Air Canada non go-around at SFO

[India Four Two]

As a former controller for 17 years, it is called anticipated separation. “Number 3 following traffic ahead, cleared to land”....all day everyday...

atr-drivr,

I’m aware that this is “all day everyday”. I’ve received clearances like this every time, on the few occasions I’ve flown into a towered US airfield. I must admit the first time, I was really surprised.

I’m genuinely interested to know why this procedure is considered operationally desirable. I would have thought that a simple “Cleared to land”, when the runway really is clear, would use less air-time, is completely unambiguous and has the added benefit of priming the flight crew, before receiving the clearance, to be prepared to go around.

[EstorilM]

Wouldn't the net result of what you're proposing be a large number of aircraft all over the country lined up on a short final without an actual landing clearance?

In addition to making things stressful for the flight crew, wouldn't it also put a large amount of stress on the controller, who now needs to issue landing clearances in a short / timely manner regardless of whatever else he is doing or who is is talking to, as soon as the ground aircraft are clear.

I would think it's just easier to do on the initial call - short, sweet, efficient, aircraft calls and he's taken care of one transmission later.

Works fine 99.9% of the time, for the other .1% they can issue a go-around.

..which is also another interesting point, as presumably the aircraft would have been on short final anyways, even if the controller used the method you described. Controller wouldn't have issued a landing clearance - the net result would be the same, issued a go-around, aircraft didn't hear/listen, landed anyways. Would certainly be a little more paperwork for the pilot though.

[arketip]

If they did not have a landing clearance they would have to go-around, I believe

[J.O.]

I've never liked the idea of a landing clearance for a runway that wasn't truly mine. But I also understand that US airports routinely see traffic volumes that are far and away heavier than the rest of the world. LHR's really the only one that comes close.

[EstorilM]

Originally Posted by arketip

If they did not have a landing clearance they would have to go-around, I believe

You're right - never mind that part of my response, if that was indeed the procedure that was being used instead of the current one, they wouldn't have been able to "tune-out" or whatever they did, as they'd still be waiting for the clearance.

[tubby linton]

SFO just keeps generating incidents.
NTSB investigating separate safety incidents at San Francisco International Airport | abc7news.com

[Prober]

Clear to Land

In answer to Estoril M (#150), try LHR. On a clear night you will see lines of aircraft going back 20 miles. Having been based there for 25 years, it was always with a warm feeling that one threw oneself into the welcoming arms of ‘Heathrow Director’, confident that spacing would be such that, when your turn actually arrived, no matter how close to touch down it might seem, 99.9% of the time, ‘Clear to Land’ would be forthcoming from the tower - and that really meant "Clear to Land" - not "Hope it will be OK when you get there"!