Switching to ground....

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:58:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
.. .

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.


How so?

I've heard "N1234, number two, cleared to land, traffic is on 1/4 mile
final, be ready to go around" out of a tower before.

In article ,
"Paul Sengupta" wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
My feelings have nothing to do with it. Drop your nationalist attitude
and
compare the procedures logically and you'll agree that US procedures are
superior.

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.

Hamish

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(gets a flat, for example), you would need to have your clearance withdrawn or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

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

Teacherjh wrote:

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.

Not necessarily. Depends what they are flying and what you are flying.
If they are in a single or a twin and so are you then there's no
reason there can't be two aircraft on the runway at the same time.


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.

Not necessarily.

This what I was always told, but when in doubt, verify with the controller.

Harvey

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The reg seems to support the statement that the "Taxi To" instruction
permits you to taxi across ALL other runways, even if they are active. It
only prohibits you from actually entering or crossing the one runway to
which you are assigned (ie: taxiing to)...


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Then I've committed an awful lot of runway incursions without
ever being told about it.


Well, you have if you crossed the assigned runway. If you merely
crossed other active runways that were not assigned to you then you're
okay.


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport
with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or
taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate
clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff
runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that
assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is
a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to
that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to "taxi to" any point other
than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all runways that
intersect the taxi route to that point.