I admit that the report might not be the most informative, but it surprised me that a crew would declare a pan simply for crew fatigue, certainly never heard of before, and what would cause them to believe that they couldn't verify the safety of the flight?
Just thought you would like to know, seemed interesting to me.
I think it's more about being p** off by several short-medium legs and not having enough resting time (some bus or truck drivers have more strict restrictions).
I personally think it was a sign to show that the plans of even lifting max operating times for crews are not shared among the people actually doing the job.
Some argue that a flight of little more than 2 hours is not very stressy, but you have to remember: It may not be their only flight this day. Maybe they started of in PMI, doing MUC-NUE-ZRH roundtrips all over and working since more than 10 hours?
I wonder how many PANs are declared because of fatigue? Anyone got more info?
And furthermore: Why is an automatic landing causing that much confusion (like "Procedures to protect the ILS category III zones to permit an automatic landing")? Does full-auto landing not comply to everyday-aviation?
Trijetsonly From Germany, joined Jul 2009, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 months 4 days ago) and read 5459 times:
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 1): And furthermore: Why is an automatic landing causing that much confusion (like "Procedures to protect the ILS category III zones to permit an automatic landing")? Does full-auto landing not comply to everyday-aviation?
When an airport declares CAT III Autoland conditions there are several differences to normal operations. The most significant difference is, that airport vehicles and other airplanes must keep a greater distance to the runway and airplanes must hold on CAT III holdshort-lines which are further from the runway than the normal holdshort-lines on the taxiways just before the runway.
This has a reason:
The localizer sends it's signal from the end of the runway along the centerline and the glideslope emitter sends it's signal from next to the runway near the touchdown zone.
Now at CAT III all vehicles must keep a greater distance to minimize the chance of maybe blocking the signal or cause a dead zone.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7988 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5034 times:
Autolands require more mental exertion than normal landings-- so that makes 0 sense to me.
Also, the article says that Pan Pan is used as a signal of distress in an emergency, which it really isn't. Pan Pan is used to indicate an urgent situation, not an emergency or distress call. It isn't really even used, except in Europe, because it's sort of a useless phrase. If you have an emergency you say "mayday," and if you don't, you explain your situation and follow up your request with "immediately."
Senchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4987 times:
Quoting Trijetsonly (Reply 5): When an airport declares CAT III Autoland conditions there are several differences to normal operations. The most significant difference is, that airport vehicles and other airplanes must keep a greater distance to the runway and airplanes must hold on CAT III holdshort-lines which are further from the runway than the normal holdshort-lines on the taxiways just before the runway.
This has a reason:
The localizer sends it's signal from the end of the runway along the centerline and the glideslope emitter sends it's signal from next to the runway near the touchdown zone.
Now at CAT III all vehicles must keep a greater distance to minimize the chance of maybe blocking the signal or cause a dead zone.
That does make sence, thank you Trijetsonly.
Guess the "at CAT III all vehicles must keep a greater distance to minimize the chance of maybe blocking the signal or cause a dead zone" issue was the reason for SQ's massive problems during touch down back in NOV... (http://avherald.com/h?article=445873f3&opt=0) or (http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_030/nn_223968/DE/Publikationen/Bulletins/2011/Bulletin2011-11,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Bulletin2011-11.pdf) from page 24.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4435 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 7): If you have an emergency you say "mayday," and if you don't, you explain your situation and follow up your request with "immediately."
So it's useless because you could express the same sentiment in more words? So like every single other acronym or codeword in aviation then?
Quoting N766UA (Reply 7): Autolands require more mental exertion than normal landings-- so that makes 0 sense to me.
But the aircraft is much less likely to crash if the pilots fall alseep during an automated approach an landing than if they fell asleep while hand flying the plane.
atct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2035 posts, RR: 41 Reply 10, posted (11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4227 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 9): But the aircraft is much less likely to crash if the pilots fall alseep during an automated approach an landing than if they fell asleep while hand flying the plane.
When you shoot ILS approaches to minimum's, then you'll understand. Its not as easy as punching a few buttons and watching the plane go. You are partly correct but if the pilots couldnt stay awake during a short flight (3-4 hours is short) then they shouldnt have left in the first place. This is a major judgment error on the pilot behalf.
As N766UA said, Pan Pan Pan is pretty useless. I have 14 years experience as a pilot and 6 years as an ATC and I have never heard the phrase used.
