Down and Clear

[PC12flyer]

I fly out of YXL and I heard an interesting transmission on the radio today. There were two aircraft approaching YXL at approx the same time which happens all the time, however, the controller couldn't clear aircraft B for the approach until aircraft A called down and clear, which also happens all the time. However the difference today was that the centre controller knew and broadcast that aircraft A was down but was just waiting for them to call down and clear.

My question is this, at a airport such as Sioux Lookout, where we have an FSS who can broadcast aircraft positions etc... why is it necessary for an aircraft to be clear before another aircraft begins the approach, if they know that the aircraft is down?

Just curious...

Thanks

[lilfssister]

In IMC a second aircraft can't be cleared for the approach until the first one is clear of the runway. If the first aircraft is reported as being down on the runway, the second aircraft may be cleared to descend to a lower altitude, but not for an approach til the first one is reported as clear of the runway.

In severe IMC conditions, your whereabouts on the runway are not immediately known to the FSS (or ATC without ASDE), so therefore the wait for the report clear of the runway.

In IMC, FSS are not required to report an aircraft's arrival to the ACC unless specifically asked to do so. Our one requirement re: arrivals in IMC is to pass the report of the aircraft being clear of the runway. That is a report required by CARs, which means we ALWAYS get that report, right?

This rule came into effect several years ago. As with most rule changes, rumour has it that it was the result of an actual incident in IMC-aircraft number one being not as quick at vacating the runway as expected..

[grimey]

I fly out of YXL and I heard an interesting transmission on the radio today. There were two aircraft approaching YXL at approx the same time which happens all the time, however, the controller couldn't clear aircraft B for the approach until aircraft A called down and clear, which also happens all the time. However the difference today was that the centre controller knew and broadcast that aircraft A was down but was just waiting for them to call down and clear.

My question is this, at a airport such as Sioux Lookout, where we have an FSS who can broadcast aircraft positions etc... why is it necessary for an aircraft to be clear before another aircraft begins the approach, if they know that the aircraft is down?

Just curious...

Thanks

I'm not sure about ATC Manops, but FSS Manops strongly implies that during IMC, the second aircraft won't be cleared for the approach until the first is down and clear, and we have to advise center when the aircraft is down and clear in IMC. There's nothing in our Manops about co-ordinating with ATC during IMC to clear the second one before the first is down and clear. In VMC, we only need to give center the down time.

As for why it wouldn't be done, I'd guess that it would be safety's sake. In bad IMC, the runway may be in poor shape and the aircraft may have difficulty taxiing off. If visiblity is way down, or there's a very low ceiling, the second aircraft may not be able to see if the first still on the runway. And if the pilot screws up the frequency change over to the MF, the FSS might not be able to advise him of the position of the first aircraft until it's too late. At a controlled airport, the second pilot wouldn't be able to land until the tower cleared him to do so, but that's not the case with an FSS.

[PC12flyer]

Thanks for the info guys, it makes sense and is pretty much what I figured. Thanks again I appreciate it.

PC12Flyer

[charlie_g]

In IMC, FSS are not required to report an aircraft's arrival to the ACC unless specifically asked to do so.

Huh? I always expect to get an arrival report for an IFR aircraft if I`ve passed you the estimate on the aircraft -- that is implied since it is an IFR estimate.

And the previous comments were correct. If it is not VFR in the zone, centre needs a clear of runway report before the next aircraft can be cleared for the approach. When conditions are VMC, only a down (or on) report is required.

[grimey]

Huh? I always expect to get an arrival report for an IFR aircraft if I`ve passed you the estimate on the aircraft -- that is implied since it is an IFR estimate.

And the previous comments were correct. If it is not VFR in the zone, centre needs a clear of runway report before the next aircraft can be cleared for the approach. When conditions are VMC, only a down (or on) report is required.

FS Manops states that only the down and clear call to the ACC is required, that the down time doesn't always have to be reported in IMC to avoid confusion with the down and clear time:

432.3
Advise the appropriate IFR unit of an IFR arrival during IMC:
A. when the IFR aircraft touches down, only if the down time is required by the IFR unit; and (N)

432.3 A. Note: The down time is not normally reported during IMC to avoid the risk of misunderstanding with the time off runway. Notwithstanding, upon receipt of a down time, the IFR controller may be able to authorize a holding aircraft to a lower holding altitude while the preceding aircraft is taxiing off the runway. Therefore, the IFR unit may have an occasional or extended requirement for down times to expedite traffic flow while maintaining safety.

