Line up and wait vs landing clearance

[Craig Zarmer]

If I'm reading these right, our Tower guide has the rule backward from the 7110. But I am curious about the asymmetry.

From our tower guide (http://www.oakartcc.com/wiki/index.php/San_Francisco_Tower_Guide#Departures.2FTakeoffs):
As you will learn in your tower training, when you have an aircraft lined up on the runway, you can issue a landing clearance to an arriving aircraft on the same runway, provided the required minimum separation will be assured by the time the departing aircraft starts its take off roll. You are however not supposed to give an aircraft a 'line up and wait' instruction after you have cleared an aircraft to land. While the first one is not a bust, the second one is.

From the 7110 (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0310.html#atc0310.html.6):
3-10-5 b:
Do not clear an aircraft for a full-stop, touch-and-go, stop-and-go, option, or unrestricted low approach when a departing aircraft has been instructed to taxi into position and hold, is taxiing into position, or is holding in position on the same runway. The landing clearance may be issued once the aircraft in position has started takeoff roll.

[Charan Kumar]

Guilty as charged!! I wrote that from listening into SFO twr r/w, and based it on Anticipated Separation. I see that there is no specific 7110 that allows it, just a practice of the r/w. If the Training Dept wishes it be amended, then we should!!

SFO Twr guys in the r/w get real crazy during busy times and you will sometimes here...

"UAL89 heavy, tfc holding in position will depart before your arrival, wind 250@4, rwy 28L, cleared to land"

....followed sometime after by

"SWA7338, wind 250@4, rwy 28L, cleared for take off, no delay, tfc on a 3 mile final"

I mean seriously, these guys push the limits!!

[Chuck Barlow]

It is surprising that r/w local controllers are allowed to do that. There MUST be some weather & visibility minimums (and daylight hours only?) that they need to be within to be able to issue a landing clearance with a/c sitting on the runway. All you need is for a controller to be distracted for just a minute and they forget to send off the departure (or forget they are there). The only hope you have is that the landing aircraft spots him in time. Case in point: US Air flight 1493 at KLAX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_1493).

[Craig Zarmer]

Just to round this out, I did find 7110 agreeing with the other part - what Charan said you could NOT do - giving line up and wait with an aircraft already cleared (this one is in 3-9-4c). So it doesn't matter which comes first, you can't do it (which solves my question about asymmetry - there isn't any).

[Charan Kumar]

Yes, I have read that account on that flight at LAX, don't remember how I came across. Chuck, I am sure you are right about the conditions for use of that phraseology.

So, do we remove the first part also out then from the tower guide? We can also include the "expect late landing clearance", but that just will add to the confusion :)

[Chris Virgilio]

SFO Local controllers often advise arriving traffic of other traffic holding in position on various runways. The thing that should be noted is that the traffic they are advising of is NOT holding position on the arriving traffic's assigned runway. They will say "Traffic holding in position runway 1L, will depart prior to your arrival." They, just like everyone else, must abide by the rules of the 7110.65 and will NEVER clear an aircraft to land on a runway with another aircraft holding in position on that same runway.

[Charan Kumar]

I know thats what they are supposed to do, but I stood outside millbrae Hilton watching the rwys while monitoring liveatc when they did what I quoted above. Of course it was a cloudless day, but they were operating west ops, and had a conga line going. I do have to mention that while that was the only time I saw them that close, I have heard them do that many times but with the arrival much farther out, usually over the bridge. Not all guys will do it and it is very noteworthy to see how the style changes as a new ctrlr comes on.

I remember a particular ldg clrnc seq I heard st KSAN, I know the date and time, let me find the archive. Even if I am wrong on that one, atleast It was an interesting one.

[Trevor Lemp]

Yes almost all of you are right. I listen to tower all the time at SFO and ill hear them not give a warning to the landing acf.
For example UAL123 just was instructed to line up and wait then SKW145 calls tower on say a 8 nm final. The tower will clear the SKW to land because the UAL will depart before separation is lost.

