"In trail" takeoff clearance

[Velocity173]

I fly out of a Class C and after landing I am always clear of the runway before t/o clearance is given to the guy behind me… even if he was given a "line up and wait".

LUAW would be the worst way of using anticipated separation. The aircraft would already be on the runway and ready to roll. There's little delay, therefore separation would almost immediately be lost upon issuing the clearance. The controller uses anticipated separation while the aircraft is holding short as indicated in letter I attached.

 

[Skip Miller]

Isn't this what ASRS is really for?

+1

op, take note, regardless of your conversation with the tower Chief.

-Skip

 

[Unregistered]

+1

op, take note, regardless of your conversation with the tower Chief.

-Skip

OP here.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that ASRS was created to enable pilots and controllers to report events anonymously in situations where their action (or inaction) could otherwise lead to enforcement steps, and by reporting it within the guidelines the reporter can gain immunity. In this case, I don't think my actions were improper, so there is no risk of enforcement and therefore no advantage that I can see to my using ASRS. My main concern here is to know what the takeoff separation rules are, since having to taxi for 38 seconds and over 1000' down the runway with an aircraft cleared for takeoff behind me felt unsafe.

 

[Velocity173]

OP here.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that ASRS was created to enable pilots and controllers to report events anonymously in situations where their action (or inaction) could otherwise lead to enforcement steps, and by reporting it within the guidelines the reporter can gain immunity. In this case, I don't think my actions were improper, so there is no risk of enforcement and therefore no advantage that I can see to my using ASRS. My main concern here is to know what the takeoff separation rules are, since having to taxi for 38 seconds and over 1000' down the runway with an aircraft cleared for takeoff behind me felt unsafe.

ASRS is to report a safety issue. Whether it's something you did wrong, the controller or the system around you. It's there so that changes could be made in the future to prevent an incident / accident.

In your case, since this is a localized matter, I'd take it up with the tower chief. If you're concerned about that particular controller then it can be handled in house.

 

[poadeleted20]

OP here.
As far as the actual facts, in addition to LiveATC's audio, I also have my own video recording (POV camera plus separate audio recorder for ATC comms). So I've just reviewed the video and audio, and it seems that the timeline was roughly as follows (initial review only, so the numbers are approximate):
1. Touchdown (mains) about 900' down the runway
2. At about 1500', receive instructions to turn off at taxiway X (about 4000' down)
3. At about 2900' (very approximate*), "cleared for takeoff" clearance issued to aircraft holding short
4. At about 3000', tell tower "we are still on the runway" (time "0s"), taxiing at brisk pace
5. Tower replies "all I need is 3000', so you can continue on the runway," and we clear the runway at X (time "35s")

If the controller believes that is true, that controller needs additional training. Make the call! And I don't think anyone can say that one can assume an airplane holding short and cleared for takeoff won't be rolling in less than 35 seconds.

 

[poadeleted20]

Isn't this what ASRS is really for?

It might be worth filing an ASRS report so the folks reviewing them can see if there is a trend of controllers thinking all they need is 3000 feet separation to clear a plane for takeoff behind a landing aircraft. However, that does not change the fact that this controller clearly does not understand the rules on clearing a plane for takeoff behind a landing aircraft, and that doesn't get fixed by an ASRS report -- only a call to the Tower Chief or QA.

 

[poadeleted20]

Correct. No one should give anyone clearance to take an active RW with another aircraft still on it, and that means ANY or ALL of the aircraft not clear of the RW edge.

CTLSi is incorrect. Tower can issue a "line up and wait" clearance without regard for whether there is someone down the runway or not, and can issue a takeoff clearance based on "anticipated separation" as discussed above. It's all perfectly legal and perfectly safe as long as the anticipation is "reasonable" (which in this case I don't think it was).

 

[poadeleted20]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that ASRS was created to enable pilots and controllers to report events anonymously in situations where their action (or inaction) could otherwise lead to enforcement steps, and by reporting it within the guidelines the reporter can gain immunity.

ASRS was designed to allow anonymous reporting of safety issues for analysis and possible correction of systemic problems. The "waiver of sanction" was a side-effect. Also, it is not limited to pilots and controllers.

 

[Unregistered]

ASRS was designed to allow anonymous reporting of safety issues for analysis and possible correction of systemic problems. The "waiver of sanction" was a side-effect. Also, it is not limited to pilots and controllers.

