"In trail" takeoff clearance

[Unregistered]

Hi,
On rollout on a 6,000'x150' runway, I am cleared to exit via taxiway turnoff about 2000' from the end, and to continue taxiing to the ramp from there. While taxiing down the runway, still about 1000' from the turnoff point, I hear the local controller "clear for takeoff" a C-172, who had been holding short for my landing. Since I am still taxiing and another plane has just been cleared for takeoff right on my tail, I am naturally concerned about any kind of aborted takeoff or emergency during initial climb. I can't recall ever being in a similar situation (including during mass arrivals/departures at airshows). So I say, "XXXXX is still on the runway". Controller replies: "All I need is 3000 feet, continue taxiing." Since the exit was coming up very soon, I look back and it seems to me the 172 is (sensibly) taking its sweet time in position, so I just taxi off the runway without further discussion.
So I am wondering, is this becoming common now? Is the risk of aborted takeoff/initial climb been discounted? I can swear that in countless similar situations in the past the controller would have said to the traffic behind, "line up and wait" (or "position and hold" before that). So what gives?

 

[CTLSi]

Hi,
On rollout on a 6,000'x150' runway, I am cleared to exit via taxiway turnoff about 2000' from the end, and to continue taxiing to the ramp from there. While taxiing down the runway, still about 1000' from the turnoff point, I hear the local controller "clear for takeoff" a C-172, who had been holding short for my landing. Since I am still taxiing and another plane has just been cleared for takeoff right on my tail, I am naturally concerned about any kind of aborted takeoff or emergency during initial climb. I can't recall ever being in a similar situation (including during mass arrivals/departures at airshows). So I say, "XXXXX is still on the runway". Controller replies: "All I need is 3000 feet, continue taxiing." Since the exit was coming up very soon, I look back and it seems to me the 172 is (sensibly) taking its sweet time in position, so I just taxi off the runway without further discussion.
So I am wondering, is this becoming common now? Is the risk of aborted takeoff/initial climb been discounted? I can swear that in countless similar situations in the past the controller would have said to the traffic behind, "line up and wait" (or "position and hold" before that). So what gives?

The ATC did a runway incursion. Only one plane on the runway at a time unless a prior arrangement like during an airshow is made. You could report the guy.

 

[poadeleted20]

The 3000 foot rule in FAA Order 7110.65, Section 3-9-6a applies only for departures behind a departing aircraft that is already airborne. If that controller cleared the 172 behind you for takeoff before you cleared the runway on the basis of 3000 feet of separation, then that controller violated Section 3-9-6b. You should bring this to the attention of the Tower manager or QA branch before the tapes go away.

3−9−6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding​

departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway​

by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:
...

b. A preceding landing aircraft is clear of the
runway. (See FIG 3−9−3.)​

There is no exception for departures behind a landing aircraft.​

 

[Unregistered]

The ATC did a runway incursion. Only one plane on the runway at a time unless a prior arrangement like during an airshow is made. You could report the guy.

But that doesn't make sense, since I assume that the 3000' figure isn't just something they made up?

 

[rbridges]

But that doesn't make sense, since I assume that the 3000' figure isn't just something they made up?

as Ron pointed out, it's for departing aircraft ahead of you, not a landing aircraft like you were.

edit--I see you guys posted at the same time, so you may not have seen it.

 

[poadeleted20]

The ATC did a runway incursion. Only one plane on the runway at a time unless a prior arrangement like during an airshow is made. You could report the guy.

CTLSi is correct that the controller should be reported, but not for the reason he stated. More than one aircraft is allowed on the runway at one time without it being an airshow or other prior arrangement. One way for a departing aircraft to be legally on the runway while a preceding plane is also on that runway is "Line Up and Wait", which would have been legal in this situation if that Tower has LUAW approval (not all towers do), although that's not the clearance the succeeding aircraft was given. Also, an arriving aircraft can be cleared to land with another arriving plane still on the runway during the day if enough separation exists (see Section 3-10-3a1) and this, too, could result in two airplanes legally being on the runway at the same time.

