Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2016, 08:11:55 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  They'll give a pilot's license to anyone these days
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: They'll give a pilot's license to anyone these days  (Read 66127 times)
sumoaltus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2008, 05:46:22 PM »

"Line up and wait" is the standard ICAO phraseology.  It is also easier to say than "taxi into position and hold" 4 syllables vs 9.  US ATC is still very strict in what it allows controllers to do.  TIPH is only available during certain times with certain staffing levels at certain airports.  I was flying out CVG very late (early) one night and there was only 1 controller in the tower at the time (other was on break, etc, who knows).  We were forced to wait for a couple aircraft to land due to TIPH not being available.

In some countries (I believe UK is available) you can be issued a pre-emptive conditional line up and wait.  For example "Line up and wait behind the airbus on a 2 mile final"

yeah, only between sunrise and sunset is the controller allwed to permit a/c to TIPH. That never used to be the case until there was a major accident. I think it was LAX where an a/c was left in position on the active runway when another a/c landed on top of him
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2008, 06:10:25 PM »

That never used to be the case until there was a major accident. I think it was LAX where an a/c was left in position on the active runway when another a/c landed on top of him

Hmmm...  No offense but I would have to read that particular accident report before I believed that the pilots of an approaching aircraft would fail to see an aircraft waiting in position and just blindly land on top of it rather than initiate a go-around.

Even assuming low IFR, I doubt TIPH is used in low IFR conditions given how the ILS critical area is protected.

Do you recall any of the details about this accident (date, airline, etc) so I could research it?

Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
sumoaltus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2008, 09:11:18 PM »

That never used to be the case until there was a major accident. I think it was LAX where an a/c was left in position on the active runway when another a/c landed on top of him

Hmmm...  No offense but I would have to read that particular accident report before I believed that the pilots of an approaching aircraft would fail to see an aircraft waiting in position and just blindly land on top of it rather than initiate a go-around.

Even assuming low IFR, I doubt TIPH is used in low IFR conditions given how the ILS critical area is protected.

Do you recall any of the details about this accident (date, airline, etc) so I could research it?



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_/ai_62990722

Here you go brother. That's the accident. We talked about that accident in a lecture las week so I definately remember it. The local controller actually forgot the a/c was still in position. That is why there is no more position and hold between sunset and sunrise.
Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2008, 09:23:42 PM »


"Line up and wait" is the standard ICAO phraseology.  It is also easier to say than "taxi into position and hold" 4 syllables vs 9.  US ATC is still very strict in what it allows controllers to do.  TIPH is only available during certain times with certain staffing levels at certain airports.

Actually since about 2003 the phraseology for TIPH is "Position and Hold," only 5 syllables and really not cumbersome at all.

yeah, only between sunrise and sunset is the controller allwed to permit a/c to TIPH. That never used to be the case until there was a major accident. I think it was LAX where an a/c was left in position on the active runway when another a/c landed on top of him

TIPH has many restrictions like Cessna said.  But the only portion of the procedure with a sunset-sunrise restriction is TIPH from an intersection.  And this is a recent change, the procedure can be used at intersections and at night with the proper approval and procedural compliance:

7110.65S  3-9-4
g. An aircraft may be authorized to taxi into position and hold at an intersection between sunset and sunrise. The procedure must be approved by the appropriate Director, Terminal Operations (service area office) and by the Director, Terminal Safety and Operations Support, and must be contained in a facility directive.   

TIPH at full length has never had a sunset-sunrise restriction to my knowledge.

And as for the LAX 24L accident between USA and SKW, that accident lead to many procedure safeguards being put in place and spurred the development of AMASS and ASDE.
Logged

Regards
JD
sumoaltus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #54 on: April 14, 2008, 10:03:14 PM »

yeah, that was the latest provision
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #55 on: April 15, 2008, 08:50:39 AM »

Here you go brother. That's the accident.