Back on subject, I see a few pilots who are going to be looking for a new job. Using a distress call as a union bolstering arguement...heck I wouldnt be surprised if there were legal reprecussions.
Real pilots fly planes that take and measure oil in gallons
FN1001 From Moldova, joined Sep 2008, 213 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4189 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 10): Back on subject, I see a few pilots who are going to be looking for a new job. Using a distress call as a union bolstering arguement...heck I wouldnt be surprised if there were legal reprecussions.
Considering that the incident happened on May 5th and the pilots action was on June 16th (http://goo.gl/upD6n) this statement is questionable.
atct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2035 posts, RR: 41 Reply 12, posted (11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4164 times:
Quoting FN1001 (Reply 11): Considering that the incident happened on May 5th and the pilots action was on June 16th (http://goo.gl/upD6n) this statement is questionable.
Im sorry but your statement makes no sense?
Real pilots fly planes that take and measure oil in gallons
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4007 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 10): When you shoot ILS approaches to minimum's, then you'll understand. Its not as easy as punching a few buttons and watching the plane go.
I'm well aware it's not as easy as punching a few buttons. However, there is absolutely no denying that if the pilots fell asleep or became incapacitated by fatigue during, say, short final, the chances of the airliner crashing would be much higher if the crew had attempted a manual landing than executing an autoland.
Quoting atct (Reply 10): As N766UA said, Pan Pan Pan is pretty useless. I have 14 years experience as a pilot and 6 years as an ATC and I have never heard the phrase used.
It's Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan for one thing. Secondly, simply because you haven't heard it used doesn't make it "useless". I've heard it more times than mayday, and it is certainly not a "useless" transmission. It conveys to ATC and all other stations on freq that an aircraft is experiencing a contained anomaly, but attention must be given to it because the situation may deteriorate. For instance, QF32 - the A380 that had the engine failure and associated fuel leak and hydraulic leak declared a pan-pan.
Quoting atct (Reply 12): Im sorry but your statement makes no sense?
Well it does... You implied that these pilots would have been fired, but they are back on duty (this incident happened a month ago). It must also be noted that declaring urgency (e.g pan pan) in case of pilot fatigue is stipulated in Air Berlin's SOP's.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3964 times:
you can make an auto land anytime you wish whether it's CATIII protected or not. we do it all the time for a/c chks and no they don't protect the ILS. You must understand that if my some deviation does occur you may have to click off the a/p and hand fly it. we advise act routinely that we need an ILS for an a/c chk and I know they do nothing to protect the critical zones. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to disconnect the a/p.
atct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2035 posts, RR: 41 Reply 16, posted (11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3848 times:
bueb0g,
According to your profile you're a student pilot. My advice to you is the learn from those of us experienced and you will go far. Please dont lecture me on how I am wrong by not typing out pan pan a few times, it is of no consequence.
Losing an engine is considered an emergency situation and I would suggest using the term "Declaring an emergency" versus saying "Pan Pan" three times then stating you are declaring an emergency, then stating the nature, souls on board etc etc etc. Pan Pan is used to note an aircraft is in distress but not requiring immediate assistance. It is a term coined in the early days of aviation that is not used frequently. It may have been used by a Qantas crew some years ago, of that it really doesn't matter. I have dealt with aircraft in all sorts of emergencies from engine outs to where pilots have went straight in screaming for their mother. The term is antiquated and most of us in the industry state our issue with ATC (or vice-versa in my case now) in regular english and move on with what our intentions are. In the real emergencies I have dealt with, not precautionaries, mayday has been used shortly before people were killed. When, as PIC, you have had a real emergency and placed your passengers at risk, then feel free to lecture me on how we act. Until then, go back to your cessna and learn from us.
Back to the topic at hand, I said no where that the pilots WERE fired. I simply stated that a few pilots are "going" to be looking for a new job. This is known as the future tense. Please read my post and the proper use of the past, present, and future tense. In the bargaining unit it frequently takes many months to remove an employee. You will learn this when you enter the bargaining unit or management.
From what I gathered,the pilots used a distress situation to bolster their unions argument. I personally find that incredibly unprofessional and their actions placed other aircraft in the vicinity at risk. If you are having issues with your company reference duty time, take it out at the bargaining table, not on my frequency and in my airspace.