 

[poadeleted20]

But that doesn't make sense, since I assume that the 3000' figure isn't just something they made up?

It doesn't make sense because CTLSi apparently doesn't know the rules. However, the 3000-foot figure for separation between Category I aircraft* isn't "something they made up," just something that isn't applicable to this situation (departing aircraft behind landing aircraft).

* CATEGORY I− small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less,
with a single propeller driven engine, and all helicopters.

 

[Unregistered]

Well, it's all on tape (e.g. LiveATC has it clearly recorded).
But is it worth pursuing? This is home base...
So what would you (experienced) guys/gals do in such a situation, assuming you don't want trouble with your own tower staff?

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, it's all on tape (e.g. LiveATC has it clearly recorded).
But is it worth pursuing? This is home base...

Yes, it is. This controller's lack of understanding of the proper application of the rules could get someone hurt of killed.

So what would you (experienced) guys/gals do in such a situation, assuming you don't want trouble with your own tower staff?

You won't have "trouble" if you bring this to the Tower Chief's attention. What you will have is the Tower Chief's thanks for possibly preventing a controller-error accident someday. Call the tower on Tuesday (Monday's a holiday) and speak to either the Chief or the QA person. And you better believe I'd call my pal Bill Penna, Chief of the Salisbury MD Tower, if one of his controllers made this mistake -- in a heartbeat.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If the guy is giving improper takeoff clearances, he needs to be called on it. That can be done in a friendly way. Doesn't have to be confrontational. I would talk to the Tower Chief. Since it is on tape, it can be a teachable moment for the controller.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

This is a quandary. What are the implications for the tower controller? I think it's obvious he misunderstands the rule, and this is not just misbehavior. He needs corrective training, but I wouldn't want to see his job in jeopardy.

You could make the report anonymously and just say you overheard this incident at the field but were not involved. Is that possible?

 

[poadeleted20]

This is a quandary. What are the implications for the tower controller? I think it's obvious he misunderstands the rule, and this is not just misbehavior. He needs corrective training, but I wouldn't want to see his job in jeopardy.

His job won't be in jeopardy unless he's had a string of errors like this and isn't improving his performance, in which case you want him gone before he kills you. Otherwise, the worst that happens is he's temporarily "decertified" while he undergoes retraining and then is returned to duty. It might also result in just informal counseling. But regardless of what might happen to that controller, if you do nothing, then at least morally you share responsibility for the consequences if he does this again and it results in someone getting hurt.

You could make the report anonymously and just say you overheard this incident at the field but were not involved. Is that possible?

You could, but when the Tower Chief hears your voice on the phone and then on the tape, he'll know exactly who called it in...not that it matters in this issue of safety.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

This is a quandary.

Not really.

What are the implications for the tower controller? I think it's obvious he misunderstands the rule, and this is not just misbehavior. He needs corrective training, but I wouldn't want to see his job in jeopardy.

That all can be done on an informal basis. Tower Chief has a talk with his controller. End of issue.

You could make the report anonymously and just say you overheard this incident at the field but were not involved. Is that possible?

Well, I guess it is possible, but why? There isn't any down side to making the report so why do it anonymously?

 

[Walsh029]

Just wondering. Are you using 4000 feet of your runway? Are there no earlier taxiway exits? The way I read your post it sounded like you're taxing at least a couple thousand feet which seems unusual.

 

[Unregistered]

OP here.
Per C'Ron's suggestion, I just called the tower, and ended up speaking directly to the controller.
The controller told me that according to ATC rule in 7110.65, if there is a 3,000' separation between the aircraft rolling out and the one in position, a takeoff clearance may be given.
So apparently the 3000' separation is not just for landing, but also for takeoff.
Regarding the question about my rollout distance, it was normal, and that taxiway turnoff that was given to me leads directly to the parking ramp, so it's fairly common (and efficient) for the controllers to clear me to exit past other potential exit points (including a runway intersection that I could have taxied into).
So bottom line: even if the ATC separation rule is correct as the controller told me, is it safe?

 

[kayoh190]

Sounds to me like the controller needs to re-read 7110.65. I think his understanding is incorrect.

