Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2016, 11:57:15 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  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] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Position And Hold Vs Line Up And Wait  (Read 34266 times)
MCM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2010, 08:49:34 AM »

Its about time this change was made.

The world aviation authority has a preferred way of doing it, and unless there are safety implications for not doing so, all countries should follow it.

There is no reason to NOT use "Line up" or "Line up and wait", and given it is the accepted international standard it is about time it was used in the USA.

Its time this "different for difference sake" mentality is removed.

Next we just have to get rid of a descent clearance without an actual clearance (ie Cross xxx at implying a clearance, rather than "Descend to xxx, cross xxx at....".
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2010, 12:42:07 PM »

Next we just have to get rid of a descent clearance without an actual clearance (ie Cross xxx at implying a clearance, rather than "Descend to xxx, cross xxx at....".

It's doing more then just implying a clearance.  It *is* a clearance. Just like "cross runway 24R",

E.g. "Cross JUNIE at FL350" meaning when you cross JUNIE you need to be at 350. It is however a pilot's discretion clearance. The pilot can climb/descent right now, at the last minute or gradually from now until JUNIE.
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
svoynick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2010, 02:37:50 PM »

I have a terminology question about "line up and wait."  Is it exactly and precisely replacing "(taxi into) position and hold", always implying that you are to take position on the runway and wait for a takeoff clearance?  If that's the case, and it's stated clearly in the rules & regs, etc., then I don't have any problem with it.  It's a clear term used for a clear unambiguous reason, and if they want to change it then I can adapt.

However, the use of the term "line up" sounds like it could also be used to direct an aircraft into a sequence (a "line") of planes waiting to take the active runway - maybe that's what has stirred people up.  For exampe, alltheway's suggestion (which I know was a joke...) that it eventually be replaced with "Get in sequence..."  That's not the same thing. 

It may be a quirk of American English that we commonly use the same word for the noun "line" as well as for the verb both to "line up" (in a sequence) as well as to "line up" with a reference, like runway heading.   In England, they more commonly use "queue" for the noun form, don't they?  Maybe that makes it seem less ambiguous to them.

So my question is, is it true that "line up" will always and only mean "get lined up on the runway", and never "take a position in a line of aircraft"?
Logged
Casper87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2010, 04:01:40 PM »

Hey S,

To answer your question; yes. 'Line up and wait' means exactly the same as your 'position and hold.'

I.e Line up [on the runway] and wait [on the runway]

As for any "language" differences, well, thats a matter of individual interpretation but its unlikely to be a problem as long as flight deck crew keep themselves up-to-date. Unfortunately its part and parcel of avaition phraseology. Different people MAY interpret something in a different way to someone else, but as long as the phrase is correctly defined by the authority (CAA, ICAO, FAA etc..) then there shoudn't be any confusion.

What date is the changeover? (from PAH to Line up)

Cheers,

Casper

Logged
MCM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2010, 09:01:01 PM »

Sykocus,

In the USA, it is a clearance. In the rest of the world, it is most definately not.

Everywhere else, you must hear the specific words "CLIMB" or "DESCEND" to consider it a clearance.

That is the way we keep from having informal comments or future instructions becoming interpreted as clearances.
For example, ATC can impose a height restriction without permitting descent at that stage. In cruise, I might be told that I have to cross a waypoint at 6000ft - that doesn't mean I can now descend do it, just a restriction I need to meet when I am cleared. Allows me to have it in the FMC prior to descent.

I just don't see why it would be so hard for the magic words "climb" and "descend" to be put into the clearance to have world standardisation and keep the concept of a specific clearance protected.

svoynick,

The words "line up" are very specifically restricted to use for entering the runway (and not taking off). Just like the words "take off" should not be used for any purpose other than a specifc takeoff clearance.

.
Logged
svoynick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2010, 12:04:43 AM »

The words "line up" are very specifically restricted to use for entering the runway (and not taking off). Just like the words "take off" should not be used for any purpose other than a specifc takeoff clearance.

To answer your question; yes. 'Line up and wait' means exactly the same as your 'position and hold.'

I.e Line up [on the runway] and wait [on the runway]
Great.  Thanks for the clarifications.  I'm a pilot but not current.  Along with some dual time, I'd have some studying to do to get back in PIC shape...

As for the lanugage differences, I agree with you:  as long as the aviation authority declares the terminology and its usage clearly, I've got no problem with it.  I was just musing over why people would be resistant to a change that is unambiguous, and brings our terminology in line with everyone else.  Not claiming that those are good reasons...
Logged
MCM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2010, 03:11:25 AM »

I think a lot of people have been musing that for a long time Wink

Obviously change takes time, and isn't easy to do. It takes a lot of paperwork and retraining of people to make any change in aviation, and so authorities are generally reluctant to do it.

