Landing long while another aircraft is on the runway

[cptn2016]

Speaking as a rookie here...

I've posted questions on this forum and have always received intelligent, well-thought-out answers. If I ever post a question and I get incredulous, angry responses, it will not stop me from ever asking a question again, and I will not be insulted. Getting a response like that from seasoned veterans, that clearly touched a nerve, would force me to re-think my original reasoning, admit that there are still worlds of knowledge out there for me to learn, and to remember the old adage about learning from the mistakes of others. Save yourself the trouble of trying to make this mistake yourself. Clearly enough people have made it that it's in the CARs, and we all know those are written in blood.

[KK7]

Landing on a runway with another aircraft on it, where for example the aircraft on ground is at the threshold of a long runway, and the approaching aircraft flies overhead and lands ahead of the aircraft on ground.

Provided the CARs are satisfied and there is no risk of collision and it appears to be safe, it boils down to airmanship. Is it a good idea to come in unannounced and land ahead of an aircraft already on the runway? Of course not, nobody is aware of the others' intentions. But what if they were to communicate and both agree, that way both pilots know what's going on. One remains at the threshold and does not advance on the runway, and is aware that a plane will fly overhead and land on the runway. The pilot of the approaching aircraft knows the pilot on the ground will remain in a safe area and will not interfere with the approach.

If everyone is in the loop, and it is conducted safely, what's the problem?

It doesn't happen very often because I don't think many pilots will trust another unknown person to do what as they should. This makes it not common practice, and I think this is the source of controversy.

All examples provided of accidents involving runway incursions are due to miscommunication. In all cases one crew did not know the other aircraft was there.

[cptn2016]

As somebody posted previously - why increase the risk for minimal gain? What's a few minutes to go around or to do a few S-turns to give the other aircraft time to leave the runway?

You have a choice here to minimize the risk and you don't take it...to me that's bad airmanship. Granted the risk is seemingly small, but there is ALWAYS the chance of something going wrong. Sudden downdrafts, a miscommunication (no matter how clear you think you both are about what each other's intentions are), anything can happen. Then what? You collide with another aircraft even though the situation is completely avoidable. Nobody's asking you to go into a holding pattern for 10 mins here.

Somebody earlier compared it to trees at the approach end, and what's the difference whether it's trees or an aircraft? I see two major differences: you can't move the trees, but you can have the other aircraft move out of the way. And hitting trees because you make a mistake on approach puts the occupants of only one aircraft in danger, while hitting another aircraft quite obviously endangers the occupants of both.

There is enough risk in this endeavour, we don't need to be consciously adding to it.

[Redneck_pilot86]

What if the other aircraft isn't leaving the runway? In a typical day I go to several strips that have very limited room for getting off the runway, usually I am forced to either shutdown on the threshold, or at the very least have a wing or the nose sticking out into the runway. If it takes 20 minutes to get unloaded and load up for the next trip, is another aircraft expected to orbit overhead and burn up all of his or her reserve waiting to see when I will move? Avoiding an aircraft parked on the threshold is no different than avoiding a tree or rock or mountain just off the threshold, if you can't do that, you shouldn't be flying there in the first place. If I'm sitting on the threshold, all that happens is that the runway effectively becomes 100' shorter. If it is still within you and your aircrafts limits, go ahead and land over top of me. If not, wait or divert, your call.

[Shiny Side Up]

What if the other aircraft isn't leaving the runway? In a typical day I go to several strips that have very limited room for getting off the runway, usually I am forced to either shutdown on the threshold, or at the very least have a wing or the nose sticking out into the runway. If it takes 20 minutes to get unloaded and load up for the next trip, is another aircraft expected to orbit overhead and burn up all of his or her reserve waiting to see when I will move?

Not quite the same case as the opening poster is presenting. In your case the airplane then simply presents another obstacle. I would however be extremely reluctant to land over top of said aircraft if it in the process of taxiing, or was running on the threshold - which would present in my mind the highest risk scenario, the possibility that said aircraft might be going to attempt a take off while I'm landing over him.

