Jacko wrote:
Not in this part of the UK. “Land after” clearances are quite common at our local airport.
Do you mean you can get this while the preceding aircraft is still airborne?
Yes, no ptoblem.
I take “land after” to mean: “I trust you to do whatever is necessary not to ruin your day and mine by running into the geezer in front of you”. When, rarely, I hear a machine cleared to land after me, I interpret that as “Jacko, would you be so kind as to pick up your tail and/or mainwheels and piss proceed off of my fine runway without too much arseing about. 
And a jolly fine runway it is. Our First Minister bought it for a pound but it’s wide enough for us to line up and take off three abreast, and if it was much longer we’d need a Green Card at the far end.
Having recently had an aircraft cleared to takeoff from my runway while I was still slowing on the centreline at White Plains I think US takeoff and landing clearances are very odd. It is however a small blot on an otherwise wonderful US copybook.
bookworm wrote:
I always used to think the US usage was odd. But if you compare it with other clearances, ATC is only promising that your trajectory will be clear when you reach the relevant part of it, not that it is fully clear right now.So why not clear someone to land in the expectation that the runway will be clear when they need it?
Yes, I understand that a functional radio is required to fly in ATC controlled airspace, if it breaks after entry it can cause all sorts of trouble. Otherwise the core issue in this thread simply evades me.
JasonC wrote:
Having recently had an aircraft cleared to takeoff from my runway while I was still slowing on the centreline at White Plains I think US takeoff and landing clearances are very odd
How would that incident be any different elsewhere, as a result of differences in locally correct ATC landing or takeoff clearance protocol? That sounds like improper ATC anywhere.
Silvaire wrote:
How would that incident be any different elsewhere, as a result of differences in locally correct ATC landing or takeoff clearance protocol? That sounds like improper ATC anywhere.
I think like landing clearances in the US there is more usage of anticipation. Really scared me to be honest.
I don’t see a fundamental philosophical issue with being cleared for takeoff before the previous plane is off the runway, because
In LVP ops it is obviously different and ATC has to ensure that the previous traffic is gone, but in VMC conditions much else is still wholly the pilot’s responsibility.
Pilot training in the USA is different to Europe; US pilots are taught to have their hands held less and use their head a bit more. You see the same thing within any European GA community too, with e.g. pilots used to ATC being quite unable to organise themselves when ATC becomes A/G.
Peter wrote:
I don’t see a fundamental philosophical issue with being cleared for takeoff before the previous plane is off the runway, becauseyou still need to visually check the runway is clear, in both directions, and nobody is landing
How can you check if the runway is humped? You can only rely on ATC. Is it Ok to clear a plane for takeoff before a plane has landed on the basis that they should check nobody is landing before they taxi onto the runway?
I think ATC needs to be use this intelligently. The European rules, as with much else, are based on the assumption that there is less “intelligence” available. And the general tendency is in that direction, in every walk of life too.
wake turbulence separation is always your responsibility, yet the TO clearance is routinely issued in Europe to a TB20 immediately after a departing 737 (I’ve had that)
For now, I think it’s still under national regulation.
In France, for IFR, wake turbulence separation is always provided except :
During circle to land.
During visual separation with another traffic.
For VFR wake turbulence separation is only provided at take off.
From the FAA controller manual:
3−10−3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists … .
1. The other aircraft has landed and is clear of the runway. (See FIG 3−10−1.) Between sunrise and sunset, if you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft has landed, it need not be clear of the runway if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:
(a) When a Category I aircraft is landing behind a Category I or II− 3,000 feet.
(b) When a Category II aircraft is landing behind a Category I or II− 4,500 feet.
2. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end. (See FIG 3−10−4). If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft is airborne, it need not have crossed the runway end if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:
(a) Category I aircraft landing behind Category I or II− 3,000 feet.
(b) Category II aircraft landing behind Category I or II− 4,500 feet.
(c) When either is a category III aircraft−6,000 feet.
