"Expect late landing clearance"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Expect late landing clearance"
Chaps/Chappesses
I'm just curious about above phraseology (sometimes used by ATC in UK - I know in other countries they're perfectly happy to clear you to land as number 2,3,4,5 etc). Is it helpful in any way to you at the pointy-end?
Obviously in "good" weather it may seem pointless as you can probably see the reason (although at my unit the reason should also be stated, regardless of weather)...but what does it mean to you? I.e. What do you regard as a "late" landing clearance? Inside a mile from touchdown/half a mile/100ft from runway/50ft??
I'm just curious about above phraseology (sometimes used by ATC in UK - I know in other countries they're perfectly happy to clear you to land as number 2,3,4,5 etc). Is it helpful in any way to you at the pointy-end?
Obviously in "good" weather it may seem pointless as you can probably see the reason (although at my unit the reason should also be stated, regardless of weather)...but what does it mean to you? I.e. What do you regard as a "late" landing clearance? Inside a mile from touchdown/half a mile/100ft from runway/50ft??
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd call anything below 1000' (inside 3 miles) as "late". Usually, those calls are explained further, e.g., "Continue approach. One departure before you, expect late landing clearance." Depending on the approach type and weather, I may or may not be able to see the runway to gauge the immediacy of the threat, so I may decide to go around sooner rather than later. If I see the departure airplane rolling, but have not received clearance, I may take it down to 100 or 50'. If it's still turning onto the runway, I may go around at 500 or 200'.
Yes, too frequent at LHR. I have had landing clearance given to me under 100ft with someone which we could perfectly see late to clear the runway.
The French came to their senses (unbelievably) and issue consecutive landing clearances at CDG, but the English still have their heads buried firmly in the sand.
(Taking cover for incomings..)
The French came to their senses (unbelievably) and issue consecutive landing clearances at CDG, but the English still have their heads buried firmly in the sand.
(Taking cover for incomings..)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: In Space
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps/Chappesses
I'm just curious about above phraseology (sometimes used by ATC in UK - I know in other countries they're perfectly happy to clear you to land as number 2,3,4,5 etc). Is it helpful in any way to you at the pointy-end?
Obviously in "good" weather it may seem pointless as you can probably see the reason (although at my unit the reason should also be stated, regardless of weather)...but what does it mean to you? I.e. What do you regard as a "late" landing clearance? Inside a mile from touchdown/half a mile/100ft from runway/50ft??
I'm just curious about above phraseology (sometimes used by ATC in UK - I know in other countries they're perfectly happy to clear you to land as number 2,3,4,5 etc). Is it helpful in any way to you at the pointy-end?
Obviously in "good" weather it may seem pointless as you can probably see the reason (although at my unit the reason should also be stated, regardless of weather)...but what does it mean to you? I.e. What do you regard as a "late" landing clearance? Inside a mile from touchdown/half a mile/100ft from runway/50ft??
In IMC if I hear nothing at minima its a go around.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying into busy US airports gives the whole thing perspective... There in VMC everyone and their dog is cleared to land at once, if the guy in front of you doesn't vacate in time tower might tell you to go-around (or more likely you'll do it yourself before they notice) - I'd like to be cleared in Europe somewhere around 100-200 feet, not a fan of touch-and-go-arounds.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: France
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In IMC if I hear nothing at minima its a go around.
That doesn't make any sense. IFR minima has absolutely nothing to do with receiving a landing clearance. Surely if you're still "IMC" (i.e. not visual") at minimum, you're going to go around anyway?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's good CRM where the tower lets you know that he/she hasn't forgotten about you and that everything (hopefully) is under control. Most countries allow time until the threshold. I think that the UK allows time until touchdown.
If you like your landing clearences early, you should stay away from Gatwick
If you like your landing clearences early, you should stay away from Gatwick
"Flying into busy US airports gives the whole thing perspective... There in VMC everyone and their dog is cleared to land at once"
I have always been suspect of the practice of "clearing" aircraft to land, as per the practice in the US. Perhaps it should be "permission" to land as you are certainly not "clear" if you have several landers in front of you.
Listening to the BA 777 LAS fire ATC recording is interesting. The controller, having cleared EVERYONE to land, then has to unclear everyone to land and issue go around instructions. TWICE she stepped on the BA 777 pilot trying to transmit a mayday call.
I cant help thinking that had non FAA procedures been in use, namely clearing aircraft to land only when it is ACTUALLY clear to land, then the radio waves would have been free for more important dialogue as non cleared aircraft would simply fly the missed approach sans landing clearance.
I have always been suspect of the practice of "clearing" aircraft to land, as per the practice in the US. Perhaps it should be "permission" to land as you are certainly not "clear" if you have several landers in front of you.