Thank you for the information.  Upon searching the web I came across some actual details about this 1991 crash here to help me better understand what happened:  http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-us1493.shtml

Like a lot of accidents, this one didn't have just one cause but the main contributory cause was that the smaller turboprop aircraft was instructed to TIPH at an intersection some 2,200 feet down from the landing threshold.  And, as was later pointed out in this thread it was night time.

I was not aware that commercial aircraft were allowed intersection departures (apparently they are, but maybe airline ops manuals prohibit this now?) and had assumed initially that the aircraft waiting to go was right at the runway end.   Rather, in this accident the 737 had touched down at the threshold, rolled 1,000 feet or so, and just lowered its nose when it rammed the turboprop from behind.  So, technically it didn't land on top of the turboprop but did roll over it due to the size differences of the two aircraft.

It seems from the text in the link I posted that the biggest change that came out of the 1991 accident was the way in which the aircraft strips are handled, not the way TIPH was used.  Corrections welcome...
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #56 on: April 15, 2008, 10:41:31 AM »

To say that 'line up and wait' is easier than 'position and hold' is subject to personal opinion and one with which I disagree. To use conditional phrases like 'line up behind the airbus on a two mile final' is something US controllers are taught not to do for very good reasons. It is CONDITIONAL and rests upon the concept that you, the pilot, and I, the controller, are talking about the same Airbus. What I may know as a two mile final may look different to you, like say the airbus on the short final. It's like saying 'cross ry29 after the cessna on 1/2 mile final'. We don't say it, won't say it, and should never say it! As for some of the other restrictions placed on us, one that most don't know of is that the Local position can not be combined with any other position in order to have TIPH operations. This requires at least two controllers in the cab at all times TIPH is being used. At first this may seem like a good idea, but... Where I used to be able to shoot the gap between two arrivals with my departure because he was sitting on the runway already and he was lined up, I now have to either play more of a crap shoot to see if he'll make it around the corner, spool up and get it off the ground before arrival number two gets too close, or I just leave him on the taxiway until I have a larger gap that I know he'll make. All in the name of safety because someone made an error and had a close call about  year ago. (not the LAX accident) Welcome to the knee jerk agency.
   
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #57 on: April 15, 2008, 12:22:02 PM »

To say that 'line up and wait' is easier than 'position and hold' is subject to personal opinion and one with which I disagree.   

Given the FAA's push to reduce runway incursions and the requirement to read back all hold short instructions, in my opinion and experience the word "hold" has become much stronger than "wait."  Personally I hope "Line up and wait" is not adopted.

Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
mk882004
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2008, 11:19:28 AM »

Correct me if I am wrong, it happens, but if you land that runway is yours no one can land/taxi on it until you clear it. Sounds like he was wanting to taxi somewhere. It wasn't clear. I know STOPPING on the active is not a good thing ever and should exit when able, but that runway should be his if he was the only aircraft on it. I know there was traffic behind him, but the runway was his.
The runway was his..thats why there wasn't an accident he had to send someone around though..he pilot has a responsibility of exiting the runway as soon as practical...if he is stopping on the runway..and like the controller asked him later "did you lose an engine or something" asking if it was an emergancy situation which it wasn't then the pilot must exit the runway as soon as practical...also controllers ARE allowed to issue landing clearances to more than one aircraft as long as there isn't an aircraft in position on the runway, (however some airports have filed for waivers from this rule like LAX who loves to put a/c in position with people on short final! haha) but issuing a landing clearance to number "2" or "3" or as far out as you want to go is legal... thats why he said "follow the moony"
Logged
Robin Rebhan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2008, 01:00:14 PM »

Just my two cents on this issue.
Communication is the key. Obvious breakdown in communication between all parties involved for a number of reasons. I think everyone involved went home wishing they had done and said things differently.