Real pilots fly planes that take and measure oil in gallons
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19688 posts, RR: 56 Reply 18, posted (11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3599 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 9): So it's useless because you could express the same sentiment in more words?
Fewer words, actually. "Pan-pan" tells ATC nothing about the nature of your problem - you'll have to describe that anyway so they can give you what assistance you need.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2681 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
There is absolutely no reason to intentionally NOT say "Pan-Pan" or "Mayday" as appropriate. It's ICAO standard phraseology, and every controller in the world knows what it means. Explaining the details of the situation is fine and dandy, but overseas that does not mean the controller will understand. When spoken to in English, they are required to reply in English using ICAO standard phraseology. This does not mean they are required to have a comprehensive fluent understanding of the entire English language, and often they don't.
Also, remember the Avianca crash at JFK, where the crew DID try to convey their situation to ATC (who's native language IS English) but failed to use the term "Pan-Pan" or "Mayday" (or the American equivalent "Declaring an Emergency"). If anything, its good CYA to use those terms while trying to explain the situation.
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 14): you can make an auto land anytime you wish whether it's CATIII protected or not. we do it all the time for a/c chks and no they don't protect the ILS. You must understand that if my some deviation does occur you may have to click off the a/p and hand fly it. we advise act routinely that we need an ILS for an a/c chk and I know they do nothing to protect the critical zones. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to disconnect the a/p.
Straight in Cat I ILS, autoland current and qualified crew, Ops Specs approval for autoland, appropriate equipment on board in working order, and wind within limits is all that is required; and it can even be done with a visual approach clearance. I think people are making too much out of this aspect of the event.
Quote: Ich war Pilot auf diesem Flug! Ich wundere mich dass der Fall durch die Presse geht. Das lag nicht in meiner Absicht. Tatsache: Vor diesem Flug hatte mein Kollege bereits zwei Nachtflüge gehabt. Pan Pan soll nur eine Bitte um Priorität beinhalten, mehr nicht. Es ist kein Notsignal und kein politischer Hetzaufruf! Der Luftraum zum Zeitpunkt des Anfluges war extrem voll, wie bekamen komplexe Anweisungen denen wir nicht mehr aufmerksam genug folgen konnten. Profis wissen wann Schluß ist... [Continues]
Rough-as-nuts translation:
I was a pilot on this flight. The media attention is a surprise to me, and gaining media attention was not what I wanted to achieve. The fact is that before this flight, the other pilot and I had already had two night-flights. Pan Pan is supposed to be a request for priority handling, nothing more. It is not an emergency signal, and it is not political incitement! That airspace was extremely busy during our approach, and we received complex instructions that we were not able to follow with the attention they required. Professionals know their limits.
What difference does 5 or 10 minutes make? We're talking about microsleep. Try driving a car until you can't drive any more. The last 10 minutes might be the difference between life and death. What difference does 10 seconds make if you can't hold your breath any longer? It makes all the difference.
We asked for priority handling in order to be able to perform a fully automated landing as soon as possible to receive as much support from modern technology as possible. That's what safe aviation is about. Without the Pan Pan call, we wouldn't have been able to perform an automated landing, because the separation between aircraft would have needed to be increased and a back-up system for the landing beam had been turned on.
We performed a safe landing. We have received no criticism of our actions from Air Berlin. Air Berlin is a good airline with a good reputation. Above all, it is a safe airline with a new, well-maintained fleet.
Thanks to the colleagues who had to wait behind us, and thanks to ATC!
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 21, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3297 times:
Quoting N766UA (Reply 7): Autolands require more mental exertion than normal landings-- so that makes 0 sense to me.
Not sure of that. The intent was to reduce the complexity ATC was giving them for clearances and to make a safe and uneventful landing. One the A330, with and engine fire or failure below 1000' you can still continue to do an autoland with automatic roll out, all the pilots need to do is reduce the thrust levers at some stage to deploy the spoilers and start the brakes (the autothurt system reduces the thrust in the flare). The pilots think not only of the current aircraft state, also to think that things can always get worse without notice, e.g. a bird strike.
Quoting N766UA (Reply 7): Pan Pan is used to indicate an urgent situation, not an emergency or distress call. It isn't really even used, except in Europe, because it's sort of a useless phrase.
