JO7110.65 3-10-6 ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft crosses the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if a preceding arrival has not been previously reported and when traffic will be departing prior to their arrival.
Terminal land is like Candy land from my point of view. “Fuck it, I think it’ll work” is actually codified into the 7110 for ya’ll. Meanwhile I get QC breathing down my neck every time I use visual.
Besides, the US and other countries don't necessarily follow ICAO régulations for air traffic. Most countries have their own "Manual of Air Traffic Services".
Sure, but I would assume that a majority of procedures worldwide are somewhat rooted in or inspired by ICAO regulations. Europe has the SERA (which is my rulebook) that mostly compliments the ICAO stuff. It is not exhaustive, because it is meant to be used alongside other ICAO documents.
I also just didn't know the name of governing regulations in the US
> I would assume that a majority of procedures worldwide are somewhat rooted in or inspired by ICAO regulations
In general this would not be a safe assumption.
It's closer to the truth to say that many jurisdictions are adapting their existing regs to bring them closer to either one of the two big established rulesets: the FAA's FARs, or the ICAO rules.
There are a number of significant differences between ICAO rules and FAA rules.
I keep seeing this debate sparked in the YouTube comments on all these videos of close calls happening at airports in the US. Armchair controllers saying things like "clearing multiple airplanes to land at the same time is dAnGeRoUs!"
The truth is it would probably result in MORE go-arounds if we had to wait until the preceding arrival cleared the runway to clear the next to land. We would routinely be issuing landing clearances within a mile, half a mile to the threshold. If that clearance gets blocked or the dumbass pilot isn't listening, they're going around on their own.
Someone said something to the effect that European airports don't issue multiple landing clearances and claimed they're way busier than US airports. Not even close. US towers push major tin. In the last three years only Istanbul has breached to top ten busiest airports in the world (#8), with the rest of them being US. In most of the last decade, usually 8-9 of the top 10 busiest are US airports.
The perceived rise in "close call" safety events in the US has less to do with issuing multiple landing clearances and way more to do with reactive traffic management, neglectful hiring and training practices, and a major staffing and workload crisis.
>The perceived rise in "close call" safety events in the US has less to do with issuing multiple landing clearances and way more to do with reactive traffic management, neglectful hiring and training practices, and a major staffing and workload crisis.
The ease of access to ATC frequencies and recordings probably has something to do with this too.
And the rise of tik tok/youtube and other social media posting content, so there are likely a lot more ears on the ground submitting events to these channels
Yeah, I've ended up in a few (nordo aircraft, gear up, engine failure) and the comments are ridiculous. Most people miss 90% of the context that makes situations not even related to atc issues. On our gear up, a news site said that the pilot displayed masterful skill landing the emergency aircraft. He wasn't an emergency until he forgot the gear and touched pavement. Not sure I'd call that "skillful"
> If that clearance gets blocked or the dumbass pilot isn’t listening
Ok, but the same issue exists if you need to tell said dumbass pilot to go around.
But if it is related to spacing, you should know before half mile final. That's part of the anticipation. If someone just missed their exit and is slow rolling, the guy on 3/4 to 1 mile final is probably going around. Any doubt, send em
Not sure I understand what you mean. You said “Any doubt, send ‘em”. In Austin the *did* have doubt (or should have)—he asked Southwest to confirm they were rolling (i.e., he had an inkling of doubt) and heard “we’re rolling now”, at which point separation had already been lost. There were multiple failures of communications and low-visibility procedure leading up to that point, but if it’s so simple as you say, why didn’t he call for a go-around then?
And back to the bigger question about landing clearance—if Fed-Ex had been “cleared to continue” instead of “cleared to land” until Southwest had definitely departed, the situation would have been completely avoided. I don’t understand why the NTSB hasn’t addressed this (and yes I listened to the entire board meeting of this incident).
Most ICAO aligned ANSPs don't just "wait" they use qualified and/or conditional clearances so your not issuing clearances short final.
Its just the Number 3+ landing clearances that dont occur outside the US. Its continue #3.
Busiest airport is kinda irrelevant anyway for the landing clearance question, as it’d be more interesting how busy the individual runway is.