Avoiding an aircraft parked on the threshold is no different than avoiding a tree or rock or mountain just off the threshold, if you can't do that, you shouldn't be flying there in the first place. If I'm sitting on the threshold, all that happens is that the runway effectively becomes 100' shorter. If it is still within you and your aircrafts limits, go ahead and land over top of me. If not, wait or divert, your call.

One should note that the opening poster also doesn't define where the aircraft in question on the runway is. One would assume that you to load your passengers wouldn't do it in the middle of the runway - but the aircraft backtracking in the example could be. If say a light aircraft uses say 1000' in his landing, now you're that much less available runway rather than 100' if it was actually at the threshold. But then we should ask the question again, if the aircraft is at the threshold and does have the capability of exiting the runway entirely, how much time are we saving by landing over top of him as opposed to waiting and then having the runway to ourselves? Are we saving any time?

[DHCdriver]

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=46414

I can't believe somebody asked that!

[shitdisturber]

So you and another aircraft have agreed that it's okay for you to land over him. Just for arguments sake, let's say it's a narrow runway and there are obstacles on both sides of the runway; trees, rocks, buildings, ditches, whatever. What do you do if your engine has a catastrophic failure?

[photofly]

I was looking around for some moral high ground to take, but there was none. It had all been used in this thread.

[mcrit]

For the OP. I would file your idea under, "Not explicitly prohibited, but not very good." If you were to do it and get called on it a good lawyer might be able to get off the hook with the regulator. The majority of your fellow pilots, on the other hand, will give you sidelong glances. The potential risks in doing what you propose just don't balance out the gains.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Y'know, when I read threads like this on AvCanada, it almost makes me want to give up on this forum entirely.

The original poster (BodyFlyer) asked an interesting question and provided reasons both for and against the proposed maneuver. His first post was well written and obviously he had thought things out on both sides of the argument. It was a very reasonable question... not everyone here has 20 years professional experience in the industry.

Along come a bunch of people with absolutely nothing constructive to add to the question - but they have a keyboard in front of them and are armed with the bravado that comes from total anonymity - and they post a number of totally useless and discourteous remarks, for example:

...I really think that your ticket should be pulled.

Next time you're on final behind someone at a controlled airport ask the tower if you can do this.

I think a few years of experience will answer all of your questions.

You are a complete moron and should be turned over to Enforcement as a potential hazard to flight safety.

Whatever happened to intelligent, civil discussion? More to the point, whatever happened to people simply observing the keyboard equivalent of "keeping their their mouth shut" if they don't have anything useful to contribute to a conversation?

There is some hope, though... Thanks to 'Justwall' for posting that excerpt from the MANOPS. It was interesting to read and shows that the controllers do have quite a bit of discretion in matters similar to what BodyFlyer was asking about.

Michael

Seeing as how the dinosaurs can hide behind Harry's cloak of invisibility ...

Agree with the above. Even if the answer is obvious - some ask. Responding with inflated trashy statements like that above is simply appalling. Probably the same sick f**ks which preach about CRM, etc. There are some ass backwards CAR's which take a minutes to figure out when learning the basics. (AC emergencies as well ) . One could easily turn around and grill them because they did not think the opposite. Any chance one can take to flex their arms with that heavy heavy logbook - well the chance is always taken!

Well, In all honesty , I think many of your "tickets" should be pulled. I don't give a shit if you flew the Lancaster . I don't give a shit if you flew the SR-71. I do not give a shit if you just brought your ol baby DC-3 down. If I knew you were my Capt. I'd walk right out of the airplane. You guys preach about the basics yet you can't even operate at the level of a 5 year old.

Well done.

On a serious note, I like what those with common sense stated above. "Increased risk with minimal gain" . In other words - given __________ person's experience, they would not recommend you attempt this as it puts you and __________ individual's in harms way needlessly. If it was okay, you can best be sure the Captain of Captains above there would still belittle you for not doing this already.

Summary : Take the added 2 minutes and land with nobody on the runway !

[Mitch Cronin]

Well, yes.... you could choose to focus on the few negative, and nasty style comments in this thread.... On the other hand, someone else might be able to see how many more, positive, constructive style comments have been added. Is your cup of AvCanada half full? ...or half empty?

[just curious]

I presume this is to more efficiently use the time and facilities.

