Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 28 Posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3539 times:
My question specifically deals with EWR, but I'm sure it applies to other airports as well. When I was listening to my scanner yesterday, most of the planes were landing on 4R at EWR, while some ERJ's were being cleared to land on 11, and these two runways cross at their ends. Sometimes, I would hear the pilot landing on 4R say something to the effect of "Hold short runway 11," and I assume this is because a plane is landing on 11 at the same time. The same thing was sometimes said by the plane landing on 11.
My question is, can two planes be cleared to land on two runways that cross, and be expected to stop in time for the other runway? What would happen if both the planes over-ran?
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3153 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3514 times:
What you are referring to is something called "land and hold short operations". What is happening is just as you guessed it. Two aircraft are operating from different runways that cross. If given this clearance, the pilot has to know he/she can stop before crossing the intersecting runway. You may also hear the tower give them the runway length from threshold to interesection. It is a completely volutary thing and a number of airlines won't do them per their SOPs.
BTW, they're doing the same thing at STL right now with 24 and the 30s.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17351 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 3379 times:
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 5): Yet they did authorize their pilots to take a 3-engined 747 from the States to London across the pond. Hmm... I'll take LAHSO over a 3 engined 747 any day.
It could be argued that neither is an unsafe procedure. The 747 is quite safe operating on three engines (after all plenty of planes don't even have three engines) and the route across the northern pond is liberally sprinkled with alternates.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Bri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 3378 times:
Maybe. What would happen if you lost the second engine on one side? I doubt the rudder has enough authority to allow you to keep flying for long. It has four engines because it needs them, and it's certificated to operate with one of them inoperative, not two. It's extremely unlikely, but then again, the first one failed... Airports are specifically designed to operate under LAHSO. As long as pilots and controllers listen carefully, read back instructions correctly, and pay attention, my vote is for LAHSO.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4204 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
Quoting A3204eva (Reply 10): VFRs can and sometimes are "Cleared to land, one after", but it is not permitted with IFRs
That si something else that BA doesnt allow. Crew are told not to accept VFR clearances, but to stay IFR. Once VFR the crew is responsible for separation, if you are still IFR, the tower is responsible.
Kaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 3280 times:
Quoting Loggat (Reply 7): Having said that, maybe you are referring to the fact that 2 or more airplanes can be cleared to land on the same runway. "Cleared to land, number 2"
Thats the one... i wasnt exactly sure of the R/T that might be used, i just know that in the states they can clear more than one aircraft for the same action on the same runway... which they cant in the UK...
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
Sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1862 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
As a student pilot(still) I cannot do LAHSO, but here at PBI, I have landed on 13 and as soon as I touched down, the tower told me to taxi to but hold short of 9L. All the airlines here will not do LAHSO but will accept me taxing and holding shortof the other active.
Also have heard 2 planes cleared to land with a departure in between them, with ATC telling the second A/C about the departure
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 22392 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3198 times:
Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 6): One thing you operate in the USA that they DONT operate in the UK is Conditional Clearance... eg...
LAX Tower: "American 765 Cleared to land AFTER the Company 777 Infront"
LAS Tower: "Cactus 445 After the departing Delta 757 cleared for takeoff runway 25" etc...
I've never heard of the second case (and the phraseology for the first one is incorrect, as others pointed out). Aircraft will be taxied into position on the runway while the other plane is departing, and then it will be given a normal takeoff clearance once the separation is adequate. I've never heard of a plane being told to takeoff after another. I do believe I heard it in FRA, though.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
A3204eva From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3172 times:
How odd :S
Aircraft have to have at least 1 minute spacing from time of rolling if of a similar size/bigger and not on the same dep route. It then starts going to 2 then 4 minutes depending on a/c size and dep route.
Was the a/c quite a way from the hold when it was cleared to takeoff after the one ahead?
"They have lady pilots......... they're not that good, but they have 'em"
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 7009 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3169 times:
Quoting A3204eva (Reply 19): Aircraft have to have at least 1 minute spacing from time of rolling if of a similar size/bigger and not on the same dep route. It then starts going to 2 then 4 minutes depending on a/c size and dep route.
In the UK, you mean?
Let's say a 747 departs and a 737 is to follow it off the same runway on the same initial route. They need two minutes separation, or what? (In the UK.)
Bri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3088 times:
A pilot can decline an instruction given by ATC if it would interfere with safety, but they can't ignore regulations. The exception is in an emergency, at which time a pilot can deviate from any regulation necessary to maintain safety. Given that, even if they could, no pilot in his or her right mind would decrease a safety margin. When a pilot requests something that would compromise safety, the controller won't grant it. In fact, some of the regulations provide what the AOPA calls "legal but stupid" minimums -- things that are legal to do (such as VFR flight in 1SM visibitiliy and clear of clouds in class G airspace) but stupid, and a pilot (or airline) should establish their own personal minimums that are more restrictive when necessary. Wake turbulence can be a very nasty animal for the smaller of the two aircraft involved.
While I was driving north on the NJ Turnpike this morning, parallel to rwy 4L/22R, a 727-100 came in to land on rwy 29. My question, are they suppose to be flying that low over the highway (~50ft)? On flightaware it looks like they just flew the normal approach for 22L/R, but it is incomplete. Do they make a turn somewhere over the Hudson River somewhere to line up for this rwy?