Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

"Line up and wait" - how long would you be confortable waiting?

Note to US readers. I know that in the US controllers can give landing clearances to an occupied runway if they expect the runway to be clear when the aircraft arrives. That’s not allowed in Europe.

In the UK ATC can issue instructions to ‘land after’, it is for the PIC to decide whether to accept, but you are allowed to land after even if the preceding aircraft has not vacated.

Am a bit surprised at the vehemence of questioning ATC as incorrect practice. Perhaps something got lost in translation. Most UK airlines have robust challenge and response on MSA and it is a standard call out either in descent or on vectors – single crew harder to monitor the minimum vectoring altitude chart, but I for one have had to request re vectoring on two occasions with European ATC as the altitude/track was unsafe.

On the OP have seen a Gulfstream crew on a Part 91, follow a LUAW instruction at a major USA hub – the slightly too senior FO (being Part 91 well above airline retirement age), shutdown arrivals as he had some finger trouble and had switched frequencies while holding on the runway – they tracked him down, but this illustrates why in the USA there is an SOP associated with LUAW. If you do not hear from ATC within 45 seconds of lining up – ask what IS GOING ON?

As for sitting on the runway for 9 minutes because of a CTOT – bonkers may be the correct word.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

IIRC 4444 allows a clearance to land for the succeeding, with the “reasonable assurance” that the preceding will vacate on time, but it must have passed the threshold.

LGMT (Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece), Greece

RobertL18C wrote:

As for sitting on the runway for 9 minutes because of a CTOT – bonkers may be the correct word.

If ATC asked me to hold on the runway for nine minutes, depending on conditions I would likely reply ‘unable’. There are several reasons what that might be so, at this time of the year sitting under a bubble canopy in 40 C heat might be among them. Also I am not happy to either shut down or overheat the engine while sitting on the runway. If LUAW is more than a minute, I’d ask for and expect a taxi clearance to somewhere less vulnerable and more flexible.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 01 Sep 00:39

atmilatos wrote:

IIRC 4444 allows a clearance to land for the succeeding, with the “reasonable assurance” that the preceding will vacate on time, but it must have passed the threshold.

Yes. There are also provisions for giving a landing clearance to light aircraft when the preceding aircraft has not yet vacated but is so far down the runway that the landing aircraft can be expected to come to a stop before reaching the preceding aircraft. (I’m simplifying a bit here.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

“Cleared to land” doesn’t mean you have to land.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

This whole situation should not happen according to my understanding of the ATFCM USERS MANUAL

8.1.11 Late Reception of Slot Messages
There are many mechanisms within the NM systems to prevent, in normal circumstances, the late transmission of a slot, or update to a slot. Nevertheless, there are four conditions that can cause the late reception of a slot time:

a) Late Flight Plan Submission / Update
The flight plan is filed or modified (reception of a FPL / DLA / CHG message by the ATFCM system) shortly before the EOBT. If needed, a SAM / SRM is sent immediately. Consequently, in this case the SAM / SRM is also late.

b) A Regulation is Created or Modified
For flights having already received a slot, a SRM may be sent. However, a SRM is not sent for flights that are close to their off block time. The parameter TRS (Time to Remove from Sequence), related to each aerodrome, prevent it from happening. The values of the TRS for each aerodrome are available via the NM Client Application in the Environment / Aerodrome Details menu.

For flights that become regulated as a result of the new or modified regulation, a SAM is sent. There is no mechanism to forbid sending a SAM up to the last minute, however, for flights very close to their EOBT, the SAM will not indicate a delay i.e. it will indicate an ‘on time’ slot. The main reason for sending the SAM is to inform the Tower and the pilot that the flight has become regulated. If the flight preparation is on schedule, it should not be unduly affected. If the flight preparation is late, then the normal procedure for flights not able to cope with their slots must be used. See also Allocation stage. In case of cancellation of a regulation, a SLC may be sent. This can happen any time up to the CTOT. The main reason is to inform the Tower and the pilot that the flight is no longer regulated.

c) Manual Intervention
The NM tactical team (e.g. NOC, SNOC) manually allocates another slot to a given flight causing a SRM to be sent. This normally only happens following an agreement between the parties.

d) Transmission Delay
The message is sent early enough, but due to transmission problems it arrives late. The occurrence is limited but it may happen.

Although you did have to modify your flight plan shortly before EOBT, the CTOT should have arrived well before you were given your startup clearance. This looks like a screw-up of the controller, maybe she forgot to send the ready message.

I think your best option here was indeed to make your situation known on the frequency to anyone who might be inbound, e.g. by saying “F-XXXX on runway yy, confirm that you want me to hold on the runway?”. Although you may not speak to another traffic directly, there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification in an unclear situation. I think she also owes you an estimate of the waiting time – I switch on pitot heat, close doors, set mixture to full rich etc. before lining up but I expect to depart within 2 minutes. Sitting there for 9 minutes may foul the spark plugs, overheat the pilot or the pitot heat.

A bit unrelated question, when you receive a “behind the departing Seneca on runway 28, line up behind and wait” clearance – would you a) wait behind the stop bars until the preceding aircraft has started its take-off roll (stop bar has already been switched to green by the controller), or b) enter the runway already and wait a bit on the side?

A couple of years ago, I was cleared to line up then advised I would have to wait 3 minutes for wake turbulence before a take off clearance. I would much have preferred to have been kept at the hold. It felt uncomfortable – as we say like a sitting duck.

At Plymouth I recall multiple aircraft backtracking to line up then waiting in turn for take off clearance but the delay seemed shorter and it made the process much efficient.

FlyerDavidUK, PPL & IR Instructor
EGBJ, United Kingdom

Funny enough, I just had one LUAW at Lille(LFQQ) today, probably 4min on the runway with DA40 VFR, some delay after a departing A320 wake turbulence but also while French ATC had to sort their IFR fiasco today (I was told ATC strike), well it was no problem for the tower waiting just after the taxi/runway line on 45 degres (let’s say to avoid evening sun 26 runway, they also offred runway 01 but I stayed on 26), so next time try it for yourself

Coming to Southend, I was cleared for ILS23 practice with go around to deadside ontrack to North Weald while another easyjet is taking off on the runway, I think the airliner crew did feel the same :), but flying along parelle to an airliner just departing with an impressive climb rate was just awesome !!!

Last Edited by Ibra at 01 Sep 22:15
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Especially at my home base, when I get a LUAW, I’m relieved rather than uncomfortable, I know that my wait for take-off clearance will now be bounded, and rather short. As a controlled airport where APP and TWR have (airborne and ground) radar, well, controller error can still happen, but I feel it as a low enough risk that I don’t worry. Even a no radio plane in emergency situation coming for the airport would be spotted as “infringing traffic” well before coming in for their emergency landing.

When I saw the title this thread, I thought it would be about “how much fuel are you comfortable wasting idling while you wait, has the wait ever gotten you below your fuel minimum for the flight” and that kind of stuff. When I’m operating near the top of my range, that’s a bigger worry for me. But then, my idling fuel flow is about one third to one half of my cruise fuel flow, so I guess that is not typical, as the ratio would be much higher for a piston engine?

ELLX

It is certainly uncomfortable to be sitting on the runway for a long time. You are totally depending on ATC being competent, which works usually but not always.

I recall a long line up at Zadar (he said it will be more convenient for me to do engine checks on the runway) but that was fine because of negligible traffic levels.

Another one was at Athens LGAV where I got a lineup immediately behind a 737 and had to time off the 3 mins, but it wasn’t clear that ATC expected me to sit there for 3 mins.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top