[f-AA] ### Cleared to Land (was What's going onwiththef-AAfamily?)###

[Spence, Mike]

Don't think that allowance is in the "ATC MANOPS" in Canada yet.    Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: aeronca-bounces at westmont.edu [mailto:aeronca-bounces at westmont.edu]On Behalf Of roger anderson
Sent: August 2, 2007 11:08 AM
To: aeronca at westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] ### Cleared to Land (was What's going onwiththef-AAfamily?)###


Actually, and you're probably aware of this already, singles and light twins can both be on the runway at the same time while landing, if minimum separation exists on the runway between them.  That and the required distance tables are in 7110.65  chapter 3 under "same runway separation".  Many pilots think we have committed an error when we that happens.   roger

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Spence, Mike <mailto:SPENCEM at tc.gc.ca>  
To: aeronca at westmont.edu 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] ### Cleared to Land (was What's going on withthef-AAfamily?)###

When the tower here was about to open in YHM back in 1969, we were all told in a meeting by ATC that "Under No Circumstances Would A Clearance to Land Be Issued to Landing Traffic Until The Preceding A/C was "Clear of The Runway" !! 
It was common practice for us to land long for folowing traffic to land short on the 6000' runway- That all came to halt when ATC arrived.
"considerable anxiety in the cockpit" - Been there many times since then.
 
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: aeronca-bounces at westmont.edu [mailto:aeronca-bounces at westmont.edu]On Behalf Of roger anderson
Sent: August 2, 2007 10:45 AM
To: aeronca at westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] ### Cleared to Land (was What's going on with thef-AAfamily?)###


Hi Mike,
 
I believe for the full 34 years I was an FAA controller, we used anticipated separation clearances.  They worked fine.  To withhold a landing clearance until the separation exists can bring an arrival almost over the threshold still with no landing clearance.  That can create considerable anxiety in the cockpit.."can I land..or do I have to go around".  Also, if a previous landing clearance ends up not working (someone misses and expected turnoff maybe), a "go around" clearance can then be issued.  A controller can monitor the situation and if it's not looking good, can prepare the other traffic by telling them to expect a possible go around.  Anyhow, bottom line, anticipated separation clearances always worked fine during my time.  The ATC manual 7110.65 contains references to this in chapter 3 (control tower operations), 3-9-5 and 3-10-6.  roger
 
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Spence,  <mailto:SPENCEM at tc.gc.ca> Mike 
To: aeronca at westmont.edu 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] ### Cleared to Land (was What's going on with the f-AAfamily?)###

List - We've just been discussing, here in the office, our newly implemented, (by our ATS provider, Nav Canada), anticipated "clearances to land " both for VFR and IFR. 
Up until this year in Canada, an aircraft on final would not be "Cleared To Land" by ATC, until the preceding aircraft had lifted off or cleared the runway after landing. The 5 most major airports in Canada have implemented the use of anticipated clearances like the U.S. has used for years. Any comments - pro or con?
 
And for our Australian neighbors...Someone mentioned that you don't use the phrase "Cleared To land". How is is it handled "Down Under" ?
 
Mike S.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.westmont.edu/pipermail/aeronca/attachments/20070802/f5dc7821/attachment.htm