Apart from the one that says you can clear more than one aircraft
to land when the prior one hasn't landed and vacated the runway.

OK, as someone who's not an American (but who flies in America), I have
to ask: what's inferior about this procedure? I have experience with
both ways; the US way doesn't strike me as inherently worse than the
obvious alternative.


I think he's (or she's) implying that if you are cleared to land behind traffic
that has not cleared the runway, and subsequently that traffic fails to clear
(gets a flat, for example), you would need to have your clearance withdrawn or
ammended. If you go NORDO at that time (or there is frequqncy congestion) you
would then have to visually notice that the runway is occupied, and deviate
from your clearance to avoid creating artwork.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)