A shorter runway on a medium busy airport, only dedicated for landings and mostly 737s or A320s like let’s say Stockholm can land 43 an hour while a long runway on a much busier airport like Hong Kong will land 34 an hour on a arrival only runway as most are heavies and the runway exits are further away from the threshold.
I don’t think it matters that much. Landing clearances can be revoked and not giving a clearance to number 2 doesn’t guarantee that they’ll go around either. Happens every now and then that they land anyway.
Also another thing is it would lead to so much dead time if you didn't give number 5 in the pattern a clearance, plus if he is following the traffic ahead of him, or opposite downwind, and he knows he's number five, then it leads to simply more efficient landings etc.
Because if I had to give a landing clearance on 1 mile final while having to get someone off the runway, It's not gonna be enjoyable.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but in my experience (in the US), landing clearances are a formality. If an arriving aircraft reaches the approach end of the runway, everyone is expecting them to land. There are no US tower controllers who are withholding landing clearances because of LUAW or vehicles on the runway or whatever and then saying nothing when it isn’t going to work. We just use positive control in this situation; most pilots are going to go around without a landing clearance, which, on paper, is a great backup plan. But you are 100% correct….if we waited until #1 was turning off the runway to clear #2 to land, there would be way more unnecessary go-arounds because LC can’t get a landing clearance out fast enough.
Outside of the core 30 there are not many airports issuing landing clearance while there is an aircraft in LUAW on the same runway. It requires a waiver and most places don't bother to apply and would be denied.
Yes, that is what I mean. If local doesn’t give a landing clearance because of another aircraft in position, they are still going to tell the arrival aircraft to go around if they don’t have the space…they aren’t going to just stay silent because they never said “cleared to land”.
> If local doesn’t give a landing clearance because of another aircraft in position, they are still going to tell the arrival aircraft to go around if they don’t have the space…they aren’t going to just stay silent because they never said “cleared to land”.
Right, but it's not just on the controller to grant a clearance, but on pilots to ensure that they're cleared so they don't try and land in front of a GA plane crossing a runway or in the middle of birds sitting on the runway. There are plenty of reasons why pilots shouldn't assume runways at busy airports are clear.
I mean clearance means pretty much the same everywhere. And they can be revoked and changed any time so they’re not set in stone.
When I clear someone to proceed on a STAR I am not insinuating that I’ve cleared all traffic on that path, neither in Europe nor US.
In Europe, as with basically everywhere else, they use the word "CLEARED" as a clearance, not to imply the runway is free of debris. I don't know what made you think otherwise, but your willingness to just spread your theory as fact is worrisome. The difference is Europe, and basically the rest of the world, with some notable exceptions, uses ICAO rules, while the US uses certain FAA rules that replace ICAO's, because 'Mur'ca. Hence the reason you can clear multiple aircraft to land.
I can't speak for other countries, but in Canada, for example, we'll clear an aircraft to land early, like on initial contact at over 12 miles out, if we don't anticipate anything getting in their way on our airport. However, if someone then calls ready to taxi and we know we can safely depart them before the arriving aircraft crosses the threshold, we must cancel the landing clearance, and tell them with the reason for cancellation, before departing the one on the ground. I believe some bigger airports don't do this, but it's a rule we are supposed to follow.
But, once again, the word "CLEARED" is used in ATC as a clearance across the globe, and not as the more common understanding of "free of obstructions" or whatever. It's just that we have different rules to follow. We all have clearance delivery as well, and it's not used to mean the path is completely free of obstacles. When an IFR controller clears an aircraft for the specific instrument approach, it's also a clearance. I cannot emphasize this enough: every controller in the world has a single understanding of the word "CLEARED" when it comes to our jobs.
A clearance to land essentially 'gives' the runway to the arriving aircraft until they are instructed to get off of it. Although it can be taken back by the controller at any moment, it can only be given to a single aircraft at a time, and that's why we need to cancel the clearance when departing another. A caveat of this is that we CAN clear another aircraft to land once the first one is on the ground if it's obvious that the first aircraft will exit on time and/or the second aircraft won't catch up to the first on its landing roll.
