Cleared to land

[Ricky_231]

14 hours ago, McMooney said:

guessing you're not going to oshkosh

touché...

but that's a different situation. I was talking about not knowing what the other aircraft was going to do next - if he was going to get off the runway soon or just sit there because of a malfunction. Also, shorter distances - at oshkosh everyone's intentions are clear and distances are greater. It's not really the same runway if you think about it. The scenario I was running through my head is where both planes believe they have full use of the entire runway and are both cleared to land, and one of them is still on the runway when I'm about to touch down.

If I get cleared to the orange dot, and the aircraft who just landed on the orange dot hasn't left the runway, I'll go around no doubt.

But, as I said to @midlifeflyer above, I see you guys' point.

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, Ricky_231 said:

Alright - that's a little different. That's like 3 runways one after the other :-)  The incident I mentioned was on a 5000' runway and I went around when the other aircraft missed the 2000' turnoff and I was over the threshold - so if he stopped right there and then it would've been pretty tight. But I see your point.

The point, KOSH aside, is that two airplanes landing on the same runway at a towered airport is not the wild Wild West. There are rules about it, specifically required separation. It's really no different than a LAHSO landing clearance. 

Sure, if you are not comfortable with it, you decline. That's your prerogative as PIC.

[bob865]

Figured I would throw something out since I've seen it come up a few times.  ATC is only responsible for separation for aircraft on an IFR flight plan in IMC.  All other times see and avoid prevails.  As I understand it, the regs are written with the out that if you can see, it's your responsibility as the pilot to maintain separation. 

"Separation will be provided between all aircraft operating on IFR flight plans except during that part of the flight (outside Class B airspace or a TRSA) being conducted on a VFR-on-top/VFR conditions clearance. Under these conditions, ATC may issue traffic advisories, but it is the sole responsibility of the pilot to be vigilant so as to see and avoid other aircraft."

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap4_section_4.html

4-4-11 paragraph b.

[midlifeflyer]

57 minutes ago, bob865 said:

Figured I would throw something out since I've seen it come up a few times.  ATC is only responsible for separation for aircraft on an IFR flight plan in IMC.  All other times see and avoid prevails.  As I understand it, the regs are written with the out that if you can see, it's your responsibility as the pilot to maintain separation. 

"Separation will be provided between all aircraft operating on IFR flight plans except during that part of the flight (outside Class B airspace or a TRSA) being conducted on a VFR-on-top/VFR conditions clearance. Under these conditions, ATC may issue traffic advisories, but it is the sole responsibility of the pilot to be vigilant so as to see and avoid other aircraft."

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap4_section_4.html

4-4-11 paragraph b.

That applies to enroute operations. The duty of a tower controller is separation on the runway. 
 

butbyes, if you run into another aircraft on the runway, it's going to be on you assuming the Tower did  its job (an maybe even if it didn't).

Edited January 5, 2020 by midlifeflyer

[Ricky_231]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

The point, KOSH aside, is that two airplanes landing on the same runway at a towered airport is not the wild Wild West. There are rules about it, specifically required separation. It's really no different than a LAHSO landing clearance. 

Sure, if you are not comfortable with it, you decline. That's your prerogative as PIC.

I get it - but even at a towered airport there's a difference between 2 planes on the same runway deliberately and 2 planes on the same runway because tower assumed the first aircraft would have cleared the runway but when you're about to touch down they haven't yet.

Not to go on indefinitely, but the particular scenario I was describing happened to me at a towered airport as follows:

• Came in IFR and was handed off to tower 5 miles out
• Contacted tower and was told to enter the left downwind for runway 35, following traffic, a 172, and report midfield
• Reported traffic in sight
• Reported midfield and was cleared to land, #2 behind the 172
• Aware that I would be considerably faster than the 172, I extended my downwind and waited until the 172 was over the threshold to turn base
• Turned base then final and noticed traffic was still on the runway
• Kept descending toward the numbers but kept an eye on traffic
• Traffic missed 2nd turn off (~2000') and seemed to be on a very slow roll on the runway
• Made the decision to go around, went around, and informed tower
• As I flew over the 172, they were still on the runway, making the 3rd turn off (~3000ft)

Could I have safely landed and made the 2nd turn off uneventfully before the 172? Most likely. Was I going to risk that vs going around and landing a minute or 2 later with no one in front of me? No way.

That's all I'm saying. Sometimes tower assumes the traffic in front of you is faster, or more proficient than they really are. Or don't register that a mooney on downwind has a few knots on a 172 and will be closing in faster than they assumed. And we as PIC, as you pointed out, have to be ready to make that call, regardless of the clearance.

