“Approved” to land long

TheFB

TheFB

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
330
Display Name
Display name:
TheFB
I was landing at a 10,000+ ft runway Thursday and before I was cleared to land, I let them know I intended to land long (avoiding a super long taxi). The tower asked me to wait and then came back that I was “approved” to land long. I think that is strange. It is my landing once cleared, right?

Overall I don’t care, and I didn’t mind it. Even if they denied me, I would have complied but I’m surprised they have to approve it (or thought they did).

It may have been on this forum that I got this idea. I was taught it is my runway, my landing once cleared. Again, not the end of the world.
 
Are there any crossing runways?
 
Maybe the controller was a trainee, and took a moment to turn to his or her boss to ask "What do I say to this?" Or maybe they wanted a moment to give the ground controller a heads-up.

Or just like when you say to a controller "I'd like to fly over downtown and then circle around the lake a couple times" and they say "That's approved." Courtesy offered, courtesy returned.
 
Here’s what the controller heard...“I know you’re working your spacing requirements based on me clearing the runway relatively promptly so the guy behind me doesn’t have to go around, but I’m going to screw all that up and land long.” ;)
 
I have heard it many times, I do have crossing runways. Think it’s a good practice to tell them what to expect
 
It is both courteous and expected that you land and exit the runway in the minimum safe distance, then taxi on a taxiway.

Again with KFWS examples: Taxiway Charlie is at the North end of the runway and is the only way to get to the East side of the field. It is convenient to land long or taxi full length to get to parking. It is APPROVED routinely when there is no other traffic that will be delayed by the longer use of the pavement.

Another time saver there, if landing RWY17R is to ask to back taxi on 17L. Also convenient and routinely approved.
 
TheFB said:
I was landing at a 10,000+ ft runway Thursday and before I was cleared to land, I let them know I intended to land long (avoiding a super long taxi). The tower asked me to wait and then came back that I was “approved” to land long. I think that is strange. It is my landing once cleared, right?

Overall I don’t care, and I didn’t mind it. Even if they denied me, I would have complied but I’m surprised they have to approve it (or thought they did).

It may have been on this forum that I got this idea. I was taught it is my runway, my landing once cleared. Again, not the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Yup. You don’t need approval. Them waiting and then coming back with ‘approval’ instead of just saying roger or, gawd forbid clicking their Mic a couple times is odd.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Here’s what the controller heard...“I know you’re working your spacing requirements based on me clearing the runway relatively promptly so the guy behind me doesn’t have to go around, but I’m going to screw all that up and land long.” ;)
Click to expand...

Controller can just say go around. To you, not the guy behind you.
 
Ravioli said:
It is both courteous and expected that you land and exit the runway in the minimum safe distance, then taxi on a taxiway.

Again with KFWS examples: Taxiway Charlie is at the North end of the runway and is the only way to get to the East side of the field. It is convenient to land long or taxi full length to get to parking. It is APPROVED routinely when there is no other traffic that will be delayed by the longer use of the pavement.

Another time saver there, if landing RWY17R is to ask to back taxi on 17L. Also convenient and routinely approved.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Even though ‘approval’ isn’t required, that everyone is communicating and getting on the same page is a good thing. Requesting and getting ‘approval‘ is no big thang . Nice to know it’s not a requirement though. Like for instance you just got a little high and/or fast and realize on short final you’re gonna land long there’s no need to bust in on the radio and get approval.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. Even though ‘approval’ isn’t required, that everyone is communicating and getting on the same page is a good thing.
Click to expand...

When I'm landing there and told cleared to land, I'll reply "Cleared to land 35L, I'll be parking on the East side, bug destroyer 666" and they usually offer full length if available. When it's not available they don't respond and I get the frack off their runway at the earliest point.
 
luvflyin said:
Requesting and getting ‘approval‘ is no big thang
Click to expand...
It's bad to create unrealistic expectations, not based on regulation. At KOAK, Oakland CA, I'll advise I plan to land long. They always say approved; makes them feel better, I guess... but I never request approval... just tell them I'm planning a long landing...
 
At ECP where they have a 10,000’ runway and the FBO is at one end this is a common suggest-ruction when landing on the more distant runway.
 
TheFB said:
...and before I was cleared to land, I let them know I intended to land long (avoiding a super long taxi). The tower asked me to wait and then came back that I was “approved” to land long. I think that is strange. It is my landing once cleared, right?

...I was taught it is my runway, my landing once cleared.
Click to expand...