As pilots get older, or just out of practice, hire a CFI to fly along. $40 an hour is well worth the price. Or consider a IFR/Commercial Pilot student looking for PIC time as a safety Pilot like me ( hint ). Or just a fellow Private Pilot. Two heads are always better than one, especially in congested airspace like New Jersey.

Happy flying and controlling to all!  grin
Robin Rebhan
Albany, NY

Logged

WILL WORK FOR FLIGHT TIME!
mhawke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


« Reply #60 on: April 27, 2008, 04:48:21 PM »


I was not aware that commercial aircraft were allowed intersection departures (apparently they are, but maybe airline ops manuals prohibit this now?) and had assumed initially that the aircraft waiting to go was right at the runway end.   


Unless I was confused (which could easily be the case), I have been a passenger on quite a few commercial planes that departed from intersections at O'Hare.  I presumed they were using that to break up the departing planes into a couple lines (just a guess).
Logged
aviator_06
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 27, 2008, 08:54:47 PM »

wow, sounds like this guys first time into a controlled airport.
Logged

chinois3legged
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


KORD to KBOS


« Reply #62 on: April 28, 2008, 09:19:54 PM »

Thats amazing
Logged
bcrosby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332



WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 29, 2008, 11:48:03 PM »

We've been using the "line up and wait" phraseology for the past month here in Canada.

Other than the occasional "Taxi to posi..errr line up and wait" from an occasional controller, the new phraseology isn't that bad.

Standardization is good, even if it sounds silly.
Logged

RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2008, 06:55:52 AM »

Why didn't ICAO and the ATCS of the other countries get on board with 'position and hold'? Weren't we here first!

You guys in Canada don't require the rest of the world to say 'Eh' after every sentence, do you?!

In your reading of call signs, for Z do you say zulu or zed? cheesy
« Last Edit: April 30, 2008, 06:59:19 AM by RV1 » Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
Totalbeginner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2008, 05:29:35 PM »

I don't understand why that controller was making such a fuss! Ok the guy didn't exit the runway but, that shouldn't cause anything more than a go-around. The aircraft on final would not have been cleared to land therefore, instead of screaming down the radio, he should have simply requested that the aircraft go-around and then enquire as to the other guys problem. Very unprofessional RTF in my opinion.
Logged
pepitogrillo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2008, 10:49:46 AM »

Why didn't ICAO and the ATCS of the other countries get on board with 'position and hold'? Weren't we here first!

You guys in Canada don't require the rest of the world to say 'Eh' after every sentence, do you?!

In your reading of call signs, for Z do you say zulu or zed? cheesy


 For the most part, "position and hold" isn´t used in Europe as it maybe confused with "hold position" by another aircraft listening while performing the approach or established on final, who may not notice that an aircraft has been cleared into the active runway. As stupid as "line up and wait" may sound, it´s safer generally speaking as it can never be confused with any other instruction (following strict RTF phraseology) Same thing happened years ago with "ready for take-off" and "ready for departure".

 

 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 10:51:17 AM by pepitogrillo » Logged
jstflyin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #67 on: June 30, 2008, 07:53:40 AM »


Concerning the main subject.. originally the 77F pilot would have been 100% guilty of failing to communicate and operate effectively. He failed, but instead of correcting his failures and understanding how to clear the conflict, the ATCO and the following behind pilot put more pressure under him by issuing non standard phraseology and raising their voice to a clearly emotional level. Emotional reactions are usually not the best.. why couldn't the ATCO (if using non standard R/T) explain him calmly what the problem was..?

Talking about EU Land.. we say e.g.: "Behind landing KLM FOKKER 70 line up runway 29er behind".
There is no use for line up and "wait" in my opinion as a line up clears you for lining up only..

"Hold", if even, is only used for taxi instructions "taxi via A hold short E". There again if you are cleared to "taxi via A A2" this means A2 is your clearance limit..even without a hold short.

Great forum enjoy it alot..

