Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 01:54:45 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait  (Read 26037 times)
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585


Nothing Like A 747!


« on: July 24, 2010, 10:24:19 PM »

Caught this while listening to KJFK Tower this eve...XL Airways 67 (Starways 067), an A330-200 bound for LFPG, has a conflict with verbage. This kind of ties in with the discussion towards the end of thread

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/zoa-testing-the-patience-of-cathay-870-pilot/  

...but I decided to post it on it's own thread.

Happy Listening!
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 10:27:28 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
atcman23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2010, 08:55:21 AM »

Wow that pilot was a jerk.  But "line up and wait" is the ICAO standard used across the rest of the world.  And right now the FAA plans on switching to it by the end of September.  It's going to be a huge change for everyone here in the U.S. and I think it's going to cause some confusion.  Not only that, it sounds very rude.
Logged

Mark Spencer
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2010, 09:41:37 AM »

Sounded pretty funny actually.  No harm done though.  The controller knew pretty well what they were doing.  Maybe he was just CYA, but I think he might have been having some fun with him.

Yes, the U.S. is a little behind the times with Position and Hold.  Technically, the pilot should read it back like that.  But the FAA does allow for common sense when it comes to radio phraseology

But this sounded a bit like an Abbott and Costello routine.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
englishpilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117



« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2010, 01:25:08 PM »

Yep - line up and wait is the ICAO phraseology.  There are bound to be more changes.

See:

http://flightsafety.org/asw/mar10/asw_mar10_p32-35.pdf

Logged

I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe.
cptbrw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2010, 11:54:34 PM »

There was actually a JFK Tower controller repeatedly using the "line up and wait" phraseology a week or two ago.  First time I heard it used around here and was surprised that he used it over and over again during his time in the box.  Guess he was practicing!   grin
Logged
snipper_cr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2010, 12:31:32 AM »

Haha, I love the controller sorta sticking it to that pilot.

I am SOooo excited for "line up and wait"...not. Although I like the one male pilot who was told to position and hold by a female controller say "Alright, we'll whip it out and hold it"
Logged

The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
mdr666
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10



« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2010, 02:44:44 PM »

Yeah, that's pretty funny. I think they were both yanking each other's chain.
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2010, 06:10:12 PM »

The correct response to this would be "Hold short, advise when ready."
Logged
atcman23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2010, 05:18:59 AM »

"... for controller amusement."
Logged

Mark Spencer
towercab
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2010, 03:21:52 AM »

Well, on position we as controllers don't know what "Line up and wait" means. Off position we do. Position and hold is position and hold. The US is not behind with this phraseology. We will go to it, however it's to accommodate for those who fly overseas. For those who don't, it's a pain in the butt. Yet again we are supposed to be the best when it comes to this stuff, and yet again we give in and change for others. The majority of controllers are not stoked on this.

As for common sense on frequency. No such thing, sorry. Controllers get the short end when others fail to do their job correctly. Been there done that. It is or it isn't. I've seen plenty of controllers go down because a pilot couldn't do their job correctly. I mean seriously, is it really that hard to use your call sign with every transmission? I only speak from personal experience. No offense. It's always the controllers fault, even when it's not.

This clip was him doing some CYA and him making a point.
Logged

ATCS
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2010, 08:06:23 AM »

As for common sense on frequency. No such thing, sorry.

Just so we make sure we're putting correct information out there, there is such thing.

FAAO JO 7110.65, para 2-4-3, Pilot acknowledgment/readback:  ..."Note - Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks." <emphasis added my me>

With all of the controllers that I have spoken with, this is interpreted as the allowance to use common sense.

As a completely seperate example, let's say there is only 1 aircraft on frequency.  A clearance is given as "<A/C ID> turn left heading 180” and the reply is simply “Okay”, according to the above excerpt, that would be acceptable.

I’m certainly not saying the controller in the original post was incorrect in clarifying his clearance, it appears he was just making sure everyone was on the same page.


I only speak from personal experience. No offense. It's always the controllers fault, even when it's not.

No offense taken at all.  Pilots believe the same thing about the other side of the coin, and it is usually true.  Most cases of accident investigation include the phrase “pilot's decision to….” in the accident factors section.


And hopefully your last statement was meant in jest.  I think we can all agree that a busy radio frequency is not the best place to “make a point,” there are correct channels for that.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
JNanu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2010, 03:26:57 PM »

yet again we give in and change for others.

Well in this case "others" refers to the rest of the world. Unless the US closes its borders to incoming and outoing air traffic it's probably best for everyone to be on the same page. Frankly it's surprising that it has taken this long.
Logged
towercab
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2010, 04:10:48 PM »

Without sounding like a smart ass (not what I'm trying to do), It doesn't say common sense.

Personally, if I used common sense with most of these guys, I'd have to go back to flying planes because I would have been terminated. It only takes getting burned once to not fall into that trap again. Common sense and assuming are pretty close relatives.

Diverting from the original post for a moment...

Me: N123, verify you have information Alpha.
Somebody: We have Alpha.
Me: N123, verify that was you that had information Alpha.
Somebody: Affirmative.
Me: N123, with your call sign, verify you have information Alpha.
N123: N123 HAS...ALPHA!

Basic flying 101 and somehow I'm the bad guy. But when this guy crashes, guess what the first question is. "Did he have the ATIS?". If I left it alone with just the first two transmissions, there is no way to prove it was N123 that had Alpha. The reason he crashed is irrelevant, it was my fault, I didn't do my job. Seems dumb, but that's ATC. You could say "He was the only aircraft on my frequency." but there is no way to know that.  You can't prove it. "I recognized his voice." Lawyer: "Are you a voice recognizing expert?" (I'm sure they have a much more professional name  grin)

That's just the tip of the iceberg of daily ATC life. It happens on every transmission. Definitely more than just people talking  grin

I encourage all the listeners to listen for these kinds of things next time they are tuned in. Listen for runway read backs. Listen for call signs being used, or not being used. Pretend you are a lawyer and have nothing but tapes to go off of...assume the worst happens, can you prove the pilot/controller was right/wrong just by the tapes? That's all you get to use.

So! Going back to the original tape in this thread. Correct, the pilot did not read back the instructions correctly, correction is required. This is part B of the .65 section you quoted, cessna157.

Seems trivial I know. Just hoping to bring an ATC side of things to the table is all. I enjoy the site.

Later all.
Logged

ATCS
towercab
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2010, 04:15:12 PM »

yet again we give in and change for others.

Well in this case "others" refers to the rest of the world. Unless the US closes its borders to incoming and outoing air traffic it's probably best for everyone to be on the same page. Frankly it's surprising that it has taken this long.

Like I said, we are supposed to the best when it comes to this stuff and yet we keep changing it to conform to something else. We going to change the entire book to their procedures?

There's still going to be differences in the system, changing one thing isn't going to do anything except make us stumble on our words.
Logged

ATCS
tucraceman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2010, 02:42:06 AM »

I'm pretty sure that at a big airport like JFK the charts and the ATIS says that you must read back all runway holding instructions back verbatim.  If the controller says hold short of the duck you say duck. AC# hold short of the anatidae.
~D
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!