Lots of waffle on this thread. There is one cardinal rule that you should never break. You must never, ever, land on an occupied runway....period. It's that simple. A 737 as far as I know still has windows that enable you to look out and see aircraft on the runway, and those flappy things near the wingtips enable you to turn and avoid other airborne traffic......I think they are called ailerons.

yes I'm being facetious, but to think that a crew would land on an occupied runway, rather than a simple go around for traffic that is tracking roughly 90 deg to the centreline and getting further away, it would have only required a 10 deg heading change to the left.......no problem. It beggars belief that an airline captain would continue the landing.

Who's responsibility is it to ensure that the runway is clear for landing having been given a "cleared to land, traffic rolling" instruction? There has always been issue with such instructions and surely this incident is as close as we would want to get for the safety of the instruction to be investigated. I will always be baffled how you can clear an aircraft (or several) to land on a runway that is not clear of traffic.

Zonoma

We cannot have it both ways :ok: One minute the argument is that this is all about the Captains superior judgement but a landing clearance with an aircraft still departing is ATC?

Surely a landing clearance with an aircraft rolling would mean the superior pilot would be on alert for the fact that something could disrupt that takeoff so he would still be in the go around mental mode.
Most situations are more likely to be a warning of a late landing clearance


At V1 there is a 99% chance the aircraft will takeoff regardless of a major problem so while the aircraft may still be on the runway it is committed to fly and travelling away from the direction of the landing aircraft. Aborting after V1 would probably mean the aircraft would have cleared the runway involuntarily :E Loss of directional control? it unlikely to end up on the runway. So both situations the aircraft would have gone off the end or into the fields.

I do not think the same attitude is there for aircraft which have landed and not yet cleared as that aircraft is relatively static and may not clear creating a high collision risk.

Some posters appear to have missed post #32 by thwipt..

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9001053

I suppose that makes the real question.. Why didn't they see the obstruction?

A non event that worked out just fine. My only observation here is the number of armchair quarter backs getting their knickers in a twist and spouting a lot of uninformed gossip about a situation that would clearly get them all hot and bothered. :ugh:

Err.... :mad:, I'm afraid
From UK CAP413 R/T manual, but similar to other places around the wold:
As used at such minor airports as Heathrow & Gatwick.

BJJ

1 and 5 are very relevant :E You are not suggesting that an aircraft can land with another aircraft taking an early turnoff maybe half way down the runway before it clears ?

Well, that depends on the length of the runway and the types of aicraft involved!
I am not saying that is directly applies here; obviously the second aircraft was not warned by ATC by being given a "land after" clearance. I was merely pointing out that to say "You must never, ever, land on an occupied runway....period." is incorrect.
My view is that I do not have enough knowledge of the facts to form an opinion on whether it was a wise course of action, so I will leave it to the investigators who will go over it in fine detail to do so.

Yes, when the facts have been established. At this time though we don't have the ATC tapes, and there is even speculation that the go-around instruction was given after the aircraft had touched down.

Right now it is guesswork piled on top of speculation. But carry on as you wish....

Yes he is! I don't know what it's called nowadays but it used to be called a "land after" which may (in the UK, and other places) be issued if certain conditions exist.

Would I land after an aircraft I can see halfway down the the runway, while he was still vacating? Yes, if I knew I could stop before running into him, and if so cleared to do.

That is the problem? If he has braked hard in a similar performance jet to make a turnoff and hasn't cleared you could have a brake or reverse thrust deployment fault and not stop.

There are many reasons why a jet you think is clearing ends up not clearing.
myself until his nose is in the taxiway and i can see he is moving out I wouldn't take anything for granted :{

I even had one who was asked to expedite and with the slant angle looked level with the turnoff and able to make a direct entry to the taxiway who infact was slightly past it and immediately executed a 180. It all looked good to me and i am sure to ATC too

One taking off isn't such a problem as its moving away from you and after reaching V1 he is going airborne regardless

Pace, sure there is nothing wrong with being cautious. So too are the UK CAA, but they do allow controllers to issue land after clearances, and give us pilots the option to accept them if we wish to. It's a matter of judgement really, but if you want to mitigate that is your judgement call.

I guess using that logic you would never consider landing on a short, almost limiting, field. (Wasn't there a thread on that subject lately?)

"after reaching V1 he is going airborne regardless"

- aah! What colour glasses do you have? A little research on aborts would not go amiss, I feel.

As deefer says, keep away from runways that are 'a bit short' just in case.

DD

It depends on the level of risk you and your PAX are prepared to take?
There are guys who will operate in a jet out of very short runways. The sort of runway you will rotate on the numbers at the far end and thank God all was ok ?

I had an owner who wanted to base his jet aircraft in Thruxton I told him no but he insisted so I took it there running on fumes. 3 weeks later? Take it out again I did so on fumes but he was never going to go to Majorca with a full payload from there

If we are all so damned clever,on this forum,why do incidents/accidents still happen?
Remember,even a chicken can fly better than a man/woman!..ergo,we are out of our natural medium,and therefore,at risk from the moment we get airborne.

Ours is a profession often requiring quick assessment/reaction..Give a human a break!...not there on the day?,then you will not be in possession of all the relevant info/stimulus/instinct that helped the crew involved make a decision on a reasonable course of action....
Pause for coffee..and donning my tin helmet;)