Not concerning myself with the CARs as common practice... it depends.

If I'm landing in Dinosoar Pelvis Saskatchewan, and I land and start backtracking for the taxiway, and someone asks, "Hey ABC, ok if I land?"; then my answer is binary, if it's an instructor, and I have flown with them, and I believe they are familiar with the landing distance required for their machine, AND I figured a couple hundred feet behing me gave them that distance, I would probably say yes. If i was a student, no. Too many unknowns.

If it was an ex-Airforce field like Chatham or Val D'or with 10000 feet of pavement, and they asked, I wouldn't think much about it. Lot's of room.

Having said that, if someone didn't ask, or I didn't know the other pilot, I would not be thrilled about the scenario.

Where I don't much care for the scenario is the essential of it. Training. A couple of reasonably competent pilots do this. It works. Maybe it works for an hour of circuits, and everyone has enough time and space without taking the option. Little wrinkle in the whole scenario. Students. You want them to learn as much as they can. But they also pick up good stuff with the bad. Take a little kid to help you buld something in the garage. Bang your thumb with a hammer. That little kid had just learned how to say the local variant of "Darn it all!", and he will never forget it.

In this scenario, some budding young pilot whose landings vary between 500 feet and 4000 feet is gonna see this work, and give it a try without benefit of a radio call, or stopping distance. Voila, an aircraft off the end and a grumpy surprised visitor to Dinosoar Pelvis.

I don't see this as a useful teaching tool. Whether Enforcement is gonna come after you is a whole separate story.

[TG]

Landing long while another aircraft is on the runway

I think they were doing it quite often in those straight deck aircraft carriers.

Actually, I'm wrong.
It was more like landing short in a very short runway while other aircraft were stack at the end of this short runway.





They had pretty good crash barriers though!

[iflyforpie]

<flame retardant suit>

I landed with another plane on the runway last night...

It was a company aircraft with a flat tire off base, and I was flying another plane with the tools and parts to repair it. The plane could not be pushed (too heavy) or towed (no tractor) off the runway.


But I guess rather than landing long I should have either driven (6.5 hours non stop), or landed at the nearest airport and tried to find a ride (1 hour just for the drive), leaving the airport obstructed for the next day at least.

</flame retardant suit>

[Banger]

bodyflyer,

I'll echo what a couple of posters here have said. Generally it's not a good idea, but if it's pre-arranged, or you can honestly and reasonably justify your actions, fill your boots. It's not a common practice from what I know of in the aviation industry, like as some other posters have mentioned, because it is an unnecessary risk. It's the whole risk vs reward argument I guess.

Still I think it's a valid question. There are a lot of tactics, techniques, and procedures that might not make a whole lot of sense now, but given time and experience often reveal by themselves the reason for their being.

And for everyone else, I'd like to remind you that there was a time when landing a 9-ship of Tutors in diamond formation wasn't an uncommon sight to see. Military fixed-wing often will take off / land in pairs; welded wing, or in trail. If I remember correctly 3000' is the minimum landing sep during the day between like aircraft (Harvards, Hawks, Hornets). Of course it's briefed that you'll take your side of the runway, and I'll take mine, and it works well enough.

[Beefitarian]

You should have used a helicopter pie.

[Banger]

If you fly in the YVR area watch your 6 o'clock

Old Dog Flying you've just joined the esteemed ranks of those millions who've bravely, and anonymously threatened someone else over the internet. Congratulations you crusty, old SOB. There was a time when even you didn't know jack, so where do you get off being so arrogant?

I've just read one good reason to land overhead of another aircraft in this thread alone. With your mil ATC background I know you've seen more than one aircraft use the same patch of concrete at the same time, so why does the thought offend you so much?

[Banger]

I cannot think of a way to mitigate risks whilst allowing planes to land on the same runway. There is a very good reason only one airplane is allowed to use a runway at a time. There IS a way to increase efficiency, and it's called a second runway.

But the military lands more than one aircraft on a runway all the time? It certainly seems more efficient and expedient that way, wouldn't you say?

The ways to mitigate this risk exist, you just don't know of them.