Listening to the BA 777 LAS fire ATC recording is interesting. The controller, having cleared EVERYONE to land, then has to unclear everyone to land and issue go around instructions. TWICE she stepped on the BA 777 pilot trying to transmit a mayday call.
I cant help thinking that had non FAA procedures been in use, namely clearing aircraft to land only when it is ACTUALLY clear to land, then the radio waves would have been free for more important dialogue as non cleared aircraft would simply fly the missed approach sans landing clearance.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: In Space
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where in a >10km day you can see matey boy turning off but still infringing the runway. So you continue past minima knowing he will be cleared in time. Happens a lot at the big boy airports.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you like your landing clearences early, you should stay away from Gatwick
Been there done that years ago. It was almost the standard at rush hour. One land, one line up - roll- takeoff, one land ad infinitum. 150-200' landing clearance was normal, but advised. I thought ATC had made the calculation that 160/4 or 170/5, whatever is flavour of the month, was to allow max rate from single runways so that landing & takeoffs dovetailed perfectly. The odd slow one to get going caused a hiccup and a very late clearance was better than a GA.
What happened to the "one on, land after" clearance/experiment/procedure?
I too was taken by surprise on my first visit to JFK to be told "speed 180, No.5, cleared to land." I surmised that ATC were treating us like adult captains and were allowed to make the decision over the lights that we considered the runway suitable to land on. Given that ATC was like a rapper on acid there is no way you could make a call and no way did they have time to keep up with all the chess pieces converging on the 'king' and make last minute last minute (to them) spurious calls. Get them out of the way ASAP.
I wondered some times at UK ATC. They would call you to GA at 300' just because someone was slow to clear and by 100' they were cleared. Why can't the captains make that decision? What is the opinion about ATC calling GA's in VMC if the crew consider it unnecessary? They can't close an airfield for weather, unless the runway is out of use; they can't ban you from making an approach.
Been there done that years ago. It was almost the standard at rush hour. One land, one line up - roll- takeoff, one land ad infinitum. 150-200' landing clearance was normal, but advised. I thought ATC had made the calculation that 160/4 or 170/5, whatever is flavour of the month, was to allow max rate from single runways so that landing & takeoffs dovetailed perfectly. The odd slow one to get going caused a hiccup and a very late clearance was better than a GA.
What happened to the "one on, land after" clearance/experiment/procedure?
I too was taken by surprise on my first visit to JFK to be told "speed 180, No.5, cleared to land." I surmised that ATC were treating us like adult captains and were allowed to make the decision over the lights that we considered the runway suitable to land on. Given that ATC was like a rapper on acid there is no way you could make a call and no way did they have time to keep up with all the chess pieces converging on the 'king' and make last minute last minute (to them) spurious calls. Get them out of the way ASAP.
I wondered some times at UK ATC. They would call you to GA at 300' just because someone was slow to clear and by 100' they were cleared. Why can't the captains make that decision? What is the opinion about ATC calling GA's in VMC if the crew consider it unnecessary? They can't close an airfield for weather, unless the runway is out of use; they can't ban you from making an approach.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA AIM Article 5-2-4 indicates a go-around is mandatory if another airplane is on the runway:
Since the pilot in command has the final responsibility to ensure compliance, a go-around is in order whenever that PIC believes the required separation will not be maintained.
There is no firm rule on when to initiate such a go-around. In some cases it may be prudent to go around from the flare if an airplane's tail has not yet cleared the runway ahead. In low-visibility situations, an earlier go-around would be prudent.
NOTE−
ATC will normally withhold landing clearance to arrival aircraft when another aircraft is in position and holding on the runway.
i. Never land on a runway that is occupied by another aircraft, even if a landing clearance was issued. Do not hesitate to ask the controller about the traffic on the runway and be prepared to execute a go−around.
ATC will normally withhold landing clearance to arrival aircraft when another aircraft is in position and holding on the runway.
i. Never land on a runway that is occupied by another aircraft, even if a landing clearance was issued. Do not hesitate to ask the controller about the traffic on the runway and be prepared to execute a go−around.
There is no firm rule on when to initiate such a go-around. In some cases it may be prudent to go around from the flare if an airplane's tail has not yet cleared the runway ahead. In low-visibility situations, an earlier go-around would be prudent.
Listening to the BA 777 LAS fire ATC recording is interesting. The controller, having cleared EVERYONE to land, then has to unclear everyone to land and issue go around instructions. TWICE she stepped on the BA 777 pilot trying to transmit a mayday call.
I cant help thinking that had non FAA procedures been in use, namely clearing aircraft to land only when it is ACTUALLY clear to land, then the radio waves would have been free for more important dialogue as non cleared aircraft would simply fly the missed approach sans landing clearance.