Also occasionaly ill hear an acf. call tower and tower will say roger and give no clnc. But as soon as the plane lineing up starts their roll tower will say to the landing acf UAL123 wind 260 at 4 runway 28L/R cleared to land caution way turbulence heavy 767 departing. Just from listening to tower so often i know that SFO local guys do like to push the limits. My opinion is that most of your awnsers are right but thats my opinon and if i am wrong correct me please.

[Jonathan Cox]

I have my private pilot's license, and I've flown into some pretty busy airports. Not once have I ever been cleared to land before someone holding in position has departed. This happens a lot in busy traffic patterns, like the one in Daytona I always flew in. Not only is it against the 7110, it's a major safety infraction and can cause real trouble. (Great reference to the USAir accident at LAX Chuck!)

[Mike Fries]

SFO has AMASS safety logic which will alarm if it detects and aircraft on the runway and one approaching to land. this is why they can do this. I'll try to find a reference.

[Mike Fries]

5
3-10-5. LANDING CLEARANCE
a. When issuing a clearance to land, first state the runway number followed by the landing clearance. If
the landing runway is changed, controllers must preface the landing clearance with “Change to Runway.”
PHRASEOLOGYRUNWAY
(number) CLEARED TO LAND,
Or
CHANGE TO RUNWAY (number) CLEARED TO LAND.
b. Procedures
1. Facilities without a safety logic system, facilities with the safety logic system inoperative or
in the limited configuration must not clear an aircraft for a full-stop, touch-and-go, stop-and-go, option, or
unrestricted low approach when a departing aircraft has been instructed to line up and wait or is holding in
position on the same runway. The landing clearance may be issued once the aircraft in position has started
takeoff roll.
2. Facilities using safety logic in the full core alert mode may issue a landing clearance, fullstop,
touch-and-go, stop-and-go, option, or unrestricted low approach to an arriving aircraft with an aircraft
holding in position or taxiing to LUAW on the same runway except when reported weather conditions are less
than ceiling 800 feet or visibility less than 2-miles.
c. Inform the closest aircraft that is requesting a full-stop, touch-and-go, stop-and-go, option, or
unrestricted low approaches when there is traffic authorized to line up and wait on the same runway.
EXAMPLE-
“Delta One, Runway One-Eight, continue, traffic holding in position.”
“Delta One, Runway One-Eight, cleared to land. Traffic holding in position.”
Delete subparagraph d, and re-letter subparagraph

[Charan Kumar]

I apologize in advance for bring this topic back, but as I left for work this morning, I noticed acft departing eastbound, so I started monitoring liveATC at KSFO. If you guys can look at the archives from 9:05am thru 9:20am, when I was monitoring it, you will notice a lot of "...wind traffic holding in position, wind 110@9 rwy 10R cleared to land" and "...rwy 10R, number 1 cleared to land..." followed by a "...traffic on a 8 miled final rwy 10R, line up and wait"...The worst was "UAL228 heavy, rwy 10R line up and wait, traffic is a Brazilia on a 2 mile final..."

Mike has already clarified this, but I just wanted to you guys to listen to see how it's done. I bet we can't do that on VATSIM due to the voice lag!!

[David Carman]

Nice catch Charan. Yea, we don't have AMASS on VATSIM so we can't really do that on here, very cool to listen to though!

[Chuck Barlow]

...The worst was "UAL228 heavy, rwy 10R line up and wait, traffic is a Brazilia on a 2 mile final..."

So with that last example you gave... this is sort of a scenario that I try to warn TWR students about -- as far as "what IF that landing aircraft has to go missed approach?"

Here we have a Brazilia turboprop arriving directly behind a heavy (like right on his ass!). If that Brazilia goes missed approach, isn't there a big concern about wake turbulence?

[Charan Kumar]

So with that last example you gave... this is sort of a scenario that I try to warn TWR students about -- as far as "what IF that landing aircraft has to go missed approach?"

