Landing long while another aircraft is on the runway

[bodyflyer]

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.

(The thread viewtopic.php?f=54&t=72650&p=686414&hil ... ng#p686414 explored that latter issue a little.)

A typical example is for light aircraft at some longer runway with no taxiway. A/c 1 lands and starts to backtrack. A/c 2 is on final. It is probably a good idea to call that they have a/c 1 in sight, or also that they are landing "with the option" (?). That rightly keeps #1 from getting scared.

If #1 clears the runway in time, great, #2 can land. Otherwise, #2 would typically go around.

But is there any reason #1 can't land long, past the backtracking aircraft, to improve efficiency of operations?

It doesn't violate rules about risk of collision if one leaves space. I don't know what distance to keep between aircraft, or what rules there are for that. But it would seem to be reasonable to pass by the first aircraft by at leats 200 ft, similar to the distance between a holding point off the runway and the runway centreline.

Landing infront of the other aircraft (unless there are thousands of feet to spare) may scare the other pilot, since it appears hazardous and unexpected. But why not have #2 fly by #1, well off to the side of the runway, and then jink back to the runway and land? (Assuming there is time for a stabilized approach still.)

I think I've seen a pilot get upset about this sort of thing, thinking it is illegal, but I can't find what rules might have been broken. Unorthodox, yes. But not unsafe.

Just trying to understand how to fly more efficiently, while still being legal and conforming with reasonable norms.


I'm also having problems understanding the implications of the part of CAR 602.19 on right of way, which states:

(7) Where an aircraft is in flight or manoeuvring on the surface, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall give way to an aircraft that is landing or about to land.

That means you don't pull out onto the runway infront of someone about to touch down.
But we normally allow someone to land and backtrack before trying to land on the same runway. If you are in the circuit and following a bit close to let the landed aircraft clear the runway properly, you go around. But that CAR would imply you keep going and force the airplane on the runway to fast taxi to the far end or turn off into the grass -- although you can't create a hazard in any case. What allows a landed aircraft a reasonable opportunity to get clear of the aircraft behind? Before landing, the first aircraft had the right of way, and then suddenly it has lost it.

So I'm missing understanding something between that CAR and standard practice.

[BEFAN5]

I found this one quite quickly... 602.21 No person shall operate an aircraft in such proximity to another aircraft as to create a risk of collision.

I can think of a number of reason having two aircraft on an active runway at one time could violate the above. The biggest one is assurance of point of landing. Imagine the lawsuits someone would face if I was back tracking down runway ## and some new Private pilot landing in gusty conditions misjudged his descent profile while practicing no flap landings with a nose up attitude, and landed smack on top of me.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_1493 . In this case, a very experienced crew landed their 737 on top of a small commuter aircraft on the runway.

[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.

A typical example is for light aircraft at some longer runway with no taxiway. A/c 1 lands and starts to backtrack. A/c 2 is on final. It is probably a good idea to call that they have a/c 1 in sight, or also that they are landing "with the option" (?). That rightly keeps #1 from getting scared.

But is there any reason #1 can't land long, past the backtracking aircraft, to improve efficiency of operations?

It doesn't violate rules about risk of collision if one leaves space. I don't know what distance to keep between aircraft...

... But why not have #2 fly by #1, well off to the side of the runway, and then jink back to the runway and land? (Assuming there is time for a stabilized approach still.)

I think I've seen a pilot get upset about this sort of thing, thinking it is illegal, but I can't find what rules might have been broken. Unorthodox, yes. But not unsafe.

Just trying to understand how to fly more efficiently, while still being legal and conforming with reasonable norms.


I'm also having problems understanding the implications of the part of CAR 602.19 on right of way...

...
But that CAR would imply you keep going and force the airplane on the runway to fast taxi to the far end or turn off into the grass -- although you can't create a hazard in any case. What allows a landed aircraft a reasonable opportunity to get clear of the aircraft behind? Before landing, the first aircraft had the right of way, and then suddenly it has lost it.

So I'm missing understanding something between that CAR and standard practice.

Everything you wrote show a lack of understanding of the Regulations and a total absence of airmanship.

Airmanship definition, from the AIM: Airmanship is the application of flying knowledge, skill and experience which fosters safe and efficient flying operations.

With all due respect, I really think that your ticket should be pulled.

[Shiny Side Up]

But is there any reason #1 can't land long, past the backtracking aircraft, to improve efficiency of operations?

Next time you're on final behind someone at a controlled airport ask the tower if you can do this. Tell them it will help their "efficiency". Then come back here and tell us what they say.