B. when the IFR aircraft is off the runway.

note: this is from a copy of Manops that's over a year old, so there may have been changes. I can't recall any being made to this section, though.

I'm assuming that lil meant that the down time isn't required, not that we're not required to tell you that the aircraft has landed at all. We still need to give you the down and clear time, but in IMC the down time isn't necessarily required. If there's another IFR inbound coming in close behind the first, I always call the ACC and tell them "ABC down at MM, call you when he's clear". If it's just the one aircraft, I may only give the off runway time.

[Murphy]

The down and clear requirement was a knee jerk reaction to an incident in St. Johns years ago.
It has been suggested that the requirement be evaluated on an airport by airport basis. It is being looked at to improve the runway acceptance rate, for IFR a/c, at YXL.
charlie_g..... there is a hotline between YXL fss and YWG atc.
ATC will usually only get the down AND clear time when it is IFR.
If ATC asks for the "down" time ( i.e. the a/c is on the runway but not clear of it yet.) they no longer have to protect for the missed approach altitude, and thus can descend #2 a/c to that . When the "clear" call is recieved, #2 gets his approach. That gets #2 another 1000 ft closer to the runway.
Yes, it is a small time saving, but every little bit helps.

Murph

[lilfssister]

Huh? I always expect to get an arrival report for an IFR aircraft if I`ve passed you the estimate on the aircraft -- that is implied since it is an IFR estimate.

I'm assuming that lil meant that the down time isn't required, not that we're not required to tell you that the aircraft has landed at all. We still need to give you the down and clear time, but in IMC the down time isn't necessarily required.

That's exactly what I meant, grimey!

[brokenwing]

the second aircraft can be cleared for the approach if the IFR controller starts looking for confirmation of the first aircraft being down and clear of the runway.

[charlie_g]

the second aircraft can be cleared for the approach if the IFR controller starts looking for confirmation of the first aircraft being down and clear of the runway.

That is true by the letter of the regs, although I don't think it happens in practice. I believe that provision is in there in case someone lands and forgets to report clear, esp at locations where remote advisory is being provided. In practice, a/c will not be cleared for an approach until confirmation is received that the preceding a/c is clear.

[grimey]

the second aircraft can be cleared for the approach if the IFR controller starts looking for confirmation of the first aircraft being down and clear of the runway.

That is true by the letter of the regs, although I don't think it happens in practice. I believe that provision is in there in case someone lands and forgets to report clear, esp at locations where remote advisory is being provided. In practice, a/c will not be cleared for an approach until confirmation is received that the preceding a/c is clear.

I've seen it happen once. Everything worked out fine, but it spooked the pilots, the FSS, and afterwards the controller. It was totally unexpected by the pilots, because it's used so infrequently, and FSS staff, since FS Manops implies that this won't happen.

[Meso]

Not to change the subject ,but, apparently there is another meeting with YXL operators and Nav Canada about IFR coverage and delays! Do they inform center and their controllers about such meetings, ask your opinions ect.....?

[lexx]

.....(Nav Canada)...., ask your opinions etc.....?

This question belongs in the Aviation Humour thread

[jonathan_tcu]

I've listened to CYXL live ATC and really find it more amazing to listen than CYTS radio. That 'do not depart until XX guy is reported 4000 feet w/ center'. It's almost like a comfortable safety zone. It's interesting!

[jonathan_tcu]

There was one awful IFR day over CYTS end of April 2005. My fav ATC guy at Toronto logs on 12 noon on the nose. All of a sudden, within about 45 minutes, there are of 5 aircrafts in non-radar holding patterns over YTS. His goal, was line up in a stack 10 000 feet and below to MSA of 5000 feet, other guys would hold on VOR radials, in order to have access to the ILS from the ZTS beacon (Sandy Falls beacon). His first hold was an aircraft to hold on the YTS three zero zero degree radial at two zero DME, to hold West at niner thousand feet and expect approach clearance time 1635 z. He was probably caught off guard, because he left a lot of dead air before making the whole call. That's the busiest IFR day I've heard so far. The fun with this, is you could hear him shuffling the flight plan progress strips and another radio buzzing.

[grimey]

...we like to call it 'separation'...

Can you imagine how much lower the checkout rate would be if the guys at NCTI and the regional schools got CT'd for "comfort loss"?