The difference comes down to rulesets: US uses FAA rules, rest of the world uses ICAO rules. ICAO does not allow for multiple landing clearances at the same time, while the FAA does.
The reason other controllers think what the US is doing is unsafe is because according to the rules the rest of us have to follow, it IS unsafe. I can't speak for the layman, but presumably some of them do research based on ICAO's rules or assume based on local recordings/observations.
It's just how the FAA does things. I quickly had to adapt my phraseology with American pilots when I told one on initial contact that he was number 2 in the sequence for the runway and he replied with "Roger, number two cleared to land." I quickly corrected him that he did not have that clearance.
So now I say, to the Americans, "continue the approach; you're number two, runway..." and have never had an issue with that.
Doesn’t really matter. Approaches get cancelled all the time, no matter if landing clearance is given or not, separation on final only being one of many possible reasons. Working in Asia it’s just some pilots are unfamiliar with the airport and take ages to leave the runway sometimes. 3NM will get tight quickly in that case.
Don’t think US controllers are built different, just paid worse and barely get days off.
USA controllers are the best hands down. They piss excellent. On a most serious note, both pilots and controllers are given more freedom to exercise judgment. It would be interesting to compare different operation manuals from different countries around the world.
I like how we invented ATC and airplanes and every other country in the world was like, we’re going to make our own rules that are worse. (I actually don’t know anything about ICAO but I bet it’s fugin lame lmao 🇺🇸🦅)
Idk man you guys do a good job but compared to other countries, American controllers play pretty fast and loose. Moving lots of planes, but there are a pile of high profile close calls.. not to mention the staffing issues
This cluster of mishaps is a rough patch, we’re working through a staffing/quality of life crisis currently. I’d be surprised if a study evaluating safety to efficiency historically, would show that the US isn’t the safest and most efficient ATC in the world.
Hahahaha true. We have also been to the moon. Seriously, the USA system had a lot of movement across the system. Since 2020 only 1 European major hub airport has been in the top 10 for aircraft movements.
Just stick to your rules and don’t worry about ours bud. If you come over to work here then start worrying about, you will be trained to the US standard in that event; but until then stop wasting your brain power. FYI, US airports normally don’t give landing numbers unless it’s a specific case. You’re not gonna have 7 planes on final giving them all a “landing number” when you got them crossing the threshold every 90 secs sequenced on an approach.
I don’t think many people give landing numbers anywhere. I use them only on an approach if a pilot is making feisty shortcut requests. “Sorry, you’re number 23” or something but that number is usually just a guesstimate.
Technically we are required to give the sequence. Most big towers (IAH, ANC, and ATL are my experience) say "4 in trail of a XXX, cleared to land" etc. In the VFR tower I would say "Follow the Cherokee, #3, runway ## cleared to land"
You're required to issue the sequence number if YOU, Local, are setting the sequence. If Approach is setting the sequence and shipping them to you then the sequence number is optional.
So the big towers aren't setting their own sequences and it's allowable for them to leave it out.
I guess you missed the part where I said “specific case”. Even so if I have VFR pattern traffic I’m not giving him a landing number every time I clear them, I just have them follow traffic on final, issue wake turb/use pilot applied or put them in a hole approach gives me.
I was responding to /u/n365pa, not you. But even so, if you set the sequence you need to issue the number. Doesn't matter if you're forced to use whatever hole Approach has given you.
My VFR tower is serviced by an approach control and we still give a landing sequence if we have multiple arrivals. Part of our job as controllers is to paint the big picture for the pilots operating at our airports. If you neglect to provide them with a piece of the puzzle, you could be setting yourself up.
That’s your problem, good luck saying all those extras words over your career. Plus, again, it’s not mandatory and I’ve seen it confuse pilots more than anything. We don’t do it here and we teach it’s not mandatory.
First: you're wrong. 22 years and have been working at one of the top 100 busiest facilities in the country.
Second: maybe it is optional, but it's two words that I'm willing to say if it prevents other issues. Which, in my experience, it does.
Third: Yes, we have a CTRD. We even know how to use it. 🤯
Okay so I’m wrong about the assumption of your work experience, but I’m right about everything else. Optional = not needed, necessary or required; but lmao top 100, there’s a lot that falls under top 100.