Here we have a Brazilia turboprop arriving directly behind a heavy (like right on his ass!). If that Brazilia goes missed approach, isn't there a big concern about wake turbulence?They do this any time they are reduced to two rwys and it's a clear day in SFO...I have seen this myself many times wondering what the passengers would think if ever they had a look at the back of the plane...I too wonder about the wake turbulence, but there is one more little detail here. That was just the LUAW when a third acft that just landed was still rolling out on the rwy. It was only after twr asked the previous acft to exit the rwy, the acft acknowledged and was clear that the heavy got the t/o clearance, by which time "right on his ass" takes on a literal meaning. And on the 10s, there is no room for a right turn, so it would have to be a left turn in the case of a go around, I am guessing twr would climb him to the north on a pre-coordinated heading which should parallel to the departure stream, should not interfere with the DUMBA6 left turns and should not interfere with the KOAK/11 right turn to hdg 120 departures :). That would be interesting to watch or even hear!!

[Chris Virgilio]

I don't get why we're still talking about this... Is there a question here?

[Charan Kumar]

Yes, there is a qn here.

Craig's OP quotes our SFO Tower guide saying it's ok to give a landing clearance when an aircraft is in holding position. Even though it was initially disagreed, Mike has provided the 7110 area on where that is permitted and I provided the archive from liveatc to say that this is allowed. DC also mentioned that we cannot do this since we don't have AMASS. I know very little about AMASS, except for what I read online, but I know that our scopes are fully radar capable. Much like our anticipated separation for rwys 01L/R vs 28L/R, we can do the same on rwys 28 based on what's been quoted!! So....

the QN: Do we allow controllers at vZOA to be able to do 3-10-5.b.2? Allow controllers to initiate a LUAW after an acft has been instructed to land on the same runway? Or clear an acft to land on the same rwy where another acft is holding in position? It is of course assumed the controller can ensure the separation when doing so.

If not, we have to edit out our TOWER GUIDE to reflect only 3-10-5.b.1 and remove the reference that's been quoted in the OP.

If you are asking should we even bother with this given the traffic levels we see on VATSIM on a day-to-day basis, the answer is probably, or even for sure, no. But I am sure we all want the training material to reflect only what we allow here at vZOA and for training purposes.

Cheers!!

[Chris Virgilio]

Sorry, I suppose that I see this pretty black and white. The 7110.65 specifically stipulates the only time that sort of rule can be applied. We do not have the required equipment to meet the criteria, so we shouldn't do it. I don't even consider the VRC radar display to be reliable anyhow, as there is so much lag built in to the system that it's very hard to ascertain exactly where an aircraft is. The audio lags too, making it even worse. So what one Earth would make it safe to do this sort of thing? I say keep it simple and treat the local position as non-radar.

[Charan Kumar]

Sounds good, we should edit the portion out in the SFO Tower guide to reflect the same.

Cheers!!

[Chuck Barlow]

The VATSIM pilots lag, too. :)

[Chris Virgilio]

Yeah, that was another point I thought of after the fact. You can have an A/C holding in position and clear him for takeoff, and then watch him sit there for 2 minutes before starting any sort of roll. That happens often enough that I wouldn't want to have another guy on a 2 mile final. Save yourself and the approach controllers the missed approach procedures and don't do that stuff.

[David Carman]

So with that last example you gave... this is sort of a scenario that I try to warn TWR students about -- as far as "what IF that landing aircraft has to go missed approach?"

Here we have a Brazilia turboprop arriving directly behind a heavy (like right on his ass!). If that Brazilia goes missed approach, isn't there a big concern about wake turbulence?

There is a concern if the a/c goes around as far as separation, which is why this can only be done during good weather so visual separation can be applied by the local controller until radar separation is established. As far as wake turb, it's not actually that big a factor, because the E120 will be substantially above the flight path of the heavy (remember wake turb doesn't start until the a/c rotates, then it sinks) and never really cross it's flight path.

Also, yes to what Chris said, we should NOT do this on VATSIM, there's no traffic, there's no equipment, and there's not consistent pilot skill.