It is used worldwide, it is standard ICAO phraseology,
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 13): However, there is absolutely no denying that if the pilots fell asleep or became incapacitated by fatigue during, say, short final, the chances of the airliner crashing would be much higher if the crew had attempted a manual landing than executing an autoland.
it is a lot easier for two tired pilots to monitor an aircraft, let it do all the deceleration and profile adjustments. I have read studies where a fatigued person can have the same functionality as a person that had consumed 6 cans of beer.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 13): Secondly, simply because you haven't heard it used doesn't make it "useless". I've heard it more times than mayday, and it is certainly not a "useless" transmission.
Same.
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 14): I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to disconnect the a/p.
I have had to a few times, and it was not in the flare, it was higher up 3-4 miles from the runway where ATC thought it would be a good time to tow an aircraft across the runway at the far end.
Quoting atct (Reply 16): I personally find that incredibly unprofessional and their actions placed other aircraft in the vicinity at risk.
The incapacitation QRH checklist is a red "Emergency" checklist, not an orange "Abnormal" procedure. One of the checklist items is to declare the situation to ATC. A micro sleep is a form of subtle incapacitation. They followed the QRH procedure.
If I were the pilots manager, I would back their action up 110%, they caused no damage, no injuries, followed procedures, and sought to mitigate further issues. Last on their mind should be how the press would report the situation.
You will ALWAYS get people saying they would have handled things differently, that is the nature of aviation, there is no one solution to any given problem.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3253 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 16): those of us experienced and you will go far.
Yes, but I'll have to be careful of picking up bad habits from those people.
Quoting atct (Reply 16): Pan Pan is used to note an aircraft is in distress but not requiring immediate assistance. It is a term coined in the early days of aviation that is not used frequently.
Maybe in the US. As I've said before (and as Zeke has also said,) I've heard it used more than mayday. In the rest of the world - i.e the place that actually generally follows ICAO standard phraseology and procedures - pan-pan is used more often than mayday and is certainly a useful transmission. FYI, I have delcared a pan-pan when I lost a cylinder. It would have been overkill to delcare a full emergency as the sitation was contained and I was able to maintain safe flight.
Quoting atct (Reply 16): The term is antiquated and most of us in the industry state our issue with ATC (or vice-versa in my case now) in regular english and move on with what our intentions are.
Again, you need to remember that the rest of the world is not the US. We DO use pan-pan, and as Air Berlin is a European airline, this happened on approach to a European airport and the crew was European it makes *total* sense that the crew should delcare a pan-pan. Stop trying to apply what you've seen happen in the US to what *should* happen elswhere. We'll be over here, continuing to use ICAO standard phraseology while you make up your own rules and clear 2 planes to land on the same runway.
As long as the crew and ATC feel that pan-pan is useful (which they do over here), then it is useful.
Quoting atct (Reply 16): Back to the topic at hand, I said no where that the pilots WERE fired. I simply stated that a few pilots are "going" to be looking for a new job.
If the airline truly felt about this incident the same way you seem to, they would have suspended the pilots already. That was the point we were making.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 21): I have had to a few times, and it was not in the flare, it was higher up 3-4 miles from the runway where ATC thought it would be a good time to tow an aircraft across the runway at the far end.
Hey zeke, that was smart wasn't it? Good for you that you were 4 mi out! The only one I ever had that was really exciting was of all things on a chk ride and the jet was chk CATIII so we were doing an auto land. At just about 50' agl it nosed over but quickly disengaging the A/P corrected that. Like you said most are nonevents.
ATCT, I agree with you completely! As far as I'm concerned a MAYDAY or PAN, for that matter, is all well and good if I'm somewhere where ATC comm is sketchy and I'm just hoping someone will hear me somewhere. If I'm talking to an ATC agency then a simple "I'm declaring an emergency" is all required. Outside the sim I've done it once after an engine shutdown but more to cover my a** than anything else.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19688 posts, RR: 56 Reply 25, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3010 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 22): We'll be over here, continuing to use ICAO standard phraseology while you make up your own rules and clear 2 planes to land on the same runway.
What's a "land after" clearance, then?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 26, posted (11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2983 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 25):
What's a "land after" clearance, then?
It is not in ICAO DOC 4444, in particular under "12.3.4.14 LANDING CLEARANCE". "PAN PAN" is, in relating to urgency situations, including weather deviations or other situations where ATC clearances are unable to be complied with.