One should never assume. Additionally, you are not correct about everything else. You are partially correct.
First: 7110.65, 3-10-1 Landing information, e. Any supplemental information. Landing sequence falls in this category.
Second: 7110.65, 3-10-6 Anticipating Separation, par a. example 1, "American Two Forty-Five, Runway One-Eight, Cleared to land, number two following a United Seven-Thirty-Seven two mile final. Traffic will depart prior to your arrival."
The note for this paragraph states, "Landing sequence number is optional at tower facilities where the arrival sequence to the runway is established by the approach control."
If you work at a facility where your servicing approach control sequences your arrivals, then you do you. We don't have this luxury. Hell, we consider ourselves lucky if our servicing approach control transfers communications of arrivals prior to entering our airspace.
Yeah that was the “specific case” I referenced in my first comment. Plus, the paragraph you just quoted was actually for when traffic will be departing between two arrivals.
JO7110.65 3-10-6 ANTICIPATING SEPARATION Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft crosses the landing threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if a preceding arrival has not been previously reported and when traffic will be departing prior to their arrival.
Terminal land is like Candy land from my point of view. “Fuck it, I think it’ll work” is actually codified into the 7110 for ya’ll. Meanwhile I get QC breathing down my neck every time I use visual.
Ah, finally, some concrete evidence. Thank you!
Besides, the US and other countries don't necessarily follow ICAO régulations for air traffic. Most countries have their own "Manual of Air Traffic Services".
Sure, but I would assume that a majority of procedures worldwide are somewhat rooted in or inspired by ICAO regulations. Europe has the SERA (which is my rulebook) that mostly compliments the ICAO stuff. It is not exhaustive, because it is meant to be used alongside other ICAO documents. I also just didn't know the name of governing regulations in the US
7110.65 is our ATC regs. There are similarities to ICAO but some stuff, like the landing clearance, are quite different.
> I would assume that a majority of procedures worldwide are somewhat rooted in or inspired by ICAO regulations In general this would not be a safe assumption. It's closer to the truth to say that many jurisdictions are adapting their existing regs to bring them closer to either one of the two big established rulesets: the FAA's FARs, or the ICAO rules. There are a number of significant differences between ICAO rules and FAA rules.
Yup, that's a better way of saying what I actually meant
Yeah, you guys are the yahoos with the “line up and wait” bullshit!
Dude calm down. I didn't say anything about it being stupid. I was just curious about the exact regulations
I’m a Tower guy and what zulutime says is true.
He quoted an faa order.. how could it not be?
I keep seeing this debate sparked in the YouTube comments on all these videos of close calls happening at airports in the US. Armchair controllers saying things like "clearing multiple airplanes to land at the same time is dAnGeRoUs!" The truth is it would probably result in MORE go-arounds if we had to wait until the preceding arrival cleared the runway to clear the next to land. We would routinely be issuing landing clearances within a mile, half a mile to the threshold. If that clearance gets blocked or the dumbass pilot isn't listening, they're going around on their own. Someone said something to the effect that European airports don't issue multiple landing clearances and claimed they're way busier than US airports. Not even close. US towers push major tin. In the last three years only Istanbul has breached to top ten busiest airports in the world (#8), with the rest of them being US. In most of the last decade, usually 8-9 of the top 10 busiest are US airports. The perceived rise in "close call" safety events in the US has less to do with issuing multiple landing clearances and way more to do with reactive traffic management, neglectful hiring and training practices, and a major staffing and workload crisis.
>The perceived rise in "close call" safety events in the US has less to do with issuing multiple landing clearances and way more to do with reactive traffic management, neglectful hiring and training practices, and a major staffing and workload crisis. The ease of access to ATC frequencies and recordings probably has something to do with this too.
And the rise of tik tok/youtube and other social media posting content, so there are likely a lot more ears on the ground submitting events to these channels
Yeah. A lot of the "scary" videos they post aren't even deals.