[wirez]

Reminds me of a few weeks ago when I was at YPQ. On final for runway 09, an aircraft all of a sudden started taking off against traffic (3 aircraft landing in the circuit) towards us! I could not believe what the crazy f**ker was doing. Wasn't able to get his callsign unfortunately.

[erics2b]

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=46414

[bodyflyer]

I'm OK with someone essentially saying that I'm an idiot, but I can't learn much about the interplay of the CARs, AIM, and aviation norms without something more concrete...

As for 602.21 about creating a hazard, I thought that was being taken care of by not landing towards an aircraft on the ground (unless it was thousands of feet down the runway), nor overflying it directly at low altitude. Instead, flying off to the side, before landing past the aircraft.

My idea is not a courteous tactic at all if a whole bunch of aircraft are in the circuit, as the third guy might set his circuit size based on expecting everyone to land fairly short and have a short backtrack, and then be surprised that I (as #2) had landed rather long past #1. The whole flow of aircraft would get messed up.

A similar concern about hazards occurs during a go around. I'm on approach, another aircraft turns onto the near end of the runway and has some sort of a delay. At what point do I call a go around? I'm not going to zoom 50' over him and scare the crap out of him, no matter my piloting skills, but can I continue my approach until 200' off the deck? Or what number of feet is acceptable? That's another topic but it is similar in the issues of apparent hazards and what is normal or not, and what is going to make another pilot uncomfortable.

As for

Next time you're on final behind someone at a controlled airport ask the tower if you can do this. Tell them it will help their "efficiency"

ATC standards for separation tend to be different; they can be very inefficient for light aircraft by being over conservative; and one takes what one gets with them. Normal ATC isn't like Oshkosh...

[BEFAN5]

ATC standards for separation tend to be different; they can be very inefficient for light aircraft by being over conservative; and one takes what one gets with them. Normal ATC isn't like Oshkosh...

These "inefficient" and "over conservative" separations are a result of lost lives.

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

[Old Dog Flying]

bodyflyer: I don't know what level of experience you might have but I can assure you that if you ever pull this shit with me, you will wish that you had taken up knitting. I've been flying for nearly 60 years and spent near 50 of those years in ATC and your statements are totally out to lunch

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

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

[tailgunner]

We used to do this all the time in ne bc. There was no apron nor turn around bay at the end of the oil field strip, so we would land over and beyond the navajos, king airs, and metros that were loading and unloading at the end. It was understood as being an sop for three or four of the strips.

[iflyforpie]

There is no problem with operating practically any way you want on an uncontrolled airstrip provided:

All parties involved have agreed to or understand what you are doing and...

There is no safety or collision risk.

We don't worry about crashing into houses off the end when landing short, why should we be worried about aircraft underneath us landing long? You could even sidestep a bit to make sure.

[justwall]

I'm not sure about uncontrolled but here is the rules for controlled that us controllers have to standby. Make a smart decision considering these factors.

Manops 352.2
Separate an arriving aircraft from a preceding aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists:
A. the preceding aircraft has landed and taxied off the runway; (D)
B. the preceding aircraft has landed or is over the landing runway; and (D)
1. is at a distance from the threshold sufficient to allow the arriving aircraft to complete its landing roll without jeopardizing safety; (R)
2. will leave the runway at a suitable exit without stopping or backtracking and; (N)
3. the arriving aircraft is advised of the preceding aircraft's position and intentions; (P)
C. the preceding aircraft is airborne; and 1. is at a sufficient distance from the threshold that the arriving aircraft will not overtake it during the landing roll or conflict with it in the event of a missed
approach; or (D)
2. has turned to avoid any conflict with the arriving aircraft in the event of a missed approach. (D)

Controllers are cautioned to take into consideration the aircraft types, their performance, the runway condition, available exits and other factors that may impact on the operation.
352.2 B. 2. Note 2:
The sufficient distance depicted in 352.2 B. Diagram need not be equal to the anticipated stopping distance of the second aircraft, provided the second aircraft is a light aircraft and you are satisfied no danger of collision exists.
352.2 B. 3. Phraseology:
(type of aircraft) (location) EXITING TO THE RIGHT/ON A TOUCH-AND-GO/(other), CLEARED TO LAND RUNWAY (number).


352.3
Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that it does not begin take-off roll until one of the following conditions exists: (R)
A. the preceding aircraft has landed and taxied off the runway, or there is every assurance that it will vacate the runway by the time the departure starts the take-off roll; (D)
B. the preceding aircraft has departed; and (D)
2.
has turned to clear the departure path; or has reached a point on the departure path where it will not conflict with the succeeding aircraft.

[AJV]

think about it, really. How much time is this going to save? 2-3 mins of a circuit? dude just wait till the guy on the runways is done and gone and then it is all yours.