It also states that if an aircraft is unable to continue the f1ight in accordance with its ATC clearance, and/or an aircraft is unable to maintain the navigation performance accuracy specified for the airspace, a revised clearance shall be obtained, whenever possible, prior to initiating any action. Radiotelephony distress signal (MAYDAY) or urgency signal (PAN PAN) preferably spoken three times shall be used as appropriate. Subsequent A TC action with respect to that aircraft shall be based on the intentions of the pilot and the overall air traffic situation.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 17 Reply 27, posted (11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2854 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 22): We'll be over here, continuing to use ICAO standard phraseology while you make up your own rules and clear 2 planes to land on the same runway.
Actually that was a pretty arrogant remark there bueb0g. I've heard European controllers not be perfect in the "phraseology at times too so get too cocky. You had to reference the 2 a/c cleared to land thing again too. Jeez, I fly international trips 100% of the time and really find no difference in being cleared to land 5 mi out behind 3, yes count them 3 other jets and in the 1 out 1000 times be told to go around because of some compromise OR not be told ANYTHING until 200' then be told to land OR go around. personally I find more tension in the latter but hey we're pros we just do it. right?
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 29, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2507 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 28): Wait, so you mean non-standard phraseology and procedures are going on...outside the US?
I have no idea what you are talking about, care to expand ? are you referring to pilots that are unable to do a canned departure report on first contact with departures or approach ? unable to read back the required elements of a clearance ? unable to read back frequencies, just change? using 121.5 as a general chat frequency ? using 121.5 for ride reports ?
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 31, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2311 times:
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 30): Also don't mess with zeke, he'll just wind up making you look silly by accurately linking and quoting FAA approved procedure.
Which would be wide off topic since FAA approval is irrelvant for an Air Berlin Jet landing in Munich.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19688 posts, RR: 56 Reply 32, posted (11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2180 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 29): I have no idea what you are talking about, care to expand ?
Well, bueb0g called out the US for clearing two aircraft to land on the same runway, and I was just curious how that's any different from the "land after" procedure that's sometimes in use at LHR (described on the 10-1P4 page in my Jepp book - yours may differ). I've never heard of that appearing in the world of ICAO standards, yet there it is.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that pretty much any country is going to have certain deviations from ICAO standards, most of them due to old habits that die hard (or are expensive to change), and trying to take the moral high ground with regard to standardization isn't very productive.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
gingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 853 posts, RR: 5 Reply 33, posted (11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2137 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 32): Basically, what I'm getting at is that pretty much any country is going to have certain deviations from ICAO standards, most of them due to old habits that die hard (or are expensive to change), and trying to take the moral high ground with regard to standardization isn't very productive.
I agree with this. Massively busy airports such as LHR I can understand using the "land after" procedure, to at least give pilots a heads up that they will be cleared to land as soon as the aircraft in front is clear. I suppose its to reduce the potential for a go-around when they would have otherwise been good to land.
I personally support the idea of "clearing two aircraft to land on the same runway". I believe it can help to reduce workload on ATC and pilots. Pilots for example will have their clearance and they can then make their own judgement as to whether they should go around or not (or if ATC gets there first and issues a go around order).
If it works and it clearly does, then don't knock it. I doubt the US way of doing things would be deliberately dangerous, and they no doubt work to ensure extremely high levels of safety.
For the record I only fly light aircraft, so this is a "novice" view on the situation. But FWIW I've never had to declare "Mayday", but I have declared a "Pan-Pan" call.
That is true, the common differance is the loss of communications procedures, these are published with other state differances in the ATC section of the Jepps etc. However the example you have provided has been provided to ICAO and is known as a state differance. That is why it is published on your charts, it would be also in the jepp uk ATC section, CAP 314, AERAD guide, LIDO etc.
The Air Berlin crew used an internationally recognized phraseology, PAN PAN, which has wide ranging applications. In my view it is appropiate when you are unable to comply with an ATC clearance, low fuel state, pilot , one engine inop no fire/damage etc. if the situation gets worse, it can always be upgraded to a mayday.
In any case, the QRH procedure states to notice ATC of the emergency, they were following the correct procedure.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 17 Reply 35, posted (11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
Quoting gingersnap (Reply 33): I can understand using the "land after" procedure, to at least give pilots a heads up that they will be cleared to land as soon as the aircraft in front is clear.
sounds like that IS a cleared to land clearance
Quoting gingersnap (Reply 33): I personally support the idea of "clearing two aircraft to land on the same runway".
