In article ,
(Teacherjh) wrote:

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(gets a flat, for example), you would need to have your clearance withdrawn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.

Well, tower would tell me to go around, or I'd do that myself and tell
tower when possible... no big deal. Being based at Oakland (KOAK) with
a bunch of training going on all the time, you kind of get used to the
occasional forced go-around.

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.

Is there anyone landing at towered airports who *doesn't* look
carefully to see whether the runway's obstructed in any way or not
after being cleared to land (Cat III approaches excepted)? I'm
regularly cleared number 4 or 5 to land at Oakland, and you can bet
your life I check bloody carefully whether there's anyone on the runway
or about to cross it. As I would when landing at (say) Bankstown (YSBK)
having been cleared the other way.

Hamish