[whiteguy]

We used to do this all the time in ne bc. There was no apron nor turn around bay at the end of the oil field strip, so we would land over and beyond the navajos, king airs, and metros that were loading and unloading at the end. It was understood as being an sop for three or four of the strips.

And it still happens! Anyone ever been into Helmut?

[PanEuropean]

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

[TTJJ]

PanEuropean beat me to it.

This site, nay our own group, is at times reprehensible.

The OP, (whom upon reading his/her other posts seems most likely to be not a pilot but a parachuter), asked a valid question of those who supposedly would or could clarify a simple issue. He/she said, “I think I've seen a pilot get upset about this sort of thing, thinking it is illegal", suggesting that the OP really was sincere in their question.

And what do we do? We trash this person. Worse yet, we say their ticket, (which they probably don't have anyway) should be pulled.

How quaint.

Newbees will avoid asking questions of us if they are convinced they will be publically ridiculed don't you think?
And if they cannot ask questions nor seek guidance on an Industry specific forum from their peers, from where will they receive the information and more importantly the feedback necessary to not perpetuate errors and myths?

[Tim]

i would consider doing this in a light single provided i had discussed it on the ground with other pilot ahead of time as i would consider this at the very least some type of formation flying. i can tell you that if i was ever on the ground and someone flew over me like this without my prior knowledge and consent i would haul them out of their cockpit by the collar to ask them very loudly what they were doing then report them to enforcement.

[hz2p]

would consider this at the very least some type of formation flying

Really?

[cdnpilot77]

would consider this at the very least some type of formation flying

Really?

Read Hedleys argument in the thread posted earlier by EricS2B in this thread

[hz2p]

Read Hedleys argument

But sometimes he's not a nice person, so nothing he said is important or true.

[tailgunner]

Tim, just make sure that collar you grab isn't attached to a 19 inch neck and 245 lbs of beef. I have seen many weenies who like to hide behind their e6b's and ray bans! Pick your spot my friend.

[Mitch Cronin]

Read Hedleys argument

But sometimes he's not a nice person, so nothing he said is important or true.

That's it! I was wondering when/how this forum seemed to improve.... Of course, now I see it, He's gone!

I don't think "sometimes" quite covered it btw. ... more like "very often" on this forum.

Back on topic: Seems to me the obvious answer to the OP in this thread is, 'Don't even think it!' "Expediency" and impatience have killed too many people to forget those lessons.

[Shiny Side Up]

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...

While I'll appologise for being flippant before, I would contest whether our opening poster had really thought out both sides of the arguement. Very typically when such things are presented, it smells very much of them trying to justify something they know is unwise and possibly risky and cloak it in "its not illegal". But lets look. The best example is here:

I'm also having problems understanding the implications of the part of CAR 602.19 on right of way, which states:

(7) Where an aircraft is in flight or manoeuvring on the surface, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall give way to an aircraft that is landing or about to land.

That means you don't pull out onto the runway infront of someone about to touch down.
But we normally allow someone to land and backtrack before trying to land on the same runway. If you are in the circuit and following a bit close to let the landed aircraft clear the runway properly, you go around. But that CAR would imply you keep going and force the airplane on the runway to fast taxi to the far end or turn off into the grass -- although you can't create a hazard in any case. What allows a landed aircraft a reasonable opportunity to get clear of the aircraft behind? Before landing, the first aircraft had the right of way, and then suddenly it has lost it.

Sounds reasonable until one realises that the question here is answered by the same CAR:

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,

(a) the pilot-in-command of an aircraft that has the right of way shall, if there is any risk of collision, take such action as is necessary to avoid collision; and

(1)(a) clearly supercedes (7). In the case of his question, I'm not sure how one would ever read the CARs as saying #2 on the approach has ever some right of forcing #1 off the runway in some sort of game of chicken. It is implied by (7) that the aircraft shall do their best to give way and exit the runway, but also see

(10) No person shall conduct or attempt to conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft until there is no apparent risk of collision with any aircraft, person, vessel, vehicle or structure in the take-off or landing path.