Quoting gingersnap (Reply 33): Pilots for example will have their clearance and they can then make their own judgement as to whether they should go around or not
I'm not sure why this is such a confusing matter. I see this very often and NEVER had to use my "pilots" judgement to decide to land or go around. A good example is coming in to MEM during the Fedex night arrivals, you've got a constant line of jets at about 3 mi. spacing for usually 2 runways. You check on with the tower and you'll get "you're number 3 behind a heavy MD-11 wind 180 at 12 you're cleared to land". Now unless something really weird happens , e.g.. blown tire or some bizarre failure to clear the runway, all things stay a normal 3 mi separation and ATC doesn't have to continually give a/c on short final clearance. Most all go arounds are usually pilot generated due to unstable conditions of a/c problems e.g.. flap disag. or other.
I understand what you're saying and why there is a lot of confusion surrounding it. Many times I have listened into LHR Tower I have noticed ATC advising arriving aircraft on finals to "expect late landing clearance". I remember standing just outside the Jurys Inn hotel near to the 27L threshold. The aircraft was PAST the hotel when they received their landing clearance.
Now I've already stated I'm not a qualified commercial pilot, but one would think that is pushing it a little as far as giving landing clearances go. I guess that's why they use "land after" to basically tell the flight crew to remain on the approach and to expect landing clearance at the first available moment. But I agree with you that is sounds very much like a landing clearance even though it isn't meant to be. Perhaps something to be reviewed I don't know.
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 35): I'm not sure why this is such a confusing matter. I see this very often and NEVER had to use my "pilots" judgement to decide to land or go around. A good example is coming in to MEM during the Fedex night arrivals, you've got a constant line of jets at about 3 mi. spacing for usually 2 runways. You check on with the tower and you'll get "you're number 3 behind a heavy MD-11 wind 180 at 12 you're cleared to land". Now unless something really weird happens , e.g.. blown tire or some bizarre failure to clear the runway, all things stay a normal 3 mi separation and ATC doesn't have to continually give a/c on short final clearance. Most all go arounds are usually pilot generated due to unstable conditions of a/c problems e.g.. flap disag. or other.
Well I don't find it to be confusing. By pilot judgement I was simply saying that if the crew felt the aircraft 3 mi ahead as per your example wasn't clearing the active with enough haste, then they could simply initiate the go around. Sure that is obvious for any situation no matter the clearance given, but I can understand if there is a sense of perhaps angst when you're almost 1 mile from touchdown and you still haven't been cleared to land.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19688 posts, RR: 56 Reply 37, posted (11 months 22 hours ago) and read 1765 times:
Quoting gingersnap (Reply 33): Massively busy airports such as LHR I can understand using the "land after" procedure, to at least give pilots a heads up that they will be cleared to land as soon as the aircraft in front is clear.
It's actually not a landing clearance, which would put the requirement for separation on the tower. No landing clearance is issued, and the responsibility for maintaining separation rests with the pilot of the trailing aircraft. The purpose is to allow an aircraft to land on a runway before the previous arrival has taxied off.
I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense, and it's certainly unusual, but it is what it is, and professional pilots have to deal with it.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Senchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
To come back to the topic:
The BFU (Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung or Bureau of Flightincident/-accident investigation) is now conducting a pre-investigation of this case.
You can find the BFU website and their reports here: http://www.bfu-web.de (its linked to the german standard page, but on the upper right you can select english, too).
The source says:
"The BFU will publish first investigation results regarding an incident with an Airbus A330-200 of Air Berlin in their next monthly report. The pilots of AB-9721 from Palma de Mallorca declared PAN during approach to Munich and requested a preferred automatic landing as a result of severe fatigue.
ATC advised runway 26L for a preferred landing on which the Airbus landed safely minutes after the emergency call. The BFU is treating the case as a severe incident."
"Similar cases have not been happening within Air Berlin before" a Spokesperson of AB stated.
They also discuss about the issue that the factual report by BFU is conducted in close time to the discussions of the planned introduction of updated regulations regarding flight operating times by EASA.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 1 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3266 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Moldova, joined Sep 2008, 213 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined May 2010, 123 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
