Any way to dig up "Cleared to Land" thread from the '90's?

[Denny Cunningham]

Back in (I think) the early '90's, we had a voracious discussion on Avisg regarding "cleared to land" (or more accurately, the use and mis-use of anticipated separation in conjunction with it). At one point in that discussion, I wrote a four page diatribe that somebody stole off of Avsig and, unbeknownst to me, submitted (under my name) as a formal recommendation to SUPCOM.

My ideas were never implemented, of course, but I'm curious as to how they'd stand up in the face of the latest ATC screwup at AUS..

Is the any way to find the rant I posted all those years ago?

Thanks,

DC

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

I'll see if I have anything Denny, but I doubt it. I do remember the thread. I think about it every time I hear about or see anticipated sep.

[Denny Cunningham]

Thanks, Scott. Not important whatsoever, so don't put much effort into it. I was just curious as to how the arguments hold up today.

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

No joy, Denny. Sorry! BTW, your contributions on BeechTalk are a breath of fresh air.

[Russell Holton]

unbeknownst to me, submitted (under my name) as a formal recommendation to SUPCOM.

In that case, I'd think there'd be something in the official record. But so far it's eluding my Google-fu. Probably because the document pre-dates the internet, so it never became part of the collective.

I'd also ping Mike O as he may have a backup of the CompuServe forums.

[Denny Cunningham]

Thanks, guys. I'm pretty sure that if SUPCOM had managed to implement the suggestions contained in that long lost rant, this latest incident wouldn't have happened. I may have a copy of the rant somewhere, but my computer files are spread out among so many machines and totally disorganized...

[Mark Horak]

You posted about that more than once. Will look closer for the lont rant tonight, but in the meantime here's a short one:

#: 294386 S3/Air Traffic Control
05-Aug-92 19:41:43
Sb: Cleared to land
Fm: Denny Cunningham ORD/1C5 74706,2703
To: Phil Nicola [JFK/FRG] 75340,3626

Phil,

I just *have* to gig you on the "everybody's cleared to land" theory. I know
it's legal, and I know it the way most controllers use it (including most
everybody at ORD that I didn't train!), but I think it's a bad practice.

If everybody's "cleared to land" unless a go-around is issued, why have
landing clearances at all? Just have go-around clearances!

I don't issue a landing clearance unless I'm sure it's gonna work. If it's
tight, I don't *want* that pilot lollygaggin' along fat, dumb, and happy-- I
want him *concerned*-- as well as slowing, S-turning, or whatever else I've
told him to do to make it work. In my experience, pilots who know they don't
have a landing clearance pay a bit more attention!

Most go-arounds at ORD (other than mine!) are issued as "surprise" go-arounds
to airplanes already cleared to land. I've seen DC-10's make unintentional touch
and goes, trying to comply with a late and unexpected go-around
instruction (since many pilots have no problem landing with another aircraft
on the runway, the fact that there's an airplane not yet clear hasn't clued
him in to the fact that his landing clearance is about to be rescinded).

To me, the withholding of clearance until you're sure it's gonna work is,
always has been, and always will be SOP.


Just one old codgers opinion...........<g>!

[Denny Cunningham]

Thanks, Mark-- as you said, I posted about that more than once, although it clearly fell on deaf ears within the FAA.

I appreciate you finding that post-- it's exactly the tone I remembered, just not as "complete" as the rant that got sent to FAA HQ.