Which also prohibits the aircraft #2 in the examples given by bodyflyer from making the attempt to land if there is any risk of collision. One could still argue that it is possible to land over top of another without creating such a risk, but lets look at the possible scenarios that might require such an action. One assumes that it would never be necessary where facilities exist (ie: suitable taxiway exits from the runway) to expedite the aircraft on the runway clearing said runway. IF so is the case then pilot in #2 is simply landing over top because a)they planned their spacing poorly and/or b) are in some hurry to get on the ground. Lets assume there is only one exit of the runway off the approach end and aircraft #1 must backtrack to clear. First, is said landing over top going to make operations more efficient? If you're landing long, won't you have to backtrack farther to clear? Any savings in time to get on the ground will be lost in a long taxi time. Suppose also that there is possibly aircraft #3 who also thinks the same as #2, who now has to wait longer for #2 to backtrack, I'm not sure how anyone could think that said set up is of benefit. If we landed #2 overtop of #1 who was just very close to exiting the runway, wouldn't having given them that extra few seconds to get clear, be more efficient when one considers that landing short on such a runway saves time on backtracking. Thinking really hard, did or would aircraft #2 save time? I would argue that in most cases that said manuver might be considered, that increasing the efficiency of flight is hardly the goal. It only increases efficiency if it avoids a go around for #2. This is a poor precendent in my mind, since all pilots should be of reasonable judgement to give each other adequate space - if approaching with the intent to land over top of an aircraft ahead of them to me would mean that #2 seeks to get on the ground quicker by shrinking said spacing, but as pointed out, that crowding of the aircraft in front hardly has great winnings given the ammount of risk it creates.

To be honest part of it really boils down to courtesy to one's fellow aviators. "H"'s Guideline of aviation (1)

try real hard not to piss other people off

really should be taken to heart by more pilots, the world would be a more agreeable place. Our opening poster wants to do something that does just that, legal questions aside, and wose in my mind knowingly wants to do it.

I think I've seen a pilot get upset about this sort of thing, thinking it is illegal, but I can't find what rules might have been broken. Unorthodox, yes. But not unsafe.

Just trying to understand how to fly more efficiently, while still being legal and conforming with reasonable norms.

One should note that if you sufficiently piss someone else off and they decide to make your life miserable that CAR 602.01 is very open to interpretation and is really the catch all for people who start to get on the bad side of Enforcement. Remember something you view as "safe" may not be viewed the same by others, so in terms of the risk of getting into a lot of grief from enforcement, the small savings of landing over top of another pilot is hardly worth that risk.

[Les Habitants]

I'm OK with someone essentially saying that I'm an idiot, but I can't learn much about the interplay of the CARs, AIM, and aviation norms without something more concrete...

As for 602.21 about creating a hazard, I thought that was being taken care of by not landing towards an aircraft on the ground (unless it was thousands of feet down the runway), nor overflying it directly at low altitude. Instead, flying off to the side, before landing past the aircraft.

My idea is not a courteous tactic at all if a whole bunch of aircraft are in the circuit, as the third guy might set his circuit size based on expecting everyone to land fairly short and have a short backtrack, and then be surprised that I (as #2) had landed rather long past #1. The whole flow of aircraft would get messed up.

A similar concern about hazards occurs during a go around. I'm on approach, another aircraft turns onto the near end of the runway and has some sort of a delay. At what point do I call a go around? I'm not going to zoom 50' over him and scare the crap out of him, no matter my piloting skills, but can I continue my approach until 200' off the deck? Or what number of feet is acceptable? That's another topic but it is similar in the issues of apparent hazards and what is normal or not, and what is going to make another pilot uncomfortable.

As for

Next time you're on final behind someone at a controlled airport ask the tower if you can do this. Tell them it will help their "efficiency"

ATC standards for separation tend to be different; they can be very inefficient for light aircraft by being over conservative; and one takes what one gets with them. Normal ATC isn't like Oshkosh...

Hey BodyFlyer,

It's funny, because I saw a situation today where a plane was backtracking while another plane was on final, and it was VERY tight. Plane #2 touched down just after plane #3 had hit the runway.

It seems obvious to me that you have not flown a large aircraft (704 or above) before. These aircraft have to meet certain requirements regarding runway length. Their max landing weight is governed by the length of the runway available and if you were to land OVERTOP of another aircraft, it is very possible that losing that extra 1-2000 feet of runway could cause your required max landing weight to drop significantly, possibly putting you over. What does this mean? Well since your max landing weight only legally needs to be met for dispatch (ie, if you have an emergency, you could really go anywhere you want...), it would still technically be legal to use a shorter runway, but now you have no guarantee you'll be able to stop by the end of the runway, or clear obstacles in the event of a go around where you lose an engine...Just because something may "look smart" doesn't mean it "is smart".

This is only just one consideration. There are many more, such as BEFAN5 pointed out-not all pilots have the skill to do such a thing. Aviation is ALL about mitigating risks, and 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.

Cheers

[Old Dog Flying]

SSU: Very good post! The OP is either trying to cover his ass for something that he has already pulled off or is contemplating doing something stupid just to see how far he can go.

During my very long career in aviation I have had to deal with plenty of people like this and the Darwin Awards were invented just for this type of person.

Barney
Retired Flight instructor
Retired ATC
Retired RCAF/CAF
Tired of morons