 

[midlifeflyer]

55 minutes ago, Ricky_231 said:

And we as PIC, as you pointed out, have to be ready to make that call, regardless of the clearance.

Absolutely. No question about it.

[bradp]

Nobody has mentioned the Pilot Controller Glossary so far - a Rosetta Stone for pilots and controllers.  My eyes glaze over when I’ve read the 7110.65 (yes I’ve read it cover to cover multiple times). 
 

@Cyril GibbFor the US if you’re not cleared to land the controller will use the phraseology “continue” and give you a reason why you’re not cleared to land. 
 

The controller can use “anticipated separation” to provide a landing clearance to multiple aircraft and the controller will provide traffic to follow.  This is good for planning for me as a pilot.  At a VFR tower I as PIC am still responsible for sequencing myself behind my traffic to follow and I am responsible for seeing and avoiding. If an aircraft is departing prior to me landing I want my landing clearance and an advisory - just how the ATC currently works “Mooney 201QH wind blah blah cleared to land runway 17 traffic CRJ departing caution wake turbulence.”  Thus I know if I don’t see the CRJ departing I should expect to be waved off (I should be expecting that anyway...right).  This also avoids silliness like me receiving a late landing clearance on a quarter mile final.  
 

@Ricky_231 your particular situation sounds like the tower did everything right.   Just remember that If the runway is of sufficient length “same runway” separation can be applied by the controller.  This can be as little as 3000 ft (up to 6500 ft) depending on the aircraft SRS (same runway separation) category.   SRS does not apply for jets landing behind cessnas.   But it would apply to you landing behind that Cessna if he’s 3000ft ahead by the time you had crossed the threshold- in that case he can be at the fourth turn off while you take the first without issue. However if you see a potential conflict developing that tower did not you absolutely did the right thing by going around and informing tower - you’re the PIC and you used your authority to conduct your flight safely as you saw fit.

 

[Ricky_231]

10 hours ago, bradp said:

 

@Ricky_231 your particular situation sounds like the tower did everything right.   Just remember that If the runway is of sufficient length “same runway” separation can be applied by the controller.  This can be as little as 3000 ft (up to 6500 ft) depending on the aircraft SRS (same runway separation) category.   SRS does not apply for jets landing behind cessnas.   But it would apply to you landing behind that Cessna if he’s 3000ft ahead by the time you had crossed the threshold- in that case he can be at the fourth turn off while you take the first without issue. However if you see a potential conflict developing that tower did not you absolutely did the right thing by going around and informing tower - you’re the PIC and you used your authority to conduct your flight safely as you saw fit.

 

 

Absolutely - I don't think tower did anything wrong. In that scenario most people would have cleared the runway before I even turned final - it was an abnormal situation. I used that particular situation to illustrate an earlier point that if I'm over the threshold and there's the slightest chance the other aircraft won't be out of my way before I land, I always go around. No sense in risking it for 2 minutes and a gallon of fuel. 

[Cyril Gibb]

I think the thread has gone somewhat sideways from my original intention.  I know that the PIC has the final say on items to maintain safety.  That's not in contention.

My point was to question the advantages of multiple clearances to land (only used in the US) to a single clearance to land everywhere else in the world.  If there are any other countries that allow multiple clearances, I'd welcome the information.

If pilots, and not controllers, have the primary responsibility for separation, runway obstructions or any other go-around reasons, what does "cleared to land" really mean?  It would seem that controllers just issuing a sequence would be equal.

Just two examples of where "cleared to land" was misinterpreted as being the next to land.  Would the ICAO single clearance have made a difference?

https://www.flyingmag.com/aftermath-cirrus-crash-june-2016/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAWy9mjnrYM

 

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

My point was to question the advantages of multiple clearances to land (only used in the US) to a single clearance to land everywhere else in the world.  If there are any other countries that allow multiple clearances, I'd welcome the information.

At a very busy airport it can declutter radio traffic significantly.   Also, as mentioned above, it helps avoid the last-second landing clearance on short final.

[PT20J]

On 1/3/2020 at 6:18 AM, Cyril Gibb said:

In Canada there is NO multiple simultaneous cleared to land instructions.  Never.  Only one aircraft is cleared to land, and then only if the runway is clear.

Well, they do things differently in Canada  Years ago I was cleared to land at Whitehorse (CYXY) and the controller said, "And just put it on the numbers please, we have men and equipment working farther down the runway." Sure enough, the 9500' runway was blocked with equipment about halfway down. Cool wind indicator there -- a real DC-3 on a stick.