Controller screwed up?

I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
functions that return void.

On Sep 10, 4:11 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
functions that return void.

I could see him putting the NW flight into position and hold, but not
clearing him to take off. Clearing him before you were off the runway
was definitely an error on his part.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
functions that return void.

Take a deep breath... The big guy has to taxi forward and make a 90
degree turn, center up on the rwy, lock the brakes, do the final TO
list, and then and only then spool up... You were long gone off the
rwy by then... Forget the form, you have nothing to report...

cheers ... denny

On Sep 10, 3:11 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

I thought the same time the first time I was cleared to land on a
runway where the previous guy was clearly not going to be off before I
touched down. Tower explained that two planes can use the runway at
the same time as long as the tower can antisipate separation. I"m sure
some of the ATC guys on this list can explain it better though.

-Robert

It's called anticipated separation. By the time the MD80 gets on the
runway you're long gone.




Paul Tomblin wrote:
I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

wrote:


I could see him putting the NW flight into position and hold, but not
clearing him to take off. Clearing him before you were off the runway
was definitely an error on his part.

No, it was not.

Robert M. Gary wrote:



I thought the same time the first time I was cleared to land on a
runway where the previous guy was clearly not going to be off before I
touched down. Tower explained that two planes can use the runway at
the same time as long as the tower can antisipate separation. I"m sure
some of the ATC guys on this list can explain it better though.

You have it essentially correct. You can land your single behind
another single or twin as long as that guy is 3000 feet down the runway.

"Newps" wrote in message ...
You have it essentially correct. You can land your single behind another
single or twin as long as that guy is 3000 feet down the runway.

I agree and find it a safe landing practice, but I've not heard it before on
a TO clearance. At the minimum I would expect an advisory from tower of the
presence of the landing traffic still on the runway. Also I'm not sure how
that fits in with the company's corp operating rules; it was an MD-80
afterall.

All cleared for takeoff and cleared to land mean is that when you get to
the runway it will meet certain requirements. For takeoff the runway
will be clear when you actually use it. Not necessary for it to be
clear before or after.

Mike Isaksen wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message ...

You have it essentially correct. You can land your single behind another
single or twin as long as that guy is 3000 feet down the runway.


I agree and find it a safe landing practice, but I've not heard it before on
a TO clearance. At the minimum I would expect an advisory from tower of the
presence of the landing traffic still on the runway. Also I'm not sure how
that fits in with the company's corp operating rules; it was an MD-80
afterall.

Relax, and don't dally on the runway.


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
I was coming in to land on RWY 4 at ROC. There was a North West MD80 at
the hold short line. Almost as soon as my mains touched down, before I'd
slowed down, the tower controller cleared the North West flight to take
off. I came back with "977 is still on the runway on runway 4", with a
rather urgent tone of voice because I didn't want to become the next
Tenerife. The controller, instead of cancelling the take off clearance
for the North West flight like I expected, came back with my taxi
instructions.

I'm hoping the North West flight saw me or heard me, but it seems to me
that it was wrong for the controller to rely on that. I'm going to file
a NASA form, but is there anything else I should do?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of
unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to
functions that return void.