"Full length"

On Mar 5, 2:17 pm, "buttman" wrote:

What does it mean when a controller says "Cleared for landing full
length",

I take it as acknowledgement and explicit permission to land long to avoid
wake turbulence, possibly needed and well adviced when they sandwich your
spam can between two heavies.

"Mike Young" wrote in message
...

I take it as acknowledgement and explicit permission to land long to avoid
wake turbulence, possibly needed and well adviced when they sandwich your
spam can between two heavies.


Is explicit permission needed to land long?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Is explicit permission needed to land long?

Only when the field/runway is under a LAHSO procedure and/or the
controller gives you a LAHSO clearance, and you request otherwise.
"Cleared to land" gives you the entire runway length, by default.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

Only when the field/runway is under a LAHSO procedure and/or the
controller gives you a LAHSO clearance, and you request otherwise.
"Cleared to land" gives you the entire runway length, by default.


Right, so adding "full length to "cleared to land" adds nothing but two
unnecessary words.

Right, so adding "full length to "cleared to land" adds nothing but two
unnecessary words.

The same can be said of any explicit statement that could be stated
implicitly. One person's "unnecessary words" are another person's
"useful redundancy".

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Right, so adding "full length to "cleared to land" adds nothing but
two unnecessary words.

The same can be said of any explicit statement that could be stated
implicitly. One person's "unnecessary words" are another person's
"useful redundancy".

To whit, when entering Class D airspace, the controllers here typically
go into this long-winded tirade about "clearances" and "over the field"
and "watch for other traffic", when all they have to do is use my full
callsign to give me permission to enter the airspace.

Don't ask me why all that unnecessary verbiage is, erm, necessary. :P

TheSmokingGnu

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Young" wrote in message
...

I take it as acknowledgement and explicit permission to land long to avoid
wake turbulence, possibly needed and well adviced when they sandwich your
spam can between two heavies.



Is explicit permission needed to land long?


Although explicit permission isn't NEEDED when I was based at Dulles I
would always ask for permission to land long. 95% of the time I was
given it and the other 5% the controller would say something to the
effect "It would really help if you could exit the first high speed"
which I would do. It was really a matter of courtesy. The aircraft
that tried to make things easier for the controllers were also the ones
that the controllers would try to make things easier for the aircraft.
I would also get things likes "go to the intersection of Rt 7 and Rt 28
and circle, I'll get you in as soon as there is a gap", instead of
"remain clear the class B, I'll get back to you in 30 minutes".

Margy

"Margy Natalie" wrote

The aircraft that tried to make things easier for the controllers were
also the ones that the controllers would try to make things easier for the
aircraft. I would also get things likes "go to the intersection of Rt 7
and Rt 28 and circle, I'll get you in as soon as there is a gap", instead
of "remain clear the class B, I'll get back to you in 30 minutes".

Right!!!

I wash your back, you wash mine! g

That works in other things in life, besides ATC. :-)
--
Jim in NC