I guess I read your OP a little differently. It looks like you were not actually cleared to land when you announced your plan to land long, from how I see it worded. Seems like the controller stopped to assess the situation (impact on other traffic, etc.) before granting the clearance which, because it included consideration of your “announcement” to land long, made the situation unambiguous.

And I’m not sure the “my landing once cleared” is true, at least informally: if you said you were doing a touch and go then changed to a full-stop, you’d have at least some comments from the controller unless you were explicitly “cleared for the option”.

I don’t know the regs as well as others here and you may be right: but you may also be “dead right” sometime with this. Personally, I always request to land long when that’s my desire. Then there’s no ambiguity: it was a request pending approval (unambiguous), not a statement which may or may not require approval (ambiguous).

In the end, seems like you did exactly right, as worded in your OP.
 
There is no approval for this. The controller should’ve just said “roger.” No restriction (LAHSO) was given, it’s your runway.
 
"Cleared to land" means you own the runway (absent an instruction such as "land an hold short"). You courteously advised of your intentions, and the controller acknowledged your advisory (request, if you insist). What's important is that you were communicating in order to keep the system running safely and predictably. Kudos to you. But, don't over-think it; this isn't a ditch to die in. Keep up the good work!
 
Sorry, I’m just getting back to this and there are a lot of replies. There is no crossing runway. As I said, it didn’t bother me, it just seemed strange. It is at KECP that I was landing. The last thing I want to do is mess up people behind me. Even if it is my “right”, I’d do whatever helps the flow.
 
There is no regulation which says that you "own the runway" when cleared to land. I try to avoid such "paraphrasing" of the regulations because they are often only accurate in the specific situations about which they were created. When people then try to apply the paraphrasing to different situations they are often wrong. It's better to know what the regulation, and other applicable guidance, actually says.

ATC has certain expectations on what you will do based on your requests and the type airplane you are flying. They base instructions to other aircraft on those expectations. If you are going to do something that wouldn't normally be expected, you should inform ATC even though a specific clearance isn't required.

See AIM 4-3-5

The AIM paragraph uses examples of airborne maneuvering but also covers any unexpected maneuvers. Interestingly, the example says that S-turns are okay but don't try that at a busy airport running simultaneous parallel arrivals. LOL
 
This is like informing ATC that you plan on changing your altitude while on FF. There’s nothing regulatory requiring the notification, only an AIM recommendation. Unless the controller wants one to do otherwise, it’s should only be a “roger” and not an “approved” on their end.

Now, not notifying them, while not a FAR violation, could very well put an unprepared controller in the hurt locker. I’d say a 10,000 ft runway during the daytime, most likely won’t be a problem. But, depending on the circumstances (type aircraft) a courtesy notification would be wise.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Here’s what the controller heard...“I know you’re working your spacing requirements based on me clearing the runway relatively promptly so the guy behind me doesn’t have to go around, but I’m going to screw all that up and land long.” ;)
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Tower is sequencing aircraft so there aren't more than one (unless they want to) to be on the runway at the same time. As others said, you are normally expected to land near the touchdown zone and be in position to get off.

It was pretty standard at my old home base (no crossing runways). Sometimes they offer or even instruct it if they recognized the tail number.
 
Thank you for bringing this up. I did my ppl training out of KSLC and often times the controllers are very specific on the landing clearance. When it’s busy you need to be prepared to clear the runway ASAP. They won’t tell you specifically that until on the ground but you can see the planes lined up for takeoff or hear that traffic is right behind you. Other times I’ve been asked to land long due to the taxiway they wanted me to use. One particular landing clearance I call the space shuttle approach. Typically happens landing 17 when arriving from the west. Plane is 1000-1500 feet above the numbers and they will come on and say right base cleared to land. Full slip all the down. Note: as always you can decline but then you will be flying a left downwind for maybe 10 miles depending on traffic.

Anyways, on my one trip to Vegas and still a very freshly minted pilot, the plan was to land at North Vegas airport. I was with approach flying directly to the airport into the setting sun. They didn’t want to turn me over to tower until I had the airport in sight. Had to fake that call. Knew I was close and was still about 2000 agl. So I get with tower and almost immediately they clear me for a left turn to 12R final. Space shuttle approach! No problem. But with more altitude and half the runway length that I’m used to it took a bit more runway than anticipated to get down. Tower comes on and says “landing long approved” partway through that. So, I’ve always had the same thought as you. Why approve me for something like that?