Also, for people that fly purely in the USA, it isn't an issue. The statement "position and hold" when used in the USA is clear and unambiguous and works fine. As such, a lot of people will say that it ain't broke, so don't fix it.

The problem is that when you're dealing with international aviation, it is "broke". It is like having to learn a new language when flying in the USA, and for international crew that don't do it very often, it is just another hole appearing in the swiss cheese (to use the famous metaphor).

It always amazes me that as a I can listen to a Chinese crew with English as a second (or third) language) fly over all of the countries from Australia through to the UK, and be able to effectively communicate with all of the controllers for whom English is also a second language... but as a fluent English speaker we struggle in the USA.

It just shows how vital standard phraseology is.

Logged
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2010, 05:34:39 AM »

Allthough all these rules for clearances are made to be clear, it has been proved in the past that pilots do switch to automatic, when you hear one instruction they expect the next standard instruction. It is more like being in a crowded environment where the pilots are also prepairing for flight (or landing, taxiing ect.) and they miss sometimes a word or two being so busy then they assume the sequence of clearances what can lead into incursions or conflicts. Still today radio communication is far from perfect, interference is always a problem and (or) a headphone half on your head might also not always be good, anyway miss communication will not be over so easily
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2010, 05:39:46 AM »

Everywhere else, you must hear the specific words "CLIMB" or "DESCEND" to consider it a clearance.

That is the way we keep from having informal comments or future instructions becoming interpreted as clearances.
For example, ATC can impose a height restriction without permitting descent at that stage. In cruise, I might be told that I have to cross a waypoint at 6000ft - that doesn't mean I can now descend do it, just a restriction I need to meet when I am cleared. Allows me to have it in the FMC prior to descent.

I just don't see why it would be so hard for the magic words "climb" and "descend" to be put into the clearance to have world standardisation and keep the concept of a specific clearance protected.



The problem really is in "informal comments". If controller wants a pilot to be ready for a clearance "expect" is a great word to use. Like I said I'm not aware any confusion when ground control tells an aircraft to crossa runway or taxiway.
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
MCM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2010, 09:38:52 AM »

Thats because "Cross runway xxx" is a clearance, and is a clearance everywhere in the world.

Cross xxx at 6000 is only a clearance in the USA. It is NOT a clearance anywhere else. Everywhere else it is a restriction. The clearance comes seperately.

To cross a runway, you are instructed to cross. To climb or descend, you should be instructed to climb or descend.

Simple really.

Why is it so hard to be standard? "When ready, descend to 9000, requirement to cross XXXXX at 9000". Its not that hard.
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #35 on: September 03, 2010, 02:37:09 PM »

Thats because "Cross runway xxx" is a clearance, and is a clearance everywhere in the world.

Cross xxx at 6000 is only a clearance in the USA. It is NOT a clearance anywhere else. Everywhere else it is a restriction. The clearance comes seperately.

To cross a runway, you are instructed to cross. To climb or descend, you should be instructed to climb or descend.

Simple really.

Why is it so hard to be standard? "When ready, descend to 9000, requirement to cross XXXXX at 9000". Its not that hard.

But just like cross runway 7 is explicitly understood as a clearance; "cross a fix at an altitude" can be too too. Climb, descend, turn and cross are all action verbs. There's not reason they can't be understood as clearances. You just aren't used to it. That doesn't make it wrong.

There are feeder sectors in the busy centers in the US which probably issue 40+ crossing restrictions an hour during the pushes. To take "Cross MINIUM at 9000" and turn it into "when ready, descend to 9000, requirement to cross XXXXX at 9000" is a huge increase in frequency congestion.

I don't believe that just because a procedure is done a certain way in the US that it's automatically better. By the same token because it's done one way in the rest of the world that doesn't make it better either. Just because you aren't use to something that doesn't make it bad.
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
Casper87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2010, 03:35:00 PM »

To be fair, MCM's example is a bit verbose.

Chances are it would be more like "When ready, descend to 9000', level by XXXXX"
or just "Descend to 9000', level by XXXXX," depending on whether the controller wants the aircraft to leave it's current level now or at the PIC's discretion.

However, "Cross XXXX at 6000'" just coudn't be used in Europe without a qualifier, such as "Expect to...". There has to be a positive instruction to climb or descend.

Thread drift??  shocked

At the end of the day we could all argue the toss over everyones way of doing things. Ambiguity derives from different interpretations of language and different nation's authorities having different definitions. Basically the terminology/phraseology used by the UK , FAA and ICAO are all 'OK,' but will never be deemed sufficiantly 'unambiguous' for all concerened parties until we all say things the same way.

Until then..... undecided

Regards,

Casper
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!