only be given to one other a/c AFTER the first a/c HAS landed.
Maybe the same desired effect of the US multiple landing clearance could be achieved by the use of a different ( non- confusing ) phraseology. As I have said, I won't criticise US ATC for this usage without understanding why it uses it. But, it does not seem to be a desirable practice to me.
Cannot agree with your point, I'm afraid. It was always stressed (& still is) when training in UK ATC, that the phrase " clear to land " meant exactly, & ONLY that. As I said before, I do not have experience of US ATC & it's nuances, & therefore cannot properly criticize its use of this phrase in the circumstances in which it is used; but, to my mind, I cannot justify its use in relation to more than one aircraft on the same, or crossing, runways at the same time.
A UK landing clearance relates to only one a/c at a time ( meaning that it is actually clear for that a/c alone to land). By definition, it cannot be physically possible for another a/c to be able to land on the same or crossing runway at the same time. I struggle to understand how such a clearance can be given to more than one a/c simultaneously. The only exception is a "land after"; & that can only be given to one other a/c AFTER the first a/c HAS landed.
Maybe the same desired effect of the US multiple landing clearance could be achieved by the use of a different ( non- confusing ) phraseology. As I have said, I won't criticise US ATC for this usage without understanding why it uses it. But, it does not seem to be a desirable practice to me.
By definition, it cannot be physically possible for another a/c to be able to land on the same or crossing runway at the same time. I struggle to understand how such a clearance can be given to more than one a/c simultaneously. The only exception is a "land after"; & that can only be given to one other a/c AFTER the first a/c HAS landed.
It works just fine. What it is, is different than what many of your countrymen are used to, therefore it's wrong.
The system hasn't failed me so far in many, many thousands of hours flying to 7 of the 10 busiest airports in the world.When I've crossed threshold, all was good. A few times it wasn't, the controller took action. Now without doubt, you're about to hear (likely apocryphal) stories otherwise. Like all systems, its not perfect, but it works well.
My preference is to get the clearance early and not on short final possibly. Others may prefer otherwise. Doesn't make one right and the other wrong.
Cannot agree with your point, I'm afraid. It was always stressed (& still is) when training in UK ATC, that the phrase " clear to land " meant exactly, & ONLY that. As I said before, I do not have experience of US ATC & it's nuances, & therefore cannot properly criticize its use of this phrase in the circumstances in which it is used; but, to my mind, I cannot justify its use in relation to more than one aircraft on the same, or crossing, runways at the same time.
Just to reiterate the point clearly, "Cleared to Land" means you are authorized to land. (in FAA land) It does NOT imply in any way that the runway is clear. It only means that you have received the required landing clearance. One cannot legally take off or land without an ATC "clearance" to do so at airports with an operating control tower.
Some words and phrases mean different things depending upon where you are. In the USA, "cleared to land" means you have received the required authorization to do so. It does NOT mean, or even imply that the runway is presently "clear".
westhawk
Some words and phrases mean different things depending upon where you are. In the USA, "cleared to land" means you have received the required authorization to do so. It does NOT mean, or even imply that the runway is presently "clear".
westhawk
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mauritius,soon or latter
Posts: 539
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my favorite radio calls from ORD approach in the late 1990's - "I don't HAVE TIME for read backs. Just listen up and DO IT!" And then he started giving non stop clearances for several minutes.
Read back is mandatory not optional features.
I do believe that USA ATC system is good ( otherwise they wouldn't have been able to deal with the traffic level ) but others all around world are also good, in their traffic levels and so on.
It will be definitely better for USA to take fresh blood ,from other countries, as well send their people to watch and learn from others. Maybe they see something new,interesting and better practice.
East Germans, also believed that they were best. Until someone broke iron curtain.
any similarity with USA believes and ideas are purely fictitious.