Now I know the answer! In the future I would request a 360 or other option to dump altitude. A definite learning experience.
 
woodchucker said:
Tower comes on and says “landing long approved” partway through that. So, I’ve always had the same thought as you. Why approve me for something like that?

Now I know the answer! In the future I would request a 360 or other option to dump altitude.
Click to expand...
Or just ask for the long landing. I (and I'm guessing ATC) would do that as opposed to the 360, which doesn't do anything for the people behind you.

BTW, there can be a number of reasons for requesting or an unsolicited "long landing approved" or similar. Two common ones at my old home base, both involving small aircraft landings on the 10,000 foot long 35R.

Notice the large GA ramp at the north end and the hangars even further north. Long landings were not unusual to bypass a long taxi at a generally busy airport.

There's not a lot of real ramp area south of the crossing runway. Basically one FBO and some other facilities. Most of the activity is to the north. A light airplane exiting at, say, A16 might have to pull over and wait for 4 biz jets and 5 singles taxing for takeoff. So, pretty common, even when still in the air, to hear, "expect to exit A9."

The real takeaway is, it's all about traffic management and you might hear things that may or may not be pure aviation-speak. Maybe even just English :D


upload_2020-5-24_7-12-1.jpeg
 
Bobanna said:
"Cleared to land" means you own the runway (absent an instruction such as "land an hold short"). You courteously advised of your intentions, and the controller acknowledged your advisory (request, if you insist). What's important is that you were communicating in order to keep the system running safely and predictably. Kudos to you. But, don't over-think it; this isn't a ditch to die in. Keep up the good work!
Click to expand...

If that's true....I own it then....as does the guy in front of me in the round out that's cleared to land....as does the guy behind me on base that is already cleared to land.... So who owns this piece of pavement anyway?
 
Brad W said:
If that's true....I own it then....as does the guy in front of me in the round out that's cleared to land....as does the guy behind me on base that is already cleared to land.... So who owns this piece of pavement anyway?
Click to expand...

As long as ATC maintains their required runway sep, you all own it. They don’t necessarily have to have a clear deck.

If it’s daylight and the OP touches down mid way down the runway and he’s got another light single or twin (less 12,500 lbs) crossing threshold behind him, it’s completely legal. And for for busy airports, almost a must.
 
Last edited:
I also appreciate ATC asking me to land long to avoid a long taxi. I have it happen at only three airports, KBWI, KSRQ and KPSM.

I would guess this is not ATC standard :) but it works.


Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
Bobanna said:
OK, I used the word, "own," which conveys the concept pf "doing what I want to," or some such. Rather, it is better explained as temporary permission to conduct the requested operation with the caveat that it can be rescinded by ATC at any time (e.g. "Cancel landing clearance, go around"). The controller's product is safe separation, and any accomplished aviator will respect the traffic demands on the runway (i.e. traffic in trail). Thus, it is advisable to communicate unusual intentions, though I'm not aware of a regulation specifying where one must touchdown on a controlled runway. @Velocity173 has offered an explanation of circumstances allowing more than a single aircraft on a runway at one time ( I thought this was a forbidden "deal" by ATC). Anyway, my "paraphrasing (some regulation)" with the word "own" is subject to many considerations in actual use. Sorry for the long post, but I'm learning something here.

Have a great weekend and be blessed

Bob
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing regulatory stating a pilot must land on a certain part of the runway. Absent ATC instructions, the runway is yours.

There are times (night or cat III A/C) when a clear deck is required but there are plenty of circumstances which allow more than one aircraft on a runway. In some cases as close as 3,000 ft, in other cases such as helos, there is no specific distance if visual sep is being used.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Or just ask for the long landing. I (and I'm guessing ATC) would do that as opposed to the 360, which doesn't do anything for the people behind you.

BTW, there can be a number of reasons for requesting or an unsolicited "long landing approved" or similar. Two common ones at my old home base, both involving small aircraft landings on the 10,000 foot long 35R.

Notice the large GA ramp at the north end and the hangars even further north. Long landings were not unusual to bypass a long taxi at a generally busy airport.

There's not a lot of real ramp area south of the crossing runway. Basically one FBO and some other facilities. Most of the activity is to the north. A light airplane exiting at, say, A16 might have to pull over and wait for 4 biz jets and 5 singles taxing for takeoff. So, pretty common, even when still in the air, to hear, "expect to exit A9."

The real takeaway is, it's all about traffic management and you might hear things that may or may not be pure aviation-speak. Maybe even just English :D


View attachment 86108
Click to expand...