I cant help thinking that had non FAA procedures been in use, namely clearing aircraft to land only when it is ACTUALLY clear to land, then the radio waves would have been free for more important dialogue as non cleared aircraft would simply fly the missed approach sans landing clearance.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely understand the apprehension someone may feel when hearing "cleared to land, number 3", but after working in he system for a bit, it just feels normal, like driving on the "wrong" side of the road 
If you consider that 8 of the 10 busiest airports in the world are in the US, there is an advantage to the system. You contact tower, and he clears you to land, using anticipated separation. Elsewhere, the controller would have to monitor the number 1 aircraft, until it vacates the runway- this must be more work for the controller, who may have other duties (transitioning VFR aircraft, helicopters, ground frequency etc).
I imagine it results in fewer transmissions, and works quite well 99% of the time.
In the case of the BA incident at LAS, even if the airplanes weren't cleared to land, the controller would still have had to issue GA instructions to the aircraft on final, using the same phraseology (GA, fly heading xxx, maintain xxxx ft).
If you consider that 8 of the 10 busiest airports in the world are in the US, there is an advantage to the system. You contact tower, and he clears you to land, using anticipated separation. Elsewhere, the controller would have to monitor the number 1 aircraft, until it vacates the runway- this must be more work for the controller, who may have other duties (transitioning VFR aircraft, helicopters, ground frequency etc).
I imagine it results in fewer transmissions, and works quite well 99% of the time.
Listening to the BA 777 LAS fire ATC recording is interesting. The controller, having cleared EVERYONE to land, then has to unclear everyone to land and issue go around instructions. TWICE she stepped on the BA 777 pilot trying to transmit a mayday call.
"even if the airplanes weren't cleared to land, the controller would still have had to issue GA instructions to the aircraft on final, using the same phraseolog"
Why, wouldn't a lack of landing clearance result in an automatic go around and an automatic following of the published missed approach?
Why, wouldn't a lack of landing clearance result in an automatic go around and an automatic following of the published missed approach?
"Elsewhere, the controller would have to monitor the number 1 aircraft, until it vacates the runway"
Isn't that the precise intent behind the term "clear to land". This is why I think it should be rephrased to "permission" to land as it has not been checked to be clear as the controller "has other duties".
Isn't that the precise intent behind the term "clear to land". This is why I think it should be rephrased to "permission" to land as it has not been checked to be clear as the controller "has other duties".
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of late landings or holding things up . . . I was just about to turn off at the desired exit when I was told to hold - so I stopped. There was also a chappy coming in behind me but well back probable 3 miles or more - he kept asking ATC if I was going to clear and ATC said that I was . . ok. I looked behind us and I could see said aeroplane getting closer and closer and wondered WHIH but stood there like a lost sheep. Eventually the concerned landing decided to go around - thank F -and I was asked if I was holding to which I replied that I was - and further questioned as to the reason of said hold to which I replied - "you told me to hold" - which was followed by "ah, ih, nu, ah meant . . okay, continue to the parking area. . " - at which point I continued to the parking area.
Thank the Lord for Go Arounds. I know, I know, sometimes it pays not to do as you are told - the first time that happens there will be a sound. Some dudes were cleared to an NDB once and even given a turn to get to it - it was on the other side of the mountain, they were in a 73 at the time. Its a bugger this flying is sometimes.
Thank the Lord for Go Arounds. I know, I know, sometimes it pays not to do as you are told - the first time that happens there will be a sound. Some dudes were cleared to an NDB once and even given a turn to get to it - it was on the other side of the mountain, they were in a 73 at the time. Its a bugger this flying is sometimes.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"even if the airplanes weren't cleared to land, the controller would still have had to issue GA instructions to the aircraft on final, using the same phraseolog"
Why, wouldn't a lack of landing clearance result in an automatic go around and an automatic following of the published missed approach?
Why, wouldn't a lack of landing clearance result in an automatic go around and an automatic following of the published missed approach?
No. The controller isn't going to let you happily continue down to some arbitrary altitude before deciding to GA.
Let's take your scenario, where you're on final without a landing clearance, you're not just going to sit there in silence, are you? You'll call and ask if you're cleared to land, at which time, the controller will tell you to GA.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Elsewhere, the controller would have to monitor the number 1 aircraft, until it vacates the runway"
Isn't that the precise intent behind the term "clear to land". This is why I think it should be rephrased to "permission" to land as it has not been checked to be clear as the controller "has other duties".
Isn't that the precise intent behind the term "clear to land". This is why I think it should be rephrased to "permission" to land as it has not been checked to be clear as the controller "has other duties".
At some busy airports here (even the class D airports), it's not uncommon to land and switch to ground without specifically being told to do so. Even so, when told to call ground, you'll typically hear "contact ground point eight".
The system is set up for efficiency, and it works well. Again, I can easily see how someone who has never flown in the US can think that it's dangerously unorthodox, but it does work.