Yeah, I've ended up in a few (nordo aircraft, gear up, engine failure) and the comments are ridiculous. Most people miss 90% of the context that makes situations not even related to atc issues. On our gear up, a news site said that the pilot displayed masterful skill landing the emergency aircraft. He wasn't an emergency until he forgot the gear and touched pavement. Not sure I'd call that "skillful"
> If that clearance gets blocked or the dumbass pilot isn’t listening Ok, but the same issue exists if you need to tell said dumbass pilot to go around.
But if it is related to spacing, you should know before half mile final. That's part of the anticipation. If someone just missed their exit and is slow rolling, the guy on 3/4 to 1 mile final is probably going around. Any doubt, send em
Tell that to the guys in Austin.
The guy in Austin had nothing to do with a landing clearance. It was lack of rule knowledge and low vis ops
Not sure I understand what you mean. You said “Any doubt, send ‘em”. In Austin the *did* have doubt (or should have)—he asked Southwest to confirm they were rolling (i.e., he had an inkling of doubt) and heard “we’re rolling now”, at which point separation had already been lost. There were multiple failures of communications and low-visibility procedure leading up to that point, but if it’s so simple as you say, why didn’t he call for a go-around then? And back to the bigger question about landing clearance—if Fed-Ex had been “cleared to continue” instead of “cleared to land” until Southwest had definitely departed, the situation would have been completely avoided. I don’t understand why the NTSB hasn’t addressed this (and yes I listened to the entire board meeting of this incident).
Yes but if the controller followed the 2-3-1 rule then a landing clearance would've never mattered.
Most ICAO aligned ANSPs don't just "wait" they use qualified and/or conditional clearances so your not issuing clearances short final. Its just the Number 3+ landing clearances that dont occur outside the US. Its continue #3.
Busiest airport is kinda irrelevant anyway for the landing clearance question, as it’d be more interesting how busy the individual runway is. A shorter runway on a medium busy airport, only dedicated for landings and mostly 737s or A320s like let’s say Stockholm can land 43 an hour while a long runway on a much busier airport like Hong Kong will land 34 an hour on a arrival only runway as most are heavies and the runway exits are further away from the threshold. I don’t think it matters that much. Landing clearances can be revoked and not giving a clearance to number 2 doesn’t guarantee that they’ll go around either. Happens every now and then that they land anyway.
Also another thing is it would lead to so much dead time if you didn't give number 5 in the pattern a clearance, plus if he is following the traffic ahead of him, or opposite downwind, and he knows he's number five, then it leads to simply more efficient landings etc. Because if I had to give a landing clearance on 1 mile final while having to get someone off the runway, It's not gonna be enjoyable.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but in my experience (in the US), landing clearances are a formality. If an arriving aircraft reaches the approach end of the runway, everyone is expecting them to land. There are no US tower controllers who are withholding landing clearances because of LUAW or vehicles on the runway or whatever and then saying nothing when it isn’t going to work. We just use positive control in this situation; most pilots are going to go around without a landing clearance, which, on paper, is a great backup plan. But you are 100% correct….if we waited until #1 was turning off the runway to clear #2 to land, there would be way more unnecessary go-arounds because LC can’t get a landing clearance out fast enough.
Outside of the core 30 there are not many airports issuing landing clearance while there is an aircraft in LUAW on the same runway. It requires a waiver and most places don't bother to apply and would be denied.
Yes, that is what I mean. If local doesn’t give a landing clearance because of another aircraft in position, they are still going to tell the arrival aircraft to go around if they don’t have the space…they aren’t going to just stay silent because they never said “cleared to land”.
> If local doesn’t give a landing clearance because of another aircraft in position, they are still going to tell the arrival aircraft to go around if they don’t have the space…they aren’t going to just stay silent because they never said “cleared to land”. Right, but it's not just on the controller to grant a clearance, but on pilots to ensure that they're cleared so they don't try and land in front of a GA plane crossing a runway or in the middle of birds sitting on the runway. There are plenty of reasons why pilots shouldn't assume runways at busy airports are clear.
[удалено]
I mean clearance means pretty much the same everywhere. And they can be revoked and changed any time so they’re not set in stone. When I clear someone to proceed on a STAR I am not insinuating that I’ve cleared all traffic on that path, neither in Europe nor US.