[ahramin]

Bodyflyer, I've never seen a regulation that prohibits multiple aircraft from using the same runway at the same time. I used to regularly fly beside a glider which was sitting on the threshold of a runway, drop a rope at the side of the runway, and then sidestep and land on the same runway the glider was occupying. Never had an issue with TC about it and several inspectors witnessed it.

I do know that landing on a runway occupied by another aircraft has triggered several CADORs at an airport I fly at that is served by an FSS but I have never seen any follow up by enforcement, I suspect because they don't have a solid regulation to go after you with. Has anyone here ever heard of enforcement contacting someone about landing on an occupied runway?

I will tell you that landing over top of another aircraft is very poor risk management if it isn't required. If it is required certain procedures can be used to mitigate the risk but it is always an elevated and significant risk. This is simply not something to do in the name of efficiency.

[Old Dog Flying]

Banger: when you've been around aviation as long as I have, you too can be a crusty old SOB..and arrogant as well!.And be proud of it!

The OP asked a question, gave some reasoning for wanting to do something that is not generally accepted and got shot down for it. During my instructor time I've seen a few guys like this who were asked to go take up another hobby because they were an accident waiting for a place to happen.

Why is the military formation take-off and landing even brought into this equation? Yes they have multiple aircraft on the runway at the same time..all going in the same direction at the same time, all properly briefed and not the scenario put forward by the OP.

When I first arrived at YMJ in 1970, the school policy was for one aircraft on the runway at a time..with 8320 feet of pavement..it was a waste of space and time and I managed to change that. But it was fully controlled and not the OPs situation.

I'd be glad to meet you over a beer sometime and discuss the CRUSTY OLD BASTARD idea.

Barney

[Beefitarian]

Banger: Why is the military formation take-off and landing even brought into this equation? Yes they have multiple aircraft on the runway at the same time..all going in the same direction at the same time, all properly briefed and not the scenario put forward by the OP.

I was kind of wondering that too. They have guns and missiles on some of their planes so does that mean I can too? I didn't see anything about that being a problem in the cars. didn't look but I didn't see anything

[iflyforpie]

I would imagine that even having the same training, same aircraft, and same briefing that things can get messed up doing military formation stuff.

One story I heard was two two element formations getting mixed up after a merge and each wingman formed up on the wrong lead when RTB. Another one was when the lead put the hook down on landing and the wingman had to accelerate past the wire and then slam on the brakes...

[aurora]

I've had to do this in float planes before (snye), and I've done it on unimproved strips once or twice that didn't have ramps (dodging helicopters and 206 tails). Not something you want to try on a gusty day with a short strip
I wouldn't recommend trying this manuever under any other circumstance whatsoever and then only when preplanned with proper low level inspection passes so everyone is aware of what you are about to attempt, and good communiction by all parties.
They do this at Oshkosh every year though and from what I understand the runway(s) are dissected into about 3 pieces or something? I'm sure someone can enlighten us.

[AOW]

They do this at Oshkosh every year though and from what I understand the runway(s) are dissected into about 3 pieces or something? I'm sure someone can enlighten us.

ATC may request that you land on a large "White Dot" painted on the runway. This allows for simultaneously arrivals and expedites the flow of traffic.

The "White Dot" is located 1,828' from the Runway 9 threshold. Remaining runway length from this point is 4,350'.

etc.

It can be (and is) done with proper planning and coordination. I have done it... however, I do agree with the general sentiment here--don't do it if you don't have to. There are a number of situations that leave no other option; however, most situations merely require a little patience, and then a normal landing. The full Oshkosh NOTAM is 30 pages long, and yet they still have incidents almost every year. they also empahsise: "Help keep this event safe - stay within your personal and aircraft limits."

So before you go and land with another airplane on the runway/landing strip... ask yourself "is this really necessary?" and "is there a better way to do this?".

[RenegadeAV8R]

Is there anything stopping someone from landing past another aircraft on the runway, at an uncontrolled field?
Indeed, I can't see anything preventing two aircraft being on the runway at the same time.

If proper Airmanship and CAR 602.19(10) are not stopping you, will a 7 days licence suspension wake you up?

The TC aviation enforcement, below, was taken from COPA Flight August 2011.