 

[Matthew]

3-9-6 is in here:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/ATC/atc0309.html#atc0309.html.4

Section (b) looks like it's the relevant one.

 

[CTLSi]

I know the rules. I fly by the rules. So should everyone. There is no way that controller should have released anyone to takeoff on an active runway while the other guys was still taxiing on the active runway.

You don't need the FAR to see how unsafe that is, no doubt the controller simply made a mistake.

 

[Unregistered]

I know the rules. I fly by the rules. So should everyone. There is no way that controller should have released anyone to takeoff on an active runway while the other guys was still taxiing on the active runway.

You don't need the FAR to see how unsafe that is, no doubt the controller simply made a mistake.

OP here.
The controller in question, per my conversation described above, seemed very adamant that, a) that clearance was perfectly legal, with the required 3000' separation per 7110.65; and b) that clearance was perfectly safe.
I wonder if some controller on this board can chime in?

 

[poadeleted20]

OP here.
Per C'Ron's suggestion, I just called the tower, and ended up speaking directly to the controller.
The controller told me that according to ATC rule in 7110.65, if there is a 3,000' separation between the aircraft rolling out and the one in position, a takeoff clearance may be given.
So apparently the 3000' separation is not just for landing, but also for takeoff.
Regarding the question about my rollout distance, it was normal, and that taxiway turnoff that was given to me leads directly to the parking ramp, so it's fairly common (and efficient) for the controllers to clear me to exit past other potential exit points (including a runway intersection that I could have taxied into).
So bottom line: even if the ATC separation rule is correct as the controller told me, is it safe?

Unless there's a new version of 7110.65 which isn't posted yet, I'm pretty sure this controller is wrong. Wait until Tuesday, and raise this with the Chief/QA. And, no, it's not safe, which is why it's prohibited by 7110.65.

Perhaps this controller is just hoping you won't tell his boss?

BTW, regarding my suggestion, it was not to call the tower today and speak to the controller involved, it was to wait until Tuesday and speak to either the Chief or QA.

 

[Unregistered]

OP here.
Per https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/ATC/atc0309.html#atc0309.html.4 it seems that perhaps the controller was right?

Here is 3-9-6 in 7110.65:

----
3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:

a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft needs only be airborne if the following minimum distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)

1. When only Category I aircraft are involved- 3,000 feet.
----

So does this imply that once you have 3000' separation, with a landing aircraft on a rollout/taxi ahead on the runway, a takeoff clearance may be issued?

 

[warthog1984]

OP here.
Per https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/ATC/atc0309.html#atc0309.html.4 it seems that perhaps the controller was right?

Here is 3-9-6 in 7110.65:

----
3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:

a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft needs only be airborne if the following minimum distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)

1. When only Category I aircraft are involved- 3,000 feet.
----

So does this imply that once you have 3000' separation, with a landing aircraft on a rollout/taxi ahead on the runway, a takeoff clearance may be issued?

. It is saying that if the leading aircraft has crossed the runway end, turned, or is airborne and at least 3,000ft ahead of the trailing aircraft- than the trailing aircraft may be cleared for takeoff.

For all cases where the leading aircraft is landing or taxiing- no takeoff roll until the leading aircraft clears the runway. And it is the leading aircraft's runway- the controller screwed up. Worse, the controller refused to acknowledge his mistake- call the tower boss on Tuesday & get this controller some counseling.

 

[poadeleted20]

OP here.
Per https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/ATC/atc0309.html#atc0309.html.4 it seems that perhaps the controller was right?

Here is 3-9-6 in 7110.65:

----
3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:

a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft needs only be airborne if the following minimum distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)

1. When only Category I aircraft are involved- 3,000 feet.
----

So does this imply that once you have 3000' separation, with a landing aircraft on a rollout/taxi ahead on the runway, a takeoff clearance may be issued?