I stand corrected, but I am still not sure it's the best step in this case. Also, I could be wrong, but I think the "waiver of sanction" is the prime motivator in most ASRS reports, at least the ones I have seen and recall.

 

[kayoh190]

Correct. No one should give anyone clearance to take an active RW with another aircraft still on it, and that means ANY or ALL of the aircraft not clear of the RW edge.

Heh heh! CTLSi - don't ever change, man! You're a constant source of amusement around here.

 

[Jaybird180]

If your rollout was an additional 38seconds on a 6000' runway I could see an accident in the making.

Let's say I'm at the hold-short line and I havent flown in about 2months as is typical for me to do, so my rhythm is a little off. The engine is a bit cold so when give. The clearance to takeoff, i interpret "the runway is MINE" and I do a rolling takeoff. Since I know I have 6,000 feet I s-l-o-w-l-y push the power in and meanwhile fiddle with something else on the roll (added for dramatic effect). I eat up runway but I'm not at Vr yet so I continue running up the power and I now spot you. It takes 2-3 seconds for my brain to interpret an airplane in front of me where none should be, and close the throttle but the airplane's inertia overpowers the brakes.

We collide.

You want that on your head?

 

[JoeSelch]

If your rollout was an additional 38seconds on a 6000' runway I could see an accident in the making.

Let's say I'm at the hold-short line and I havent flown in about 2months as is typical for me to do, so my rhythm is a little off. The engine is a bit cold so when give. The clearance to takeoff, i interpret "the runway is MINE" and I do a rolling takeoff. Since I know I have 6,000 feet I s-l-o-w-l-y push the power in and meanwhile fiddle with something else on the roll (added for dramatic effect). I eat up runway but I'm not at Vr yet so I continue running up the power and I now spot you. It takes 2-3 seconds for my brain to interpret an airplane in front of me where none should be, and close the throttle but the airplane's inertia overpowers the brakes.

We collide.

You want that on your head?

Mm... No. I'd rather you stay on the ground, out of airplanes. Or grab a CFI to go with, if you're so out of it you can't be bothered to clear the area before advancing the throttle or to wait until you and the plane are actually ready before calling ready

 

[poadeleted20]

I stand corrected, but I am still not sure it's the best step in this case.

Neither am I, but it wouldn't hurt to do in addition to contacting the Tower Chief/QA. Who knows -- maybe someone in the ATO is teaching controllers wrong on this point.

Also, I could be wrong, but I think the "waiver of sanction" is the prime motivator in most ASRS reports, at least the ones I have seen and recall.

That may be true, but it's not the reason the ASRS was created.

 

[Velocity173]

If your rollout was an additional 38seconds on a 6000' runway I could see an accident in the making.

Let's say I'm at the hold-short line and I havent flown in about 2months as is typical for me to do, so my rhythm is a little off. The engine is a bit cold so when give. The clearance to takeoff, i interpret "the runway is MINE" and I do a rolling takeoff. Since I know I have 6,000 feet I s-l-o-w-l-y push the power in and meanwhile fiddle with something else on the roll (added for dramatic effect). I eat up runway but I'm not at Vr yet so I continue running up the power and I now spot you. It takes 2-3 seconds for my brain to interpret an airplane in front of me where none should be, and close the throttle but the airplane's inertia overpowers the brakes.

We collide.

You want that on your head?

I'd say your rhythm would be way off if you hit someone 4,000 ft down, on a 150 ft wide runway, while the other guy was in the process of exiting. Not to mention, if you did begin takeoff roll while the the other aircraft wasn't clear, the controller would be obligated to immediately "cancel takeoff clearance."

I think we're starting to use some extreme exaggeration for a controller's mistake that didn't even result with a loss if separation.

 

[kevin7500]

...since having to taxi for 38 seconds and over 1000' down the runway with an aircraft cleared for takeoff behind me felt unsafe.

It took you 38 seconds to taxi 1,000' on the active runway? Was it a scenic tour down the runway at less than 17mph?

 

[Unregistered]

It took you 38 seconds to taxi 1,000' on the active runway? Was it a scenic tour down the runway at less than 17mph?

