Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
VSMUT wrote:The runway has to be clear of aircraft and vehicles, and the aircraft must be first in line to land. On top of being a permission to land, it effectively tells the pilot that everything is clear.
Unless you are in the US, in which case several aircraft can be cleared to land at the same time.
atcdan wrote:To chime in, as a controller in the US it means there exists a reasonable assurance that the runway will be clear when your aircraft crosses the landing threshold.
The only times I would not issue a landing clearance is if I will be allowing a vehicle on the runway, have an aircraft taxiing on the runway, or I plan to change you to a different parallel runway. Also, if you’re overtaking traffic ahead and the spacing it tight I may withhold landing clearance until I am assured by the respective speeds that the runway will be clear.
In most countries, the use of “anticipated separation” is not allowed.
trent768 wrote:On a related note, how low can an aircraft continue their approach until a landing clearance is given?
I don't remember the title, but I saw a youtube video where an aircraft on final was given the expect late landing clearance notice at LHR. It was last second indeed, since the GPWS yelled "minimum!" literally after the pilot finished the "cleared to land" read back.
trent768 wrote:On a related note, how low can an aircraft continue their approach until a landing clearance is given?
trent768 wrote:On a related note, how low can an aircraft continue their approach until a landing clearance is given?
I don't remember the title, but I saw a youtube video where an aircraft on final was given the expect late landing clearance notice at LHR. It was last second indeed, since the GPWS yelled "minimum!" literally after the pilot finished the "cleared to land" read back.
chimborazo wrote:Does anyone know a case of an aircraft being told to go around because of an incident with an aircraft ahead but then not responding? There’s the famous Air Canada incident at SFO... not sure if that caused a risk with another aircraft ahead though.
FlyHossD wrote:chimborazo wrote:Does anyone know a case of an aircraft being told to go around because of an incident with an aircraft ahead but then not responding? There’s the famous Air Canada incident at SFO... not sure if that caused a risk with another aircraft ahead though.
Once had to go-around because of the aircraft behind us!
On final to STL and cleared to land by STL Tower on 30R, we were then directed to go-around as a WN flight was rapidly overtaking us from behind and was not answering STL Tower. Apparently, they were not on the Tower frequency.
So, go-around we did and got a quick return and landed 30R after all. When we asked for the WN flight number, we were told, "Don't worry, we'll take care of it." But we pressed for the answer so we could include it in our report to the company.
IAHFLYR wrote:To echo what atcdan wrote, anticipated separation in the U.S. certainly cuts down on radio transmissions particularly in a critical phase of flight when as a former tower controller I'd rather not be issuing a landing clearance as they approach the threshold. Just my opinion and it clearly works numerous time a day, not that withholding the landing clearance until the arrival is the next to land does not work as it is proven to work as well.
gloom wrote:It's not like it's a problem in my part of the world, anyways (EU).