PilotEdge Forums

I believe, that this is primarily a US concept. As understand it, most of Europe does not issue "Cleared to Land" based on anticipated separation minimums. Landing clearances are only given when the runway is entirely clear or when the ACTUAL separation standard is met.

So if this scenario occurred in EUROPE, you would never be cleared to land #2. Instead clearance would be withheld until the runway was clear or the separation standard was met.

Perhaps some of the European pilots can confirm my understanding.

kullery wrote:I believe, that this is primarily a US concept. As understand it, most of Europe does not issue "Cleared to Land" based on anticipated separation minimums. Landing clearances are only given when the runway is entirely clear or when the ACTUAL separation standard is met.

So if this scenario occurred in EUROPE, you would never be cleared to land #2. Instead clearance would be withheld until the runway was clear or the separation standard was met.

Perhaps some of European pilots can confirm my understanding.

Same deal in Canada. A few airports in the country have an exception to this rule (CYYZ/CYYC/CYUL/CYVR come to mind)

Europe won't do "Cleared to land, number 2," but they'll do "Behind landing XYZ, cross Runway #, behind." What's safer?

OK, so I got a chance to test this out today at KSFF here in Spokane. I was doing some IFR currency in an SR20, N881PF, and finished the day with some pattern work at Felts 4L with a 4500 ft runway. I'm downwind following a Cherokee that's on final, and I'm cleared to land #2. Plenty of spacing. As I turn base to final he's already landed, but still rolling out and going all the way to the far end of the runway, skipping the Delta exit. As I'm wondering why he didn't exit early and I'm thinking about calling a go around, I remember this thread and I decide to proceed with the landing. I'm now on short final and about 200 ft off the deck as the Cherokee is just beginning turning on to taxiway Alpha at the far end of the runway. He's literally "a mile away" - the exact scenario of this thread. Just as I'm thinking, no big deal, he's probably going to be clear anyway when I touch down, the tower issues me instructions to "go around". Huh?

As luck would have it, I just happen to have the chief instructor at NW flight school sitting right seat with me as my IFR safety pilot, so I asked him why the tower issued a go around since there was plenty of room even if we both ended up on opposite ends of the runway at the same time. He said they will "never allow two planes on the runway at the same time", and other than an airshow or formation flights, he has never in his career seen any tower allow it, ever.

That's the experience I had today . . . just sayin'.

Rod,

I think it's likely that your instructor just hasn't run into a tower that is comfortable using it. Here's a recording from a flight out of Stillwater Regional during my coast to coast trip where a plane goes around and the tower reminds him of Same Runway Separation rules: http://assets.pilotedge.net/recordings/go_around.mp3

Additionally, someone commented on our facebook page that this was SOP at Grand Forks International, too. So, it appears there's at least two fields using this option.

This has been great info here Keith. I had looked into it more a few weeks ago after this thread discussion and found this . . . http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual ... 310003.htm . . . so thanks to you I knew the 3000 foot rule. I have always been the one to initiate a go-around in these situations, but today I didn't. Perhaps, as you said, this just isn't comfortably used by some/many/(possibly most) tower controllers.

If you were on an option behind a full stop you would be given a go around if they weren't clear. You can't be taking off with someone on the runway. What I do is I'll clear and aircraft to land (that I previously cleared for the option) if the spacing is tight. Then I'll just clear you for takeoff when the acft is clear of the runway ahead.

oh nm, I thought you said you were on the option... you were cleared to land. No idea why they sent you around.

Keith Smith wrote:
Additionally, someone commented on our facebook page that this was SOP at Grand Forks International, too. So, it appears there's at least two fields using this option.

Probably because of the heavy training activity in GFK... That's where I learned to fly lol....

Ryan B wrote:If you were on an option behind a full stop you would be given a go around if they weren't clear. You can't be taking off with someone on the runway. What I do is I'll clear and aircraft to land (that I previously cleared for the option) if the spacing is tight. Then I'll just clear you for takeoff when the acft is clear of the runway ahead.

oh nm, I thought you said you were on the option... you were cleared to land. No idea why they sent you around.

Ryan, I was cleared for the option. I misspoke there. That makes sense.