is it just me?

Robert Briggs wrote:


Proper spacing on final approach would be sufficient for the second
guy to have a suitably clear runway on which to land if the first one
has no problems and vacates the runway promptly.

Remeber here in the States most aircraft don't have to be off the runway
for the next one to land, just a certain distance down the runway.



However, if something *does* go wrong, the second guy may *not* have
a suitably clear runway, and so will have to go around.

Some airplanes only.



If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said? That would
never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping at the tower
controller wondering about his landing clearance. In your scenario
there are many more miles separation than the minimum if there is that
kind of time to be doing all this talking.

Newps wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:

Proper spacing on final approach would be sufficient for the second
guy to have a suitably clear runway on which to land if the first one
has no problems and vacates the runway promptly.

Remeber here in the States most aircraft don't have to be off the runway
for the next one to land, just a certain distance down the runway.

That is why I wrote "suitably clear", rather than "empty".

However, if something *does* go wrong, the second guy may *not* have
a suitably clear runway, and so will have to go around.

If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said?

It is quite likely that the controller *would* call the go-around, but
the lack of a landing clearance would (or jolly well should) keep the
second guy airborne.

That would never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping
at the tower controller wondering about his landing clearance.

I don't think the pilot would often be "wondering about his landing
clearance".

At a field with normally light(ish) traffic where you happened to be
unusually close to the guy in front the controller would tell you to
expect a late landing clearance.

Somewhere like LHR "late" landing clearances are the default.

In your scenario there are many more miles separation than the
minimum if there is that kind of time to be doing all this talking.

What do you mean by "all this talking"?

You can sort out things like the weather in plenty of time.

I wouldn't call issuing the landing clearance itself "doing all this
talking" - certainly not in comparison with a system which requires
time for the controller to call a go-around.

Robert Briggs wrote:




If he has already been "cleared to land" (US) then the controller has
to call a go-around; if he has *not* been "cleared to land" (UK) then
the controller needn't say anything, as he'll reach his missed approach
point without his landing clearance, and execute a missed approach.

That's it? He'll just go around with nothing further said?


It is quite likely that the controller *would* call the go-around, but
the lack of a landing clearance would (or jolly well should) keep the
second guy airborne.

But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.




That would never happen here. The pilot would be constantly chipping
at the tower controller wondering about his landing clearance.


I don't think the pilot would often be "wondering about his landing
clearance".

Alas, they do.



At a field with normally light(ish) traffic where you happened to be
unusually close to the guy in front the controller would tell you to
expect a late landing clearance.

There's no reason for that and causes the controller to talk more than
he has to. "Follow the Cessna ahead, cleared to land." Assuming it
works out as expected with the required amount of separation no further
talking is required. If it doesn't then you tell the aircraft to go
around. It's foolish to be issuing landing clearances with the aircraft
on very short final. He's got more important things to worry about.





I wouldn't call issuing the landing clearance itself "doing all this
talking" - certainly not in comparison with a system which requires
time for the controller to call a go-around.

In my system I have a lot more time to talk because I am not giving
other airplanes farther out a stupid instruction like "continue inbound."

Newps wrote:


But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.

Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's not
a Good Thing.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's
not
a Good Thing.


No, but it happens. And it happens with the pros too.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Newps wrote:


But in reality it doesn't. The sharp crews will verify their landing
clearance but as an experiment I have allowed lots of pilots to land
without a clearance. So your theory that witholding a landing clearance
is safer is simply not true.


Umm...what? You've had pilots landing w/o getting a clearance. That's not
a Good Thing.

Not for them, but it really doesn't matter.

Newps wrote:


Not for them, but it really doesn't matter.

The more I listen to controllers, the more I worry about pilots. You guys
tell some frightening stories.

In all the reading I've done on "runway incursions", I don't recall seeing
this issue addressed (although I may simply have missed it). Apparently,
it should be.

- Andrew