No, it does not. Read what I've highlighted. The paragraph you quote applies only for departing aircraft, and even then, the 3000-foot rule only applies when the preceding aircraft is airborne.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

I've had similar experiences at a couple Class D's in the midwest. Those have all been a landing clearance while another aircraft was rolling-out. The first time it happened, I queried the controller on frequency and he said something similar to the OP's answer. I was in a twin on approach and he said to expect a landing clearance after breaking out. He said something like 3,000' for singles and 4,500' for twins. (Don't quote me on that, it was a couple years ago.)

Edit for addition: As for receiving a take-off clearance directly behind another departing aircraft, that's an almost daily occurrence at ORD.

 

[airdale]

... I'd call my pal Bill Penna, Chief of the Salisbury MD Tower, if one of his controllers made this mistake -- in a heartbeat.

I know our tower manager well and several of the people up the chain from him. There's no question in my mind that any of them would welcome such a call and would see it as an opportunity to examine the situation as a potential safety issue. How the controller would be treated if he erred is not really any of our business. The people I know are fair and reasonable, so I'm sure any action would appropriate.

I'd be very surprised if the situation at the OP's airport is any different.

 

[Velocity173]

Not sure why the controller gave you 3,000 ft for a reference when his clearance has nothing to do with that. The authorization for controller's clearance is not in 3-9-6 but 3-9-5 (Anticipated Separation). If you were clear of the runway, (I'm sure you were) when the aircraft began take off roll, then he's legal. Anticipated separation is used quite often with both arrivals and departures.

 

[warthog1984]

If you were clear of the runway, (I'm sure you were) when the aircraft began take off roll, then he's legal.

Per the OP, he was still on the runway after his landing roll when the clearance was issued.

 

[Matthew]

Not sure why the controller gave you 3,000 ft for a reference when his clearance has nothing to do with that. The authorization for controller's clearance is not in 3-9-6 but 3-9-5 (Anticipated Separation). If you were clear of the runway, (I'm sure you were) when the aircraft began take off roll, then he's legal. Anticipated separation is used quite often with both arrivals and departures.

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION

Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff roll.

REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Clear of the Runway.

 

[Velocity173]

Per the OP, he was still on the runway after his landing roll when the clearance was issued.

I know. Doesn't matter. Unless the aircraft behind him started take off roll before the OP was clear (all parts of aircraft clear in runway), there isn't a loss of separation.

I assure you, aircraft all over the US are cleared for takeoff holding short of a runway while another aircraft is on roll out. It's in the controller's hands to ensure they maintain proper separation before the aircraft starts to roll and if necessary issue "cancel take off clearance."

 

[poadeleted20]

Not sure why the controller gave you 3,000 ft for a reference when his clearance has nothing to do with that. The authorization for controller's clearance is not in 3-9-6 but 3-9-5 (Anticipated Separation). If you were clear of the runway, (I'm sure you were) when the aircraft began take off roll, then he's legal. Anticipated separation is used quite often with both arrivals and departures.

Here's that paragraph, which I missed:

3−9−5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION​

Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until​

prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable​

assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff​

roll.

However, the 3000-foot rule is not part of that equation, and if you had 1000-2000 feet left to roll out when he issued the takeoff clearance to the plane departing behind you, I have trouble imagining that there was "reasonable assurance" you'd be clear before the other plane rolled -- some people move out pretty fast, and at 20 knots (typical roll-out groundspeed for a light single), even 1000 feet takes 30 seconds, and that's a long time. Normally, when I hear someone cleared for departure behind my landing, I'm actually starting the turn off the runway centerline when it comes. I still think this is worth the phone call on Tuesday.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know. Doesn't matter. Unless the aircraft behind him started take off roll before the OP was clear (all parts of aircraft clear in runway), there isn't a loss of separation.

If the only reason there was no loss of separation was the departing aircraft pilot's slowness in taking the runway or decision to hold in position until the preceding aircraft was clear, it was still an operational error. Further, if that controller thinks 3000 feet runway spacing behind the landing aircraft by itself makes it legal to issue the takeoff clearance, I'm thinking he doesn't understand the requirements in 7110.65, and that's worthy of the Chief's attention.