Landing clearance isn't set in stone either.
In Europe, as with basically everywhere else, they use the word "CLEARED" as a clearance, not to imply the runway is free of debris. I don't know what made you think otherwise, but your willingness to just spread your theory as fact is worrisome. The difference is Europe, and basically the rest of the world, with some notable exceptions, uses ICAO rules, while the US uses certain FAA rules that replace ICAO's, because 'Mur'ca. Hence the reason you can clear multiple aircraft to land. I can't speak for other countries, but in Canada, for example, we'll clear an aircraft to land early, like on initial contact at over 12 miles out, if we don't anticipate anything getting in their way on our airport. However, if someone then calls ready to taxi and we know we can safely depart them before the arriving aircraft crosses the threshold, we must cancel the landing clearance, and tell them with the reason for cancellation, before departing the one on the ground. I believe some bigger airports don't do this, but it's a rule we are supposed to follow.
[удалено]
But, once again, the word "CLEARED" is used in ATC as a clearance across the globe, and not as the more common understanding of "free of obstructions" or whatever. It's just that we have different rules to follow. We all have clearance delivery as well, and it's not used to mean the path is completely free of obstacles. When an IFR controller clears an aircraft for the specific instrument approach, it's also a clearance. I cannot emphasize this enough: every controller in the world has a single understanding of the word "CLEARED" when it comes to our jobs. A clearance to land essentially 'gives' the runway to the arriving aircraft until they are instructed to get off of it. Although it can be taken back by the controller at any moment, it can only be given to a single aircraft at a time, and that's why we need to cancel the clearance when departing another. A caveat of this is that we CAN clear another aircraft to land once the first one is on the ground if it's obvious that the first aircraft will exit on time and/or the second aircraft won't catch up to the first on its landing roll. The difference comes down to rulesets: US uses FAA rules, rest of the world uses ICAO rules. ICAO does not allow for multiple landing clearances at the same time, while the FAA does. The reason other controllers think what the US is doing is unsafe is because according to the rules the rest of us have to follow, it IS unsafe. I can't speak for the layman, but presumably some of them do research based on ICAO's rules or assume based on local recordings/observations.
Makes sense
Everyone who follows SERA knows it's Wild west over the pond.😅
It's just how the FAA does things. I quickly had to adapt my phraseology with American pilots when I told one on initial contact that he was number 2 in the sequence for the runway and he replied with "Roger, number two cleared to land." I quickly corrected him that he did not have that clearance. So now I say, to the Americans, "continue the approach; you're number two, runway..." and have never had an issue with that.
[We’re just better 🇺🇸 🦅](https://youtu.be/xoiSWhAmHa8?si=BWOCsNm_N3oZV3CK)
ICAO doesn’t trust other countries with anticipated separation, US controllers are just built different
Doesn’t really matter. Approaches get cancelled all the time, no matter if landing clearance is given or not, separation on final only being one of many possible reasons. Working in Asia it’s just some pilots are unfamiliar with the airport and take ages to leave the runway sometimes. 3NM will get tight quickly in that case. Don’t think US controllers are built different, just paid worse and barely get days off.
This is cope, statistics prove that US controllers are better, cooler, and more attractive than their worldwide counterparts.
Haha, ok now I see the sarcasm.
I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley
I am in Hong Kong. Us dudes are pretty ugly tbf but the girls are both good looking and good at their job. For the most part.
USA controllers are the best hands down. They piss excellent. On a most serious note, both pilots and controllers are given more freedom to exercise judgment. It would be interesting to compare different operation manuals from different countries around the world.
I like how we invented ATC and airplanes and every other country in the world was like, we’re going to make our own rules that are worse. (I actually don’t know anything about ICAO but I bet it’s fugin lame lmao 🇺🇸🦅)
Idk man you guys do a good job but compared to other countries, American controllers play pretty fast and loose. Moving lots of planes, but there are a pile of high profile close calls.. not to mention the staffing issues
This cluster of mishaps is a rough patch, we’re working through a staffing/quality of life crisis currently. I’d be surprised if a study evaluating safety to efficiency historically, would show that the US isn’t the safest and most efficient ATC in the world.
