Hi Bob, Richard and all fellow flyers!

Just a query on AIP ENR 1.1 - 49.1 a - c

There appears to be potential overlap or conflict in this given that "An aircraft must not continue its approach to land beyond the threshold of the runway until"

Then a in particular continues:

A- a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway is airborne and:"

Now a1, b and c all make good sense, but a2 is where I see a lot of ambiguity that could result in potential for conflict given the first landing aircraft might need to backtrack to reach a taxiway etc.

a2 states"is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and there is sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach"

I see considerable ambiguity in this that could be exploited in exam questions as well as a potential operational risk at busy non controlled airports, especially terms such as "could be expected" and "sufficient distance" as this has considerable scope for variance depending on the pilots interpretation of such.

Have any cpl candidates and / or super experienced aviators found this to be an issue, either operationally or in the air law exam questions?

I have personally had this issue affect some of my operations at a particular aerodrome to the point it could even be considered poor airmenship based on its liberal application.

Thanks

Brook

Hey Richard,

What is your take on "could be expected" and "sufficient distance" - it is such a nebulous application .....

Brook

The CAR also says you must carry 'sufficient fuel' The same phrases are often used in traffic regulations. I guess they're there to give lawyers something to argue about before a magistrate after an accident has occurred.

Hi Brook,

AIP ENR 1.1 49.1 (a) actually stipulates the preceding aircraft must be taking off i.e. "a preceding departing aircraft" so it won't apply to the example you gave of a landed aircraft backtracking to a taxiway. That would be covered by (b) which requires the preceding aircraft to have vacated the runway and be taxiing away. That's pretty cut and dried. If someone is still on the runway after a landing you can't continue your landing approach beyond the threshold.

The ideas of "sufficient distance" and "could be expected" are questions of airmanship and will also be influenced by your level of experience. But those terms only come into play if you are landing behind a departing aircraft and not landing behind a landing aircraft.

You will not get exam questions on this with specific values e.g. "Is 100m sufficient distance?" etc but they could well ask you questions on the separation requirements as outline in AIP ENR 1.1 - 49.

As for practical experiences, yes, I've had them. One time, I had just landed and was turning into the taxiway when I caught sight of a Cessna Caravan finishing its landing roll out on the runway behind me. This guy had essentially landed on an occupied runway. There was absolutely no risk of collision but it was still somewhat surprising and, according to AIP ENR 1.1 - 49a, also illegal.

Cheers,

Rich

Thanks Richard,

What I meant was if a aircraft (second aircraft) decides to land behind another aircraft having already landed, the first aircraft now could have issues in making a decision about whether to backtrack after landing as required or being forced to depart via a closeby taxiway if available.

As far as I was aware this was separation minima for landing, rather than taking off.

I got the point of your other post though - the term you used well in the book regarding separation was good but almost a political one re VFR separation from other VFR where the pilot must comply as ATC are not "in control" - it was "procedural separation".

I really like the idea of "actual separation" heaps better see and avoid has its flaws...

Thanks for your views on sufficient distance, as you say its a judgement call, but it seems even in aviation common sense doesnt always apply...