When you calculate the speed, don't forget I had to decelerate for turnoff at the (90 degree) taxiway exit (I don't do perpendicular taxi turns at high speeds ).
BTW, as soon as I understood that I am doomed to stay on the runway under threat of rear end collision, I pushed in the throttle slightly. Overall, my taxi speed was "brisk", faster than I'd taxi on a taxiway, but not enough to require heavy braking at the turnoff.

 

[silver-eagle]

Ron; Answer me this. Now that the controller has issued a clearance to the waiting aircraft, would the pilot of the other plane now be responsible for a pilot deviation and would the chief then file such?
A catch 22.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron; Answer me this. Now that the controller has issued a clearance to the waiting aircraft, would the pilot of the other plane now be responsible for a pilot deviation and would the chief then file such?
A catch 22.

I can't see how the pilot of the landing aircraft could be written up, but if the pilot of the departing plane rolled so fast that s/he came "so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard", the pilot of the departing plane could be cited for violating 91.111 -- along with the controller for violating 7110.65. But that's not a "Catch-22" -- just a team effort involving two mistakes in sequence by the controller and the departing pilot.

Note that if the controller does his job correctly, the departing pilot cannot violate "operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard", and if the departing pilot does his/her job correctly (i.e., sees the aircraft ahead and delays rolling while the plane ahead is still on the runway -- which it appears the departing pilot may have wisely done), even the controller's premature clearance won't cause a problem. IOW, as I see it, unless the departing pilot rolls without a clearance (violating 91.123 regardless of whether a collision hazard is created), both the controller and the departing pilot would have to do something wrong for a 91.111 violation to occur.

 

[Unregistered]

OP here.
For those of you who've been following the thread, here are the latest developments, which I consider very positive.
Per suggestions made by various POA members and esp. Cap'n Ron, I contacted the Tower Chief and reported the incident to him in detail.
After several days of research he got back to me, and told me his investigation has revealed the following.
Despite telling me that all was proper and "by the book" (both during the incident itself and later by phone), the controller in question became unsure, and after re-reading the applicable sections in the book realized that the separation was in fact insufficient and the takeoff clearance improperly given, and immediately reported this to the supervisor (not the Chief).
The Chief told me that that controller is very experienced, very conscientious, and admitted to simply making a one-time mistake. The Chief said that he decided to complete an incident report in any case, and send it up the chain of command, including the Quality Assurance folks, for further handling.
I told the Chief that I am satisfied with his handling of the matter, and agreed with him to come up and visit the tower crew in the near future.
I'd like to thank the POA members who have replied, and esp. Cap'n Ron who encouraged me (both on- and offline) to overcome my reluctance and do what's right.
I also have to say I've been very impressed with the candor and professionalism of the Tower Chief, and feel confident he'll fix whatever safety issue this incident has uncovered.

 

[Jaybird180]

Good outcome

 

[Henning]

If you're 3000' down the runway and still moving, what are you worried about? Was this a big Jet or a 172? Just keep it rolling. Also for future reference, if you normally expect to use that exit to the ramp 4000' down the runway and are at a busy airport in a small plane, land long. I used to always land long at Long Beach because I was down the far end of 25L. Got to the point where controllers would clear me 'option to turn base at the tower for midfield landing' which would keep me from flying up the tails of 152s in my Travelair.

 

[Unregistered]

If you're 3000' down the runway and still moving, what are you worried about? Was this a big Jet or a 172? Just keep it rolling.

As I noted at the top of the thread, my worry is that I'll have to slow down (e.g. flat or bad nose shimmy, both of which have happened to me) and the departing aircraft would have to abort the takeoff, either before or after rotation. I can assure you that taxiing for 38 seconds after an aircraft has been cleared for takeoff behind you seems like a very long time.

Also for future reference, if you normally expect to use that exit to the ramp 4000' down the runway and are at a busy airport in a small plane, land long

Sure, if you know in advance where you'll exit, you can land long, but it's very rare that, when you have several possible exits along a 6000' runway at a controlled field, you'll know which exit you'll get, or which will be most expeditious and/or friendly towards other users.
My normal routine when there are multiple exits available (as in this case), is to land "normal" and be able to exit within about 2000' if needed. The controller may then modify that, based on their specific (dynamically changing) needs.
That specific exit given to me on that day is normally only given if surface traffic is unusually light. Most often they want you off the runway and onto the parallel taxiway early, and I certainly don't want to linger there any more than absolutely necessary.