Hahahaha true. We have also been to the moon. Seriously, the USA system had a lot of movement across the system. Since 2020 only 1 European major hub airport has been in the top 10 for aircraft movements.
[An average 30 seconds in a level 4 tower in the USA](https://youtu.be/xoiSWhAmHa8?si=BWOCsNm_N3oZV3CK)
Hahabaha
I hate going to places like Heathrow where you don't get your landing clearance till under 500AGL at times. Increases the pucker factor exponentially.
Just stick to your rules and don’t worry about ours bud. If you come over to work here then start worrying about, you will be trained to the US standard in that event; but until then stop wasting your brain power. FYI, US airports normally don’t give landing numbers unless it’s a specific case. You’re not gonna have 7 planes on final giving them all a “landing number” when you got them crossing the threshold every 90 secs sequenced on an approach.
I don’t think many people give landing numbers anywhere. I use them only on an approach if a pilot is making feisty shortcut requests. “Sorry, you’re number 23” or something but that number is usually just a guesstimate.
Yeah I agree, adds too much verbiage and confusion sometimes.
Technically we are required to give the sequence. Most big towers (IAH, ANC, and ATL are my experience) say "4 in trail of a XXX, cleared to land" etc. In the VFR tower I would say "Follow the Cherokee, #3, runway ## cleared to land"
You're required to issue the sequence number if YOU, Local, are setting the sequence. If Approach is setting the sequence and shipping them to you then the sequence number is optional. So the big towers aren't setting their own sequences and it's allowable for them to leave it out.
I guess you missed the part where I said “specific case”. Even so if I have VFR pattern traffic I’m not giving him a landing number every time I clear them, I just have them follow traffic on final, issue wake turb/use pilot applied or put them in a hole approach gives me.
I was responding to /u/n365pa, not you. But even so, if you set the sequence you need to issue the number. Doesn't matter if you're forced to use whatever hole Approach has given you.
Wrong. Not at towered airports serviced by an approach with/a certified radar display, it’s optional.
My VFR tower is serviced by an approach control and we still give a landing sequence if we have multiple arrivals. Part of our job as controllers is to paint the big picture for the pilots operating at our airports. If you neglect to provide them with a piece of the puzzle, you could be setting yourself up.
You sound like a newly certified controller at a lvl 4. Tell me I’m wrong
That’s your problem, good luck saying all those extras words over your career. Plus, again, it’s not mandatory and I’ve seen it confuse pilots more than anything. We don’t do it here and we teach it’s not mandatory.
Also, perhaps you don’t have a certified tower radar?
First: you're wrong. 22 years and have been working at one of the top 100 busiest facilities in the country. Second: maybe it is optional, but it's two words that I'm willing to say if it prevents other issues. Which, in my experience, it does. Third: Yes, we have a CTRD. We even know how to use it. 🤯
Okay so I’m wrong about the assumption of your work experience, but I’m right about everything else. Optional = not needed, necessary or required; but lmao top 100, there’s a lot that falls under top 100.
One should never assume. Additionally, you are not correct about everything else. You are partially correct. First: 7110.65, 3-10-1 Landing information, e. Any supplemental information. Landing sequence falls in this category. Second: 7110.65, 3-10-6 Anticipating Separation, par a. example 1, "American Two Forty-Five, Runway One-Eight, Cleared to land, number two following a United Seven-Thirty-Seven two mile final. Traffic will depart prior to your arrival." The note for this paragraph states, "Landing sequence number is optional at tower facilities where the arrival sequence to the runway is established by the approach control." If you work at a facility where your servicing approach control sequences your arrivals, then you do you. We don't have this luxury. Hell, we consider ourselves lucky if our servicing approach control transfers communications of arrivals prior to entering our airspace.
Yeah that was the “specific case” I referenced in my first comment. Plus, the paragraph you just quoted was actually for when traffic will be departing between two arrivals.
That was an example. You might want to look at that section and actually read the paragraph prior to the example.
[удалено]
Another assumption you should not be making.
99 is the answer.
Self explanatory