To be honest I had no business trying to get in with that amount of altitude. Probably one of my dumber moves. Tower controllers will always have a way to help pilots out. That’s why they get paid the big bucks :D
 
Interesting conversation. I’m based at San Jose (KSJC), a Class C with two parallel 10,000ft runways, and I often go to Palo Alto (KPAO) either for the cheaper gas or to fly one of Advantage Aviation’s aerobatic planes. If the wind favors runway 12 on the return, I usually land long because my hangar is closer to the 30 end. Don’t think I’ve ever informed the tower that that was my plan. Based on this thread, I might start doing that as a courtesy, although they usually tell me “Thanks for the help” when I do land long before switching me to ground.

When I land on 30, many times they’ll tell me to make a 180 on the runway and backtaxi to Charlie which leads me right to the GA hangar area. I appreciate the courtesy. The tower crew at KSJC are really a great group of people.
 
The "letter of the law" discussions above are essentially on point, but reference AIM 4-3-20:

4-3-20. Exiting the Runway After Landing

The following procedures must be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.
  1. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots must not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.
  2. Taxi clear of the runway unless otherwise directed by ATC. An aircraft is considered clear of the runway when all parts of the aircraft are past the runway edge and there are no restrictions to its continued movement beyond the runway holding position markings. In the absence of ATC instructions, the pilot is expected to taxi clear of the landing runway by taxiing beyond the runway holding position markings associated with the landing runway, even if that requires the aircraft to protrude into or cross another taxiway or ramp area. Once all parts of the aircraft have crossed the runway holding position markings, the pilot must hold unless further instructions have been issued by ATC.


    NOTE-

  3. The tower will issue the pilot instructions which will permit the aircraft to enter another taxiway, runway, or ramp area when required.
  4. Guidance contained in subparagraphs a and b above is considered an integral part of the landing clearance and satisfies the requirement of 14 CFR Section 91.129.
  5. Immediately change to ground control frequency when advised by the tower and obtain a taxi clearance.
Of course, you can "land long" and only thereafter would all of this guidance apply, but in many cases it's not a good idea. Also, landing, say, midfield and then doing a high-speed taxi to the end of the runway isn't consistent with this guidance from the AIM (or ATC's expectations unless otherwise arranged.) Also, I'd sure hate to be the pilot who chose to land in the last two thousand feet of a ten thousand foot runway only to realize there was a malfunction with the aircraft brakes.

I used to frequent Dulles (IAD) and aircraft were instructed to vacate the runway immediately after landing. The tower controller would be irate with an airplane missing an earlier high speed, and I heard "I have a phone number for you to call" more than a few times in my turns there.

Must you technically "request" a long landing? No, but not being on the same page with ATC can cause a lot of headaches. This definitely falls into the "best practices and common sense" category. Plus it involves consideration and courtesy to your fellow aviators (and ATC.)
 
PlasticCigar said:
I have never had a long landing “not approved” but I have had a couple of times when ATC asked me to hold my descent at a certain altitude for crossing traffic and I was happy to comply.

Why make life harder for the controllers and the guy behind you?
Click to expand...

Correct. I have "requested" a long landing before in my little TwinCo and heard a response along the lines of "Allegiant is getting a shortcut vector to join the final behind you," i.e. now's not the time for a long landing in your piston aircraft. Of course I complied with the unstated instruction and performed a normal landing and exited the runway expeditiously.
 
Definition of approve

transitive verb

1: to have or express a favorable opinion of
2a: to accept as satisfactory
b: to give formal or official sanction
 
The only time ATC at FRG gets upset is when someone lands long and they have a long line of planes doing touch and go’s. 99% of the time they’re ok with it and they’ll just tell the guy behind to slow down or do S turns. If it’s quiet, they know our planes land at the far side of the field so they just say we can roll to the end and land long.
 
There have been bunches places I've told ATC I was going to land a ways down the field. Don't have to, I can land anywhere I want on the runway, I own it. But it doesn't hurt to keep them in the loop.
 
Some controllers actually volunteer long landing approval as a way of helping you get to the FBO. I landed at KFAT yesterday on 29R and was parking Signature. The very nice tower controller offered an approved long landing so I could taxi less. It was nice. Similarly, if he'd asked me to be off as soon as safe, I'd have done him the favor.
 
I regularly ask if we are using 36 since the hangars at at the north end of 12000 and 10000 ft runways. Most of the times they will approve but once in a while they say they have traffic behind me and I need to get down and out of the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top