 

[Velocity173]

If the only reason there was no loss of separation was the departing aircraft pilot's slowness in taking the runway or decision to hold in position until the preceding aircraft was clear, it was still an operational error. Further, if that controller thinks 3000 feet runway spacing behind the landing aircraft by itself makes it legal to issue the takeoff clearance, I'm thinking he doesn't understand the requirements in 7110.65, and that's worthy of the Chief's attention.

My comments are directed at the heart of thread and that is the OP's concern of a clearance issued while he was on roll out. The misuse of the 3,000ft rule is just a sidebar. The controller is justified in issuing said clearance. Unless the succeeding aircraft was on take off roll while the OP was still on the runway, there is no loss of separation, therefore no "runway incursion" and also no "operational error."

Pilot's often don't understand ATC separation responsibility (page 2, para 2):

 

[Unregistered]

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")

So it seems there was at least 1000' of taxi, at least 35 seconds, from the issuance of the takeoff clearance to the taxiway exit. Note that I started the above timing from where I told tower that we are still on the runway, not from the takeoff clearance itself (add about 3 seconds for that, per note below).

Also, it's clear on the video that the aircraft holding short of the runway was at the hold short line when I crossed the threshold, so just taxiing into the takeoff position after getting the takeoff clearance would have taken him some time. He apparently did not hear my "still on the runway" call, since he transmitted something at that same time (but the tower did hear me, since they replied). I do recall seeing the aircraft appearing to be in position when I looked back (just before turning off), as I noted in my original post.

To make things clear, my goal is strictly to understand the separation rules and ensure safety, and not to get anyone in any kind of trouble, myself and/or the controller included.
I'll try to reach the Chief on Tuesday, and keep you posted.

-----
* - the "still on the runway" transmission was approx. 3s after the "cleared for takeoff" clearance was issued

 

[Morgan3820]

Here's that paragraph, which I missed:
However, the 3000-foot rule is not part of that equation, and if you had 1000-2000 feet left to roll out when he issued the takeoff clearance to the plane departing behind you, I have trouble imagining that there was "reasonable assurance" you'd be clear before the other plane rolled -- some people move out pretty fast, and at 20 knots (typical roll-out groundspeed for a light single), even 1000 feet takes 30 seconds, and that's a long time. Normally, when I hear someone cleared for departure behind my landing, I'm actually starting the turn off the runway centerline when it comes. I still think this is worth the phone call on Tuesday.

Are you saying that you were wrong?

 

[MAKG1]

To make things clear, my goal is strictly to understand the separation rules and ensure safety, and not to get anyone in any kind of trouble, myself and/or the controller included.
I'll try to reach the Chief on Tuesday, and keep you posted.

Why the hell not?

The controller cleared someone to launch up your tailpipe. I'd want that to stop immediately.

3000 feet or not, I'd want to talk to the tower supervisor right away. You can ask them for the number; it's not just for "possible pilot deviations"

 

[Unregistered]

Why the hell not?

The controller cleared someone to launch up your tailpipe. I'd want that to stop immediately.

3000 feet or not, I'd want to talk to the tower supervisor right away. You can ask them for the number; it's not just for "possible pilot deviations"

I do understand the general principle of "anticipated separation". In fact, it's almost routine to hear a "cleared for takeoff" instruction for the aircraft behind you just as you are approaching the turnoff after landing. But in all such previous cases I could see my turnoff "haven" a short time and distance away, so I felt safe. In this case, the difference is that it was a very long 38 second taxi (per above timeline), over 1000 feet from the safe haven, with someone I couldn't see (so I had no idea how quickly he might depart) being cleared to take off up my tailpipe, as you say. So I guess it's a matter of degree, and I'd like to know if there is some threshold, or rule, that can nail this vague "anticipated separation" down.

 

[geneseib]

Well, it's all on tape (e.g. LiveATC has it clearly recorded).
But is it worth pursuing? This is home base...
So what would you (experienced) guys/gals do in such a situation, assuming you don't want trouble with your own tower staff?

Isn't this what ASRS is really for?

 

[DesertNomad]

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".

 

[eetrojan]

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".

My experience as well, but my usual runway is <3000 feet long so maybe that's why.

 

[CTLSi]

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".

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.