J.
Logged
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #68 on: July 01, 2008, 11:42:28 PM »

I'll admit that 'position and hold' has the potential to be confused with 'hold position'. That's partly because a year ago they changed it from 'TAXY INTO position and hold'.
   I would have to say that ' "Behind landing KLM FOKKER 70 line up runway 29er behind". seems rather redundant, is conditional and allows for some confusion should you have more than on KLM Fokker on final. As it is with most U.S. larger airports, the number of planes trying to land on the same runway at the same time may not allow us to define the aircraft type and ownership to the departing airplane prior to us giving him a 'position and hold' or a 'line up and wait clearance'. We feel fortunate when the pilots are able to see the runway/taxiway in front of them and any plane that might be occupying said runway/taxiway, let alone an airplane on final!  cheesy
 
 No harm intended to anyone.
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
minetruly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2008, 01:54:29 AM »

What I hear is,

1. The mooney confirms ATC's statement he is clear to land

2. Chatter between other flights

3. ATC says "Mooney 77F, turn off the runway please."

4. Mooney says "Sorry sir to Echo, can we cross the main runway?"

5. ATC starts shouting "Get off the runway!" without answering Mooney's request for clarification.

Might this be what Hollis is referring to?
Logged
mjans17
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2008, 01:19:34 PM »

I feel the controllers pain.  I work at a tower with a lot of that going on!!!!
Logged
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2008, 11:05:14 PM »

At the risk of receiving some bashing from those with differing opinions, I want to hopefully provide some food for thought...
   The controller provides a traffic call to the mooney, with no response. He then attempts to contact the mooney several times and finally gets an acknowledgement from the mooney pilot. This is extremely irritating to a controller because when this happens, you're not sure if the a/c went NORDO, has a bad radio, or you have a pilot who doesn't/isn't listening. This set the stage for the controller to become agitated.
   When the mooney is cleared to land, there is a Cessna on the downwind told to follow, doing touch and goes. The Cessna pilot is told about tfc on a five mile final that will be following him. This means that it isn't as simple as "Go Around", because there is another a/c on final BEHIND the Cessna that's going around. Will he have to go around as well? The controller is ascertaining if he has the room necessary for his sequence when he notices that the mooney is parked on the runway. Am I surmising? Probably, but we all do just that. We set a sequence then monitor it to make sure that it will work. When something happens that changes the normalcy, it means that everything else will have to be adjusted.
   I may not like how it came across that the controller talked to the pilot, but in his defense, sometimes you feel that you have to speak in very basic, albeit somewhat harsh terms to get a pilot to do something when it appears that he has frozen in place. We once had a C310 pilot not take a turn when we needed it because he started to argue about whether or not he could go on course. After the fourth time of telling him to turn, (he was head-on towards a Kingaire) we resorted to scolding/admonishing/sternly telling him to TURN NOW, JUST TURN!
   
    Well, let the bashing begin...
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
Kleer2land
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2009, 02:08:17 AM »




P.S.  If you are ever given a number to call--throw it away.

If you throw that number away you are going to have much bigger issues than not making the turn off. You are actually required to make the call and in 99 percent of cases the call will prevent any paperwork being filed.




Are you not obliged to call ATC if they request it?

Not a pilot so not sure......... grin
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2009, 06:20:06 AM »

Yes, you are required to call if requested. Unless you like receiving notice that your certificate is under review for a pilot deviation and subject to suspension or revocation in the mail, or through your lawyer. Personally, I'm not one of those guys. It's easy to pick up the phone; the controllers are just doing their job.
Logged
kea001
Guest
« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2009, 08:16:53 AM »

After the fourth time of telling him to turn, (he was head-on towards a Kingaire) we resorted to scolding/admonishing/sternly telling him to TURN NOW, JUST TURN!
   
    Well, let the bashing begin...

At the risk of sounding facetious,  why isn't there any phraseology for 'disaster is imminent - follow these instructions'?
ATC needs a phrase that facilitates bringing the hammer down.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 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!